Quote:
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.