9
   

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

 
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:32 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Can testimony on unsubstantiated evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination be allowed? If such evidence is subject to cross-examination then fair enough.

All testimony given at trial--from both sides--is subject to cross-examination by the opposing attorney.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:34 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Hawkeye I been of the opinion for some time that when Firefly take some crazy position that she is just being dishonest in the service of her higher goals however from her last few posts I am no longer so sure.
I have long been of the opinion that Firefly tries to tamp down her radical views for the sake of gaining support, but I have no doubt but that her deep hostility to erotic freedom and to men exercising power is real. She constantly misrepresents her opinion as well as the facts, but read her for long enough and you can tell where her opinion really is. If you rely on Firefly for your facts then you are an idiot (and I know that you are not).
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:40 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
If the defense hints that it is "out of character" for DSK to commit such an assault, they open the door to allowing testimony about past assaultive actions toward women.


Surely not if the allegations of past actions are unsubstantiated.


If the defense brings up his character, his wife has been wasting her money on their fees. Hopefully he's got a smart enough defense team to keep character out of play.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:42 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Then they would not have charged him with violent felonies, because it would have been impossible for them to support those charges at trial.


Suppose they never had any intention of going to trial. They main job is already done. What happens to DSK is getting passe. The "purity for men" message is being beamed loud and clear. The case doesn't matter. It's the applications that matter.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:42 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
If someone mugs you on an empty street and steals your wallet and jewelry, and you then positively identify the person in a line-up, is there any reason the police should not arrest and charge him, based on your word, and your account, or that a jury should not believe you if you are telling the truth?


The question above is likely not if you had been mugs at least most of the times but if you had ID the correct person.

All kind of peer reviews scientific studies had shown that there are real problems with how reliable such testimony is even when the line up had been done correctly under guidelines such as the police officer who is conducting the line up himself is not aware of who they suspense is guilty so you will not pick up sub-conscious clues from him.

So yes at least the police should have some doubts concerning your picking someone out of a line up until and if they have other solid evidences to back your ID up.

Hopefully they would not lock someone up without that evidences no matter how honestly sure you are that someone had done the mugging.

Of course it had been done and that is why hundreds of men had been released from prison lately when new technologies such as DNA end up proving someone or even someones had made an honest error in picking up the person in a line up.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I have long been of the opinion that Firefly tries to tamp down her radical views for the sake of gaining support, but I have no doubt but that her deep hostility to erotic freedom and to men exercising power is real.

What radical views do I have? That sexual assault laws, that pertain to sexual assaults committed by force, should be enforced? What's radical, is that you don't think there should even be such laws prohibiting sexual assaults by force.

I have no hostility at all to erotic freedom--where both adult parties are in freely willing agreement, and the sexual contact is wanted by both sides. If "men exercising their power" means men choosing underage sex partners, or engaging in sexual contact by force, with unwilling adult parties, then, yes, I would be against that.
Quote:
She constantly misrepresents her opinion.

Of course, it makes perfect, logical sense that I would want to misrepresent my own opinion. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~whozrdadi/Spiker_Speicher/M-laughing-mouse.gif
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:52 pm
@firefly,
Somebody thumbed this trash up--

I asked--

Quote:
Can testimony on unsubstantiated evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination be allowed? If such evidence is subject to cross-examination then fair enough.


ff answered-

Quote:
All testimony given at trial--from both sides--is subject to cross-examination by the opposing attorney.


You can't get much more dishonest that that. And it's insulting too in that it assumes we didn't know that--"All testimony given at trial--from both sides--is subject to cross-examination by the opposing attorney. " Which in English means that ff thinks we are all tiny tots.

I'll ask the question again if only for the benefit of the up-thumber--

Can testimony on unsubstantiated evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination be allowed? If such evidence is subject to cross-examination then fair enough.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:54 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Then they would not have charged him with violent felonies, because it would have been impossible for them to support those charges at trial.


Suppose they never had any intention of going to trial. They main job is already done. What happens to DSK is getting passe. The "purity for men" message is being beamed loud and clear. The case doesn't matter. It's the applications that matter.
You are certainly getting to the heart of the matter of the corruption of the American "justice" system. It is a system that rarely uses trials, and which uses as its main method fear and intimidation on the part of the state towards the citizens. The vague law making and selective enforcement are a part of the fear apparatus, but another part is the very aggressive laying down of charges. The ability of the wealthy to buy their way out by hiring a good defense is the final stamp that makes this "made in America" .
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:54 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Can testimony on unsubstantiated evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination be allowed?


you want it cross-examined before it's presented as testimony?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 02:06 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
If the defense brings up his character, his wife has been wasting her money on their fees. Hopefully he's got a smart enough defense team to keep character out of play.


You did read my quote from Hamlet didn't you Beth. We are all arrant knaves. The judge in the second bail hearing, all the guys in the case, me, your squeeze, the lot of us. Get thee to a nunnery. Nunneries are to protect women from men. If you want to live among men then accept that just like if you want a dog you accept it shitting all over the place.

None of you wimmins have the slightest interest in the DSK/Ophelia interaction. That's easy proved by your lack of interest in other similar cases.

