# 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:** 66
**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:** [June 4, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1301 "2006-06-04T19:38:09Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Incidentally, I can’t be arsed to dig back all the way to yesterday for the post in question, but the guy ( **John Mace**?) who was arguing that if there are ten times as many white women as black in the town, a randomly-selected white woman is more likely to be a rape liar than a randomly-selected black woman. If the incidence of lying is the same per head whether white or black (given in the hypothetical), then the fact that there are ten times as many white rape-cryers in town as black is exactly offset by the fact that there are ten times as many white women as black. I hope we don’t need a detailed breakdown of this highly obvious fact. (OTOH, a randomly-selected rape liar is ten times as likely to be white as black - but that’s another pail of pilchards.) If you could’ve been “arsed” to dig it up, you’d see that I said the number of White and Black women were equal (which is pretty much the situation in Durham). So next time, you might want to get off your arse and check your facts first before you make yourself look like more of an idiot than you already have. ---
**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:** [June 4, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1302 "2006-06-04T20:18:48Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I hope before this thread dies it’s long overdue death […] This sentiment has been expressed several times, all by posters who take issue with **Huerta** ’s introduction of the DoJ stats. You guys do realize that this isn’t a thread about stats, but rather a thread about an ongoing news story, right? Statistics are a mere hijack to the actual topic. I agree that that particular hijack is well beyond its “best by” date, but hopefully _it_ will eventually die, leaving the thread to focus on the actual case. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1303 "2006-06-04T20:34:00Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > This sentiment has been expressed several times, all by posters who take issue with **Huerta** ’s introduction of the DoJ stats. > > You guys do realize that this isn’t a thread about stats, but rather a thread about an ongoing news story, right? Statistics are a mere hijack to the actual topic. > > I agree that that particular hijack is well beyond its “best by” date, but hopefully _it_ will eventually die, leaving the thread to focus on the actual case. A “mere” hijack? Man, I’d hate to see what a major hijack looks like if this one’s been “mere”. (Also wondering what’s wrong with scouring the web on your own for information. This isn’t a newsgroup. I’m sure there are numerous blogs where you can read updates on the Duke case. Don’t see why we have to have something like that here, but of course YMMV.) I don’t think this thread is meant to live much longer, although I do think they should turn it into a ATMB sticky so that Dopers can see just how hard it is to fight ignorance. ---
**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:** [June 4, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1304 "2006-06-04T22:34:53Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > This sentiment has been expressed several times, all by posters who take issue with **Huerta** ’s introduction of the DoJ stats… I’ve been reading this thread now for twenty seven pages. I could read it for another twenty seven pages. I’m not proud… or tired. So we’ll wait till it comes around again, and this time with four part harmony and feeling… We’re just waitin’ for it to come around is what we’re doing… CMC fnord! With apologies to Arlo Guthrie. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1305 "2006-06-04T23:09:05Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I hope before this thread dies it’s long overdue death we do get to the details of **Huerta88** ’s uncritical regurgitation of defense sound/text bites, Not “uncritical.” I’ve frequently typed the phrase (one of many phrases roundly ignored by those who want to argue against points I did not make) "Now, the defense could be lying or mischaracterizing the evidence, but . . . " We know that the defense has access to (or ought to) all the evidence or quasi-evidence Nifong has. We know this because of the discovery rules (and because Nifong was quoted, I don’t have the cite at the moment, as saying “they now have everything we’ve got.”). I am not aware that any of the defense’s characterizations have been to date shown to be false or distorted. When they’ve made falsifiable factual statements, those have not (to date) been falsified (or even denied). So, their track record is not horrible. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for a cite that actually says the “20 men raped me” line was spoken by the accuser. The cite given does not.[/ > I’m equally disturbed by the flat out acceptance of the “he never had a mustache” factoid. > (To make my point I must broaden the question from mustaches to facial hair.) > Hearing this my first question is not did the accused have a mustache, but what does the accuser mean when they describe someone as having one. > > This [man](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Wheeler.jpg) has a beard (and mustache), does this [one](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Stubbly_face.jpg)? > Is that heavy [five o’clock shadow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_o%27clock_shadow) or a Miami Vice/George Michael “[designer stubble](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_stubble)” beard (and mustache)? > > The truth of her statement is not disproved by the friends of the accused, it’s disproved if the accuser’s description (as fully explained) does not match the facts. > > If I describe someone as “tall” wouldn’t you need to know what “tall” means to me? > If your 6’, 5’6" is short, if your 5’, 5’6" is tall. > > CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1306 "2006-06-04T23:16:49Z")
Oops, to complete the response: On the report of 20 attackers, all I’ve seen is the Duke PD report. I’ve seen nothing contradicting it, though. On the mustache – it sounds like you’re grasping, but who knows? The pictures they have from that night would perhaps include one of him – I don’t know. BTW, if I don’t shave for a few days, the colloquial thing that I or anyone I know would say is “My beard is a little rough,” not “my mustache is kind of bristly.” “Beard” is coloquially understood as referring to facial hair/hairiness in general in a way “mustache” is not. And no, I would not have to know what she thought “tall” meant in order to evaluate her credibility if she had used this terminology and Spud Webb, or Muggsy Bogues, or Edgar Prado were the suspect. ---
