Other than if the accuser stated in that recorded call that she was propositioned by this bigwig and blew him for a few hundred and how can she play it, or if she admits that it was a false accusation of coerced sex, we will never know. So the more accurate statement is that whether or not he did it he deserves the benefit of the doubt. It is better to let the guilty go than to falsely punish the not guilty. It is the usual problem with rape cases and alleged rape cases. Successful prosecution relies on having a victim who is completely believable and even then is helped by having an alleged perpetrator who is not believable. Yes, believable men can be guilty of rape and drug dealing prostitutes can be victimized, and scum of the earth males with a history of sexual harassment and affairs can be guilty of no more than being scummy while nuns can make false accusations. But in general there will not be a successful prosecution unless the man is scum and the woman is extremely believable; we will and should give the benefit of the doubt.
My only point is that I would neither convict the woman in our minds either. We can’t believe her* enough* to prosecute any more, but we can’t believe him enough to know for sure she was not raped. He will and probably should walk, but that does not mean she is guilty of anything other than having a questionable enough past to make her word alone not good enough.
Yes. This is a symptom of a huge *systemic *failure on the part of our nation’s law enforcement. We arrested a guy who was possibly the future leader of France because of some lying woman’s story. The people of France have every right to be pissed at us.
I generally agree that lack of a strong case for DSK’s guilt is by no means evidence that the rape didn’t take place. But, if as some sources are claiming, his accuser invented a rape in order to bolster her asylum claim in the US, it puts a serious dent in the presumption of her good faith.
Again, unless they had a good reason to think she was lying at the time - which is possible, but not clear right now - this is ridiculous. He was accused of a crime, arrested, and is being prosecuted. Keeping it quiet and letting him go about his business while someone tried to poke holes in her story would have been giving him special treatment because of his status.
This case is very similar to the Duke Lacrosse Team case. Once again a prosecutor made public statements about the credibility of an accuser without having done anything to establish that credibility. This DA should lose his job, and the rest of them should stop making public statements about their cases.
Are you saying that he should have been treated differently than others in a similar circumstance because he was a VIP?
Or that someone accused of rape, for whom there is evidence consistent with the charge, who is leaving the country, should not be stopped and charged if there is any possibility that the accuser is not telling the truth? (Which of course means never.)
An accusation was made that seemed credible. Under normal circumstances such an accusation would have resulted in arresting the accused, especially if it appeared that he was fleeing the country.
Either athelas is arguing that those normal procedures should be ignored because the accused is a VIP or arguing that the normal response of arresting someone who appears to be fleeing the country against whom an apparently credible charge has been made is a mistake.
I’m certainly not going to Google for this at work, but rape of innocent civilians by both government and rebel military forces is very prevalent in Africa. My understanding is that her request for asylum included this. Unfortunately, it is not an extraordinary claim.
I guess it comes down to the degree of credibility of the accusation. If what we’re hearing about the accuser now is true, you would think that experienced LEOs might have sniffed something out. Obviously hindsight etc.
I seem to recall that you’re a US lawyer ? Is there no concept of a graduated response ? ie the accusation is somewhat credible, so we’ll ask the accused to stick around for an investigation, but without going all Hannibal Lecter and million dollar bail on him ?
If the same accusation had been leveled at Obama would it have played out the same way ?
Would Joe public be immediately incarcerated based solely on an accusation ?
If I’ve read the news correctly, her asylum application did not include a claim that she had been raped, but she supposedly told the NYPD investigators that it did. Her application did include a statement that she had suffered genital mutilation, and the news today is reporting that something in what she told the NYPD investigators is allegedly inconsistent with that previous statement. Not much detail at this point, and certainly what we’re hearing may be inaccurate.
Because the consequences of a mere accusation are so much worse. I’d far prefer to be accused of torture and mass murder than rape or child molestation. People are much more likely to reserve judgment on the former accusation than the latter.
The Duke case would never have seen the light of day if Nifong had behaved ethically, the way the NY prosecutors did. And at least the maid’s accusations were credible on the surface. Crystal Mangum’s story began as an improbability and veered into science fiction.
If you say so. I don’t see where accused murderers are treated any better than accused rapists (and child molestation is not the topic). There’s no reason to be more concerned about the stigma an accused rapist has to live with and not an accused murderer. People are falsely accused sometimes. We don’t need to be especially careful about certaiin crimes because of the stigma they carry.
And to answer my own question to Capitaine Zombie, I’m reading that France has laws against perp walks.
And out of concern that innocent people were being persecuted. Being persecuted for being falsely accused isn’t any more just than being persecuted for being a “slut”
Agreed that perp walks are inappropriate. And that professional standards should dictate “no comment” from the officials involved in a high profile case. But how do you keep an arrest of a public figure out of the news?
