@spendius,
Quote:Why do you continue arguing as if DSK is guilty. Can you not wait until the verdict gets here.
Why do you, and Hawkeye, and BillRM, continue searching for scraps of evidence that will cast some suspicion or doubt on the hotel maid's credibility or motives? Can't you wait for the trial to actually hear her testimony and to find out what other evidence the state will present to support their contention that Strauss-Kahn committed crimes of forcible sexual assault and unlawful imprisonment?
If you are so interested in searching out the background of the maid, why do you choose to ignore the numerous past reports of DSK's crude, unwanted, aggressive, and harassing advances toward women which, at the very least, certainly suggest that he is capable of the sort of criminal actions he is now charged with. Even the French public now knows a lot more about DSK's unsavory past behavior toward women than they did before his arrest. Part of their initial shock and disbelief over his arrest was due to the fact that much of his inappropriate behavior had been covered-up, in deference to the French privacy laws that shield the powerful from having their dirty laundry aired in public view. Viewed in the context of his predatory reputation, his arrest might still be shocking, but it would also be not at all that surprising. Given what we have heard about him, he may have been walking a very thin line, and occasionally crossing it, for many years.
While evidence regarding DSK's past behavior with women might not be admissible at his trial, it certainly suggests, to many in the public, that the NYPD did not whimsically arrest a totally innocent man without adequate reason to do so. The fact that DSK is presumed legally innocent until a jury decides otherwise, does not mean that we suspend all reason in discussing this case, including the distinct possibility that he actually engaged in the criminal actions with which he is now charged, and the awareness that he might have done similar things in the past without being charged for them. In highly publicized cases, the public generally winds up knowing more information about the defendent than will be presented to the jury because the defense fights to keep certain info out of the courtroom and out of the jury's consideration.
The D.A. believes that DSK is guilty and will try to convince a jury of his guilt. But sexual assault cases are often difficult to prosecute, and the jury will give DSK the presumption of innocence, so that, even if DSK committed those criminal sexual assaults, the D.A. might not be able to erace all reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. Only by following the actual trial, and all of the evidence which will presented at trial, will both the public, and the jury, be able to arrive at some decision regarding guilt or innocence--and, as happens in many of these high profile cases, the jury's verdict might not agree with the final verdict in the court of public opinion.
Quote:Did the allegations merit the charge and the treatment is the whole issue? That's where we are up to.
Yes, the allegations merited the charges--as is evident from the Criminal Complaint presented in court. Each charge was accompanied by a description of the specific behavior DSK had allegedly engaged in to justify that charge. And the treatment DSK has received is consistent with the treatment of those charged with serious violent felonies in NYC.
But, if what you really want to know is whether the allegations are "true", you are going to have to wait for the trial and then make up your own mind.
