The prosecutors are considering dropping the charges because of credibility issues. The entire case rests on the credibility of the "victim." Did you not RTFA?"Credibility issues" is about as vague as one can get. That could be used against anyone with a criminal (or "slutty") history in a rape case. I'm just wondering if there is anything that points to her account of this specific event (the alleged rape) as lacking credibility, or whether her other activities are being used to discredit her
Yes. She allegedly lied repeatedly to police about the events on the day of the rape.This article just says she lied, not specifically about the events on the day rape. If she lied about her asylum application, or lied in order to cover up her drug-launder activities, that is is a separate issue. I've only read the NYT article on this most recent development, for what it's worth.
I was pretty bummed when John Stewart hopped on the dude before the facts were in. DSK is a scumbag: Surprise! But guilty of rape? Maybe not. Another instance where waiting for the facts would have been nice.What are you talking about? There's wasn't really any reason to think he didn't do it at the time, and there were reports from other women in France who said that he attacked them in the past.
Hmm, that seems like a fairly contentious thing to say, and not really at all supported by cherry picking one example. 60% of rapes and assaults remain unreported to the police.Yeah... don't about 1/8 women claim to have been raped at one point? If all women who claimed to have been raped saw the person they accused prosecuted and sent to jail, there would be far more men in prison. It seems like the standard 'date rape' scenario doesn't result in prosecution that often.
And then lied to the cops about it. Whoops!Well, if they asked her how many cellphones she had, it would make sense that she'd mention the phone she actually has and uses, not phones that are in her name but aren't actually "hers". And anyway, not only is it not illegal to give cellphones to people, it also has nothing to do with whether or not you've been sexually assaulted.
What this means, in English, is "We understand that there is basically solid evidence of an extortion plot, but we can't say that yet. But oh, boy, when we can...."Not really. In English, it means exactly what it says on paper. The sentence is quite clear, she talked to this guy after the incident took place, and they discussed potential benefits of filing charges. That's not an extortion plot.
According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.She was recorded saying she has motive to commit perjury. That opens the door wide for reasonable doubt against her testimony, which is all you need in court. As for what actually happened, it seems that's still up in the air.
I wonder if there is any action, other than an admission by the accuser, which would be sufficient for you to not have already convicted this guy.I'm not talking about "reasonable doubt" here, I'm talking about what's likely to have happened. What I don't understand is what exactly it is that makes people think it's so much less likely that she was raped.
The case is more like this: "If you consort with criminals and deal in high dollar crime and lie to people investigating your accusation, a jury won't believe you about the rape" is a perfectly realistic warning.So feel free to rape those women, right!? I mean, seriously, we're saying this women is lying about the rape because of who she's friends with? The cellphone thing seems kind of minor, it could be a misunderstanding if she didn't think of the cellphones as 'hers' then she would say she only had one phone, even though the others were in her name.
It's not a "feel free to rape these women" argument, and you are being disingenuous by claiming that it is. If the info that came out is accurate, I would not know if I could believe what she has to say -- and isn't that part of what "reasonable doubt" is?Well right. But if, in practice, you are not going to believe women who have those characteristics, then I could go out and find a woman like that and rape her, and I wouldn't have to worry about getting convicted. So how is that different from "feel free to rape these women"? There are obviously a lot of women out there who know or consort with shady people. Are you saying, then, that you would never convict someone accused of raping them?
3. The call she had with an inmate discussed the benefits of the case (other than to nail the accused rapist to the wall)We don't know what the 'benefits' in question actually are here. It could be money. But it happened after the rape was reported to the police. It's not like what they discussed on the phone could have gone backwards in time and convinced her to call the police and report the rape in the past, right? So the phone call doesn't really have any baring on what happened.
Dude, you wrote:
Remember where I said "Stop wilfully misrepresenting other people's stance..." ?
You listed the cellphone thing, specifically as something that makes you think she's lying about the rape. I'm not misrepresenting what you wrote. Maybe you meant something different, but that's clearly what you actually wrote.
No, that's not what I said. I said a jury isn't going to believe the accuser. And you know what? If i were on a jury, and the details of this case came up exactly as presented:
1. She lied to those investigating her claims about having not one but 5 phones in her name.
2. She had 100k+ put into her account by drug dealers
3. The call she had with an inmate discussed the benefits of the case (other than to nail the accused rapist to the wall)
You know what? If this is how it actually played out, I probably couldn't vote to convict.
