# 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:** 24
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/461 "2006-04-17T17:00:58Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > My claim that, say, a 14 year old 105 lb. girl I met on the Internet raped me, or my explanation to the cops who come to my house on a domestic disturbance call from my wife that it was actually my wife who beat me up, are not, in any universe that you or I inhabit, likely to be given as much **initial** plausibility as alternative possibilities. And, that sucks for me, if I happen to be telling the truth. I feel like I am the only person on here who had a mother to tell them – “I know it’s not fair. **Life** isn’t fair.” Alright. I think it’s okay to believe a fourteen-year-old female rapist isn’t likely, since a 105 lb girl has a distinct physical disadvantage against a fully grown, healthy man. In this case you’re not citing crime stats, you’re citing the laws of physics. I don’t have to consult crime stats to know that a comotosed person isn’t a good suspect in a murder investigation. A five-year-old can make that conclusion. Where your logic falls down is when you assume the crime stats indicates, in any shape or form, plausibility. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/462 "2006-04-17T17:44:13Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Alright. I think it’s okay to believe a fourteen-year-old female rapist isn’t likely, since a 105 lb girl has a distinct physical disadvantage against a fully grown, healthy man. In this case you’re not citing crime stats, you’re citing the laws of physics. > > I don’t have to consult crime stats to know that a comotosed person isn’t a good suspect in a murder investigation. A five-year-old can make that conclusion. > > Where your logic falls down is when you assume the crime stats indicates, in any shape or form, plausibility. She had a knife – that’s my story. It’s still not a very plausible story, on its face, given the patterns that we know. I answered your question in good faith – we use what we have to make predictions about _a priori_ plausibility (we treat this, as spectators, as an _a priori_ case because the other details available to date are not conclusive or definitive, as far as most of us can tell). As more detail emerges, we will be in more of an _a posteriori_ situation. ---
**Author:** ![lisacurl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/41988e/32.png) [@lisacurl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisacurl)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/463 "2006-04-17T20:28:09Z")
Not to take away from the enthralling statistical debate… but it’s looking more and more like, in this \*particular \* case, the accuser might have made the whole thing up. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/) ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/464 "2006-04-17T20:32:14Z")
> [@lisacurl](#): > > Not to take away from the enthralling statistical debate… but it’s looking more and more like, in this \*particular \* case, the accuser might have made the whole thing up. > > [MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/) Or maybe not. - Two sealed indictments are handed up in the Duke University lacrosse rape investigation, a source tells CNN. \* ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/465 "2006-04-17T20:36:18Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > Or maybe not. > > - Two sealed indictments are handed up in the Duke University lacrosse rape investigation, a source tells CNN. \* we’ll know soon enough who’s been indicted. but let me point out that the fact that there are indictments doesn’t mean that they’re against the guys. (though I agree, given the prosecutors stance, I’d be really surprised if they weren’t)\> ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/466 "2006-04-17T20:57:08Z")
Trying to go through most of the posts but this is one heck of a long thread. Everything I have read to date suggests that they didn’t rape her. The OP’s title though is not appropriate at all. I guess we’ll wait and see what happens if this goes to trial. ---
**Author:** ![lisacurl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/41988e/32.png) [@lisacurl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisacurl)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/467 "2006-04-17T21:09:41Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > Or maybe not. That would be why I used the phrasing, “might have”. If this prosecutor is going to seriously pursue rape charges in this case, he’s an idiot. Convictions in rape cases are considered difficult to get in the “best” of circumstances, let alone in a situation like this where there is reasonable doubt all over the damn place. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/468 "2006-04-17T23:36:46Z")
> [@wring](#): > > we’ll know soon enough who’s been indicted. but let me point out that the fact that there are indictments doesn’t mean that they’re against the guys. (though I agree, given the prosecutors stance, I’d be really surprised if they weren’t)\> The Associated Press has a news alert out which says “A source says a grand jury has indicted two Duke lacrosse players in connection with rape allegations,” along with a one-graf story saying basically the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/469 "2006-04-17T23:38:25Z")
[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/04/17/duke.lacrosse.indictments.ap/index.html](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/04/17/duke.lacrosse.indictments.ap/index.html) ---
