Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

You're dancing around a bit here aren't you? So now we're going to argue about what constitutes a technicality. The case was dropped because the witness was unreliable. And don't give me that 'we the people' bollocks. The people didn't decide anything, it was the prosecutors. There are still civil cases hanging over his head in America and France.

The whole point of the editorial in question is that DSK's political career is irrevocably damaged. The only people who will benefit from his running for president are the opposition. What do you think HS? Do you think he could really become the President of France? Really?

1. The case was dropped by a judge.

2. The judge in NY isn't the same as the prosecutor.

3. An appeals judge already turned down the accuser's appeal to appoint a special prosecutor.

Kindly review news, facts, and applicable law before posting further opinions on our legal proceedings.

The law is new however one man already was charge and needed to go to court because he had received a joke computer file showing a fake tiger having sex with a woman.

Another man was arrested for having animal/human sex videos on his home computer.

It seem that your justice system is starting with animal/human sex in testing this law even fake and joke animal/human sex.

Perhaps you feel that your government pass laws with no intent to enforce those laws?

I'm sorry, the case was dropped by a judge, not the prosecutor, nor for that matter 'the people.' In any event that is irrelevant, the case was dropped because the witness was deemed unreliable.

I was talking about DSK's political chances, and asked you a question about that.

You're making allegations without anything to back it up.

A case being drop because there is no proof to find that person guilty is not a technicality under any normal meaning of that word.

Second a proven constant lair testimony is not proof of anything.

Only because he was never convicted of crimes. That does not mean he did not commit the criminal acts he was charged with--the charges were not found to be baseless or unfounded or untrue, that was not the reason they were dropped.


The case was not dropped because of lack of proof. There was evidence of a sexual encounter, the only issue was whether it was consensual or forced, and that issue was what was to be determined at trial. Without the trial, the question remains unanswered.

If you want to believe that he did not commit those acts, fine, that is only your opinion. Others are free to believe he might have committed those acts. The charges were neither proved, nor disproved, at trial, or as the result of the D.A.'s investigation, and the recommendation for dismissal made that quite clear.

It's not even just matters of legal guilt that are affecting the perception of DSK. I read a quote from someone in France who said that the whole idea of his suddenly sexually pursuing a hotel maid who had just entered his room to clean it, was distasteful and unseemly in a man who might hope to be President of France, and that his image had changed from "the great seducer" to that of "creepy old man". So, this incident has altered perceptions of him, in all sorts of ways, for many people--it's not just a matter of guilt or innocence. Whether that will affect his political future, only time will tell.

In what regards you mean the crazy tiger joke story? Do you wish for a link?

Or that the maid is a constant lair and had change her story of the events often as that is in the paperworks that the DA file with the courts.

Once more what allegations am I making that I am not backing up?

You're not backing up the tiger sex. (I can't believe I just typed that.)

Firefly I can not prove that the tooth fairy is not real and no one else can either however in any normal meaning of the term the man is innocent.

Hell if this con-woman would confessed to making up this story you would claimed she was force to do so.

To you there is no way for any man to get his good name back if charge by any woman no matter if she is a proven liar or not.

Evidence of a sexual encounter is not proof of any wrong doing of any kind by itself.

That would have been the advantage of a trial--it would have helped him get his good name back if the charges were shown to be non credible to a jury's satisfaction.
No one proved Diallo lied about the charges--and the D.A. made it quite clear that the charges were not dropped because they were found to be untrue.

Continuing this discussion is pointless. No one except DSK amd Diallo knows what happened in that hotel suite. People are free to speculate and form different opinions. The differing opinions are equally valid.

LOL truth is stranger then fiction any old day izzy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6918001/Man-cleared-of-porn-charge-after-tiger-sex-image-found-to-be-joke.html

Man cleared of porn charge after 'tiger sex' image found to be joke
A North Wales man has been cleared of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a tiger having sex with a woman.
12:00PM GMT 31 Dec 2009
The prosecution offered no evidence when it was accepted that the tiger in the clip was not real, and that it was all a joke.

It emerged in court that police and prosecutors had not previously listened to the film with the sound on.

Following the act, the tiger turned to the camera and roared: "That beats the Frosties advert!".

Defendant Andrew Robert Holland of Coedpoeth near Wrexham, appeared at Mold Crown Court today and pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutor Elizabeth Bell said that the prosecution had decided to offer no evidence against him.

When asked by Judge John Rogers QC why that was being done, she said that when the case was previously reviewed the film had no sound track.

Yesterday it had been further reviewed, the sound track could be heard, and it was clear that the film had been produced for the purposes of a joke rather than for sexual gratification.

"The sound track confirmed that the person watching the image would realise that it was not actually a real tiger that was involved in the fact," she said.

The judge recorded a formal not guilty verdict.

The court heard how the film had been "blue toothed" to the defendant as a joke.

Following the hearing, defending barrister David Potter said that the prosecution now accepted that any reasonable person viewing the video would not consider it to be real and that it was produced for the purposes of a joke.

"The sound track showed the tiger describing himself as Tony the Tiger, the Frosties advert character, who roars and says 'that beats the Frosties advert'," he explained.

The joke meant that Holland had found himself accused in court - and on various Internet sites - of possessing an extreme pornographic image which portrayed a person performing an act of intercourse with a tiger which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

An yet in the cops rape case in New York the not guilty verdicts was also meaningless to you.

Once more there is no way for any man in your eyes to clear his name if he is charge with rape by any woman.

Thank you for that Bill. At the end of the day the case was dropped. I agree that it should not have gone to court. The police will probably be more sensible in future. This is new legislation, it takes a while to bed down. I don't see what the problem is.

What do you think of DSK's presidential prospects?

IZZ the problem is that he had his name drag through the mud and if your lawyers are anything like US lawyers needed to spend a lot of his money in mounting a defense over this silliness.

And I did not say it was. Why did you quote only a portion of what I said? Why aren't you being more honest about what I said in it's entire context?

The issue of whether that sexual contact was forced or consensual was never legally determined. It remains an open question.

You are like a dog with a bone.

You can't prove that DSK did not engage in criminal sexual acts, no matter how much you would like to believe that he didn't. Some people think he probably did, some people think he didn't--but it is all speculation, we don't really know what went on in the hotel suite, and we probably never will know. You've never even heard DSK's version of what transpired.

I repeat...The issue of whether the sexual contact between DSK and Diallo was forced or consensual was never legally determined. It remains an open question, and open to speculation in people's minds.

I had a gut feeling that there are a lot of Frenchmen who would dearly love to have the chance to send a message to the barbarians Americans by electing him President just to start with.

However it is my understanding that the time to file is over with at this point even if he was ready to jump into such a race after his ordeal at the hands of the state of New York.

So it is unlikely that he will be the President of France.

I don't think he's got any chance. I think there are those who would like stick a couple of fingers up to USA, but I think there's a lot more who are put off by all the stories that are coming out. This hasn't finished yet. There's still the two civil cases to be resolved.

No one can ever prove a negative all one can do is show probabilities.

You could claimed that my wife told you that I had rape her and neither my denial or her denial could “prove” that I had not done so.