# 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:** 67
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1321 "2006-06-08T09:10:05Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Revealing post on so many levels. Why? **Huerta88** has said that he himself has no great liking for drunken fratboys - but that his personal distaste for the type does not incline him to prejudice himself against these particular suspects. I should say that spoke well of his objectivity - please explain why you disagree instead of just knowingly saying > [@Zoe](#): > > Revealing post on so many levels. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1322 "2006-06-08T12:17:31Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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? > > > [@](#): > > > > …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. Then why did she waste time by fabricating a 911 call first, where she made no mention of a friend in distress, but merely referred to her as being present? More to the point, why did it then take her \*\*an hour and a half \*\*to get her to a shopping center, where an _employee_, not her, called police? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1323 "2006-06-08T19:36:40Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Then why did she waste time by fabricating a 911 call first, where she made no mention of a friend in distress, but merely referred to her as being present? More to the point, why did it then take her \*\*an hour and a half \*\*to get her to a shopping center, where an _employee_, not her, called police? misssing the point - our friend **Huerta** has made no bones about not believing the accusor, for whatever reasons, or no reasons (don’t have a problem w/the ‘don’t believe her part’ until and unless it was attached to the statistical thing); yet in the post he cites, he lends crediblity to **the other dancer** (ie, believes her statements) who also: has a criminal record is employed as an exotic dancer has changed her story since the evening in quesiton and in addition to that (and contrary to the accusor) has specific **financial gain motives** for changing her story (the sweet heart deal she got from teh prosecution regarding her own crimnal case as well as the looking for the book deal or whatever to make $$ off her involvement in this event). So, there are **additional** objective reasons to disbelieve the second dancers statemetns, yet our friend has no apparent problems w/her veracity. lending credance to the potential that there is an actual agenda here w/him vs. merely evaluating dispassionately the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1324 "2006-06-08T20:31:44Z")
> [@wring](#): > > misssing the point - It won’t be the first time. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1325 "2006-06-08T22:04:27Z")
> [@wring](#): > > misssing the point - our friend **Huerta** has made no bones about not believing the accusor, for whatever reasons, or no reasons (don’t have a problem w/the ‘don’t believe her part’ until and unless it was attached to the statistical thing); > > yet in the post he cites, he lends crediblity to **the other dancer** (ie, believes her statements) who also: > has a criminal record > is employed as an exotic dancer > has changed her story since the evening in quesiton > > and in addition to that (and contrary to the accusor) has specific **financial gain motives** for changing her story (the sweet heart deal she got from teh prosecution regarding her own crimnal case as well as the looking for the book deal or whatever to make $$ off her involvement in this event). > > So, there are **additional** objective reasons to disbelieve the second dancers statemetns, yet our friend has no apparent problems w/her veracity. > > lending credance to the potential that there is an actual agenda here w/him vs. merely evaluating dispassionately the evidence. I don’t generally afford her a great deal of credence. I don’t dismiss her credibility out of hand, nor take it as implicitly true. Same with the “victim,” though I doubt her based on all the circumstances. Broadly speaking, Kim Roberts has an interest in the allegation here (sensationalist racial-lust-motivated rape) being true or being given credibility. It helps her fifteen minutes of fame. It maybe gives her a chance to support a sister against some white punks. Thus her statement that the kids were unhappy with the dancers sent having turned out to be other than the white girls they wanted tends to detract credence from the “slavering slavemaster” theory posited by Jesse Jackson in which they’re driven by racial-fixated lust for black girls, and to lend credence to “the men quarrelled with the strippers over their dissatisfaction at the nature and conduct of the strippers, leading to a vindictive accusation.” Now, there are other ways of parsing that, but on that view, Kim Roberts’s admission is an “admission against interest” – it arguably detracts from the plausibility of a version of events that in some ways benefits her. Admissions against interest are viewed as having somewhat enhanced credibility or evidentiary value (they are, for instance, allowed into evidence even when they’d otherwise be barred as hearsay). No, we’re not in court, but my suggestion was that the part of her story which maybe detracted from the sensationalist interracial rape angle that she will profit from would be more plausible than the part that tends to support it. It’s not a big deal, though. And also, **ywtf** insisted that these guys had requested a black girl, thus implicitly verifying their sexual desire for the victim, I guess, so I thought this statement by Roberts was an interesting (not dispositive or necessarily true) further data point. ---