So what you're saying is, this is indeed legitimate reasonable doubt, but anyone who has reasonable doubt about this would be guilty of promoting the rape of women?What's bothering me here is the lack of presumption of innocence on behalf of the woman. It's quite strange that you could go from a few minor details about her to accusing her of making up this whole thing.
By that logic even the presumption of innocence in a rape case is tantamount to encouraging people to rape each other.
chimaera, meanwhile, indicated disbelief (at least enough to count as reasonable doubt) because she lied* to police in the course of the investigation. That lie happened to be about the number of cellphones that she had.Did she lie about it or was there a misunderstanding? If the phones were being used by other people, then, as I said, she may not have considered them hers.
Did she lie about it or was there a misunderstanding?Christ, delmoi. I specifically said that I was not claiming that she lied.
The point is, it's such a random minor detail and I don't see what relevance it has here.Lying to police during the investigation is not a random minor detail, and that's what chimaera claimed happened. You grossly misrepresented that claim.
Lying to police during the investigation is not a random minor detail, and that's what chimaera claimed happened. You grossly misrepresented that claim.I think I've said this like three times already, but it could be a misunderstanding.
That you think the thing she allegedly lied about is trivial, or even perhaps that she didn't lie at all, is completely irrelevant to whether or not you misrepresented chimaera's claim.That's getting pretty meta, it depends on whether or not a lie or misstatement is dependent on the object about which incorrect statements are being made. Getting into a discussion of it is kind of a waste of time, but none the less let me explain why I don't think I'm mischaracterizing chimaera's argument.
bwithh: Interesting that the BBC world news website is NOT yet reporting on the NYT exclusive, even though it's almost 8am in London now. The UK Guardian is reporting the NYT exclusive as is the Financial Times (but the FT, despite being a financial industry newspaper, in much more muted, cautious and played down terms). Seems like the British press is not fully on board with the NYT exclusive yet. though I imagine it's getting huge play in France.Well, they're reporting it now, for what it's worth: Dominique Strauss-Kahn: 'Doubts' over maid's credibility.
Well there is that whole innocent until proven guilty concept.Does that apply to the maid as well?
She isn't charged with a crime; she doesn't have or need presumption of innocence!She's being accused a crime. If DSK didn't rape her, then she is a criminal.
Presumption of innocence is a legal conceptAnd therefore... what exactly? DSK either raped her, or he didn't. One of them is a criminal and the other isn't. What is the problem with discussing which case is more likely?
Yuck, delmoi. Chimaera isn't saying she made it up. [S]he's just saying that there's reasonable doubt about the maid's veracity *if the NYT claims are true*. It's not a statement about the facts on the day either way, just about her credibility as a witness and resultant difficulties in a he said/she said case. What's so difficult to understand?What's so hard to understand is what you think I'm not understanding. I certainly understand that the credibility issues would make prosecution more difficult.
The maid is not on trial. She needs no presumption of innocence because she's not staring down the barrel of incarceration. Presumption of innocence is a legal protection during prosecution.What does that hove to do with a comment thread. Just because getting a conviction in court would be a challenge, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. OJ wasn't convicted. Does that mean he's innocent? Are we not allowed to talk about him as if he did it?
The maid is not on trial. She needs no presumption of innocence because she's not staring down the barrel of incarceration. Presumption of innocence is a legal protection during prosecution.What does that hove to do with a comment thread. Just because getting a conviction in court would be a challenge, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. OJ wasn't convicted. Does that mean he's innocent? Are we not allowed to talk about him as if he did it?
A criminal isn't someone who's done something morally abhorrent, but someone who has been convicted of a crime by a court.No, that's a convict. The word criminal applies to anyone who breaks the law, whether or not they are caught. When people talk about "Criminals on the street", they're not talking about people who just got released from prison after serving their sentences.
Because you're mixing two different questions together. People have said they, given the reported facts, they'd probably have to find DSK not guilty at trial. And you're objecting to that by asking "which is more likely?". But that's completely irrelevant to whether someone would find DSK guilty.I think I said pretty clearly that I thought it would be difficult to get a conviction. So I'm not really sure what you're saying here. How am I confusing the two questions?
