# 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:** 78
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1541 "2006-12-31T21:54:34Z")
[QUOTE=flight] 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? [/quote] The [Durhamwonderland.blogspot.com](http://Durhamwonderland.blogspot.com) to which **Contrapuntal** linked earlier is good - you can look there. > [@](#): > > 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. My understanding is that the rape charges are dropped, since “rape” in NC requires some degree of penetration, and the LW has now changed her story from being raped in every available orifice by non-condom wearing perverts to no penile penetration at all. Thus the rape charges are no longer viable, but kidnapping and sexual assault still are. As I mentioned earlier, we shall see if the LW fails to testify at the next hearing, leading Nifong to drop the charges “to spare the victim further suffering, since this case has become a media circus”. It **is** a circus, but Nifong is both the ringmaster and the leading clown. > [@](#): > > 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. **Bricker** is always like that - he has to be one of the most fair-minded Dopers we got. I have to be beat over the head a lot more. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2007, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1542 "2007-01-03T20:41:05Z")
A profile in courage from the Duke administration (about eight months too late, but still, good to see them looking out for their students): [http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4902218](http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4902218) Another interesting vignette: > **[2007 Ferrari first owned by Trump sells for record $270K - Breitbart](https://www.breitbart.com/news/2007-ferrari-first-owned-by-trump-sells-for-record-270k/)** > > April 3 (UPI) — A 2007 Ferrari F430 F1 Coupe once owned by Donald Trump sold at an event in Florida for $270,000, the Auctions America group said. > [@](#): > > **Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Sworn In** > Jan 02 12:28 PM US/Eastern > > DURHAM, N.C. (AP) – The embattled prosecutor pursuing the Duke University lacrosse sexual assault case was sworn in to office Tuesday in a private courthouse ceremony. > Reporters weren’t allowed to view the ceremony for District Attorney Mike Nifong and were barred from the building until 8:30 a.m., when it officially opened. Durham County Sheriff Worth Hill confirmed the ceremony had taken place. > > “The whole point of this was this was not a media event,” Nifong said later. The poor little shrinking violet – the big bad media keeps haunting him, don’tcha know. All he wants is to do his job in peace and professional dignity. Having gotten the urge for publicity out of his system with his 83 press conferences, interviews, slanderous and unethical pronunciamentos, and pep rallies at Crystal Mangum’s campus last Spring, that is. Fucking scumbag. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2007, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1543 "2007-01-03T23:24:25Z")
[Quote=ABC News] Earlier this week, Nifong said that he will not recuse himself from the Duke case at this point. “If we get to the point where it appears that my presence in an investigation or anything like that is a hindrance, then we can deal with that at that time,” Nifong said. "But I’ve been elected to do a job and I intend to do that job. "Durham has some healing to do. I intend to be part of that healing process. [/QUOTE] Sorry, Mike, but if justice is the goal it looks like your presence in this case has been a hindrance indeed, and the right way for you to be part of the healing process is to step (or be pushed) aside. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1544 "2007-01-04T00:04:22Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] Sorry, Mike, but if justice is the goal it looks like your presence in this case has been a hindrance indeed, and the right way for you to be part of the healing process is to step (or be pushed) aside. [/QUOTE] His presence in the case has been not only a hindrance to “healing,” but the proximate cause of the “wounding.” That he has still not dismissed the remaining charges or apologized in any fashion tells you just about how sincere he is with his touchy-feely pussy-talk about “healing.” “Healing” will begin with his resignation and disbarment and paying substantial damages for malicious prosecution, and with his last act in office being indictment of lying whore Crystal Mangum’s, swiftly followed by her imprisonment for filing a false police report. So Mikey . . . still game to be a “healer” for Durham? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1545 "2007-01-04T11:23:17Z")
K C Johnson breaks down the photo array “lineup.” I am now as certain as I can be that Nifong knows Mangum will never testify. This is some fucked up shit. > **[Durham-in-Wonderland](https://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/)** > > Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014). ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1546 "2007-01-04T11:25:05Z")
Sorry. See the entry headed “The Only Evidence Left”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1547 "2007-01-04T13:07:25Z")
