Agreed. And that is why this won't be quickly settled.

Again, a confluence of cultures, not easily merged.

I'm not sure the maid has even recanted her story. But if she's changed it because she wants to create doubt after being paid or is generally a liar AND they find out she was paid off, which should be pretty easy to verify, I hope they fry her. Still, that does not mean DSK is innocent. It's unfortunate that a rape case depends more on the victim's credibility than on the facts of the case. A rape kit and police interview by one of their staff shrinks should make it pretty clear what happened, regardless of whether the maid gets cold feet later.

I am fairly certain numerous people predicted it would play out like that

Interesting. On one side the beothch is lying and on the other DSK is an animal.

The Victims attorney laid out that the NY DA has a ton of forensic evidence that the attack occurred, the NY Dicks, DA and Grand Jury thought enough to charge and indict.. Her attorney also said her story never changed, she showed them the details of the attack in the room, and where to collect the evidence shortly after the attack. Further that she was examined medically and phots taken which indicate an attack. And it was she that told the DA that there were credbility issues.

One thinks that this is not the set up for a civil suit, but is to shame the NY DA from making the case go away. In other words there is forensic evidence to back up the victims claim. So the bottom line is a person who has a questionable past always going to be lying?

DSK as it turns out is no angel, even assocaiates of his always tried to have someone present in the room when he was being interviewed by female journalists. DSK as a man of wealth and power has felt invunerable and entitled to all the putang he could use.


Conspiracy is a 2 way street. Someone could be setting DSK to get rid of him...since this "crime" broke on the scene after BIn Ladens death..perhaps some ties to DSK were found in BL's affects and it is one of the various America DIA's that is behind it????

Because DSK is a man of wealth and power perhaps he has done enough investigating and spread enough money around to help it gho away.

If this was consensual, then it was still stupid. You are quite right.

But can we agree to leave the word "criminal" out? It may even have been "massively" stupid, but not "criminally" stupid.

I agree with you about the DNA. It is irrelevant to the issue of consent—or lack of it.

He also is of the opinion that Roman Polanski having sex with a 13 year old child after plying her with drugs an alcohol was no big deal and we are all a bunch of troglodytes for being so backwards in our thinking about it.

Dot chastizing anyone wrt how they react to a potential case of rape is not worth any consideration at all.

The man definitely attempted to influence the woman and her family, that by itself is a felony. He has behaved like a man who knew he was guilty since day one.

http://news.yahoo.com/case-against-strauss-kahn-near-collapse-report-013823812.html


Released without bail. Passport=airport=France=no treaty for extradition=home free ala Polanski.

Everyone seems to get hung up on this. The forensic evidence is semen with DSK's DNA. This does not go to the alleged victims claim of rape. Whether or not it was rape turns on the issue of "consent" and here it is all "he said/she said" evidence.

Although it's slim, the prosecution can go to trial with this—particularly where the press and public opinion has already crucified the accused.

But when the "she said" evidence starts to get tainted by inconsistencies and lack of credibility—the prosecution has nothing.

I'll settle for "supremely" stupid.

What Dot thinks about Polanski has no bearing.

This is really point with which I take issue.

It's incredible to me that the accused in a case like this can be subjected to this level of public and media humiliation—when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven otherwise. And the alleged victim can spin the story as much as she wants in complete anonymity. Bizarro.

Paul, I would assert that it speaks to Dot's judgement in matters such as this. If you can't be convinced that rape is rape and rape is wrong, your frame of reference is such that you can't make a reasonable assessment.

Funny how this comes out right after a new IMF head has been announced.

I agree 100%.
I also find it shameful that so many people are willing to leak info to the press, fueling the media frenzy.

Rape is not the same thing as sex with a hotel maid. One is a serious crime, the other is anywhere from idiotic to sleazy. In my opinion, both disqualify you from being head of the IMF but only one takes you to jail.

So, was it rape? We do have a system where you are legally innocent unless proven guilty by a jury trial. If the case falls apart, then DSK is legally innocent. Period.

Then there is reputational innocence. In extreme cases, I guess most of us consider someone guilty even if he managed to beat the rap. O.J. is the perfect example. But the DSK case is hardly the O.J. case. No-one consents to be knifed to death. People do consent to sex.

Just for reference, here's the original thread:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/608729-french-socialist-head-imf-rapes-hotel-maid-nyc.html

Rush to judgment?

Sherwood

I'm not judging the maid.

I was passing on the facts the prosecuters handed to the defense in their press conference—which were then reported in the NYT.

There is a difference between this and pronouncing someone guilty of rape without any facts to corroborate this.

It amazes me how many of you don't seem to get this.

"the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded."

Just wow.

"That man, as the Times reported, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He was among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits into the woman's bank account."

:eek:

The issue here is that the allegation of rape is not rape. Toby, there is a world of difference between an allegation and the truth. This can only be ascertained by weighing of evidence... something that was not done prior to the sensationalist media stories.

I agree with Dot on this issue. It is so common to see an accused person's name plastered all over page 1 virtually accepting that he committed a crime. If/when the accusation is dropped or deemed to have no merit by the courts the followup gets buried on page 23. The damage to the falsely accused is irreparable. It is a sad truth that our present day media is not satisfied with reporting the progress and outcome of a case, they must call up a panel of talking head 'experts' to weigh the case (presumptively) on national TV.

Put yourself in the position of someone accused of some crime. Would you want your name plastered all over the front page of your hometown newspaper before you had your day in court? What would that so to your reputation?

Personally, I am content to wait until the case is played out before I find out who is accused of what.

I don't know what kind of news you've been watching, but DSK's ROR has been in the news non-stop for the last two days. Seems to me, he's getting a much fairer shake than any of us nobodies would get, were we in his shoes. And his name was only plastered everywhere because of his position. It's undisputed that some kind of sexual encounter took place. Even if it was consensual, it's a scandal because of the social and professional positions of the two involved. It's of his own doing.

Now it turns out that she's a hooker, providing blow jobs to needy hotel patrons for a nominal fee. under European libel laws, the NY Post would be shuttered over this.

Dominque Strauss-Kahn's accuser was hotel hooker, insiders say - NYPOST.com