Dominique Strauss-Kahn revisited

[Dottore]

The NYT reports today that the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is about to fall apart because the alleged victim is no longer credible.

Apparently shortly after the alleged rape she called a male friend of hers in prison to discuss how best to extort money from DSK. That call was recorded. Also large sums of money have been transferred to her bank account without any explanation as to where these are from. In addition, much of her testimony itself is self-contradictory. And of course it now appears there are also “inconsistencies” in her original visa application.

I hope that heads roll in the wake of this.

This case really focused world attention on the manner in which the presumption of innocence is ignored when zealots rush to “justice”. All the cynical European commentators on “US frontier justice” will feel rightly vindicated. DSK’s career and run at the French presidency is probably irreparable. And the alleged victim has set the cause of real rape victims in these situations back years. Tragic really.

[MotoSook]

Agreed. I was very very surprised at the rush to "convict" the poor guy.

[Gretch]

This has to be a set up then..........

This wretch didn't think this stunt up on her own, (if your version of the story is actually true).

THAT will be the real story.

[VaSteve]

this has to be a set up then..........



this wretch didn't think this stunt up on her own, (if your version of the story is actually true).



that will be the real story.

x1000.

[GH85Carrera]

A super rich man will never be convicted of a big crime like that. OJ got away with a double murder.

That Frog will have enough cash to spread around to all the necessary people. It will go away. The only real justice is his political ambitions are over, his power will be virtually gone.

[red-beard]

So, why would she go to the police? Wouldn't She be better off trying to extort money from him if threatened to go to the police?

If she all of a sudden has money in her accounts, it sounds like someone moved it there. And if she is so smart to pick this guy with money and create this elaborate scheme, she blows it by putting the money into her on account? If this was her scheme, she's not very good at this.

Oh, and generally for me, the NY Times is a reverse-barometer.

Or, this is the way to now get him out of the mess, now that the bribes/extortion has been paid...

[red-beard]

OTOH, it isn't the first time someone has cried rape when it didn't happen. There is the Duke case.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

A super rich man will never be convicted of a big crime like that. OJ got away with a double murder.

That Frog will have enough cash to spread around to all the necessary people. It will go away. The only real justice is his political ambitions are over, his power will be virtually gone.

So what makes you so certain of his guilt? Is it really because he is French and rich?

I'm genuinely interested in your answer because you appear to be one of the many that are willing to push the presumption of innocence under the train in this case.

[dtw]

Originally Posted by Dottore

So what makes you so certain of his guilt? Is it really because he is French and rich?

I'm genuinely interested in your answer because you appear to be one of the many that are willing to push the presumption of innocence under the train in this case.

We get it. Strauss-Kahn, not guilty. Polanski, not guilty.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by dtw

We get it. Strauss-Kahn, not guilty. Polanski, not guilty.

I get it. You have nothing, so you derail another thread.

[cairns]

So what makes you so certain of his guilt?

I'm not certain but I bet he is. Because there's a previous pattern of this behavior. Because hotel maids aren't usually masters of extorting smart wealthy people much less suddenly have huge amounts of money flowing into their bank accounts- after the alleged perpetrator is arrested. Because of the way he attempted to rush out of the country. Because the NYT isn't credible- especially when it comes to defending a socialist. And because he has more than enough money, power and motive to destroy her.

[MRM]

This surprises me if it turns out to be true. The sex crimes unit at NYPD is extremely good and cautious, especially when dealing with disparities in power and position. There is a pretty well researched protocol for evaluating the claimed victim's story. If it doesn't all check out 100%, they won't file charges.

One of the things they look into and consider critical is the first call for help. Research shows that true victims tend to report the crime in certain ways, not necessarily all to the police. The story that is told to the first person is what is critical. The details of later stories can't vary from the initial report and remain credible. The police do serious in-depth interviews and require corroborating evidence. In this case, I read that the detectives were satisfied with the results of their interrogation and they had the DNA evidence. Cops who work in this area know exactly what's coming and investigate the case in anticipating of recanting witnesses, outside pressure, and attacks on the witness' credibility. They will not charge an aquaintance rape case, especially in a high profile case without everything in the investigation being corroborated and checking out 100% specifically because the case always boils down to a he said/she said situation.