I don’t have as much problem with the lineup, because the witness had already, through her statements, limited the possible suspects to the people present at the party. I would consider it comparable to having her go back to the party with police that very night, and point at her attackers directly. You wouldn’t demand fillers under those conditions. It may have violated procedure, but I don’t think the lineup is conceptually flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1548 "2007-01-04T13:19:02Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I don’t have as much problem with the lineup, because the witness had already, through her statements, limited the possible suspects to the people present at the party. I would consider it comparable to having her go back to the party with police that very night, and point at her attackers directly. You wouldn’t demand fillers under those conditions. [/QUOTE] Fascinating. Two questions. How often does such an event occur? How do you account for her 100% positive ID of a player who was in Raleigh the entire evening? How would that have happened if she had gone back to the party? > [@](#): > > It may have violated procedure, but I don’t think the lineup is conceptually flawed. I can’t make sense of this. Lineups by definition must include fillers. It is intrinsic to the concept of a lineup. No lineups are allowed in which the police tell a suspect “We know the perpetrator is one of these men.” ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1549 "2007-01-04T13:23:48Z")
Without fillers, what the police did was give her a multiple choice test with NO wrong answers. It didn’t matter who she picked, she could not lose. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1550 "2007-01-04T13:31:48Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I don’t have as much problem with the lineup, because the witness had already, through her statements, limited the possible suspects to the people present at the party. I would consider it comparable to having her go back to the party with police that very night, and point at her attackers directly. You wouldn’t demand fillers under those conditions. It may have violated procedure, but I don’t think the lineup is conceptually flawed. [/QUOTE] IIRC, her statements limited the lineup to all members of the team except for the one black player. Isn’t it possible that non-players attended the party as well? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1551 "2007-01-04T13:43:02Z")
[QUOTE=KRM] IIRC, her statements limited the lineup to all members of the team except for the one black player. Isn’t it possible that non-players attended the party as well? [/QUOTE] At least two did. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1552 "2007-01-04T13:43:56Z")
Clearly, the witness in this case is unreliable, but I’m just talking about the photo identification process conceptually. Imagine, for a moment, that the witness called the police from outside the hotel room right after the attack. She waits for the cops to show, then they knock on the door and she points at the three suspects in the presence of the cops. There are no wrong answers, no possibility that the guy was across town at the time, and no fillers, she can just pick whoever she wants. I don’t think that this identification process would be illegal, I don’t think the police need to get 300 bystanders to provide fillers while they file the players out of the room one at a time for a physical lineup. I consider the photo identification to be comparable to the direct identification scenario above. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1553 "2007-01-04T13:55:47Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] Clearly, the witness in this case is unreliable, but I’m just talking about the photo identification process conceptually. Imagine, for a moment, that the witness called the police from outside the hotel room right after the attack. She waits for the cops to show, then they knock on the door and she points at the three suspects in the presence of the cops. There are no wrong answers, no possibility that the guy was across town at the time, and no fillers, she can just pick whoever she wants. I don’t think that this identification process would be illegal, I don’t think the police need to get 300 bystanders to provide fillers while they file the players out of the room one at a time for a physical lineup. I consider the photo identification to be comparable to the direct identification scenario above. [/QUOTE] Nonsense – the limited range of people available to identify in this scenario is a **natural** result of having the cops on the scene shortly after the crime; the limited range of people available to identify in the photo lineup is an **artificial** result of prosecutorial failure to follow proper protocols. