# Lying whore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153 "2006-04-10T22:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/181 "2006-04-12T18:37:05Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > I realize that this is just wrestling with a pig (albeit a pig who throws around fancy Latin crap to cover up the fact he doesn’t get it), but I’ll try one last time. > > We know that the authorities attempted to collect DNA from the alleged victim. We know that the authorities sent what they collected to a lab. We know that DNA was collected from men accused of potentially assaulting her. We know that their DNA also was sent to a lab. We know that the results from the samples collected from the alleged victim were compared with the samples collected from the men accused of potentially assaulting her. We know that the lab did some analysis (what? don’t know) and released the results to the DA. We know that the DA gave those results to the attorneys representing the men accused of potentially assaulting her. We know that the attorneys for those men then gave a statement to the press in which they said variations on a theme: they can’t prove it was my client based on the DNA. > > But what does that mean? Other than what the defense attorneys say, what actually were the test results? _No one_ has released the actual test results. People with a vested interest have talked about the _conclusions_ one can draw from the results, but so far, no one has said what the results themselves are. > > Your posts have been variations on a theme: there are lots of false rape accusations. Defense attorneys for men accused of rape claim that the DNA test results don’t conclusively show that their clients raped her. Therefore she’s a liar. I bet there’s a fancy Latin phrase for what you can call an argument like that. Show me where I’ve said she **is** a liar. You can’t. I have declined, instead, to assume that she isn’t, in the face of evidence consistent with the possibility that she (and perhaps a larger number of complainants than is commonly thought) might have made false allegations. It’s okay not to know Latin or the principles of argumentation. But your ignorance of these is not, as you seem to think, something that debars me from using tools that your meager toolbox may not contain. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/182 "2006-04-12T18:39:50Z")
> [@hawksgirl](#): > > Even if it wasn’t perpetrated by the lacrosse team, evidence suggests that this women was raped by _someone_ . > False rape allegations are pretty rare because of the nature of the crime and society’s tendecy to blame the victim (yes, **victim** ) as seen on this very board. Pretty rare? 8%, [according to the FBI](http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf). That’s compared to 2% for overall crime. > [@](#): > > There was a lot of pettiness and ripping the victim apart here, and that makes me sick. My best friend was raped her freshman year, and school dragged its feet about anything. Its finally going to court (arraignment tomorrow), and I hope the bastard gets what he deserves. The woman in this case is getting ripped because the facts, as they emerge, do not seem to be supporting the story she initially told. Assuming your best friend didn’t change HER story, I fail to see what relevance your best friend’s rape has to this case. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/183 "2006-04-12T18:47:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The woman in this case is getting ripped because the facts, as they emerge, do not seem to be supporting the story she initially told. Assuming your best friend didn’t change HER story, I fail to see what relevance your best friend’s rape has to this case. I should have said what I thought smart people would figure out but which apparently did not go unsaid: My application of probabilistic or pattern-based principles in determining how likely it was that this particular proposed fact pattern was true presumed an absence of other direct and credible evidence as to what fact pattern actually happened. I supposed it was trivial to understand that my position was never “8% to 50% of rape reports are false, therefore pay no mind to defendant’s video labeled (and showing) ‘Me raping the stripper without her consent.’” Similarly, for all the nattering about DNA, the one thing we can be fairly sure of is that there is no affirmative DNA evidence **clearly implicating** these guys – so I declare the DNA issue (at best) a wash (from the prosecution’s side), and am left to fall back on my probabilistic models for “what might likely have happened or not happened” in the absence of more definitive proof of “what in fact happened.” ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/184 "2006-04-12T18:50:25Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Show me where I’ve said she **is** a liar. You can’t. I have declined, instead, to assume that she isn’t, in the face of evidence consistent with the possibility that she (and perhaps a larger number of complainants than is commonly thought) might have made false allegations. > > It’s okay not to know Latin or the principles of argumentation. But your ignorance of these is not, as you seem to think, something that debars me from using tools that your meager toolbox may not contain. I wonder if you are aware that **Campion** is an attorney? She is poking fun at you using Latin to make it seem like you are smarter than you are. I believe her point it that just because you know some Latin doesn’t mean you know jack shit about evidence, or anything else for that matter. So far you have missed the mark on the points she has made, making me lose confidence in your ablility to read or or acccurately present facts. Maybe you sure read her posts again, this time trying to understand the points she is making about the information the defense is not including in their statements. An indication that you understand other posters’ points