# 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:** 55
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1081 "2006-05-30T22:30:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The two groups in this thread seem largely to be talking past each other. I agree. After reading this over the last few days–that is the same conclusion I have come to. Both sides have established themselves as this is where I am staying and no one is moving me from this position and basically resorted to name calling instead of good debate. Perhaps if this ‘issue’ had been in Great Debates rather than the Pit a more satisfying discussion might have been had? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1082 "2006-05-30T22:42:32Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > And so I haven’t spent 15 pages on it. The great volume of posts in this thread on racial issues has been by the people attacking me. I have separately posted on multiple other factual and investigative and prosecutorial anomalies in this case having nothing to do with race (or, having to do with the very separate issue of racial/sexual pandering in politics). > > Don’t join the chorous of losers attacking the **Huerta** -is-obsessed-with-race-and-posts-on-nothing-else\*\* strawman. I haven’t. **This thread** has become obscessed with the racial aspect, resulting in (as I said) two groups who are largely talking past each other. Can we at least all agree that we shouldn’t be looking at this case wrt to the races of the accuser and the accused? There are so many other relavent facts that can be used to get to the bottom of it. And can we drop the “absent any other info” hypthetical since it never happens that way in real life? We always know more than the race of the people involved, and if for some crazy reason we didn’t, the only thing we could say with any confidence is that we need more information. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1083 "2006-05-30T23:03:29Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > …Mathworld…Y’all been following the math? I don’t live in Mathworld. The reliability of eyewitness’s is notoriously bad, but if an eyewitness says that it was a maroon car, driver by a green haired clown, wearing a white with purple polka dots clown suit, as crazy as that sounds that’s the information that goes out in the APB. It would be nice if the DoJ actually did the math on crime stats based on police reports and court records instead of “0.0\* \*Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.” [ > [@](#): > > BJS criminal victimization data collections > > National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 42,000 households comprising nearly 76,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders. ]([NCVS Methodology](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#Programs))Does everybody finally get it? They survey 76,000 people, if they get 10 or fewer sample cases they put 0.0. 0.0 means we don’t have a fucking clue what the real number is. We don’t do a survey to determine prison population we take head counts. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1084 "2006-05-31T01:11:17Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#Programs]Does everybody finally get it? They survey 76,000 people, if they get 10 or fewer sample cases they put 0.0. > 0.0 means we don’t have a fucking clue what the real number is. Except that it is smaller than 10. And therefore > [@](#): > > The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, **members of various racial groups** , city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and\*\* characteristics of violent offenders\*\*. Isn’t that exactly what we are talking about - the likelihood of rape for “members of various racial groups” and the “characteristics of violent offenders”? It seems to me that if you can’t get 10 people to mention that they have been raped by white people out of a population of 76,000, then it can’t be all that common. This doesn’t mean it never happens and can’t happen. People who are arguing that I (or **Huerta88** ) are saying that it doesn’t and can’t are misrepresenting the argument. We **do** have a fucking clue what the real number is. It seems to be quite rare, as far as can be told. Not inherently impossible - rare. Now there could be a whole bunch of reasons why it is so much rarer than intra-racial rape. But we don’t need to say why it is rare before we can recognize that it is. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1085 "2006-05-31T01:16:04Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Does everybody finally get it? They survey 76,000 people, if they get 10 or fewer sample cases they put 0.0. > 0.0 means we don’t have a fucking clue what the real number is. Minor nitpick: they put an asterisk, not 0.0. They still calculate a number; non-zero numbers in that table also have an asterisk. So obviously, even if a statistical analysis were reasonable, those particular statistics aren’t meaningful. Several people have wondered aloud about **Huerta** ’s motive for looking at national race stats regarding rape, as opposed to more speciifc stats like North Carolina. Why do you assume those more specific stats exist and are online? You consider what you have. Once more compelling evidence surfaces, you move on to that. Or, at least, you’d be allowed to do so in a perfect world. Also, I am nervous about saying that eyewitness accounts always trump \ in cases where whether or not an actual crime took place are only based on that witness. The McMartin family got jail time based on that paradigm. Yes, bizarre satanic rituals are vanishingly rare, but we have eyewitness testimony! In “he said / she said” rape cases, adopting the assumption that a crime did in fact take place because one side said so is faulty. In other words, _if_ she’s lying, then _there is no witness_. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1086 "2006-05-31T01:19:16Z")
Clarify this for me, > [@Shodan](#): > > Except that it is smaller than 10… What is smaller than 10? > [@Shodan](#): > > …It seems to me that if you can’t get 10 people to mention that they have been raped by white people out of a population of 76,000, then it can’t be all that common… who do you think makes up this group of 76,000, i.e 76,000 black women who have been raped? CMC fnord! ---
