From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/nyregion/strauss-kahn-case-seen-as-in-jeopardy.html?exprod=myyahoo
I want this guy to be guilty just to send a message to the pigs out there. Yet, it’s starting to look like it just may have been a set-up.
This is starting to look like the Duke lacrosse case, the Sharpton/Tawana Brawley case or the Gary Condit case.
What can you believe from the media when a sensational case breaks? Apparently, not much.
A quick look at the linked article makes it sound to me like the victim is lying to cover aspects of her own circumstances that could leave her open to charges for other, unrelated illegal activities, and deportation. I don’t see anything that really calls into question the basis of the charges against DSK (though the case does seem compromised).
To my knowledge and recollection those were all very different circumstances from each other (and from these)–all had the elements of sex, lies and media interest, but in different ways and for different reasons–so maybe you should explain what you mean.
You do realize that you’re citing “the media” here, right?
What about this, from the article:
Bolding, mine.
Yes, it shows that she associates with a criminal (pot dealer is all we know), and discussed with that criminal if she should press charges and why. And sure, as in every rape case, it allows her, and her past, to be put on trial rather than the alleged rapist.
What I do not see in that article is any implication that she discussed that the events did not take place as she described them - just whether or not she should pursue the charges. People are often fearful of making charges of rape, for exactly this reason, their past will be put on trial, and who wants that? To discuss with a friend, a friend who happens to deal in pot at the least, but you think of as a friend, what to do and why, seems natural to me.
Rape cases are tough. That sex occurred is easy to prove. Proving that it was not consensual is tougher. A jury needs to believe the alleged victim and disbelieve the alleged perp. Once she has a checkered past then that task is difficult. A rapist can usually get away with raping someone with such a past for that reason.
Well, I think everyone is making something of SK’s love life, no? And his girlfriends, and his wife, and his philandering ways? Rather circumstantial non evidence, don’t you think?
The only evidence for rape so far is that they had some kind of sex. That’s not sufficient.
Most times, I err on the side of the woman as I feel bad for rape victims. But this time I don’t. He is innocent until proven otherwise.
So far, the proof is shhaadddyyy.
There are three options here. New info is that she consorts with the criminal element of her ethnic community, and has allowed her bank account to be used to hold and/or scrub drug money. She also apparently told massive lies on her visa application, including false rape claims
1: She’s telling the truth
2: It’s a diabolical political set up
3: She’s a bit of a grifter and after he propositioned her, she blew him and somehow recognized him as a big deal, then concocted the story after the fact to get money from him.
The rape case relies on her testimony to show non-consent. She has now been revealed as being involved in drug-dealing gangs, money-laundering, she’s lied to the police, she’s made a previous questionable rape complaint as part of her application for asylum. Her credibility is zero, the charges should be thrown out immediately.
You know, as we saw with the Duke lacrosse case, on a personal level, it’s generally a good idea to stay away from strippers and hookers. Yeah, it’s unfair when they make up accusations against you, but, you’re safest from phony rape charges when they haven’t ever met you. You have a better chance of avoiding folks like this lady who seem skilled only at working the system.
This is not going down in the history books as an impressive performance by either the prestige or tabloid presses. Back in May, there quickly emerged questions about why this woman was living in an apartment building for AIDS sufferers (I read it in the Daily Telegraph – the Brits tend to be better at scandal than us), but then those questions just went away because … I guess everybody really, really wants to find the real life Great White Defendant like we’ve seen on Law & Order for 20 years.
(By the way, the prosecutors say they haven’t found any evidence that a political conspiracy was behind it.)
Even without a “political conspiracy” as such, I’d be interested to know the details of any conversations between NYPD/prosecution and the US government, IMF leadership or the French government. Especially any conversations which might have taken place before the arrest. (immunity etc.)
It may have seemed convenient for some parties to have the whole thing blow up into a circus rather than starting by an investigation…
Either way, the facts aren’t all in yet, so the case against DSK may still have some legs…
I absolutely dont understand that previous rape claim. Can someone elaborate (from what I gathered it has to do with a “testimony” for immigration services, but I dont have more than this)?