You're into "purity for men" pure and simple plus lurid sex talk of the bodice ripping genre. Look how popular Dracula is with women. Bram Stoker touched the nerve eh? "Oh-how horrible", she sobbed, peeping through her fingers as he sank his fangs into her tender and innocent neck.

You do know what the father of the bride gives away don't you?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 02:13 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Hopefully he's got a smart enough defense team to keep character out of play.


By smart enough you mean they know the gallery they are playing to.

When President Sukarno visited the ex-Soviet Union the KGB set up an orgy in his hotel and filmed it. When he arrived home they told him with a view to pressuring him. He ordered a thousand copies. Said he wanted to send one to all his pals.

As a scientific person you should know that results need to be verified in all locations. So it's obvious there's no science here. There is just the fervent and fervid audience. We have the USA on the psychiatric couch. Or the New York representation of it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 02:23 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
We have the USA on the psychiatric couch.
A nation of unwhole people who are seeking direction and reassurance, and thus are easily swindled?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 02:53 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Hopefully he's got a smart enough defense team to keep character out of play.


By smart enough you mean they know the gallery they are playing to.



By smart enough I mean know the law in the jurisdiction.

If they mention character, the prosecution can pull out any counter-evidence they've got to rebut. If the defense doesn't mention it, it will be much more difficult for the prosecution to bring his character into play.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 02:56 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

You
you
your
thee
you
you
you
you
your
You're
You
you


try writing about something related to the case or the law involved
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 03:19 pm
Quote:

The woman who alleges that Dominique Strauss-Kahn tried to rape her will testify in court, her lawyer has said.
06 Jun 2011

"She's a woman of dignity and respect," lawyer Kenneth Thompson said of the 32-year-old immigrant from west Africa who has accused Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her when she went to clean his hotel room.

"It was a terrible sex assault on an innocent woman. She's going to come to the court house. She's going to tell the truth. What she wants is justice," Mr Thompson said, speaking outside the New York Supreme Court.

The accusations against one of the world's most famous men has drawn huge media attention but to this day his accuser remains barely known.

Strauss-Kahn's defence team on Monday again hinted that their strategy could be to maintain that any sexual activity in the Sofitel suite was consensual.

"It will be clear that there was no element of forcible compulsion in this case whatsoever. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply not credible," defence lawyer Benjamin Brafman said.

The alleged victim has so far been kept in the shadows, hidden from the press pack as she waits possibly for months to testify in the trial, amid rumors circulating about her character and background.

But Mr Thompson said that "she's not courting publicity."

"The victim wants you to know that all of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's power, money, and influence throughout the world will not keep the truth about what he did to her in that hotel room from coming out," Thompson said.

The former IMF chief, who resigned as head of the International Monetary Fund in the days after his arrest on May 14, pleaded not guilty to the charges of sexual assault and attempted rape on Monday.

A full three weeks after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, all officials will say about the alleged victim is that she is 32, immigrated from west Africa and worked for three years at a Sofitel in Times Square. She also has a teenage daughter.

Prosecutors are barred by law from saying who she is. Journalists have uncovered her name, but most big media outlets prohibit publication, limiting exposure to French media, which have different rules.

Although reporters have visited her former Harlem apartment building - and even her extended family's house in a remote part of Guinea - almost nothing about the maid's personal life is known. Her current whereabouts remain secret.

Legal experts say the maid's furtiveness is understandable.

"It's very common that women who are claiming they were sexually abused don't come forward," said Jay K. Goldberg, a criminal defense attorney with experience in rape cases. "There's no reason for her to make an appearance and she's not required to be in court until the trial."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8559926/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-alleged-victim-to-testify-lawyer-says.html
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 03:19 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
If they mention character, the prosecution can pull out any counter-evidence they've got to rebut. If the defense doesn't mention it, it will be much more difficult for the prosecution to bring his character into play.


Like ff you miss the point or maybe choose to. What counter evidence can the prosecution bring into play that has not been substantiated under oath and cross-examination or is going to be by Mr Brafman? Of course such evidence might be used against DSK. In England it is the case, or it used to be, that an accused person's criminal record could only be read out in court after a guilty verdict. And that record was restricted to actual previous convictions. Many a jury has breathed a sigh of relief when they have found for guilty in a borderline case and then discovered the accused has been in and out of jail for 30 years.

What evidence have we seen of that standard on here so far. What some over-ambitious ex-bimbo in France has said in an "interview" is neither here nor there.

Of course the defence can mention his character if those giving evidence in support of it are willing to be cross-examined or it is off some written official record such as the US response to his appointment at the IMF.

Do you understand now?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 03:23 pm
@spendius,
I understand that you don't understand the U.S. legal system.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 03:24 pm
Quote:
Monday, Jun. 06, 2011
The Chase: Following Dominique Strauss-Kahn in New York
By Nate Rawlings / New York

The scrum of reporters assembles in the pre-dawn quiet two blocks from the border of Chinatown. It is more than two hours before Dominique Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to make an appearance, but it doesn't matter. On Monday the curtain will lift on Act I of the trial of the new century, and the courtroom has precious few seats. Two hours early might be too late.

