httpwwwmediaradarorgmcdowellkanincrediblephp links to an interview where McDowell admits to research into false rape reporting  theforensicexaminerGross used in article cites the  sample size number and the link to how it is possible that some people misquoted  has been quoted as   The discrepancy in the size of the dataset can perhaps be explained by the wording in the CfMR article which implies that the  case dataset was an earlier study cited in McDowells  paper not the main subject of it The difference in percentages between CfMR and mediaRADAR might be explained by CfMR citing McDowell correctly while the  figure was obtained by someone just adding the  false cases to the  inconclusive ones and calling them all false httpwwwfeministcriticsorgblogclaimsaboutmcdowellsresearchintofalserapeallegationsarenotcrediblenoh   but the mcdowell section here didnt include a  claim  It included the  claim No reason to throw that out  We should use the  sample size One reason that the study is often attributed to McDowell and Hibler is their  book Practical aspects of rape investigations httpbooksgooglecabooksidiVoADdsCpgPAlpgPAdqcharlesmcDowellpracticalrapeinvestigationsourceblotsPYtizysigRezsxhzIwKPJYGnybSBJpBXhlensaXeiTSGIXdQGRoPTHDgvedCCsQAEwAQvonepageqcharlesmcDowellpracticalrapeinvestigationffalse  and so likely published there  Perhaps we should disprove the existance of this book before claiming that an unused potentially wrong version of McDowell exists invalidates that mcdowell exists