Just saw this on the Fox News site:
It’s looking more and more like this woman wasn’t quite the “good Muslim girl” she was alleged to be shortly after the alleged crime took place.
Gotta stop doing that, Starkers. Meth is really bad for your brain, Fox News runs a close second.
Hey, if you can have Soros, Huffpo & MSNBC I should certainly be allowed Fox News.
Besides, the actual info is from the NY Post, remember?
The Post isn’t a whole lot better. Besides, this is all information coming from an anonymous source on DSK’s legal team. Considering how untrustworthy the information is, what stands out is how vague the accusations are. That she was spending an awful lot of money (but not saying how much) on hair braiding? That her tips were unusually large? What does that mean, except that it’s open season on this woman?
The New York Post has never been considered a terribly reliable source.
Moreover, what the Post cites as proof of this claim is “a source close to the defense”.
Obviously DSK’s legal team is going to say anything they can to make her look bad and the fact that the Post’s source is only giving this information anonymously should mean it should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I’m sure the truth will come out in due time. But for all the whinging about how unreliable the Post is, I can’t recall the last time I posted something the Post published which was later shown to be specious.
And all news organizations rely on anonymous “sources”.
Clearly there are major problems with the way this woman has been living her life or Kahn wouldn’t be out on his own recognizance.
Well, if you’re going to dodge the question, it’s good that you at least do so completely transparently. In case you;re really just too dumb to understand, I’ll explain. Anonymous sources are not always unreliable. However, when an anonymous source working for the defense spreads innuendo about the accuser, it is unreliable. So much so that only the Post would publish it. There is no specific allegation being made. The individual who is spreading the innuendo can hide behind anonymity and so say anything he wants, and has a vested interest in smearing the accuser. There is no mention of why, when she was taken to the hospital after making the initial report, she had a torn ligament in her shoulder. Assuming DSK is telling the truth, he administered an NFL-level injury on a total stranger in the course of an anonymous hookup.
I have a torn ligament in my shoulder too. It’s been torn since early last September. I also have five relatively minor injuries/tears to the shoulder “socket” and rotator cuff and fractured the top (“ball”) of the arm bone.
Did it all when I tripped and fell over some ladders while holding another one by the rungs.
It might be possible to tell how long ago it happened based upon how the bone and socket injuries have healed, but I don’t think anyone could say when the ligament was torn.
Like I said: the truth will out. But right now it’s looking like this Rich Fucking Banker May Not Have Been Too Cheap to Hire a Hooker after all.
<sarcasm>
Well, previously it’s been open season on DSK. Turnabout is fair play, right?
</sarcasm>
However, just as with DSK, I presume her innocence until she’s proven guilty.
The only problem with that is that it’s the prosecution that’s turned up most of the damaging stuff about this woman, facts which they had no choice but to disclose to the defense attorneys.
That has nothing to do with what the defense has been saying, under cover of anonymity, about her. Which has zero credibility, even if they do report it in The New York Post.
I wasn’t aware a jury had been empanelled. But I have to point out, if you’re on the jury, you really shouldn’t be participating in these threads.
I wonder if saoirse will find this information from CNBC more compelling:
[all bolding mine]
The article goes on to state that she changed her story of what happened immediately after the so-called attack. Instead of hunkering down in another room until he left whereupon she notified her supervisor of the attack, she instead cleaned another room and then his room.
To me, this calls into question the circumstances behind the semen found in his room, which is said to have been found on the bed and the wall in his suite. Perhaps, in her role as hotel hooker, she collected semen from a previous encounter and then put it on the bed and wall herself after he left so as to implicate him in the rape.
I would also point out that I haven’t had a word to say in Strauss-Kahn’s defense nor posted suspicions about the maid prior to the prosecution’s dropping the bail requirement on Strauss-Kahn and releasing the details of their investigation. Perhaps saoirse will keep in mind that the only evidence of rape that exists is this woman’s word, and if her word is shown to be worthless and/or prone to lies for monetary gain, as it has, then evidence of the rape becomes worthless as well.