After being herded through metal detectors, we ride the nearest elevator to the 13th floor. The doors open, and middle-aged Europeans to my left and right take off in a dead sprint. I don't realize why until I see a line assembling behind a velvet rope: the people are seeking admission to an exclusive club. I played two sports in college, and though I'm well out of my prime shape, I am able to catch up and elbow my way into the throng.

The hallway outside of Part 51 at the Manhattan criminal court looks like an old, crumbling train station. Faded marble walls flank scuffed green linoleum floors; a sign over one restroom reads "Public Toilet-Women." There is little air conditioning, and soon the hallway became stifling with the cluster of humanity. Inside the courtroom, the white walls are half covered with faded wood paneling, and the benches for the observers might resemble church pews, save for the wood dividers separating one person's bum from the next.

The crime Strauss-Kahn is accused of committing allegedly occurred in a $3,000-a-night hotel suite in midtown Manhattan. When he was arrested, he was yanked from a first-class seat on a flight to Paris. What might he be thinking as he sits in this aging hall of justice, little changed since it was built in 1941 under Mayor F.H. LaGuardia?

After a few minutes, two enormous gentlemen sit right in front of me in the first row, nearly blocking my view. I think they are detectives until I recognize their faces from the pictures of the defendant being led from his temporary home. They are his bodyguards, probably hired by Stroz Friedberg, the firm handling Strauss-Kahn's security to the tune of $200,000 a month.

Outside, maids from the New York housekeeping union wear uniforms of light blue, black and white. They stand arm in arm protesting the alleged mistreatment of one of their own. In the rest of the building, dozens of trials are under way: people accused of drug possession or DUIs or assaults plead guilty and not guilty, and are sentenced or set free. But in Part 51 on the 13th floor, reporters from around the world wait silently, their cell phones in their laps, having been told repeatedly that any attempted picture taking will result in confiscation. Strauss-Kahn finally walks in dressed in a black suit and dark blue tie. He is stone-faced as he takes his seat next to Benjamin Brafman, the legendary defense lawyer who wrote the book, or at least the lectures, on the trial process.

When the bailiff reads the charge, Strauss-Kahn and his lawyers stand up. In past decades, the reporters would have been ready, pens and pads in hand; today they hold their breath as they clutch their phones and Strauss-Kahn utters the two words everyone knows is coming: "Not guilty." The defense requests that the prosecution present all relevant information within a 45-day period of discovery. Judge Michael J. Orbus agrees and sets the date for the next hearing: July 18, at 2 p.m. E.T.

The court officers bellow, "Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please rise and move out of the courtroom." The scrum prods its way out the doors to what looks like a horse pen set up in front of the building, where each side fires their opening salvos. Brafman calls the two-word plea a "powerful statement." Kenneth P. Thompson, representing the accuser, says she is a woman of dignity and respect; all she wants is justice. As more than a hundred reporters clutching cameras and recorders fight for position, an old lawyer says to me, "I've seen a lot of trials here. I was here for the trial after John Lennon was shot. I've never seen anything like this." But as they'd say in a potboiler, we ain't seen nothing yet.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2075967,00.html
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 03:34 pm
@ehBeth,
What's this list of "you"s and "your"s and "thee" and "You're" all about Beth?

The case is based on one thing. An unlikely thing in my opinion but I'll allow it's a possibility. That DSK had an uncontrollable urge for a cleaning woman from a country on the UN Aids watch list after about 40 years extensive and comprehensive experience of the opposite sex and was about to depart for The City of White Thighs. And that he would risk what he had going for this woman.

On top of that the idea that the cleaning woman thought the room was vacated is also most unlikely. I should think everybody in the hotel would know when the head of the IMF had departed. And even if she thought the room was vacated it would be obvious by the time the door was half open that it wasn't and if it was out of order for a cleaning woman to enter an occupied room she would have quickly closed the door and hoped her entrance had not been noticed.

I have a much more plausible theory. It has the advantage that it does not underestimate female intelligence. But I have to go to the pub now.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 03:52 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
On top of that the idea that the cleaning woman thought the room was vacated is also most unlikely.

Why? He was in the suite past check-out time and he hadn't notified the front desk that he would be chacking-out late.
Quote:
And even if she thought the room was vacated it would be obvious by the time the door was half open that it wasn't and if it was out of order for a cleaning woman to enter an occupied room she would have quickly closed the door and hoped her entrance had not been noticed.

This wasn't a room, it was a large suite. So, if someone was in one of the rooms that might not be immediately obvious. And, after apologizing to him, she apparently tried to leave, but he is accused of locking the door and restraining her so she could not leave.

There is another plausible theory about what happened:
Quote:
But there's another school of thought — favored by a lot of clinical specialists — who say someone that obsessed with sexual encounters is dysfunctional, an addict. They're dependent on them, and when denied or otherwise frustrated, they snap and try to take it anyway. They are sick, and when their sickness takes full control, they lose all logic, lose rationality, and all reason and consequence vanishes in the impulse and violence of the act."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2072209,00.html


 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 08:35:37