Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

That is the claim made by the stewards of the system....they cant very well admit the the stewards of they system during the 80's were as dishonest or as incompetent as they appear to be, they have to try to sell the position that this outcome is an unexpected and not to have been expected surprise.

Bullshit, the claim is the DSK swung the swing arm door guard and thus "imprisoned" her

http://www.google.com/search?q=swing+arm+door+guard+pic&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=785&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zIzyTaCyC5P4swPLl6TOCw&ved=0CCMQsAQ

The claim is total bullshit, as it prevents people from entering but not leaving, but that rarely stops the state from making a self serving claim these days...

To my knowledge no explanation or authoritative reporting has been offered on any of the details you guys are arguing about. This stuff will eventually come out in the trial. What is the point of arguing about it now, while the facts are not available to either of you?

Exactly... but people will bet on two flys crawling up a wall... I guess it is the same thing .

Can you be more specific? So far as I know there is no disputing of the leaked facts.

The facts of the positions taken relating to the alleged incident are available. Those are what I am addressing George. What messages are being put out. And who by. And how they are to be compared to other events in terms of importance.

Perhaps you haven't read the thread or if you have are choosing to line up on one of the sides which has stated a great number of "facts" and which hasn't been included in your admonishment.

There has also been no authentication of the "leaked facts".

The only thing you can be sure of are the charges on which DSK has been indicted--and those include violent felonies--criminal sexual assault and attempted rape--in addition to unlawful imprisonment. And he has entered a not guilty plea to those charges.

Those are the facts of the legal case at this point.

There is once more likely to be the only facts that we will get as I am betting the woman and her lawyer or lawyers will take a settlement.

I presume you mean some of them?

Do wild bears poop in the woods? Is the Pope a Cathollic? Did Anthony Weiner go "Weee-Weee-Weee all the way home???

What do you mean is the head of IMF a sex criminal? That's almost certainly a qualification for the job.

I think arguments about the "leaked details" regarding door locks and the like are merely pointless. I agree the facts of positions taken by others with regard to these rumors are known, but the substance of the discussion is so vaporous as to render it meaningless.

Well you would say that wouldn't you George, as Mandy Rice-Davies said on another occasion with some similarities to the one here. The Profumo Affair it is known as. We all know, or at least I do, which way you lean in the affair. Possibly for more than one reason.

The substance of the discussion is the only interesting aspect of the case to those of us who are not connected to it financially. As I'm not.

The vast majority of media reporting has been tempermentally on the side of the accuser. It may well have had an "alleged" or an "apparently" inserted into it for legal reasons but that fact stands out. And it has led many posters on here to follow its lead.

And it's a very interesting fact. And it is one not shared by myself or those others of us who have given the "Thumbdowner" repetitive strain injury.

Now I have reason to think that these guys are of a certain age. I am. You are too. And therefore the media of our formative period, which began when girls ceased being awkward, moody little horrors, and your formative period as well, is what has had a significant influence on us. If you missed most of it due to diligent study of maritime lore then that is what it is. Most females were engaging with other sorts of media so what affected us didn't affect them either.

In other words media has changed its nature in that period of time. And with media being of the importance that it is the only way I can think of a why an intelligent man would say that such substance is "vaporous" and "meaningless" is that he is respecting the views of the females in his circles and not only daren't take issue with this rapid change in the nature of media but daren't even think of doing. Just as I don't like to think of our male descendent's plight should the pace of the direction not be slowed or, indeed, that the direction itself not be put into gentle reverse. Ignoring the shrieking of course.

And on women's behalf. It doesn't work you see. The near-Meltdown was God's warning about misbehaviour. Which was created by media to make extra profit. Which it did.

I see the financial crisis as a result of this direction in media and of nothing else. The actors in the drama were merely doing what we all expected them to do in the circumstances they found themselves in. Were carefully trained to do it actually. How to grab the bananas legitimately I mean.

Thinking it was the bankers or the regulators or somesuch is strictly for the nonnies. They are the snow which falls upon media's tracks. Media carries a snow machine on its back.

The action in the Sofitel is a trivial incident and any trial will mainly consist of lies. To all intents and purposes it has ceased to exist.

What is the use of facts if all they are is "known". The facts of " positions taken by others with regard to these rumors" needs more than to be merely known. They need explaining. They haven't fallen out of the sky. They have been created.

And the media of my youth coincided with the rise to Superpower status of the US and this media coincides with balancing on the edge of an abyss too frightful to discuss in the presence of ladies. Which is why ladies retired when the cigars and brandy were served.

Lots of words and exvasions here: none very enlightening. I simply regognize that arguments now about whether the hasp on the door lock was closed or, if so, by whom, are both unresolvable and pointless. However, pray continue if that is your pleasure.

The action in the Sofitel is hardly "a trivial incident"--DSK is accused of very serious violent felony crimes against a stranger. And he would be similarly accused had the complainant been an adult male or a minor of either gender. That you choose to view the forcible sexual assaults of unwilling individuals as "trivial" reflects your persistent denial of the seriousness of the crimes themselves, as well as the seriousness of DSK's legal situation.

I really doubt that "any trial will mainly consist of lies", nor is there any basis for you to make such a statement. No lawyer can knowingly put a deceitful witness on the stand to commit perjury--to do so, would be subornation of perjury, for which an attorney can be fined, disbarred, and jailed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

That's not really true. The "vast majority of the media" have been objective in their coverage and they do not seem to be siding with the state and assuming guilt. The fact that this case is now moving toward trial reflects the fact that law enforcement, and the state, believe the defendant to be guilty--and his accuser is now NYS--and they will attempt to prove his guilt at trial to a jury's satisfaction.

The trial will consist of the defense's efforts to raise doubts about all evidence the prosecution presents in support of the charges, and that will be done by cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses and, likely, by presenting additional evidence and testimony from the defense's own expert witnesses. It will be long, drawn-out, and probably very tedious, but it will not "mainly consist of lies".

Rather than prejudicially pre-judge what is likely to be a very fair trial, I would suggest you wait for the trial and watch it for yourself, if cameras are allowed in the courtroom, or simply follow the testimony as it unfolds.

Your various musings reflect only your own biased views, mainly on issues that are unrelated to the legal process in this case. They do not add "substance" to the discussion, they are simply irrelevant flights of fancy on your part.

right...if she would have screamed, and if staff had come running and tried to save her but could not because the swing bar had been swung close, then a new charge might have made sense. But that did not happen so the jury should disregard this charge.

Assertions of that nature I am immune to George. I was trying to be polite.

Hawkeye we all should know that all those charges were piled on with a view of pressuring him to plea deal not with the idea that they would fly at trial.

yes, and it will be interesting to see if the state drops this charge before trial, because you have to suspect that a jury will hold such over reaching by the state in consideration as it contemplates the varasity all of the other charges.

But you are a big enough person to admit that other smart educated people might reach a conclusion other than yours.....OH WAIT! ......you are not.