A quick thought experiment: whilst I am not at all suggesting this happened in this case, it would be entirely possible for random person A to have raped random person B in the view of B whilst A had a reasonable belief that B had consented (insert own facts to prove this here) to A.Sure that's possible, if you look at the Assange case or something. But that doesn't seem very likely in this case. Unless there was a situation where she didn't fight back, at all, and then later told the police he dragged her into the bathroom and forced her to give a blowjob, etc. If she were lying about those things, then I would definitely think that DSK was probably not guilty. So if she claimed there was physical evidence of a struggle, and there wasn't. That would be a big mark against her. But instead there's some random stuff about her that doesn't really relate to the specific charges.
NYT: "In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application."It seems like it would be easy to tell if she'd had her genitals mutilated or not.
If this is true, it appears she cannot reliably recount details of rapes she is alleged to have undergoneNo, it would mean she can't reliably remember what she put on a form she filled out who knows how long ago, not that she can't remember a rape. I don't even understand how you go from not remembering what she put on a form to not remembering what actually happened.
I am not sure why you would continue to view this person as someone who is either legally or morally reliable beyond a reasonable doubt as a source of testimony.What does that mean exactly? What percentage of the population, out there in the world, do you think is "reliable" by the standard you are setting here? Is everyone who is unreliable incapable of being raped? Or if unreliable people are raped, should their rapists be prosecuted? I actually want to know what your answers are here.
I'm not sure why people would be so sure that DSK did it (and delmoi, you explicitly stated it was more likely that he did)Yes, and let me be clear that this is exactly what I'm saying. I think that, on the balance of evidence, it's more likely that DSK raped her then that she made it up. Because as I said, there's no way that they can both be innocent here. Either he sexually assulted her, and is a criminal, or she had consensual sex with him and then hatched and executed a plan to frame him for rape for some kind of material benefit. Which one is more likely?
1) various facts about the accuser make her unreliable, but unreliable people can still be raped, right?posted by delmoi at 3:50 AM on July 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
2) How much does her unreliability change the likelihood of her having been sexually assaulted, and why?
3) Is 'unreliability' the same thing as a capacity to try to frame someone as a rapist, or is there a big jump between 'unreliability' and the kind of malicious sociopathy and recklessness needed to actually try to frame someone for rape?
4) What about DSK? How much does the fact that he's been accused of sexual assault change the likelihood that he tried to rape her? Does her 'unreliability' outweigh this fact?
The newspaper says that police tape recorded a telephone conversation between the woman and a man in prison made on the day of the alleged rape in which the woman talked about the possible financial benefits that could come to her as a result of pursuing charges against Strauss-Kahn.Oh yeah, that sounds like someone you could use to gain "beyond reasonable doubt" from a jury.
The thing is, there isn't even any evidence that this women has ever done anything wrong,Er, that's a pretty poorly written statement on my part. I think what I meant was that there wasn't any evidence that she had ever done anything really malicious, like falsely accuse someone of rape. She may be that holding on to people's money or getting cell phones for people may be illegal somehow. Personally I don't consider those things to be major moral transgressions.
Reading is your friend, delmoi, although I know it's often considered optional at MeFi.
Well, the thing is, whenever anyone does, you shout down anyone not wanting to string up one party as "pro-rape". Seems a bit dishonest to claim you just want a discussion.I never once used the term "pro-rape". How am I calling anyone "pro-rape"? I just think that in this specific case the evidence makes it look more likely that DSK actually tried to rape her then that she made the whole story up. In fact, I maybe I missed it but who in this thread thinks that it's actually likely that there was consensual sex between these two and that she made up the rape claim later. Do you really believe that's more likely?
The store was robbed? The shop-keeper was pistol-whipped? There's no physical evidence of either, only his word.We know for a fact that DSK had sex with this maid. Are you not aware of that fact? The question is whether or not it was consensual. In your example, it would be like Hillary Clintons DNA was found on the cash register, and she claimed the shop keeper gave it to her as a gift, or something. But people don't often give gifts of cash registers, they do frequently have sex with each other. That's why the analogy doesn't hold.