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1554 "2007-01-04T13:56:19Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I consider the photo identification to be comparable to the direct identification scenario above. [/QUOTE] I’ll ask again, how often does that happen? If your scenarios are comparable, how is it that she IDed someone who was not there? How would that even be possible? Lineups happen when your scenario is impossible. That’s why we have lineups. Lineups have protocols. Lineups that violate protocols are conceptionally flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1555 "2007-01-04T14:07:18Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] I’ll ask again, how often does that happen? If your scenarios are comparable, how is it that she IDed someone who was not there? How would that even be possible? [/QUOTE] The fact that it is physically impossible to immediately point at someone who is not in fact there, but perfectly possible to later point at a photo of someone who was not in fact there, is precisely why **Cheesesteak** ’s scenario is not at all comparable to a photo lineup. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1556 "2007-01-04T14:36:13Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] I’ll ask again, how often does that happen? If your scenarios are comparable, how is it that she IDed someone who was not there? How would that even be possible? [/quote] Because she’s a lying cunt? If someone arrived at the party 5min after she left, she’d be able to finger him incorrectly as well. My point is not that she isn’t a liar, it’s that the procedure is not so different than a live identification where fillers are unnecessary. Can we agree that the live identification scenario is valid without fillers? If a lack of fillers does not invalidate the live identification, why does it invalidate the photo identification? In both cases, you’re presenting the accuser with every person at the party, with no fillers, and asking them to point to the attacker. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1557 "2007-01-04T14:48:34Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] Because she’s a lying cunt? If someone arrived at the party 5min after she left, she’d be able to finger him incorrectly as well. My point is not that she isn’t a liar, it’s that the procedure is not so different than a live identification where fillers are unnecessary. Can we agree that the live identification scenario is valid without fillers? If a lack of fillers does not invalidate the live identification, why does it invalidate the photo identification? In both cases, you’re presenting the accuser with every person at the party, with no fillers, and asking them to point to the attacker. [/QUOTE] I guess my mistake is having gotten all my information from TV and cinima, so I have to ask: do they really take a victim back to the scene of a crime and have them do live IDs? I have never heard of it. Can a real-life law official tell us if this is done? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1558 "2007-01-04T14:52:54Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] Because she’s a lying cunt? If someone arrived at the party 5min after she left, she’d be able to finger him incorrectly as well. [/QUOTE] You are changing your parameters. Introducing this new arrival is not part of your original scenario. > [@](#): > > My point is not that she isn’t a liar, it’s that the procedure is not so different than a live identification where fillers are unnecessary. Pointing at a person who is not present and claiming that he is, is lying? Has such a live identification ever happened? If so, how often is an alleged victim taken back to the scene of the alleged crime and shown everyone who was there when it allegedly happened, in the same setting as it allegedly happened? This is a serious question. I’ve asked it twice now. Has it ever happened? How often? > [@](#): > > Can we agree that the live identification scenario is valid without fillers? Not the way you set it up. If police arrive on the scene and the alleged victim IDs someone, no fillers are needed. > [@](#): > > If a lack of fillers does not invalidate the live identification, why does it invalidate the photo identification? In both cases, you’re presenting the accuser with every person at the party, with no fillers, and asking them to point to the attacker. Why are fillers ever required? Why not get the whole team down for a physical lineup? Why not just put the whole team in a room and tell the alleged victim "Three of those guys did it. Which ones are they? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1559 "2007-01-04T15:08:36Z")
From my own personal experience: A while back I was assaulted by a drunk/high freak at 2am on the streets of Manhattan. The police arrived shortly thereafter, and we took a drive around the neighborhood looking for him. We didn’t find him, but if we had, I don’t doubt for a second that my identification would have been considered valid. We didn’t go back for a photo lineup of 10,000 random black men in NYC, we looked together for the guy based on where we knew he was. The point of it is, the police aren’t telling the victim “3 of these guys did it” The victim is telling the police that 3 people out of this pre-defined group did it, so I’ll look at the group and tell you which ones. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2007, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1560 "2007-01-04T15:19:45Z")
Since there are questions about proper police procedure, I’ll go ahead and post something to GQ asking our resident know-it-alls about the right way to do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=77) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=79)