# 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:** 77
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1521 "2006-12-29T16:50:20Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] I also seem to remember that he had cops go by the house and talk directly to team members to ask to examine the premises at a time when he knew most or all of the team was represented by counsel – which is improper). [/QUOTE] Actually, they went to a dormitory, and waited around outside until someone with an entry card went in, and snuck in behind them. The rest of your recollection is correct. They tried to talk to players who were represented by counsel. As far as the state bar is concerned, who knows how big the other shoe is, or when it will drop? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1522 "2006-12-29T19:40:47Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Agreed, with one caveat. She is scheduled to testify in a hearing February fifth. If she fails to show, the case falls apart. When I read between the lines, I see Nifong throwing her to the wolves. [/quote] Ah, a hearing, not a trial. Gotcha. And yes, Nifong is likely to say that he is dropping the charges reluctantly in order to spare the victim further suffering. Here’s hoping it has no effect on the investigation of his conduct. > [@](#): > > This is a result of an investigation begun March 30th, long before the other irregularities surfaced. For an excellent analysis, see [Durham-in-Wonderland.](http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/) Scroll down. Thanks, I will have a read. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1523 "2006-12-29T20:28:53Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Here’s hoping it has no effect on the investigation of his conduct. [/QUOTE] Properly regarded, his dropping the rape charges exacerbates or highlights his conduct to date as improper. Not just because of the obvious (he dropped the charge because it was false and unsupported), though that is true and important. Nifong’s fundamental failing (though there are so many, it is hard to choose) here is under Rule 3.1, which makes utterly clear that legally-unsustainable allegations or charges cannot be brought, and if brought, cannot be maintained: > [@](#): > > **Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions** > > A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established. > > Comment > > [1] The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law’s ambiguities and potential for change. > > [2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients’ positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. > > [3] The lawyer’s obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule. The dropping of the rape charges is damning on additional, slightly subtler, bases. First, the only real reason for dropping the rape charges **when he did** was that her story of penetration was completely unreliable and inconsistent when his investigator talked to her just recently. The cause for dropping the charges was absolutely **not** the lack of defendants’ DNA, as that’s been known for months. But if he/a jury could not rely on Crystal’s testimony as to penetration, how is it **any scintilla more likely** that she is reliable on the elements of the two other charges? What is the basis for determining that her recollection of penetration is insufficient (when it was previously emphatic and positive) and unreliable, but her recollection of the elements of the other two crimes is (taken with any other evidence of sexual assault or kidnapping, which we now know to be **absolutely fucking nil** ) sufficient and reliable? There is **no** logical or principled basis for trusting her recall on the remaining charges but not on the first. Quite to the contrary, the conclusion that she is unreliable on the elements of rape necessitates giving **less** (i.e., nil) credence to her percipient "evidence’ on the other two crimes. Second, why did he drop the charges **now**? By his admission (and overlooking the shitstorm that arose out of the revelations of his unholy pact with the DNA lab and that probably left him looking for a diversion), it’s because the investigator concluded upon interviewing Crystal that her testimony wouldn’t reliably establish the elements of rape. Well, dumbfuck, why didn’t you interview her **during the intervening eight months?** Or, maybe even, **before the indictment?** The duty not to bring or maintain bogus claims or defenses is an ongoing one and includes an affirmative duty of due inquiry into whether they are bogus (in other words, you can’t put your head in the sand and say, well, we had a police report, and nothing else that clearly contradicted it came to my attention (not that even such a bullshit excuse would work here, since circumstances were clearly within his ken long ago, even before the interview, that would have cast serious doubt on the claims)). The timing of dropping the charges is, then, especially damning as to whether he brought and maintained a charge without due care for establishing its foundation and law and fact. Obviously, he did. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1524 "2006-12-30T00:02:54Z")
From Durham-in-Wondrland. > [@](#): > > **Conference of D.A.'s: Recuse** > In yet another extraordinary development, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys has issued a public letter to Mike Nifong, demanding that he recuse himself from the lacrosse case: > > ``` > *It is in the interest of justice and the effective administration of criminal justice that Mr. Nifong immediately withdraw and recuse himself from the prosecution of these cases and request the cases be assigned to another prosecutorial authority.* > > ``` > > I am unware of any such document, in any state, issued to a district attorney prosecuting a case by his fellow chief prosecutors. The symbolism of this move is obvious: the state’s elected District Attorneys have issued a public statement of no confidence in Mike Nifong. Full story here. [Pressure Increases on Nifong to Step Aside in Duke Case :: WRAL.com](http://wral.com/news/state/story/1120715/) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1525 "2006-12-30T00:19:31Z")