**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:** [May 31, 2006, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1087 "2006-05-31T01:34:24Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > So obviously, even if a statistical analysis were reasonable, those particular statistics aren’t meaningful. Several people have wondered aloud about **Huerta** ’s motive for looking at national race stats regarding rape, as opposed to more speciifc stats like North Carolina. Because a nationally-derived stat will likely be a lot smaller than stats taken from a state with a black:white ratio higher than the national ratio. If your intent is to make white-on-black rape look as rare as possible, you’d choose the national stats. That’s why his motives look suspect. > [@](#): > > Why do you assume those more specific stats exist and are online? You consider what you have. Tack on “if it is relevant” to this and we’ll be in agreement. > [@](#): > > Also, I am nervous about saying that eyewitness accounts always trump \ in cases where whether or not an actual crime took place are only based on that witness. Rarely would that be your only evidence, though. At a mininum, you usually have the defendant’s alibi, some circumstantial evidence (e.g. suddenly selling your car), or some other kind of data that points to you (some incriminating stuff you might have said to a cop before talking to a lawyer). I mean, you have to have _some_ evidence beyond what a witness says. I’ve never heard of anyone being indicted just on someone’s say. > [@](#): > > In “he said / she said” rape cases, adopting the assumption that a crime did in fact take place because one side said so is faulty. In other words, _if_ she’s lying, then _there is no witness_. There’s medical evidence, for one. If the woman showed up to the hospital looking like she’d been in the boxing ring a few times, that’s _something_. Right? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1088 "2006-05-31T01:41:28Z")
According to [this site](http://www.wral.com/politics/index.html), Nifong squeaked out a re-election victory over his two challengers, with 45 percent of the vote to (white) Freda Black’s 42 percent and (black) Keith Bishop’s 13 percent. What role did the Duke lax/stripper case play in the win? Any armchair analysts care to weigh in on that? Now that he’s won, will Nifong dial back the public displays of pandering, and at some point announce regretfully that the victim of this heinous crime has chosen not to go forward with the prosecution because it would be too traumatic for her? Or is he likely to actually try the thing to a jury? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1089 "2006-05-31T02:40:38Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > According to [this site](http://www.wral.com/politics/index.html), Nifong squeaked out a re-election victory over his two challengers, with 45 percent of the vote to (white) Freda Black’s 42 percent and (black) Keith Bishop’s 13 percent. > > What role did the Duke lax/stripper case play in the win? Any armchair analysts care to weigh in on that? > > Now that he’s won, will Nifong dial back the public displays of pandering, and at some point announce regretfully that the victim of this heinous crime has chosen not to go forward with the prosecution because it would be too traumatic for her? Or is he likely to actually try the thing to a jury? Experienced prosecutors wonder the same thing - [Lacrosse case begs question: Does Nifong know something we don’t](http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-739217.html) I think the upshot is that, objectively, there’s really no significant downside for Nifong to carry this thing forward. Assuming there’s no compelling smoking gun re guilt of the players (and none has been presented to date) let’s look at the likely scenario - Case goes to trial, evidence presented, Jurors decide plaintiff claims are not credible and players are declared not guilty. Nifong gets street cred with black community, and can always claim he was just doing his job. Short of some over the top ethical violation by him who is there with any immediate and effective power over him to call him to account and punish him for wasting resources pursuing a weak case? It’s his call as to the merits of the case. Even if it’s a crass political decision he’s untouchable until he next election. ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1090 "2006-05-31T04:03:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Except that it is smaller than 10. And therefore Isn’t that exactly what we are talking about - the likelihood of rape for “members of various racial groups” and the “characteristics of violent offenders”? > > It seems to me that if you can’t get 10 people to mention that they have been raped by white people out of a population of 76,000, then it can’t be all that common. You’re not thinking this through (or you think rape is a heck of a lot more common than it is). The US population is roughly 300 million. For 2003, the BJS estimates 169,340 rapes/sexual assaults for the whole population. That means that the 76,000 households reported about 43 rapes/sexual assaults. The BJS estimate is that 24,010 rapes/sexual assaults had black victims, which means their sample had about **6** cases of black victims. The number of white on black victimizations will obviously be a fraction of this. > [@Shodan](#): > > We **do** have a fucking clue what the real number is. It seems to be quite rare, as far as can be told. Not inherently impossible - rare. Now there could be a whole bunch of reasons why it is so much rarer than intra-racial rape. But we don’t need to say why it is rare before we can recognize that it is. Not that nationwide statistics are relevant to anything, but given the tiny sample sizes this number is based on, we just _barely have a fucking clue_ what the real number is. Just for grins, I looked up the numbers from past BJS reports: ```auto year # black victims % white perps ---- --------------- ------------- 96 44890 13.5* 97 43890 0.0* 98 47490 7.2* 99 67890 0.0* 00 33780 7.0* 01 29980 13.4* 02 59490 14.2* 03 24010* 0.0* ``` Just the spikes in the the number of victims for 99 and 02 make me suspect their methodology isn’t very robust. If we assume that the demographics of attackers of black victims has remained constant over the years, this averages out to 6.9%, or about 1 in 14. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1091 "2006-05-31T08:22:36Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I don’t live in Mathworld. > > The reliability of eyewitness’s is notoriously bad, but if an eyewitness says that it was a maroon car, driver by a green haired clown, wearing a white with purple polka dots clown suit, as crazy as that sounds that’s the information that goes out in the APB. You don’t live in Mathworld, where all vehicles are either red cars or maroon cars, but if you think that means that mathematics has no applicability in the world in which you do live, I despair. …And if an eyewitness says that the perp was a seven-foot Martian riding a brontosaurus and brandishing an amethyst-encrusted trident? 😉 [By the way, your habit of putting url tags around an entire multi-line paragraph is something I, for one, could live without. It’s hardly Pittable but I’d like to register a plea that you adopt a different style.](http://nowhere) It’s less jarring on the eye if you do it like this: [cite](http://nowhere). Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1092 "2006-05-31T11:55:45Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Clarify this for me,What is smaller than 10? The number of sample cases. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > who do you think makes up this group of 76,000, i.e 76,000 black women who have been raped? > [@your cite](#): > > Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 42,000 households comprising nearly 76,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. > [@zagloba](#): > > If we assume that the demographics of attackers of black victims has remained constant over the years, this averages out to 6.9%, or about 1 in 14. IOW, much less than one in ten, if your assumption is correct. Therefore relatively rare. > [@zagloba](#): > > The BJS estimate is that 24,010 rapes/sexual assaults had black victims, which means their sample had about 6 cases of black victims. The number of white on black victimizations will obviously be a fraction of this. And it is that fraction that we are arguing about. But it is difficult or impossible to slice the fraction such that it is anywhere close to a proportion commeasurate with the frequency of white males in the populace, or even white rapists. Whites rape blacks at a rate far less than if they chose their victims at random. White-on-black rape is rare. We **do** know this, to the degree we can know anything from statistics. Do you disagree? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1093 "2006-05-31T13:02:16Z")
“to the degree we can know anything with statistics”? I’m not sure what that means. The study could certainly use a larger sample, or be designed in other ways that would increase the confidence level. “Rare” is relative. It’s been repeatedly asserted in this thread that the number is zero. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1094 "2006-05-31T13:09:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Whites rape blacks at a rate far less than if they chose their victims at random. Since this woman was in the house, she was no longer ‘random’; so what does the statistic have to do with this case? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1095 "2006-05-31T14:52:58Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Again, if I and that’s me, have a problem with people playing, “the race card”, I don’t deal from the same deck…but that’s me. > > I’ll say this, and this is my opinion. The tone of the thread turned once YWTF’s color became part of it and that’s not only on her. > > Maybe you didn’t see and still don’t, but I do. Any chance that you could give an example or three? I know the she and I had a few bitter exchanges way way back, and I just now found out she was a black woman. > [@ETF](#): > > Now that he’s won, will Nifong dial back the public displays of pandering, and at some point announce regretfully that the victim of this heinous crime has chosen not to go forward with the prosecution because it would be too traumatic for her? Or is he likely to actually try the thing to a jury? I think that the complainant will refuse to testify. I am basing this assumption on my belief that her version of what transpired is a fabrication. Bear in mind that we are a year away from a trial, so it is anybody’s guess. Meanwhile this quadruple murder is still awating DNA testing. [http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3730471](http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3730471) The second dancer shows her [del]ass[/del] manners in court. [http://www.wral.com/news/9294698/detail.html](http://www.wral.com/news/9294698/detail.html) This person accused of first degree rape and resisting arrest has a bond of $150,000, less than half that of the Duke students. [http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-739380.html](http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-739380.html) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1096 "2006-05-31T15:20:37Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Since this woman was in the house, she was no longer ‘random’; so what does the statistic have to do with this case? It establishes the fact that white-on-black rape is statistically rare, and that white rapists of black women are disproportionately under-represented. I can’t tell if you are genuinely arguing a position, or simply playing dumb. I didn’t claim that white rapists choose their victims at random, nor does the survey demonstrate this. I’m not sure why you dragged that in. > [@zagloba](#): > > “to the degree we can know anything with statistics”? I’m not sure what that means. The study could certainly use a larger sample, or be designed in other ways that would increase the confidence level. Yes, but it is as close to representative as we have. It isn’t perfect, but it isn’t completely worthless either. “To the degree we can know anything with statistics” means that we are talking about probabilities, not certainties, and correlations, not (necessarily) causation. Every