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?
Yes. She allegedly lied repeatedly to police about the events on the day of the rape.
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.
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.
And then lied to the cops about it. Whoops!
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...."
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.
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.
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.
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?
3. The call she had with an inmate discussed the benefits of the case (other than to nail the accused rapist to the wall)
Remember where I said "Stop wilfully misrepresenting other people's stance..." ?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 there is that whole innocent until proven guilty concept.
She isn't charged with a crime; she doesn't have or need presumption of innocence!
Presumption of innocence is a legal concept
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?
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.
A criminal isn't someone who's done something morally abhorrent, but someone who has been convicted of a crime by a court.
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.
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.
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."
If this is true, it appears she cannot reliably recount details of rapes she is alleged to have undergone
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.
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)
1) various facts about the accuser make her unreliable, but unreliable people can still be raped, right?
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.
The thing is, there isn't even any evidence that this women has ever done anything wrong,
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.
The store was robbed? The shop-keeper was pistol-whipped? There's no physical evidence of either, only his word.
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.
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..
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 the District Attorney letter is much more damning than the original, and ambiguous, article in the New York Times article from last night.
Which pretty much says no, there is no action other then the admission by the accuser that you will accept. Pretty amazing.
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.
"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.
"Even though there's no evidence that she lied about anything related to the actual events surrounding the alleged crime"?
It just occurred to me that Roman Polanski is probably pretty fucking happy the case against DSK is falling apart.
That fact wasn't in the NYT article, and the letter hadn't been released when I wrote that comment.
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.
Is he guilty? He's innocent until proven guilty. And I don't think he'll be proven guilty.
"She lied repeatedly to the police about significant details of the alleged rape"
"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 false
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.
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?)
If the allegations of her being a prostitute are true, then saying "yes" is basically confessing to a different crime.
I am quite surprised how keen people are to call DSK a probable rapist based on very little but hearsay.
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...
Is there evidence that he paid her
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 herself
(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.
(2) it wasn't my hypothetical: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I think I missed one here?)
(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.
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?
Flunkie: you asked,
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
We should perhaps merely ignore each other's comments
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.
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.
« 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
Buy a Shirt