In addition to the obvious bias/independent judgment issues that Nifong now confronts following the filing of the grievance (e.g., does he keep prosecuting the case no matter what, in an effort to vindicate himself in the grievance proceeding?), there’s an additional possible grounds for recusal: the non-trivial possibility that Nifong himself would be called as a witness if this abortion of a case went to trial. > [@](#): > > **Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness** > > (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: > > (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; > > (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or > > (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. > > (b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9. > > Comment > > [1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client. > > Advocate-witness Rule > > [2] The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party’s rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof. > > [3] To protect the tribunal, paragraph (a) prohibits a lawyer from simultaneously serving as advocate and necessary witness except in those circumstances specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). Paragraph (a)(1) recognizes that if the testimony will be uncontested, the ambiguities in the dual role are purely theoretical. Paragraph (a)(2) recognizes that where the testimony concerns the extent and value of legal services rendered in the action in which the testimony is offered, permitting the lawyers to testify avoids the need for a second trial with new counsel to resolve that issue. Moreover, in such a situation the judge has firsthand knowledge of the matter in issue; hence, there is less dependence on the adversary process to test the credibility of the testimony. > > [4] Apart from these two exceptions, paragraph (a)(3) recognizes that a balancing is required between the interests of the client and those of the tribunal and the opposing party. Whether the tribunal is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer’s testimony, and the probability that the lawyer’s testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses. Even if there is risk of such prejudice, in determining whether the lawyer should be disqualified, due regard must be given to the effect of disqualification on the lawyer’s client. It is relevant that one or both parties could reasonably foresee that the lawyer would probably be a witness. The conflict of interest principles stated in Rules 1.7, 1.9 and 1.10 have no application to this aspect of the problem. > > [5] Because the tribunal is not likely to be misled when a lawyer acts as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm will testify as a necessary witness, paragraph (b) permits the lawyer to do so except in situations involving a conflict of interest. > > Conflict of Interest > > [6] In determining if it is permissible to act as advocate in a trial in which the lawyer will be a necessary witness, the lawyer must also consider that the dual role may give rise to a conflict of interest that will require compliance with Rules 1.7 or 1.9. For example, if there is likely to be substantial conflict between the testimony of the client and that of the lawyer, the representation involves a conflict of interest that requires compliance with Rule 1.7. This would be true even though the lawyer might not be prohibited by paragraph (a) from simultaneously serving as advocate and witness because the lawyer’s disqualification would work a substantial hardship on the client. Similarly, a lawyer who might be permitted to simultaneously serve as an advocate and a witness by paragraph (a)(3) might be precluded from doing so by Rule 1.9. The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client’s informed consent, confirmed in writing. In some cases, the lawyer will be precluded from seeking the client’s consent. See Rule 1.7. See Rule 1.0(b) for the definition of “confirmed in writing” and Rule 1.0(f) for the definition of “informed consent.” > > [7] Paragraph (b) provides that a lawyer is not disqualified from serving as an advocate because a lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated in a firm is precluded from doing so by paragraph (a). If, however, the testifying lawyer would also be disqualified by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9 from representing the client in the matter, other lawyers in the firm will be precluded from representing the client by Rule 1.10 unless the client gives informed consent under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7. Courts don’t like dragging lawyers in as witnesses (if you could do this indiscriminately, everyone would just name their opposing counsel as a witness, just for harassment and to disqualify them as counsel). However, most of the central facts that led to the indictment and the current state of play were brought about by actions (or inactions) of the police and Nifong. If I were defense counsel, I would seriously consider trying to force Nifong to the stand to explain, for instance, the secret deal he made with Meehan (of the DNA lab), which I’d argue is highly relevant to contested issues in the case. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1526 "2006-12-30T03:00:21Z")
Here’s a question: Now that the LW (Crystal) is well known to be a lying whore, as there is no way that any of the lacrosse players from Duke could possibly have raped her as she claims, and she has arguably leveled the second worst accusation that can be laid at a man’s feet (the first being that he’s a child molester) and damaged the reputations and careers of 46 people plus the lacrosse coach, why are people still referring to her as ‘the accuser’? Why is her name still such a taboo thing? The three accused may well have all charges dropped and are certainly not guilty of the crime in question, but I’d contend that it doesn’t matter how many headlines proclaim them innocent, there is a social stigma forever attached to having your picture on CNN while the talking heads point out that you’re a rape suspect, some of them barely remembering to point out that you’ve not been convicted and at least one saying she’d burn your house down if that were her daughter that never goes away. Until they die, these three will have their names attached to the word ‘rape’. Why is her name, her reputation, her face, still being protected? Would the mods here punish anyone if they used her full name **now**? ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1527 "2006-12-30T04:14:54Z")
But won\*t being known for making false rape claims hurt her ability to make a living in her chosen line of work? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1528 "2006-12-30T07:58:34Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] Why is her name, her reputation, her face, still being protected? Would the mods here punish anyone if they used her full name **now**? [/QUOTE] Was that a possibility previously? Her name has been available on the internet for quite some time. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1529 "2006-12-30T15:13:02Z")