**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 17, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/470 "2006-04-17T23:41:01Z")
This jumps out at me in the article: > [@](#): > > The second woman supports the partygoers’ story, says Thomas, who says he has seen a summary of an interview with her conducted by a member of the defense team. “Their versions are basically identical,” he says. But Mark Simeon, an attorney for the second dancer, tells NEWSWEEK that Thomas’s claim is not accurate. "She rejects the notion that she agrees with their timeline. I’ve shown their story line to my client, and she says there’s a lot that’s wrong with it. This little snippet confirms, for me a least, that information from the defense may not necessarily be the God’s honest truth. Now I’m not saying that the second dancer is telling the truth, either. But _somebody_ is not being honest here. That’s why we need to withhold judgment as best as we can. I have a question, though. Why is it assumed that the dancer was drunk when she “passed out”? Was a tox screen done at the hospital? Did her breath smell of alcohol? The reason why I’m asking is because if a rape allegedly took place, the first drug that pops into my mind is GHB. A cop would not necessarily be able to tell the difference between a GHB-induced stupor and an alcohol-induced one, if all he was going by was sight. So does anyone know if a tox screen was done? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/471 "2006-04-18T05:51:55Z")
News stories today said that the accuser could ID two of the alleged rapists with 100% certainty, and another with 90% certainty. I assume that the first two are the ones who were indicted, but obviously we don’t know yet. We also don’t have their names, and we don’t know the exact charge(s). ---
**Author:** ![Shaky\_Jake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90db22/32.png) [@Shaky\_Jake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaky_Jake)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/472 "2006-04-18T06:17:31Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > This jumps out at me in the article: Ah, you seem to have cut and pasted a bit hastily. You left out the remainder of the quote, which I’m sure you didn’t intend to do. The part that indicates her story perhaps changed significantly, from being in line with the players account to opposing it? “…From the beginning, she has been cooperating fully with [Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong] and the police, and she looks forward to testifying truthfully at the trial.” **Thomas replies, “She has given us several statements, so I don’t see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her.” Nifong could not be reached for comment.** Interesting, that while you call for restraint and withholding judgment, you choose to omit a part of a quote which points to the real (and potentially ominous) possibility that the story has changed, and also choose to point to the defense as the ones possibly not telling the truth. Yes, you covered nicely with the “somebody’s not telling the truth”, but why did that not “confirm” just as much for you that the woman has changed her story? In fact, reading the full quote, I find it entirely reasonable, and perhaps even likely, to conclude that her story changed rather than the defense is obfuscating. A smart lawyer - and Mr. Thomas is a smart, skilled, respected attorney - won’t generally tip cards of this nature if he or she doesn’t have them. Why not? You look like an ass. “I never even spoke to them” etc. Believe me, as a Durham resident, the cops are not an uninterested party either. There is tremendous pressure for an arrest and conviction. If you think they, and the district attorney, are objective and withholding judgment, you’re misguided. They are certainly not equally interested in all sides. One of our local media outlets reported that the defense attorney’s offered to show Mr. Nifong the pictures alleging to show the alleged victim’s injuries present prior to the alleged attack (a significant bit of evidence, you must agree, as you have pointed to her injuries to support her claims). Mr. Nifong declined the offer. [See WRAL story](http://www.wral.com/news/8751211/detail.html) Draw your own conclusion. GHB or Rohypnol? FYI, GHB can’t be detected, so a tox screen wouldn’t help one way or the other; Rohypnol can be. Certainly possible that she was drugged, and I’m not aware of any reports of a tox screen. The security guard , there is some indication, stated he did not smell alcohol (see above WRAL story). But, I’m not sure a grocery store security guard is your best investigative source for such things. Certainly doesn’t rule it out, but if we’re going to engage in this sort of speculation we may as well explore it from all sides. Since we’re witholding judgement and all (while we’re also raising the spectre that she was drugged). Even though we have no indication that the alleged victim made any claim like “They say I showed up drunk, but I was stone-cold sober until I drank that umbrella drink they gave me them whammo!”. Especially since there is indication that the strippers were served some sort of beverages (again, see WRAL story). Of course, the fact that they were served beverages yet no mention of possible drugging has arisen is perhaps telling by its absence. Though pure speculation on my part (in keeping with the spirit of this topic), I have no doubt that Mr. Nifong would have trotted that out weeks ago if there was any such indication. Built-in justification for inconsistencies; he may yet stumble on this line of reasoning. Though let’s hope it is not as late in coming as, apparently, the ID is. [From ESPN.com](http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2411358) > [@](#): > > Prosecutors have informed defense attorneys that the alleged victim has identified two players with 100 percent certainty and is 90 percent certain on a third player, ABC News reports. Raises the whole 46 player DNA sampling, no? One would assume if she can ID now, she could immediately after, and one’s memory tends to get worse over time, not better, no? So why compel DNA from the whole team when she could ID all 3 attackers with at least “90 percent certainty”? Nor is it surprising she can ID some players from the party, since she was there. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that she was not able to ID at the time, but can now. This is, of course, troubling. I saw one web site put up in the days after the incident with pictures of the lacrosse team – individual head shots (I’ll not link to it for obvious reasons, and I’m not even sure it’s up. If this omission is deemed inappropriate, I’ll gladly dig up the URL and share it with a mod for vetting). Such resources – and I’m sure there are more – certainly open the door to question the ID. One wonders if she didn’t have a few names of players initially - perhaps those who were instrumental in hiring her? - and later was able to use such reasources to link names with faces. I’m not saying she did, just that an ID and a 46 player DNA sample doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps smarter and more learned people can offer additional reasons, but I come up with either no ID at the time, or bungling (at the least) on the part of the prosecutor. Again, a later ID is problematic for this case (as is procecutorial ineptitude), and a reasonable person questions the presence of an early ID given that 46 players were compelled by court order to provide DNA samples. The whole drugging question you raise is interesting. Where did that come from? Certainly not the statistics regarding college-age rape and the use of date rape drugs? For one can’t use past statistics to predict or weigh the likelihood of a given single event, right? 😉 (In all seriousness, that last was just a friendly pull at your leg. I’m not great with stats, and I’m sure someone will point out it’s apples and oranges). Jake ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/473 "2006-04-18T11:51:54Z")
on Today show(so no link yet), defense attorneys hint that at least one of the guys indicted can be shown to have not been at the party at the time. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/474 "2006-04-18T12:23:15Z")
> [@Shaky Jake](#): > > Thomas replies, “She has given us several statements, so I don’t see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her.” Nifong could not be reached for comment. That just says she has given several statements. You seem to be inferring she has given contradictory statements. It’s not implied in that quote, though. Of course they took several statements from her, if only to make sure she would tell the same story. > [@wring](#): > > on Today show(so no link yet), defense attorneys hint that at least one of the guys indicted can be shown to have not been at the party at the time. The report I saw said they had “an alibi,” which they were quick to define as “evidence of innocence.” Apparently they didn’t mean that the individual wasn’t there, or else they wouldn’t have bothered with giving the novel definition. ---
**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 18, 2006, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/475 "2006-04-18T12:55:53Z")
> [@Shaky Jake](#): > > Ah, you seem to have cut and pasted a bit hastily. You left out the remainder of the quote, which I’m sure you didn’t intend to do. The part that indicates her story perhaps changed significantly, from being in line with the players account to opposing it? > > “…From the beginning, she has been cooperating fully with [Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong] and the police, and she looks forward to testifying truthfully at the trial.” **Thomas replies, “She has given us several statements, so I don’t see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her.” Nifong could not be reached for comment.** Yeah, and please note that it is the _defense attorney_ saying this. That doesn’t change my observation that the defense attorney and the lawyer for the witness are saying contradictory things at this point. What is so judgmental about pointing out this very obvious detail? > [@](#): > > The security guard , there is some indication, stated he did not smell alcohol (see above WRAL story). But, I’m not sure a grocery store security guard is your best investigative source for such things. Certainly doesn’t rule it out, but if we’re going to engage in this sort of speculation we may as well explore it from all sides. Since we’re witholding judgement and all (while we’re also raising the spectre that she was drugged). I’m wondering where the assumption comes from that she was drunk, that’s all. I’m not saying that she was given a ruphy, only suggesting that a police man’s opinion about her condition means very little if there were no tests done to confirm what was in her system. For all any of us know, tests were done. Perhaps this is more evidence that we, as armchair spectators, do not know. Just sayin’. > [@](#): > > Especially since there is indication that the strippers were served some sort of beverages (again, see WRAL story). Of course, the fact that they were served beverages yet no mention of possible drugging has arisen is perhaps telling by its absence. I wouldn’t make that assumption, though. > [@](#): > > Though pure speculation on my part (in keeping with the spirit of this topic), I have no doubt that Mr. Nifong would have trotted that out weeks ago if there was any such indication. To be honest, I haven’t heard any details about the case from Nifong. Only that he believes a crime was committed. Every article I’ve seen as of late has not included much information from the prosecution, only the defense. But I haven’t really been following the case that closely in the media, either. YMMV. ---