The reason it’s nearly impossible for the prosecution to pursue these charges, even though there’s no evidence that she lied about anything related to the actual events surrounding the alleged crime, is because we live in a culture where rape victims need to be flawless in order to be believed.This is totally false.
Possibly more an ask issue, but if someone can cite other instances of legitimate businesses engaging criminals to get their enemies in this, or similar, sorts of way, I would be most interested. I'm sure it happens, I just can't think of any real life..Here you go IndigoJones!
Exactly. I find that these conversations often devolve into people discussing the legal system in the way they want it to work or the way it "should" work in their eyes, rather than how it actually operates.Well, first of all we should remember that the legal system is pretty different when you're a millionaire, and when you're not. If this happened at a motel 6 and the guy was working with a public defender, what do you think would have happened? Would any of this have even come up?
Well the District Attorney letter is much more damning than the original, and ambiguous, article in the New York Times article from last night.Yeah, the DA letter is much more problematic then the NYT article.
Which pretty much says no, there is no action other then the admission by the accuser that you will accept. Pretty amazing.And yet, I've already posted comments talking about how much more compelling the DA letter is. So obviously you were wrong about that. I didn't think what was in the NYT article was enough for me to think that a rape probably didn't happen.
I no-longer care; it no-longer matters whether it was rape or consensual, because the correct and moral thing to do in this situation (if it is being reported fairly and accurately) is to not continue prosecuting the alleged, because there is insurmountable reasonable doubt.You don't care whether or not she was raped? Seriously? Whether or not there is 'insurmountable' reasonable doubt is a decision that a jury would make, not a prosecutor. A prosecutor may drop a case they don't think they'll win. But it's not immoral to prosecute someone you think is guilty just because it would be hard to get a conviction.
"Even though there's no evidence that she lied about anything related to the actual events surrounding the alleged crime"?The letter from the prosecution to the defense directly and unequivocally says that she lied about about things related to the actual events surrounding the alleged crime. To the police who were investigating the alleged crime.
It just occurred to me that Roman Polanski is probably pretty fucking happy the case against DSK is falling apart.Polanski was already convicted. He skipped out before sentencing, so there wouldn't need to be another trial if he were ever caught.
That fact wasn't in the NYT article, and the letter hadn't been released when I wrote that comment.What comment? I was quoting mandymanwasregistered, who was quoting someone named Jill on the website feministe.us. I wasn't responding to you.
What a disturbingly insane blog that is -- the general vibe is that nothing short of her saying on public television that she lied is enough to not convict this guy of rape. And even then probably some man should be convicted for making her want to lie.rr: you're not answering my question: Do you really, seriously believe that she had consensual sex with DSK, then on the spot decided to frame him for rape? Is that what you think happened?
Is he guilty? He's innocent until proven guilty. And I don't think he'll be proven guilty.So do you think, then the maid is guilty of fabricating the whole thing? Again, what do you think actually happened the hotel room? Either he raped her, or they had consensual sex and then she decided to frame him.
"She lied repeatedly to the police about significant details of the alleged rape"Where does it say that? They said she might have lied while talking about whether or not she had been raped in the past, before she came to the U.S.
Assuming that by "it" you mean "the letter sent by the prosecutors to the defense", and by "they" you mean "the prosecutors", I have no idea where you got that idea from."She lied repeatedly to the police about significant details of the alleged rape"Where does it say that? They said she might have lied while talking about whether or not she had been raped in the past, before she came to the U.S.
b) the next para states that the original story was that she fled the room and stayed in the hallway till the accused left but that "complainant has since admitted that this account was falseAh right. That is still a pretty minor detail though. Whether she left immediately to report the crime or cleaned another room first doesn't really change anything. Except the defense could say if she did that she wasn't all that traumatized.
Twenty-eight hours after a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York said she was sexually assaulted by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, she spoke by phone to a boyfriend in an immigration jail in Arizona.posted by scalefree at 6:56 AM on July 2, 2011
Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney’s office learned the call had been recorded and had it translated from a “unique dialect of Fulani,” a language from the woman’s native country, Guinea, according to a well-placed law enforcement official.
When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said.
(That is, the DA's letter doesn't mention anything about keycard evidence - do you have an alternate source for that, jaduncan?)It's on page two of this NYT article.