> [@](#): > > **Random** said: > But won\*t being known for making false rape claims hurt her ability to make a living in her chosen line of work? I doubt it. Her picture hasn’t been all over newspapers and television, she hasn’t got the kind of stigma attached to her that comes from being accused of rape. She’ll change her stage name and start dancing in a different club or even a different city and her life will go on as normal no matter what she did to those she falsely accused and those associated with them. > [@](#): > > **Contrapuntal** said: > Was that a possibility previously? Her name has been available on the internet for quite some time. If it’s not, why hasn’t anyone used her name here? We know she lied, so we’re not protecting an innocent victim. Why not name her? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1530 "2006-12-30T15:55:53Z")
Crystal Gayle Mangum. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1531 "2006-12-30T18:36:34Z")
I don’t think I blame the accuser as much as I do Nifong. He should have known better. If my stereotypical ideas of what this kind of person is like are close to true, she probably could not and should not. What is in her future? A book, of course, followed by a career in porn, followed by a death from alcohol and cocaine overdose. Nifong? I would like to say prison. But… Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1532 "2006-12-30T19:56:07Z")
> [@](#): > > **Shodan** said: > I don’t think I blame the accuser as much as I do Nifong. He should have known better. If my stereotypical ideas of what this kind of person is like are close to true, she probably could not and should not. Oh I don’t think it takes that much education or intelligence to figure out that it’s wrong to accuse people of rape in order to get yourself out of trouble. Crystal Mangum is responsible for her actions, and belongs in prison for what she’s done. I wonder if anyone knows whether NC has a Son of Sam law. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1533 "2006-12-30T20:15:50Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] Crystal Gayle Mangum. [/QUOTE] A slight nitpick (for anyone wishing to search for info on her): a Google search reveals her middle name is spelled Gail. But thanks for the full name, **Huerta** , I didn’t know it previously. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1534 "2006-12-30T20:27:41Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] A slight nitpick (for anyone wishing to search for info on her): a Google search reveals her middle name is spelled Gail. But thanks for the full name, **Huerta** , I didn’t know it previously. [/QUOTE] It is hard to tell – defense counsel, citing previous government filings, spelled it “Gayle,” but I have seen Gail as well as Gale. Quien sabe? **catsix** got it right. Nifong is highly culpable for violating not just common decency but an elevated code of professional conduct. But I have always thought it was patronizing and demeaning to take the angle of: Oh, well, she’s poor and black, and exploited by the sex trade, you can’t expect her to get all the little details right. So she’s poor. So she’s black. So she’s, probably, literally, a whore. BFD. The truth is the truth, and I have enough respect for her (at least in the abstract) as a principled, adult moral being that I expect her (or any seven year old) to know right from wrong. When she doesn’t, or worse, does, but ignores it, I do not cut her any free passes based on her socioeconomic/racial “disadvantages.” Black people have consciences too. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1535 "2006-12-31T19:13:47Z")
Well, sure - no reasonable person could dispute that. I guess I was not so much saying that what she did was okay, just that what Nifong is doing is worse. False accusations of rape are bad enough from an LW. To use those accusations as a way to further your own career, from an elected official who is sworn to uphold justice - that’s worse. Because, if it weren’t for Nifong and the Amazing Disappearing Truth, this all would have blown over in a week or three, once the complete lack of corroboration and the ever-shifting sands of the Story combined to make this the cluster-copulation it is. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1536 "2006-12-31T19:28:52Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] …to make this the cluster-copulation it is. [/QUOTE] Or wasn’t, as it turned out. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1537 "2006-12-31T20:13:14Z")
Well, considering the number of different guys whose semen was found on the LW’s various private parts, ‘twould seem there was a whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on where she was. It just doesn’t seem that any of the shakers played lacrosse. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1538 "2006-12-31T20:54:16Z")
OK, can I ask for a bit of help? I followed this discussion when if started for the first five pages, and checked in to the screaming match on occasion since then, but it has been a while. Though I am a big believer in reading an entire thread before jumping in, I’ll be damned if I am slogging through 31 pages. What is the status of things? I have read the last page and it seems like the last of the defenders have fled and it is now a discussion of, “Why isn’t Nifong in jail yet?” I understand that charges of misconduct on some of his earlier statements have been brought but it is uncertain if anything is happening with the withholding of evidence. Are there further allegations I am unaware of? Some of the posts above state that some charges against the players have been dropped, but it does not seem that all of them have. What is the state of the case against them? Thanks. Though this incident is terrible, I like that it serves to remind me that though some of the more conservative posters on this board ( **Bricker** and **Shodan** ) have views on the opposite end of the political spectrum from my own, we all have a desire to see justice done and are outraged when it is miscarried. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1539 "2006-12-31T21:01:10Z")
[QUOTE=flight] OK, can I ask for a bit of help? I followed this discussion when if started for the first five pages, and checked in to the screaming match on occasion since then, but it has been a while. Though I am a big believer in reading an entire thread before jumping in, I’ll be damned if I am slogging through 31 pages. [/QUOTE] If you don’t mind reading two pages, start with post 1470. That should bring you up to speed. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1540 "2006-12-31T21:11:14Z")
Correction. Post 1430. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=76) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=78)