In this case, if there really is DNA evidence, then it seems pretty clear that the broad outlines of her story are true. The question then seems to be whether she was unwilling at the time or whether she became unwilling after she realized she could squeeze some money out of him. That's why the first call being to a prisoner asking how to extort money is so destructive to the case. If true, it destroys the corroboration of the apparent sincerety of the critical first call for help.

If she has received large amounts of unexplained money, it lends credibility to the theory that something untoward did happen and she's being paid hush money. Innocent people don't pay hush money. But it might make prosecution impossible.

The problem with Strauss-Kahn defending himself in the court of public opinion is that his defense to the criminal charge is to admit that he is a disgusting philandering pig who thinks nothing of a quickie with a cleaning lady as he's on his way to the airport and thinks so little of it that he's put it out of his mind by the time he shut the door behind him. At best he's a pig, at worst he's a criminal. Considering the culture that was revealed after he was arrested, the World Bank is better off without him.

[Rick Lee]

If the maid was paid off, it doesn't at all absolve DSK of the crime (if this was non-consensual). It just makes the maid and whomever paid her guilty or witness tampering. If she lifted a finger to facilitate this whole thing beforehand, she could be looking at a conspiracy charge too. I heard there was DNA evidence, so they both have some splainin' to do. I don't recall the maid's immigration status, but filing any kind of sexual or domestic violence charge is a guaranteed visa extension until the whole case is wrapped up. Any woman who's about to be deported just needs to say her husband or BF beat her to make her immigration woes go away for a few more years.

[URY914]

His "previous pattern of this behavior" is what put the fake-rape-let's-blackmail idea in someone head. He a slimeball with a lot of money.

[widebody911]

I think the standards for publicizing these cases needs to change. The accused is paraded in the press while the victim remains anonymous, guilty until he can prove he's innocent. Even if he can prove himself innocent, he still carries the stigma.

Here's an example: a college girl accuses 5 guys of raping her. They're immediately arrested, kicked out of the college, and best of all - plastered all over the news. They only way they got their asses out of the sling was one of the guys videotaped the whole thing, which nothing like the brutal rape she claimed it to be, but rather it was her deciding to get her freak on with 5 guys at the same time. Had it not been for the video, these guys would have been f*cked, and not in the good way. The girl's identity was never released

There was another one I read where a high school girl accused a coach of attacking her. He goes immediately to jail - do not pass Go!, do not collect $200. He's fired, the press is camped out at his out, etc. Eventually it's found out that she faked it all to get back at him for giving her a bad grade. Does she get outed as the little c*nt she is? No! But he will always have a cloud of suspicion hanging over him as a child molester.

[bivenator]

Dottore is chastising those who were quick to judge DSK guilty and yet he is rushing to judge to maid. Hmmmm, think I will wait a bit, perhaps when the facts come out.
There are still many many questions to be answered wrt DSK behavior post accusation.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by MRM

This surprises me if it turns out to be true. The sex crimes unit at NYPD is extremely good and cautious, especially when dealing with disparities in power and position. There is a pretty well researched protocol for evaluating the claimed victim's story. If it doesn't all check out 100%, they won't file charges.

One of the things they look into and consider critical is the first call for help. Research shows that true victims tend to report the crime in certain ways, not necessarily all to the police. The story that is told to the first person is what is critical. The details of later stories can't vary from the initial report and remain credible. The police do serious in-depth interviews and require corroborating evidence. In this case, I read that the detectives were satisfied with the results of their interrogation and they had the DNA evidence. Cops who work in this area know exactly what's coming and investigate the case in anticipating of recanting witnesses, outside pressure, and attacks on the witness' credibility. They will not charge an aquaintance rape case, especially in a high profile case without everything in the investigation being corroborated and checking out 100% specifically because the case always boils down to a he said/she said situation.