time someone in this thread tries to speak precisely, some clown on the other side (not speaking of you or **holmes** here) dismisses it as meaningless disclaimers or something. How basic do you need me to be? It is not impossible that this woman is telling the truth (the second time, when she claimed three rapists instead of twenty). It is also not very likely, based on the incidence of white-on-black rape as far as can be told. The other factors brought forth by **Huerta88** seem to mitigate against the possibility that she is being truthful. She is not a credible witness, there is no physical evidence, the timeline seems problematic, her physical condition at the time of reporting can be adequately explained by (ahem) other factors, and the only other witness to have come forward has changed her story, and there is reason to suspect that this other witness made the change for her own financial and legal benefit. And Nifong seems to have been influenced, to say the least, by a desire to curry favor with his constituents rather than an unsullied desire to see justice done. All of which tends to bear out what was remarked at the very outset - the escort’s story is not at all a common one. White-on-black rape is rare and unlikely. What, of any of this, would you care to deny? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1097 "2006-05-31T15:20:50Z")
Well we have this from **WeirdDave** : > [@](#): > > Speaking of assumptions, that’s it, isn’t it? Huerta has 88 in his name, ane we all know that 88 must = hh=heil Hitler=racist scum. You’re convinced that you’re diligently fighting against the racist agenda of a bigot. Couple that with the fact that you’re a black woman, undoubtedly you’ve been subjected to racist treatement in your life, so you likely identify with the victim in this case, and viola! We have someone arguing not from a factual or reasoned base, but from an emotional one. That’s always a poor starting point in a discussion such as this, which may be why you’re not making a lot of sense at times. > > Personally, I don’t know if Huerta is a racist. Frankly, I don’t care. If he is, then he’s a moron. But that doesn’t change the way each of you has presented your arguements in this thread, and frankly he’s been more effective than you at doing that by an order of magnitude. **Shodan** > [@](#): > > Did you think you were the first black person to start slinging accusations of “Racist!” when an argument was trending against her? Sorry, it has a long and not particularly honorable history. > > The difficulty being, it never had much effect on me - white guilt is not a failing to which I was ever particularly subject. And as it seems to have appeared in your posts shortly after yet another Doper has pointed out some of the shortcomings in your line of reasoning, it has even less effect here. > > It’s isn’t going to work anyway, and your timing makes it too transparent to be more than mildly amusing. and it continues… it seems to me and again, this only my opinion, that the thread turned even nastier after **YWTF** gender and color came into it. That her opinions were ‘tainted’ and dismissed as those of hysterical black woman, looking out for her own. That’s simply not true. The stats used weren’t correct and even if they were, they shouldn’t have been used in the way that they were. Over and over again YWTF tried to explain why, and these guys wouldn’t have it. They still won’t. **John Mace** asked if we can at least agree that the stats are irrelevant. No one’s agreed yet, instead they’re still sticking to 'em. I agree they are irrevelant. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1098 "2006-05-31T15:35:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I can’t tell if you are genuinely arguing a position, or simply playing dumb. I didn’t claim that white rapists choose their victims at random, nor does the survey demonstrate this. I’m not sure why you dragged that in. > Yes, but it is as close to representative as we have. It isn’t perfect, but it isn’t completely worthless either. I wasn’t clear, I’ll clarify. We know that most rapists have at least passing contact with their victim. The reason why inter-racial is rare is because we still live in a somewhat segregated society and the type of ‘contact’ that would allow for an interracial gang rape to occur, simply isn’t often there. **that’s** IMO is what makes it rare. This a matter of proxmity, not ‘attractiveness’; which I believe is the underlying reason why people were and still are so willing to believe what this stat infers about this case. However as repeatly noted in this thread, all those ‘rules’ fly out the window in this case. There was booze, there was sexual tension, there were guys egging each other on, and a woman who by the nature of her profession could’ve been seen as an object and she was in proximity. Those statistics are universal, when to comes to creating an ‘environment’ for a gang rape to occur and fail to see why the color of her skin would ‘protect’ her from it; but that’s the only conclusion you can come to if you believe these stats have some value in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1099 "2006-05-31T15:42:28Z")
**Holmes,** I just don’t see a particularly nasty tone in those posts, especially considering the context of this thread. I assure you that I was a lot nastier than that in my exchanges with **ywtf** , as was she with me. I don’t see any reference to an hysterical black woman either, unless you believe that “emotional” and “hysterical” mean the same thing. I have never seen any particular relevance to the referred statistics, but I know very little about the field. Didn’t **Huerta** pretty much say “Forget it, I’m sorry I brought it up.”? This whole thing has been a colosal hijack. And yes, the two sides seem to be talking past one another. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1100 "2006-05-31T15:47:21Z")
Like I said, it’s my opinion. I don’t think you can unring that particular bell. I guess if **Huerta** said, the stats didn’t o don’t mean what I think they did, that might have ended it, but as you note; they’re still being defended. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=54) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=56)