the "experts" they cite are women's groups reps writing in newspapers (the baltimore sun seems to be the source of much of it) who assume variation in stats as evidence of poor police work but not other factors (e.g. cultural, religious, socioeconomic, gender, marriage rates) that may affect the variability in reporting stats.
"unfounded" does not mean the incident did not happen.  it means there was not enough evidence to meet a legal threshold, which is meant to protect both the accused and the victims. All this reminds me of the Satanic Panic in the 80's, when innocent people were jailed and victimized because passions trumped evidence. 
Cossman would do better to stick to her anecdotal and legal writing on queers, vibrators, and sodomy. She has shown little understanding of what constitutes empirical evidence, let alone whatever she means by "hard hitting" [sic] evidence. She would also do well to operationilize her theory beyond broad objectives.