# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/21 "2006-04-11T00:31:00Z")
The protests and orchestrated interest-group outrage is definitely overplayed, though. It seems whenever the word “rape” is used, regardless of facts (or lack of), a certain portion of the population goes into Righteous Indignation Mode. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/22 "2006-04-11T00:39:00Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > From the SI article: > > “The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her.” > > These acts would result in DNA of the assailants being on the victim’s body. If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely. ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/23 "2006-04-11T00:39:11Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > \a certain portion of the population goes into **Righteous Indignation Mode**. \ …and we know a RIM job when we see one! ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/24 "2006-04-11T00:39:46Z")
I think some clarification is required. If there was actaully zero DNA found on the girl, there would have been no reason to take DNA samples from the players. So someone’s not being clear. Seems to me the fact that DNA samples were taken is enough proof, to me, that DNA actually WAS found on the girl, so my jury’s out on the defense attorney’s accuracy, for the time being. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/25 "2006-04-11T00:40:40Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely. So now she can’t tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You’re really reaching now. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/26 "2006-04-11T00:42:10Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely. But you’d still probably find evidence of an assault, and probably fibers or particles from the broomhandle. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/27 "2006-04-11T00:43:19Z")
Does anyone know if the police can take DNA samples before they even know if they have a sample from the survivor to compare with? It seems to me that no judge would order people to give DNA samples without something to compare the samples to. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/28 "2006-04-11T00:43:52Z")
Update (what’s not explicitly mentioned in the article is that N.C., like other states, appears to have a law requiring the prosecution to turn over any inculpatory/exculpatory evidence to counsel for the accused, which is why you can be fairly confident the defense counsel isn’t talking out of his rear end – he evidently got the skinny from the state crime lab today): [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/3784741.html](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/3784741.html) > [@](#): > > Attorneys: No DNA Match in Duke Scandal > > By TIM WHITMIRE Associated Press Writer > © 2006 The Associated Press > > DURHAM, N.C. — DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke University lacrosse team to the alleged rape of a stripper, attorneys for the athletes said Monday. > > Citing DNA test results delivered by the state crime lab to police and prosecutors a few hours earlier, the attorneys said the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault and beat a stripper hired to perform at a March 13 team party. > > No charges have been filed in the case. > > “No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman,” said defense attorney Wade Smith. > > The alleged victim, a 27-year-old student at a nearby college, told police she and another woman were hired to dance at the party. The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her. > > Authorities ordered 46 of the 47 players on Duke’s lacrosse team to submit DNA samples to investigators. Because the woman said her attackers were white, the team’s sole black player was not tested. > > District Attorney Mike Nifong stopped speaking with reporters last week after initially talking openly about the case, including stating publicly that he was confident a crime occurred. He went on to say he would have other evidence to make his case should the DNA analysis prove inconclusive or fail to match a member of the team. > > Smith said Nifong now has the evidence needed to change his mind. > > “He doesn’t have to do it,” Smith said of filing charges. “He is a man with discretion. He doesn’t have to do it, and we hope that he won’t.” > > Nifong’s assistant said earlier Monday the prosecutor would not comment on the findings. North Carolina Central University, where the alleged victim is a student, said after the results were released that the prosecutor would appear at a campus forum on Tuesday to discuss the case. > > Attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents one of the team’s captains, said the report indicated authorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim’s body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cell phone and her clothes. > > “They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA,” he said. > > Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it’s likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently. > > “The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that \_ and that’s not here,” Cheshire said. > > Stan Goldman, who teaches criminal law, evidence and criminal procedure at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the DNA results don’t mean that Nifong can’t go forward with the case \_ but the test results make a successful prosecution much harder. > > “Isn’t the absence of DNA evidence, given the way the victim has described the crime, in and of itself almost enough to raise a reasonable doubt?” he said. “That’s all the defense has to do.” > > Robert Archer, whose son, Breck, is a member of the lacrosse team, said the test results only confirmed for parents what they already knew. > > “I know the kids on the team and I know they’re innocent,” said Archer, of East Quogue, N.Y. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/29 "2006-04-11T00:50:32Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > So now she can’t tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You’re really reaching now. Bite me. **Heurta88** , thank you for the better explanation. It wasn’t clear to me that they could take samples before they even knew if they had evidence from the survivor to compare. That is the whole reason I was skeptical, because I was going on the idea (which **lissener** managed to convey) that they had something to compare those samples to. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/30 "2006-04-11T00:55:51Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Seems to me the fact that DNA samples were taken is enough proof, to me, that DNA actually WAS found on the girl, so my jury’s out on the defense attorney’s accuracy, for the time being. Well yes, it’s overwhelmingly likely that DNA was found on her, as we’re all completely covered in it. What they collect is not DNA per se, it’s fiber on the clothing, or hairs, fluids, skin under the fingernails, and the like. They collected what material they could, and if reports are to believed, none of it belonged to the lacrosse team. This doesn’t preclude the possibility that they made an assault without direct contact, or that she got raped by someone present other than the suspects, or that the DNA test results were wrong (state labs can be sloppy). Or that she was lying. It’s too early to say anything except this may not be the slam-dunk conviction it was made out to be. ---