Bad witnesses and dishonest people can also be raped. The evidence of rape consists of the DNA evidence, injuries to the woman, and the absurdity of the defendant’s story. The room service waiter confirmed that he had told the maid that the room was empty when she went in. Supposedly Mr Strauss-Kahn is so damn sexy that women who don’t know him suddenly want to have rough sex with him for 20 minutes before he checks out.
Something just occured to me. How does a guy rape a woman in a hotel? I mean if I was a rapist, I’m sure I’d be scared as hell that she’s going to scream and alert the entire hotel.
Force a woman to give you a blow job? Just how the hell would you manage that without a weapon to imply imminent harm. A blow job takes considerable effort to perform on the part of the “victim” , much more effort than to disengage and make a run for it unlike sexual intercourse where all the effort is by the rapist, who can control the victim simply by his body weight.
Yes, we have the Kobe and Tyson rapes in hotel rooms, but these occured in escalating situations with naive young women where they were too confused to respond effectively given some degree of social interaction was pursued on their part initially, but in this unique case we have a mature female employee who knows not to close the door behind her when she enters a room to clean is for a reason, and no pretense for consent could ever be reasonably assumed on either of the parties.
Only women who see dollar signs.
Strauss-Kahn was in a large suite, and it was the middle of the day. Probably nobody would have heard her even if the neighboring rooms had been occupied, and more probably they weren’t.
“Bad witness?” You make it sound like she’s unsure of his description or couldn’t pick him out of a lineup. She’s a scheming, lying, duplicitous, money-grubbing prostitute with a history of rehearsing dishonest claims so as to benefit financially. The DNA evidence could very well have been placed there after the fact, as they may have had sex earlier that day or even the day before. Hell, for that matter, he could have masturbated and left the evidence, which she found upon cleaning his room and which would have given her the evidence she needed to opportunisticially try to bilk this guy for money.
The shoulder injury, as you would have learned had you read my last post, was never mentioned in the aftermath of the assault and was brought up only in an effort to try to avoid more questioning by the prosecution.
The room may very well have been emptry when she entered it - after all, the only evidence we have that it wasn’t is her word.
Again, when you have a situation where the only evidence of a crime is the word of the victim, the integrity of the victim’s word is all-important. This woman’s word is not worth the air used to speak it.
Frankly, it’s beginning to look like you feel that a woman’s word should always be accepted in the case of rape allegations, no matter what…that inconsistencies should be ignored and that any woman’s versions of events should always take precedence no matter what the evidence shows or how other explanations may account for that evidence. If that’s the case, just come right out and say so and then we can dispense with arguments based upon the facts, because in that arena you’re fighting a losing battle.
Before I proceed with Mr. Chitwood’s remarks , let me ask him
to recall that in my earlier post I advocated a start from scratch
on the study of false rape allegation.
Professor Kanin says the same thing:
(p10)
Only bias can explain the following range of difference in other studies
cited by Kanin, although it is not yet possible to say who is biased and
who is not:
(p4)
(p9)
Kanin’s data was obtained from the years 1979-88 study was
published in 1994. Has there ever been a rigorous follow-up?
Mr. Chitwood’s Ms Rafael displays considerable inconsistency on
the matter. She first implies that FBI-UK-Portland-San Diego data
(which Chitwood saw fit to reproduce) is conclusive. Then she
yanks the rug out from under herself with this little snip (which
Chitwood did not see fit to reproduce):
(p10)
Since a “benchmark” is an evaluation standard Ms Rafael concedes
there is no standard for evaluating anyone’s false rape claim data
after all!
Three anonymous police forces: one from a city and two from
large universities.
The university investigations combined actually reported a higher
occurrence of false rape accusation (50%: 32 false of 64 total)
I would prefer all to have been named.
The universities might have been leery of revealing the names
even of confessed wrongdoers due to privacy and litigation concerns.