**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:** [June 4, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1307 "2006-06-04T23:17:47Z")
Well, I remember someone said there wasn’t any DNA. Then we found out that there was DNA. It was the accuser’s BF’s DNA, of course. But there was DNA, as one would expect in a sexually active woman. So that kind of shows that the defense might have a Karl Rovish way of spinning things, and people should not trust what they say just because its supports their worldview. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1308 "2006-06-04T23:23:15Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Well, I remember someone said there wasn’t any DNA. > > Then we found out that there was DNA. It was the accuser’s BF’s DNA, of course. But there was DNA, as one would expect in a sexually active woman. > > So that kind of shows that the defense might have a Karl Rovish way of spinning things, and people should not trust what they say just because its supports their worldview. I doubt you can find a cite in which defense counsel represented or intended to be understood as representing that there was “no DNA” on her, because this would be foolish – she would at a minimum have her own DNA. If someone on this board coloquially characterized counsel saying “my clients’ DNA is not on her” to “no DNA whatsoever, including no DNA of persons not suspects, was found here,” this does not one thing to impeach defense counsel’s reliability or damn them with spin. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1309 "2006-06-04T23:29:04Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I doubt you can find a cite in which defense counsel represented or intended to be understood as representing that there was “no DNA” on her, because this would be foolish – she would at a minimum have her own DNA. If someone on this board coloquially characterized counsel saying “my clients’ DNA is not on her” to “no DNA whatsoever, including no DNA of persons not suspects, was found here,” this does not one thing to impeach defense counsel’s reliability or damn them with spin. Aha, defense counsel Wade Smith: > [@](#): > > “No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman,” said defense attorney Wade Smith. [http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalwire/local\_story\_100175352.html](http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalwire/local_story_100175352.html) It seems pretty clear he’s referring to the lacrosse players who had been tested (why else refer to “young” men, given that DNA can’t determine the age of the donor?), and even if one mis-reads this statement as a sweeping guarantee that she had no foreign DNA on her at all (why would he do so? The presence of DNA from the boyfriend HELPS his case, because it provides alternate explanations for the vaginal swelling “consistent with” intercourse), this statement was made before the second “more sensitive” round of DNA results was back (it is not clear to me if the BF’s DNA was ID’d in the first or second round of testing, but I think it was announced only after the second). ---
**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:** [June 4, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1310 "2006-06-04T23:52:11Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I doubt you can find a cite in which defense counsel represented or intended to be understood as representing that there was “no DNA” on her, because this would be foolish – she would at a minimum have her own DNA. I believe they purposely left things vague so that the public would not know for sure whether the accuser turned up completely clean or not. From an article you posted in post [#28](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7285379&postcount=28): > [@](#): > > **"No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman,"** said defense attorney Wade Smith. > > […] > > 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.** (bolding mine) ‘Course, this isn’t definitive proof that the defense is playing a spin game. I’m just sayin’, though. On preview…ah forget it, I’m posting this anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1311 "2006-06-05T09:34:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If you could’ve been “arsed” to dig it up, you’d see that I said the number of White and Black women were equal (which is pretty much the situation in Durham). So next time, you might want to get off your arse and check your facts first before you make yourself look like more of an idiot than you already have. Here I go off my arse: > [@John Mace](#): > > Consider Anytown USA which has a certain population of White and Black people. Let’s say it’s like Durham with about 50/50 Black and White people (although it doesn’t matter much). White on Black rape is less common in Anytown than White on White rape, and a White woman is 10x more likely to be raped by a White man than is a Black woman. Let’s say there have been 1,000 reports of such rape by White women and 100 by Black women in the last year (makes the math easy). > > … > > 1. Now, let’s pick one random White woman and one random Black woman and ask which is more likely to have lied about being raped by a white man in the last year. The answer is still the White woman. Why? Because we don’t know anything about the rate at which either type of woman lies about being raped by White guys, so we have to assume it’s equal. In that case, there should be 10x as many lying White women in the city as there are lying Black women. The