A funny thing in the comments is how we are repeatedly told that in “the Europe system” you are considered guilty until proven otherwise. It sounds like a good summary of DSK’s fate in the US.
You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He hasn’t even been tried yet, so claims of unfair treatment seem a little premature.
Regardless, assuming there is actually evident of sexual intercourse, I have to wonder how that happens in a purely spontaneous and innocuous manner. Why would a person with so much to lose, proposition a maid out of the blue with the expectation that that would work? Even in the best of circumstances, he is guilty of horrendous judgment, and general shadiness. Given HIS history in matters like this, I am not sure he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Either way, I’m waiting to hear actually evidence before I jump to any conclusions.
Perpwalking an innocent man is unfair treatment. That this wouldnt even cross your mind shows how bad the American justice system has turned out, and how acceptant of it the American pop is.
You wonder how a grown up man with a good post and fortune manages to shag?
Wow. I just find it sad that American puritanism had to take a stance in our future elections.
Due to the way the whole case was handled, he was paraded in front of the media, lost his high profile job and effectively lost any chance at ever attaining a similar high profile job in the future.
If he is actually innocent, then yes, he certainly has been treated unfairly. It is not enough to say all that wont matter if he turns out to be guilty. If he is innocent, the damage has already been done, his reputation is already destroyed, no matter what happens.
Perp walks are questionable, but they happen long before anyone is determined guilty or not guilty.
He asked why he would do something this stupid, which does not work as well with your complaints about American puratinism. Even if he did have sex with the maid, he wouldn’t be the first rich and powerful guy to do it.
What has been wrong with the handling of the case? If the prosecution already knew what was wrong with the woman’s story when they busted him, I might see your point. If not, I’m not sure it’s their responsibility. This is a story the newspapers were guaranteed to make a big deal out of because of his position at the IMF.
If we could lock up every man that was guilty of horrendous judgement and general shadiness with regards to sexual matters, there wouldn’t be many of them left out on the street.
And if he didn’t do it, he certainly does deserve the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I hate men that act like he does – and I’ve known a few – but I am disturbed by the number of people that seem to WANT him to be guilty for their own amusement.
Procedurally? I have no idea, I do not know enough about the system to comment. It just seems to my uneducated mind that the term “innocent until proven guilty” is effectively meaningless in cases like this. The minute the news networks paraded the headline “Strauss-Kahn arrested on rape charges”, that man suffered punishment for being a rapist, regardless of whether he did it or not. He isnt getting that job back, and he sure as hell isnt going to be allowed to run for French president, which I believe was his ambition a few months ago.
It just leaves a sour taste in the mouth is all. Is there an answer? Do you ban the media from reporting on on-going court cases? I dont know. But “innocent until proven guilty” are meaningless words to both Strauss-Kahn and to any Joe Bloggs in small town USA who gets falsely accused of rape and will probably never lose the stigma that comes with it.
If he’s cleared, he can try.
There’s no way the Constitution permits that. I have trouble seeing how hiding the justice system from the public is better than someone’s reputation being damaged. The problem is that people are judgmental. I don’t think there’s any easy fix for that.
Someone else just pointed this out in the Pit, but why is this a bigger deal with rape than murder, or for that matter a bunch of other crimes?
They clearly violate presumption of innocence. Most rule of law nations do not exhibit their suspects so the media can take its pictures.
No, he said this:
So the guy should probably be considered guilty (“he doesnt deserve the benefit of doubt”) because of “general shadiness”. Talk about generic moral accusations. That’s typical Puritan reasoning.
Are they not allowed, or is it just not done?
You didn’t say anything about that, though. You marveled at how he “wonder[s] how a grown up man with a good post and fortune manages to shag?” when he’d done no such thing. He said that if Straus-Kahn did something with the maid, it makes him shady and indicates horrendous judgment. That’s not an unreasonable thing to say. What’s not reasonable is saying Straus-Kahn doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. He may sleep around, but that doesn’t make him more likely to committ sexual assault.