Lying Former Prostitute Passes Lie Detector Test

When former prostitute Wendy Yow Ellis claimed that she and Louisiana Congressman David Vitter had had a sexual relationship lasting several months, he accused her of lying. Vitter's name had already been disclosed as part of the client list of the now-famous "DC Madam," and the also now-famous "Canal Street Madam" had named him as one of her establishment's clients, also. At the time that she named Vitter, she said he liked to visit a prostitute named Wendy; however, Ellis claims that she had nothing to do with the Canal Street operation, that her negotiations with Vitter took place in a French Quarter apartment via the New Orleans Escort Service, and she was paid $300 an hour through a pimp named Jonathan.

It is not known whether there was actually another Wendy who worked at the Canal Street establishment (as implied by Canal Street Madam Jeanette Maier) who had sex with Vitter. So far, only Wendy Yow Ellis, sometimes known as Wendy Cortez, has come forward. This rather confusing scenario involving Wendys is complicated even more by the fact that Vitter's wife is named Wendy, also.

At any rate, publisher Larry Flynt paid for Wendy Yow Ellis to take a lie detector test, which she passed, and which Vitter's press secretary has refused to comment on. Flynt has also paid Ellis for details about her sessions with Vitter, which he is publishing in a future issue of Hustler.

Vitter, of course, ran for office with a promise of "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Ellis, who describes Vitter as "a very clean man," says she took the polygraph because people who heard Vitter's denial of their relationship might see her as "a two-bit whore when I'm the one telling the truth."

Comments

Lie detector test results are not evidence and are not admissible in court. Apparently Ms. Dees thinks that they should be. The results depends on the interpretation of the giver of the test. O.J. Simpson passed his lie detector test, I guess Ms. Dees believes that he is innocent.

Posted by: Billy on 09/11/07 at 9:39 PM Respond

The consensus scientific opinion is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis. Polygraph results are evidence of nothing, and Wendy Yow Ellis's claims regarding Senator Vitter remain uncorroborated.

On top of the inherent unreliablility of polygraphy, the polygraph operator hired by Larry Flynt has his own credibility problems, having falsely represented himself to the public and the courts as a Ph.D.:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml

Posted by: George Maschke on 09/11/07 at 11:09 PM Respond

A prostitute's word is certainly worth more than a republican politician.

Posted by: Craig on 09/11/07 at 11:50 PM Respond

Interesting that people who will claim that lie-detector tests will show their innocence will claim that they are too inaccurate to support their accusers....

Posted by: Bill on 09/12/07 at 5:04 AM Respond

The nation's two living Clinton was a good Baptist. Women accused him of raping him. But we forgave him. He said that the sex demons made him misbehave. Baptist ex-presidents Carter and Clinton are calling for a historic convocation in Atlanta next year, intended to improve the "negative" image of Baptists in North America and to unite the majority of Baptists into a loose-knit network to address social ills.

Posted by: John F. on 09/12/07 at 6:15 AM Respond

For the record, I "believe" nothing regarding polygraph tests and this particular piece of news. This event, however--when seen as part of an unfolding chain of events, rather than an isolated situation--is interesting.

One hopes that observers always see an event as part of a bigger picture, and not as an isolated situation.

Posted by: Diane on 09/12/07 at 8:12 AM Respond

Whether or not the lie detector test passes as evidence in court doesn't matter. As we stand right now, the score on the evidence in the court of public opinion stands at hooker - 1, politician - 0.

Posted by: matt on 09/12/07 at 11:24 AM Respond

Even prostitutes are capable of telling the truth.

Posted by: Burbank Criminal Attorney on 06/01/08 at 5:59 PM Respond

I agree with you Burbank, however the point is these types of test are inadmissible in a Court of law.

Posted by: Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney on 10/21/08 at 3:35 AM Respond

Taking the Lie Detector test certainly proved she was no 2 bit hooker, it proved she was a $300 hooker. Maybe next time she should set a stretch goal. I wonder if she can see Russia from her window?

Posted by: Tim on 10/22/08 at 4:21 PM Respond