only way to make it more likely to pick a lying Black woman is if you assume the % of Black women who lie about such rape is higher than that of Whites (in this case, it would have to be much higher). But remember, we don’t know anything else except the race of the women involved, so we can’t assume that. _Edited by me to focus on the paragraph I was talking about_ I see what you’re saying, but it still doesn’t fly: with one breath you say that white women lie about rape with the same frequency as black women, and with the next you contradict yourself. Assuming that the ratio of real rapes to false reports is the same for both races, it is true that a _randomly-selected white woman_ is more likely to be a false accuser. But this is only because there is a larger pool of black women _who have neither been raped nor made a false allegation_. Any given woman of either race _who files a rape complaint_ is equally likely to be telling the truth - by the very terms of the first of your underlined sentences. I’m not sure what use your data is - unless you have, say, vowed to go out and shoot the first false rape accuser you find, in which case your bullet probably _does_ have a white woman’s name on it. Whew, all that without calling anyone an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1312 "2006-06-05T13:29:24Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > (bolding mine) > > ‘Course, this isn’t definitive proof that the defense is playing a spin game. I’m just sayin’, though. I can’t believe that I’m posting here again five pages later, but… …I think there were two rounds of DNA testing. The first found no non-alleged victim DNA, the second found the woman’s boyfriend’s DNA. The defense’s comments came after the first round. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1313 "2006-06-05T18:34:32Z")
[http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?7635](http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?7635) This seems like a good response, and perhaps a model for all athletic prograqms. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2006, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1314 "2006-06-06T03:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > **Huerta88** I’ve frequently typed the phrase (one of many phrases roundly ignored by those who want to argue against points I did not make) "Now, the defense could be lying or mischaracterizing the evidence, but . . . " Not in this thread you haven’t. Even when the words _Now_ and _but_ are omitted, but haven’t typed that phrase any other time in the 27 pages of this thread. Now if that is “one of many phrases roundly ignored by those who want to argue against points” that you did not make (as you put it) and that this is happening to you elsewhere, you might want to seek professional help, go to law school, take courses in communication or talk to your rabbi. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1315 "2006-06-07T13:09:45Z")
Here is an interesting overview from the perspective of a Duke basketball website (not affiliated with Duke University.) [http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501](http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1316 "2006-06-07T13:42:40Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > The white men involved in this case apparently don’t have this particular “eww, black girls are gross!” mentality or else they wouldn’t have hired a black stripper. So that means this particular bias is not likely to be a significant factor in this case, and should not be assumed as such. Oops. Apparently, they did not want or request a black girl and were displeased when the strippers arrived. Looking more and more like a dispute over their not getting what they wanted/paid for. [http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060606/2006-06-06T000836Z\_01\_N05337746\_RTRIDST\_0\_NEWS-CRIME-LACROSSE-DC.html](http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060606/2006-06-06T000836Z_01_N05337746_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-LACROSSE-DC.html) > [@](#): > > When they learned that the second dancer coming was black, some objected because they wanted a white dancer, she said. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1317 "2006-06-08T01:53:36Z")
Glad to here you are accepting the account of the other Black woman present, **Huerta88**. What else did she have to say in the linked article? > [@](#): > > (according to her account)…the two dancers nonetheless danced for about eight minutes until a young man waved a broomstick in the air and made crude comments. > [@](#): > > She said she felt “overwhelmed and intimidated.” > [@](#): > > She added that when she and the other dancer left, the players shouted racial slurs. > [@](#): > > …Dancer Kim Roberts also said she did not know if the other dancer, an unnamed 27-year-old black woman, was raped but did know the woman was in such poor shape when they left that Roberts had to call police for help. I believe the article backs up your point, **Huerta88**. I think by this account some of the males were contemptuous, abusive, and bigoted drunks. Maybe others were just milque-toast. They were **boys** , not men. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1318 "2006-06-08T03:39:08Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I believe the article backs up your point, **Huerta88**. I think by this account some of the males were contemptuous, abusive, and bigoted drunks. Maybe others were just milque-toast. > > They were **boys** , not men. Yes. This may be so. By the way, these were not the kinds of guys I liked or hung out with in high school or college. Which does not make them rapists. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1319 "2006-06-08T04:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > **Huerta88** : By the way, these were not the kinds of guys I liked or hung out with in high school or college. > > Which does not make them rapists. Revealing post on so many levels. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1320 "2006-06-08T04:48:37Z")
> [@smoked\_o\_u\_t](#): > > what r u talkin bout Wait, now Gary Coleman is involved? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=67)