would do much to improve my opinion of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/185 "2006-04-12T18:50:27Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > The proposition is that skepticism (from the general public or from prosecutors) is natural, and is neither illogical nor **improper** , when the event alleged (but not yet proven – remember, we are talking at the preliminary, triage, stage) is much less common, vis a vis when it is much more common. That’s how things work IRL, like it or not. bolding mine I disagree it is is not improper. If such skepticism has the potential to affect whether justice is done, it is certainly improper. Not to mention, leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Having the attitude that “white-on-black rape is rare, therefore let’s not take this case seriously” probably leads to stats that support that very attitude. What does race have to do with rape anyway? Unless we are specifically talking about racially-motivated rape crimes, stats on white-on-black rape have nothing to do with whether rape was plausible in this individual case. What you are doing is looking at two independent variables (race and rape) and suggesting that their relationship should determine probability (or plausibility). Surely you can see why this is problematic? If the crime stats on blonde-on-brunette rape was relatively low, would that make you skeptical of a brunette saying she was raped by a blonde? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/186 "2006-04-12T18:57:13Z")
Add to that, IMO women who work in the "sex’ industry are treated differently by men and are considered fair game. I’ve been to a few ‘boy’s night outs’ and have seen men who were ‘normal’, respectable guys, treat the strippers like something they would scrape off the bottom of their shoes and when called on it, “Well, she’s a whore anyway…” was the typical response. Point being, which is the more important statistic? Black-white rape or how women who would in the sex industry are perceived by men, regardless of their skin color? ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/187 "2006-04-12T18:58:01Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > What you are doing is looking at two independent variables (race and rape) Race and rape are not independant variables. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/188 "2006-04-12T18:58:52Z")
> [@stretch](#): > > I wonder if you are aware that **Campion** is an attorney? She is poking fun at you using Latin to make it seem like you are smarter than you are. I believe her point it that just because you know some Latin doesn’t mean you know jack shit about evidence, or anything else for that matter. > > So far you have missed the mark on the points she has made, making me lose confidence in your ablility to read or or acccurately present facts. Maybe you sure read her posts again, this time trying to understand the points she is making about the information the defense is not including in their statements. An indication that you understand other posters’ points would do much to improve my opinion of your posts. (Hypothetical) “information that is not includ[ed]” has, in my mind, no probative weight in favor of the accuser’s statements and no probative weight against the defendants’ stories. The defense has not mentioned that the defendants do not appear on a videotape documenting the “rape,” it has not “included” the “information” that they did not hose the “victim” down to remove “the DNA,” and has signally failed to state that the lacrosse team did not ritually devour the Lindbergh baby before their orgy of rape. These are all telling omissions! All the matters not explicitly denied will be deemed “information . . . not includ[ed],” and point straight to defendants’ guilt! Why not mention it, unless they have something to hide! If that’s “evidence” of anything (either of the credibility of accuser or detraction from the credibility of defendants) (as her posts seemed to suggest, or why mention it?), then I’ll take vanilla. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/189 "2006-04-12T19:00:48Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > It makes a huge difference if there is no evidence he did it and he’s the one going to jail for your accusations. The burden of proof is the same regardless of other information that has nothing to do with my case. Such as crime stats. A white woman should not have to do less to prove her interracial rape case than a black woman. To me, this is so obvious that I don’t know why it needs to be stated. But in reading the last few posts of this thread, it seems like it should. And that scares me. > [@](#): > > Justice system may be broken, but what you’re saying here isn’t one of those ways. You haven’t convinced me that I’m wrong. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/190 "2006-04-12T19:02:42Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > Race and rape are not independant variables. Yeah it is, if it is not racially motivated. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/191 "2006-04-12T19:14:15Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > If the crime stats on blonde-on-brunette rape was relatively low, would that make you skeptical of a brunette saying she was raped by a blonde? _In the absence of (or pending) other decisive evidence_, and _ceteris paribus_ (why not, since I’ve already been accused of Big Wordism?) – yes, what I would have to go on would be (uncorroborated statement as to statistically improbable event) plus (knowledge of statistical improbability), and if forced to make a decision or take an action (i.e., do I prosecute the blonde? Do I respond favorably to a demand that I get outraged about the “rape?”), I would not refuse to give weight to the significant (albeit far-from-infallible) information that I had and that I believed had relevance to resolving the otherwise unresolved proposition. _In the presence of other decisive evidence_ – it’s a whole different equation (as I have said, probabilistic models are proxies for definitive proof, which is preferable whenever it exists). If you have the video of the demon clown raping the kids with a knife in a secret chamber – sorry Mr. McMartin, I’ll pull the switch myself. Tie-goes-to-the-runner doesn’t apply when the pitcher clearly tagged you eight feet from home plate. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/192 "2006-04-12T19:14:21Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Yeah it is, if it is not racially motivated. If you’re talking about some sociological/psychological reason behind rape, then you shouldn’t be using statistical terms. Race has a non-zero correlation with rape (both victim and violator). They’re not independent. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/193 "2006-04-12T19:18:04Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > (Hypothetical) “information that is not includ[ed]” has, in my mind, no probative weight in favor of the accuser’s statements and no probative weight against the defendants’ stories. The defense lawyer’s statements also have no probative value. What do you expect him to say, “They got 'em dead to rights?” In a crime where consent is one of the elements, DNA can never prove someone’s guilt. So the statement that the DNA can’t do this has no value. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/194 "2006-04-12T19:21:27Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > Race has a non-zero correlation with rape (both victim and violator). They’re not independent. Independent doesn’t mean noncorrelative. Confounders exist. IQ and race are correlated, too. Doesn’t mean that they are dependent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/195 "2006-04-12T19:25:08Z")
Just for context, there are three basic defenses to rape: [ol] [li]She made the whole thing up[/li][li]It happened, but she consented[/li][li]It happened, but it wasn’t me[sup]\*[/sup][/li][/ol] DNA evidence can refute the first and third defenses. [sup]\*[/sup] The SODDI defense – “Some Other Dude Did It.” ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/196 "2006-04-12T19:27:00Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > If you’re talking about some sociological/psychological reason behind rape, then you shouldn’t be using statistical terms. And if the word “variable” gives you problems, use “factors” instead. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/197 "2006-04-12T19:30:47Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > The defense lawyer’s statements also have no probative value. What do you expect him to say, “They got 'em dead to rights?” In a crime where consent is one of the elements, DNA can never prove someone’s guilt. So the statement that the DNA can’t do this has no value. Sexual penetration by the defendant is one of the elements too. If they had DNA sufficient to clearly establish sexual penetration, the prosecution’s case would indisputably be closer to being proved, because one of X elements, as opposed to zero of X, would be pretty incontrovertibly established. Because they appear not to have such clear evidence, the DNA is (as I have suggested) at best a wash which does not move the prosecution’s case forward, and is at worst, suggestive of difficulties the prosecution may have in establishing sexual penetration by the defendant. If a video turns up tomorrow in which the defendant is porking her, then I will freely concede that the DNA is not, ultimately, exculpatory. But since I’ve never said it was, definitively, ultimately, going to be a defense, that doesn’t bother me, and the only remaining disagreement (if any) is my belief that the hypotetical “information the defense _didn’t_ mention” has anything other than makeweight value as to what we should (in the absence of other information) believe occurred or will be proven. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/198 "2006-04-12T19:32:43Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Sexual penetration by the defendant is one of the elements too. If they had DNA sufficient to clearly establish sexual penetration **by a named suspect** , the prosecution’s case would indisputably be closer to being proved. . . . to clarify. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/199 "2006-04-12T19:34:57Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > _In the absence of (or pending) other decisive evidence_, and _ceteris paribus_ (why not, since I’ve already been accused of Big Wordism?) – yes, what I would have to go on would be (uncorroborated statement as to statistically improbable event) plus (knowledge of statistical improbability), and if forced to make a decision or take an action (i.e., do I prosecute the blonde? Do I respond favorably to a demand that I get outraged about the “rape?”), I would not refuse to give weight to the significant (albeit far-from-infallible) information that I had and that I believed had relevance to resolving the otherwise unresolved proposition. So basically, long story short, the thing that decides whether or not you go to trial is whether or not you have evidence. Thanks for the succinct reply. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/200 "2006-04-12T19:40:00Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > So basically, long story short, the thing that decides whether or not you go to trial is whether or not you have evidence. > > Thanks for the succinct reply. It became (apparently) necessary to belabor the point because of **Campion’s** bizarre belaboring of the meaningless issue of hypothetical [“evidence” the defense did not mention] as being significant to our evaluation of this case. By the way, the principle that in the absence of better evidence one resorts to the least-worst information available is one that has applicability well beyond this context, but is fairly often ignored in favor of theory or dogma. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=11)