**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 18, 2006, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/476 "2006-04-18T13:09:50Z")
> [@Shaky Jake](#): > > The whole drugging question you raise is interesting. Where did that come from? Certainly not the statistics regarding college-age rape and the use of date rape drugs? For one can’t use past statistics to predict or weigh the likelihood of a given single event, right? 😉 > > (In all seriousness, that last was just a friendly pull at your leg. I’m not great with stats, and I’m sure someone will point out it’s apples and oranges). You don’t use statistics to determine the possible reasons why someone may be “passed out” and then later say they were raped. At least a good doctor doesn’t. Alcohol is only one possibility. Other types of drugs are other possibilities. It’s bad science to assume that she was drunk without the benefit of a breathalizer or a test for other substances that might be in her system. Especially in light of her allegation. ---
**Author:** ![lisacurl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/41988e/32.png) [@lisacurl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisacurl)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/477 "2006-04-18T13:30:39Z")
If any medical professionals or criminal lawyers are following this thread, do you know if blood alcohol testing was a standard part of treating a rape victim. I assumed it was since it involved consent issues. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/478 "2006-04-18T14:30:39Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > What? The article you linked us to on the other page was told from the defense’s POV, too. Go back and read it. I You mean [this article?](http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-dukelacrosse-investigation&prov=ap&type=lgns) What do you mean it was written from the defense point of view? It is a factual account of what the police investigators did. Do you see any conjecture? Any editorializing? Oh, and did you see this?– > [@](#): > > Police declined to release any information about the case Friday. The offices of District Attorney Mike Nifong were closed for the Good Friday holiday. Now tell me how the article is slanted toward the defense. I await your reply. But, for the sake of the argument, let’s say the reporter was biased toward the defense (I would be interested in any theory that suggests why, however.) Do you dispute the\* fact\* of the police investigation, which is a point I now make **for the third time?** in the first few hours days, they did nothing. In the first few days, the did nothing. During the crucial time for interviewing witnesses, checking alibis, and comparing stories, they sat on their hands. Now, a month later, after Nifong has called them “hooligans,” has stated unequivocably that “a horrible assault” occurred, has claimed that DNA testing would support these statements, only to downplay the importance of DNA testing at all, you complain that the students lawyered up when bushwhacked in their dorm rooms? It is clear to me that you have as much of an agenda as you have claimed others in this thread possess, if you cannot evaluate simple matters of fact disinterestedly. ---
**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 18, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/479 "2006-04-18T14:54:02Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > You mean [this article?](http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-dukelacrosse-investigation&prov=ap&type=lgns) What do you mean it was written from the defense point of view? It is a factual account of what the police investigators did. Are we reading the same article? I would cut and past the thing to show you how many times the article says “an attorney for several players said”, but I don’t want to break the copyright rule. You can’t say what is factual or not if all you’re going by is what the lawyers are saying. Again, I ask you to remember the OJ trial. Interesting that you think the paragraph below… **" Police declined to release any information about the case Friday. The offices of District Attorney Mike Nifong were closed for the Good Friday holiday."** …bolsters your case. If anything, it underscores the fact that all we’re hearing is the defense side of things. Information from interested parties unfortunately can not be trusted as a “factual account”, as you say. Or else a trial wouldn’t even be necessary. I have a feeling that if this was an article in which 75% of the material was prefaced with “lawyers for the prosecution said”, you would regard it with a bit more caution. And I’ve never said the article was “slanted” towards the defense. Only that most of the article was told from their side, and that is specifically _because_ Nifong declined to comment. Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree. I don’t want to make this thread grow another 10 pages. ---
**Author:** ![Fat\_Chance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8baadc/32.png) [@Fat\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fat_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/480 "2006-04-18T14:55:24Z")
Anyone else find it strange… that the search warrant papers included a description of the accusers story (in order to support the search) in which she named 3 people: Adam, Bret, and Matt. She even knew which 2 dragged her into the bathroom. There are people on the team with those names as well. But… 2 of the people she identified with 100% confidence and who have been arrested are named: Reade and Collin? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=25)