[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