Perhaps the city similarly did not follow through on every threat
to prosecute false accusers, and would have been vulnerable to
lawsuits if any of were identified through an academic study.
You display your own bias by assuming the subjects are victims.
Obviously privacy and other law would make it impossible for an
academic researcher to participate in person in any police rape
investigation. Also, few to none of the subjects might agree to
incriminate themselves further to an academic researcher.
Addressed by Kanin himself above.
My guess is that that the fervently pro-feminist academic environment
of the last several decades has had more than anything to do with
the lack of follow-up.
The mathematics involved is literally grade school level arithmetic,
barely reaching the three digit numbers. Therefore I think it is
reasonable to assume that the possibility of error is too small to
be considered.
“Infallible”? don’t be absurd- no number of studies is ever going
to establish that a research correspondent is “infallible”. I think
you must mean “reliable”, and here we tread onto contentious
ground, given the wildly varying police report data from various
jurisdictions, and anti-police sentiment, especially by the formidable
feminist lobby.
Anyone questioning the data and results is welcome to do another
study- there are plenty of cities of all sizes in the USA, and plenty
of colleges and universities too.
Why the delay? Could it be academics who might otherwise be
drawn to such research have a mortal fear of the wrath of the kind
of people who reared their ugly heads in the recent Duke University
case if the results are not just so? Is there any doubt such people
now dominate the culture of higher learning?
There is no mention of polygraph use by two university police
departments. Furthermore they assigned female officers as lead
investigators, yet the rate of false accusation uncovered by them
was even higher than by the city.
I am aware of the fact that polygraph is only about 85% reliable,
and is not admissible as evidence. However, I am not willing to
dismiss its usefulness as an investigative tool, and I see no reason
to assume that polygraph use induces more false retraction than
genuine retraction, regardless of the solicitousness of the international
Police Chiefs and the US Congress toward the putative victims.
Has anyone gone through all those numbers in order to establish
their accuracy with scientific rigor? Not as of 2007, according to your
own Ms Rafael and her Professor Lisak!
Until such a study is conducted I will not trust any earlier work
completely, even if it does have “FBI” stamped all over it.
Taken in isolation yes it does support a 50-50 assumption because
it is reasonable to assume that not all false accusations are admitted,
and the 41% cited by the study included only the admitted. Then
there are those university numbers of exactly 50-50.
Until we get a definitive, comprehensive, rigorously scientific examination
of the issue, 50-50 seems to me an ideal compromise between the
ultra feminist ~1% and the misogynist ~99% false accusation estimates.
This is not expert commentary, it is clichéd jargon. Kamin does not
need to “systematize” any more than did: the police say a complainant
admitted her accusations were false , and that is that. What do you
think Kamin should have done?- gone back and interviewed each one
himself? If so, then you better get hopping on someone to reinterview
a few tens of thousand people from those much larger FBI-UK-Portland
-San Diego reports you and Ms Rafael think are so decisive.
Addressed.
Mr. Chitwood is much obliged, I’m sure. Let Mr. Chitwood remind you that you asked for details about why that study was criticized. It doesn’t get much simpler than “nobody fucking knows where the data came from, or whether he made it all up,” but I gave you a couple of examples anyway.
I’m not trying to change your mind. If I had a dollar for every motherfucker on this message board who wanted to set himself up like an impartial, totally unbiased naif just stumbling upon the idea of false rape allegations for the first time, who just felt it was his duty to ask certain questions that might be a little uncomfortable, but all in the name of good rigorous science, don’t you know, who then spent the rest of the thread acting like every other dickhead who’s just determined to conclude that “Well holy fuck, rape actually isn’t that much of a problem!” (or, say, that it must be that it’s a total coinflip whether any given rape allegation was maliciously fabricated), well, I’d have like 20 dollars, but still. That’s a lot of motherfuckers to go trying to argue with all the time.
Mr. colonial was having trouble googling or imagining criticisms of the study that is blowing his mind. I’m glad to be of service.