**Author:** ![JonScribe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3be4f8/32.png) [@JonScribe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonScribe)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/31 "2006-04-11T00:56:36Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > So now she can’t tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You’re really reaching now. Would \*you \*mind consenting to a test for comparison purposes? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/32 "2006-04-11T00:58:05Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > Bite me. > > **Heurta88** , thank you for the better explanation. It wasn’t clear to me that they could take samples before they even knew if they had evidence from the survivor to compare. That is the whole reason I was skeptical, because I was going on the idea (which **lissener** managed to convey) that they had something to compare those samples to. No problem. I must confess to having a problem with your use of “the survivor.” The whole problem here is it’s far from clear that there has been anything to “survive.” It stacks the deck to say, in effect, well, she says she was raped, so she’s a “victim” or “survivor,” so let’s just find out whom to pin it on. If I accused you of swindling me out of money in a complex financial transaction the details of which were not clear, I doubt that anyone not my mother would refer to me as the “fraud survivor” or “embezzlement victim.” I think I would be the “accuser” or “alleged victim.” ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/33 "2006-04-11T00:58:40Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > So now she can’t tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You’re really reaching now. To clarify. All we know about the assault is what is released to the media. Some states classify rape as any object used to violate, and sodomy also varies by state. So penises need not have been the things the assailants used. This is the idea I was agreeing with. It was first hinted at by **Garfield226**. Apparently it is moot now though. I am still waiting to hear what the prosecutor says, they will speak on this matter Tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/34 "2006-04-11T01:03:56Z")
> [@Brain Wreck](#): > > Well yes, it’s overwhelmingly likely that DNA was found on her, as we’re all completely covered in it. What they collect is not DNA per se, it’s fiber on the clothing, or hairs, fluids, skin under the fingernails, and the like. They collected what material they could, and if reports are to believed, none of it belonged to the lacrosse team. The defense attorney said that NO DNA WAS FOUND. It seems to me they wouldn’t ask for samples from the team in the FIRST place if that were true. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/35 "2006-04-11T01:04:24Z")
**Huerta88** , I was using the term more as a generic referance, not as specific to the stripper who has made the complaint. I do not quite know what to think about whether or not she was assaulted or not, but it seems maybe she wasn’t. I am waiting to hear from the prosecutor tomorrow. I used the phrase for lack of a better one, and because until the prosecutor speaks up and says her allegations were completely disproven there really isn’t anything else to say. I dislike the term “rape victim”, so use survivor instead. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/36 "2006-04-11T01:10:28Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Update (what’s not explicitly mentioned in the article is that N.C., like other states, appears to have a law requiring the prosecution to turn over any inculpatory/exculpatory evidence to counsel for the accused, which is why you can be fairly confident the defense counsel isn’t talking out of his rear end – he evidently got the skinny from the state crime lab today): > > [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/3784741.html](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/3784741.html) > [@](#): > > “No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman,” said defense attorney Wade Smith. Is this saying “No DNA was found that came from any young man who was present at the party”, or “No male DNA was found on this woman at all”? I thought it was the latter, based on this: > [@](#): > > Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it’s likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently. It sounds like there was no indication that anyone ejaculated anywhere near this woman. So I suppose she could have been sexually assaulted in other ways, which is not rare in rapes (AFAIK), but her description of the crime included both rape and sodomy. Which sounds to me like sexual penetration. And, since they also collected DNA from under her fingernails and her cell phone, and none of it matched, there is also no evidence that can tie any of the players to the crime even if it did not involve penises at all. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kaboom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/34f0e0/32.png) [@Kaboom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaboom)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/37 "2006-04-11T01:20:34Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > **Huerta88** , I was using the term more as a generic referance, not as specific to the stripper who has made the complaint. I do not quite know what to think about whether or not she was assaulted or not, but it seems maybe she wasn’t. I am waiting to hear from the prosecutor tomorrow. I used the phrase for lack of a better one, and because until the prosecutor speaks up and says her allegations were completely disproven there really isn’t anything else to say. I dislike the term “rape victim”, so use survivor instead. Whats wrong with “accuser”? ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/38 "2006-04-11T01:22:37Z")
> [@Kaboom](#): > > Whats wrong with “accuser”? That would be fine, except I was asking questions about how evidence was gathered, and the term survivor was meant to mean “a random person, male or female who was apparently raped 01”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/39 "2006-04-11T01:29:18Z")
Well, but the problem remains “apparently raped.” When will we (generically) decide that the “apparently” bar has been cleared? I hope it is not the moment a woman (or man) says “I was raped” – with nothing more. I read the quote as implying that none of the 45 identified guys’ DNA had been identified, but one could read it as **Shodan** did, too. In any event, I’ll reiterate that we have no reason to doubt the defense lawyer – saying “there’s no DNA from my guys” is specific, factual, and easily-falsifiable (to the great detriment of him and his clients). (N.B. that saying “They’re absolutely not guilty,” while it seems a stronger statement, would actually be weaker and potentially-more-weasly, as it could mean “They did what’s alleged, but lacked the requisite intent” or “They did it, but have affirmative defenses,” or “They did it, but the case is too circumstantial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” – that scumbag Mumia’s supporters still seem not to realize that this is what he’s doing when he casuistically says he is “not guilty as charged” or whatever his elision is). ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/40 "2006-04-11T01:36:52Z")
I am not doubting that the team was cleared. My confusion was due to the fact that the samples were taken at all, because I believed that they had to have DNA evidence from the person who was saying they were raped **BEFORE** they could make possible assailants give DNA samples. What is the truth here, can they just take DNA samples for _possible_ comparision with evidence that _might_ or _might not_ be there, where these events are happening based only on an accuser’s say so? The articles imply that there was a comparison in some places, yet implies there was no evidence found on the stripper’s body in almost the same breath. Was there or was there not some kind of evidence on the stripper? Can anyone provide an even clearer article? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=3)