**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 8, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1326 "2006-06-08T22:19:33Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > IAnd also, **ywtf** insisted that these guys had requested a black girl, thus implicitly verifying their sexual desire for the victim, I guess, so I thought this statement by Roberts was an interesting (not dispositive or necessarily true) further data point. No, I suggested that the fact that they hired black strippers automatically means that certain assumptions about them not being attracted to black women are unwarranted. Those assumptions shouldn’t have been made in the first place, since amazingly enough plenty of whites are attracted to blacks. But you certainly can’t make that assumption when you know they invited them into their house for a sexual performance. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1327 "2006-06-09T01:27:25Z")
[Now](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html) is it safe to say the accuser is lying? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1328 "2006-06-09T03:36:38Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > [Now](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html) is it safe to say the accuser is lying? jeeze. how many fucking times and ways do I have to say “there seems to be plenty of reasons to disbelieve the accusor (except, of course for the irrelevant b-o-w rape stats)” before it sinks in?? and Huerta - you are again cherry picking your data and acceptance of veracit based on your own increasing ly apparent agenda. 20+ pages later, you arent worth the effort anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1329 "2006-06-09T07:32:03Z")
There seem to be only two sides in this thread. One is the side that holds to the concept of letting justice and _reason_ take its course – whether that be a trial with all of its possibilities or having the charges dropped. The other is the side that seeks to get as much mileage as possible about what a skank ho the accuser is and therefore anyone who is her race or gender or anyone who speaks in defense of her race or gender or of those who speak up – is deserving of snarling, lip-curling, bile-spitting kitty sneezes from **Huerta the Grate**. I listen to my grandson talk about his “high school” friends. I’m a little “removed” from being impressed by any talk of who **Huerta the Grate** has had for teenage chums. _It is laughable._ Here’s a clue: I would have been a little more impressed if you had had friends from every level of society and many cultures. That is a life well-lived over time. I’m tired of your self-indulgent, shallow, one-note trolling, **Huerta** , kiddo. I think I’ll go look at something interesting – like water evaporating… ---
**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 9, 2006, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1330 "2006-06-09T09:36:04Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > There seem to be only two sides in this thread. One is the side that holds to the concept of letting justice and _reason_ take its course – whether that be a trial with all of its possibilities or having the charges dropped. The other is the side that seeks to get as much mileage as possible about what a skank ho the accuser is and therefore anyone who is her race or gender or anyone who speaks in defense of her race or gender or of those who speak up – is deserving of snarling, lip-curling, bile-spitting kitty sneezes from **Huerta the Grate**. You’re far more one-note than he. To me, the two-sided split in this thread seems to be one side that wants to discuss the case as it develops, is interested in news reports as they become available, and upset over the DA’s apparent politically-motivated misconduct, while the other side thinks that no discussion of the case should happen until after the trial is over and verdicts have been given. What is **Huerta** ’s one note, by the way? DoJ statistics? Railing against DA Nifong’s political pep rallies? Forcing DNA samples from suspects before you have a DNA sample to compare them to? Biased photo lineups? He’s complained about an awful lot of things in this thread, but you seem to only be able to read the ones where he is arguing with the statistics-obsessed. Or is it that his one-note obsession in the Duke Lacrosse rape thread is the Duke Lacrosse rape case? If I had to pick the one thing he’s gone on and on about the most, it would be the DA’s actions throughout the case. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1331 "2006-06-09T11:07:35Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > [Now](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html) is it safe to say the accuser is lying? [That ain’t the half of it.](http://http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-742610.html) More apparent police screw-ups. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1332 "2006-06-09T12:10:12Z")
**Contrapuntal** , your link had an extra http// in it. Try [this one instead.](http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-742610.html) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1333 "2006-06-09T13:13:12Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > There seem to be only two sides in this thread. One is the side that holds to the concept of letting justice and _reason_ take its course – whether that be a trial with all of its possibilities or having the charges dropped. The other is the side that seeks to get as much mileage as possible about what a skank ho the accuser is and therefore anyone who is her race or gender or anyone who speaks in defense of her race or gender or of those who speak up – is deserving of snarling, lip-curling, bile-spitting kitty sneezes from **Huerta the Grate**. > > I listen to my grandson talk about his “high school” friends. I’m a little “removed” from being impressed by any talk of who **Huerta the Grate** has had for teenage chums. _It is laughable._ Here’s a clue: I would have been a little more impressed if you had had friends from every level of society and many cultures. That is a life well-lived over time. > > I’m tired of your self-indulgent, shallow, one-note trolling, **Huerta** , kiddo. I think I’ll go look at something interesting – like water evaporating… Wow, the weak are not slow in availing of the new tolerance for “trolling” accusations. Good show! What’s the “one-note,” as someone else said? Oh, oops, you left the thread. But then we’ve heard those threats before too. I’ve had occasion to question the faux-Solomonic “let’s just see where this goes” position before. If an indictment never should have been issued (and it appears just about as sure as sure could be that there was so little “probable cause” as to lead one almost irrefutably to this legal conclusion), than it is not the obligation nor the prerogative of those concerned with “justice and reason” to sit back and say, oh well, let’s just wait, they’ll be acquitted or “charges will be dropped” – it’s become clear that the insane and incompetent Nifong isn’t going to drop charges, but it is just barely possible that the cleansing light of public criticism might get him to change his obdurate position. This is not a no-harm, no foul situation for the defendants or the other players placed under suspicion and official coercion. You understand, this is how public debate works? You understand that it is never appropriate for the overweening power of the State to be invoked and applied to persons based on bad allegations? You understand that the risks of wrongly disbelieving the players are **inherently** worse than the risks of wrongly disbelieving the stripper? Actually, I know that you understand none of these things. **wring** , I don’t know what my “increasingly apparent agenda” might be – or wait, is that Godwin I hear again? Probably. Haven’t heard that in a page or two. Much or most of the information coming out now was available (to the DA, at least) from a very early stage, which is a point worthy of comment and public debate as to the evaluative processes employed by the DA, the media, “civil rights leaders,” and the faux-Solomonic crowd. (The significant data points that would not have been immediately available were the lack of DNA and the accuser’s prior dubious gang rape allegation). Everything else – the alibis, the bank camera records, the contradictory testimony of both dancers, the weak-ass rape-kit report – was available, to Nifong at least, all the while he was muttering about a racially motivated rape, holding pep rallies, selectively and probably illegally releasing and harping on only selected data (say, that’s what one dumbass just accused me of!), and withholding others, allegedly meeting with or passing information to the Black Panthers, and deciding to indict. He chose instead to go with a single eyewitness report from an angry stripper, and (he hoped) DNA. I can’t help but think that his stupid decision in this regard was clouded by thinking a la Jesse Jackson that “slavemaster” (Jackson’s word, not mine) type rape was a real extant plague, and his crass consideration of the racial electoral politics of the pot-banging marchers. If these policy points aren’t of interest to you, or make your heads hurt, ladies, then I’m hoping the door didn’t hit you in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1334 "2006-06-09T19:40:46Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > **Contrapuntal** , your link had an extra http// in it. > > Try [this one instead.](http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-742610.html) Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1335 "2006-06-09T19:53:54Z")
The New York Times on the latest news, with this juicy tidbit. > [@](#): > > The woman’s father said in an interview Thursday that she was seeing a psychiatrist and was in no condition to testify. “I don’t know how long it’ll be before she gets back in her right frame of mind,” he said. “It could be years.” When will Nifong fold his tents? After the election, I imagine. > **[New Filing in Duke Case Aims to Refute Allegations (Published 2006)](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/us/09duke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)** > > A stripper has contradicted statements by another dancer who says she was raped at a party, defense lawyers said. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1336 "2006-06-09T21:51:33Z")