If the allegations of her being a prostitute are true, then saying "yes" is basically confessing to a different crime.He has the right not to answer. He doesn't have the right to answer with a lie.
I am quite surprised how keen people are to call DSK a probable rapist based on very little but hearsay.That's not what hearsay is. Hearsay is when, for example, person A hears person B say something, and then testifies that they "heard B say". You can't use that in court.
Having had one run in with a West African mob scheme (which started when a nice young man named Amadou rear-ended my car in Brooklyn one rainy night 7 years ago, and ended with me out one car, and two insurance companies out several thousand dollars, and Amadou gone from the face of the earth...Wow, that's pretty racist.
Is there evidence that he paid herIsn't this backwards, with respect to how the American legal system is supposed to work?
Given that prostitution is a crime in New York, then yes, I believe the burden of proof would be on whoever was alleging that the woman was prostituting herselfOh come on. Are you kidding?
(1) I entered the fray here with two posts where I explicitly said that I was making an ethical, not a legal argument. My impression was that I was subsequently arguing against the people who had provided some counter-arguments to my original posts.When you say "this is not a closed case" and "the burden of proof is on the people accusing her of prostitution", you're making a legal argument, regardless of whether or not you say that you're making a moral argument.
(2) it wasn't my hypothetical: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I think I missed one here?)Great, you didn't bring it up. You just argued that whoever alleges that she's a prostitute must prove that she's a prostitute or else DSK is guilty of rape because he didn't pay her. Or something.
(3) a number of people were arguing exactly that they believed it likely that DSK was being falsely accused; as well, some of the linked articles were arguing or strongly implying this position: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; I've been arguing against this point of view.Please explain to me how "it is likely that he is falsely accused" is incompatible with "it is possible that he had sex with her against her will".
Flunkie: see my previous link for a discussion of the legal definition of "false allegation" (it starts on p. 3). If you want to insist that I use legalistic-sounding language in its purely technical sense, then may I ask that you do the same yourself?I'm sorry, I genuinely don't know what you're getting at here. Is this intended as a response to my request that you please explain how "it is likely that such-and-such" is incompatible with "it is possible that not such-and-such"? If so, I don't see how it addresses that.
Flunkie: you asked,But to say "it is likely that he is falsely accused" is not to say "he is falsely accused", and to say "it is possible that he raped her" is not to say "he raped her".
Please explain to me how "it is likely that he is falsely accused" is incompatible with "it is possible that he had sex with her against her will".
To say that DSK is falsely accused of raping the maid is to say that he did not rape her.
By delmoi's logic, this makes the UN "racist" for, um, pointing out that what, West Africans come from West Africa?First of all, five comments in a row? Second of all what are you talking about? I said it was racist to say, because this woman is west African, and apparently knows someone who's in jail, she's a part of the west African Mafia and exactly the same as the person who scammed you out of your car. The only thing these people have in common is their ethnicity, but in your mind they're the same, apparently.
If you heard about a guy named Tony DiFrancesco who owned a body shop and a carting company and was charged or suspected of money laundering, would it be "racist" to speculate he had ties to the Italian mafia?Uh, yes? Obviously. How is that even a question? You don't have to be a member of the mafia to launder money.
I just believe in the presumption of innocence. I take no pleasure in this case either way, I just dislike the rush to judgement people had in the face of apparently problematic evidence.Yet, in this thread people have no problem assuming that this woman is a criminal herself, despite never having been convicted of or even charged with a crime (as far as we know)
She (and again, this is hearsay) apparently confessed to making false statements under oath regarding the rape that she alleged previously for the purposes of her asylum claim.This is false. She didn't say anything about the rape on her asylum claim.
In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.If you're going to accuse this woman of being a criminal you should at least make sure your basic facts are correct.
We should perhaps merely ignore each other's commentsYeah, feel free to start doing that.
Jaducan: She (and again, this is hearsay) apparently confessed to making false statements under oath regarding the rape that she alleged previously for the purposes of her asylum claim.I said: "This is false. She didn't say anything about the rape on her asylum claim." And then I quoted the NYT article
NYT: In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.Jaducan: she is a confessed perjurer
« Older A bride-to-be has been given a very public etiquet... | What does a post-American worl... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by inturnaround at 7:55 PM on June 30, 2011 [11 favorites]