In this case, if there really is DNA evidence, then it seems pretty clear that the broad outlines of her story are true. The question then seems to be whether she was unwilling at the time or whether she became unwilling after she realized she could squeeze some money out of him. That's why the first call being to a prisoner asking how to extort money is so destructive to the case. If true, it destroys the corroboration of the apparent sincerety of the critical first call for help.

If she has received large amounts of unexplained money, it lends credibility to the theory that something untoward did happen and she's being paid hush money. Innocent people don't pay hush money. But it might make prosecution impossible.

The problem with Strauss-Kahn defending himself in the court of public opinion is that his defense to the criminal charge is to admit that he is a disgusting philandering pig who thinks nothing of a quickie with a cleaning lady as he's on his way to the airport and thinks so little of it that he's put it out of his mind by the time he shut the door behind him. At best he's a pig, at worst he's a criminal. Considering the culture that was revealed after he was arrested, the World Bank is better off without him.

You said it for me. Thanks

[speeder]

I read the article yesterday in the NYT about the case against him falling apart and the problems are all related to the veracity of the accuser. As MRM so correctly pointed out, the police and prosecutors handling this case are the best in the business and nearly impossible to scam.

In their vetting of the accuser to prepare for prosecution, they found that she has numerous criminal associations, she lied to them about her asylum application for residency in the U.S., (claiming a previous rape was on application when it was not), she has changed her story several times regarding the DSK incident, (lying), etc., etc... They have made the discovery that she is a pathological liar and about as unsavory a "victim" as they come. The integrity and veracity of the victim is everything in a rape prosecution. As a prosecutor, if you do not have a credible victim, you have nothing.

Unless you believe that the entire major crimes unit of the NYPD + the top people in the city attorney's office are all part of a conspiracy to absolve the "French socialist" from rape charges, I'd say that this case has completely fallen apart based on the untruthfulness of the accuser. Also, I got the impression that the unexplained bank deposits are being looked at as money-laundering for drug dealers that she is now known to associate with, not connected to the DSK case in any way. Just some unsavory schit that turned up in their investigation of her. That plus (5) cell phones that she is paying for every month when she told investigators that she had one phone. Just little problems like that...

Is DSK a POS as a person? Irrelevant. He is accused of an extremely serious crime that could lock him up for life. If he's innocent, he needs to be cleared. If guilty, fry him. That's my opinion.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by MRM

In this case, if there really is DNA evidence, then it seems pretty clear that the broad outlines of her story are true. The question then seems to be whether she was unwilling at the time or whether she became unwilling after she realized she could squeeze some money out of him. That's why the first call being to a prisoner asking how to extort money is so destructive to the case. If true, it destroys the corroboration of the apparent sincerety of the critical first call for help.

If she has received large amounts of unexplained money, it lends credibility to the theory that something untoward did happen and she's being paid hush money. Innocent people don't pay hush money. But it might make prosecution impossible.

This is as much about a clash of cultures as anything. DSK is guilty of underestimating the impact of where he either raped or had consensual sex with a maid...and the fallout of each coming to the press. His lack of judgment is the crime, really, should the sex have been consensual. He was the head of the IMF, huge profile, in New York, trying to hump the maid: What works in Paris may not play here. Criminally stupid behavior.

The DNA evidence only proves they had sex, nothing more. Her accusations of rape means the DNA matters in a crime.

If it was consensual, the DNA is just that, DNA. They had sex. Next. My house is littered with my DNA.

I disagree that money paid is an admission of guilt...post coitus (again, either innocent or guilty) he thought to buy his way out of a situation, no more, no less.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I disagree that money paid is an admission of guilt...post coitus (again, either innocent or guilty) he thought to buy his way out of a situation, no more, no less.

I also don't think it's an admission of guilt. But if it was done AFTER maid cried rape, it's witness tampering.