So rather than be exposed of a false allegation in court, she’ll “drop the charges”, and then blame the pressure/media/Duke/racism. Brilliant! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1337 "2006-06-10T14:18:42Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > So rather than be exposed of a false allegation in court, she’ll “drop the charges”, and then blame the pressure/media/Duke/racism. > > Brilliant! Indeed. And the shame of it is that **Lying Whore** has cost the coach his job, ruined the team’s season, and brought nation-wide shame to the three accused players. Where’s the justice? Oh, I suppose one of the offended parties could drag **Lying Whore** ’s ass into civil court, sue for damages and win, but so what? If somebody won $300,000 from **Lying Whore** , how would they collect? She certainly couldn’t pay. I suppose she could offer to let the winner take it out in trade, but I doubt if any of the offended parties has the time or inclination to make 100,000 trips over to her place. ---
**Author:** ![giuseppe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@giuseppe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/giuseppe)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1338 "2006-06-11T12:27:02Z")
On the statistics hijack: Common sense says that when somebody claims that an uncommon event happened to them, you are more skeptical, all things being equal, than if they claim that a more common event happened to them. The problem is that a lot of people have trouble applying this sort of common sense reasoning when race is involved, especially black/white differences. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1339 "2006-06-11T14:54:23Z")
> [@giuseppe](#): > > On the statistics hijack: > > Common sense says that when somebody claims that an uncommon event happened to them, you are more skeptical, all things being equal, than if they claim that a more common event happened to them. The problem is that a lot of people have trouble applying this sort of common sense reasoning when race is involved, especially black/white differences. See, _this_ is why this thread is at page 27. If this is “common sense”, then it’s a perfect illustration why common sense is often completely wrong. All things being equal, I would _not_ be more skeptical of uncommon events - unless they are _so freakishly_ uncommon that it’s not merely “uncommon”, but just plain old implausible/impossible (e.g. abduction by aliens). Changing the race of a participant isn’t enough to move something into the “completely implausible” category, unless there’s something _inherent_ in race that makes the event _impossible_. Say there’s Event A and Event B, and event B has a lower rate of occurence (lower, but not impossible). Sure, if you’re trying to figure out what the _future odds_ are that a truely randomly selected person will have that event happen to them tomorrow, use those occurrence rates to guide your estimate. However, occurrence rates alone are NOT enough to determine if you should be skeptical to a person’s claim _after the fact that_ it happened to them. If Event A happens in 20% of cases and Event B in 2% of cases, the logical thing is (all other things being equal) NOT to be more skeptical of a person who claims that Event B happened to them. However, if all things aren’t equal and you have reason to doubt _that individual’s_ **credibility** (as in this case), then sure, feel free to have more doubt that their claim is correct. Here’s a good analogy (and it’s true as well, happened to me yesterday). I was talking on the phone to a friend yesterday, and he was telling me about this woman he met the other day and went on a date with. The new woman he’s met and dated is black. Should I be skeptical? After all, the black population is smaller than the white popular here. However, I have no reason to believe that my friend is lying. I’ve never heard from anyone that he’s a liar. Does it make a difference that I live in Alberta? Where only [1.1% of the population is black](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta#Demographics)? 1.1% is a small number. Assuming 50/50 male female, there’s only 0.55% of the population that are black females. Should I be skeptical of my friend? I wouldn’t. Uncommon != impossible ---
**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 11, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1340 "2006-06-11T15:19:16Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Uncommon != impossible I don’t understand what is so goddamn difficult about this. This is not complicated. You’d think this thread was about planes on treadmills, instead of concepts that are intuitive through critical thinking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=66) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=68)