Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@izzythepush,

Not another Grauniad woman. We all know what they are up to.

How can an editor of a a newspaper with the history that one has pass that tripe for publication.

I think it must be due to the excitement generated by such expressions as "vaginal bruising" (where's the evidence), "gang raped" (where's the evidence) and "money-grabbing sluts" (plenty of evidence for that).

I bet Hadley's chair was damp by the time she finished it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

First, her lie about her immigration status was that she had been – gotcha! – gang raped. But the reason she lied then was that she thought it would help her gain political asylum. Her motivation for doing

Strangely it turn out that she did not claimed a gang rape or any rape to the INS but that claimed came out of the blue when the investigators ask if she ever been rape or not.

When that story fell apart and they ask her why she had come up with it, she claimed that she did so because she had already claimed a rape to the INS.

When they begin to check every detail she was telling them they found that she was also lying about claiming a rape to the INS.

The woman seems to lie for the joy of lying.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

there is no way to know what happened between the two, so we should drop it, and assume that DSK is innocent.

You have the first part right. We will never know what happened, so we should drop it.

But, you cannot assume he is an innocent man who was falsely accused--there is absolutely no evidence of that. Diallo's credibility problems do not mean she was not sexually assaulted by him. The fact that the charges were dropped does not mean he is innocent of assaulting her. The charges were not dropped because they were found to be untrue or baseless.

If you want to believe he is innocent, fine, that's an opinion on your part. But the issue of whether he did or did not commit criminal acts was never answered. It is equally valid to assume that he did commit them as to assume he didn't--opinions on both sides are simply speculations. From a legal perspective, he has not been exonerated, he was just not adjudicated to be guilty. It remains in limbo.

I agree we should drop it. Tell that to BillRM.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I think it must be due to the excitement generated by such expressions as "vaginal bruising" (where's the evidence),

It was noted when she did the rape kit, problem is that we also know that she had sex with a guy the day before (so much for the "good Muslim" story line) so we have no way to know if DSK did it. I would have liked to have heard the science behind the claim that an old guy pawing at a woman with both panties and pantyhose could cause bruising on a vagina, but feel certain that a jury would decide that it probably happened with the guy she actually had sex with.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It remains in limbo.

And you really need to stop claiming that it is in limbo because she never got her day in court....we had a very long trial for OJ, and he is still in limbo. This speaks to Bills point about the tragedy of false accusations, because our system will NEVER exonerate the accused, the falsely accused will never be made whole.

If you have been following the French you know that many have mis-understood the meaning of the state dropping charges, because in the French system when the state drops charges there is a understanding that the dropped charges mean that the accused has been found by the state to not have done it, the accused is then bleached (they have a special word for this which translates into "bleached") and all then carry on with the understanding that the accused is innocent. We have nothing like that in ours system, and with the erosion of the presumption of innocence we have even less than we used to of letting the unconvicted carry on, we get loads of people like you sniffing "well, even though the state did not through him in jail he is still probably guilty".

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

But, you cannot assume he is an innocent man who was falsely accused--there is absolutely no evidence of that. Diallo's credibility problems do not mean she was not sexually assaulted by him. The fact that the charges were dropped does not mean he is innocent of assaulting her. The charges were not dropped because they were found to be untrue or baseless.

You're incorrigible ff. Of course he is innocent. It's not an opinion at all. It's a legal fact. It is you and your claque who are not innocent.

When are you going to answer the question about whether the use of a fantasy unbeknownst to the lady in physical contact is rape or not? Does the question scare you? If it does you are better off out of this argument. You're just using legalisms when it suits you.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Nafissatou Diallo, the self-proclaimed “victim” in the sordid saga of a hotel maid’s false rape claim against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, needs to be on an airplane back to her native Guinea as soon as the paperwork can be completed.

Except, apparently, Diallo never did lie on her asylum petition--she did not use the gang rape story on her asylum petition. She said she decided not to use it.

That's why it's even crazier that she brought up the gang rape story to the prosecutors at all.

The IRS may well look into her tax returns, but she'll just wind up owing them money if she claimed deductions she can't prove. Loads of people claim deductions they can't prove if the IRS questions them. She's also illiterate, so she didn't prepare her own returns, and who knows if she even knew what they said when she signed them.

The woman does, certainly, appear to lie, but she lies for self-protective reasons, whether it's to be able to get to a better country, or to get more affordable housing, or to save on her taxes, or to try to protect herself from Manhattan prosecutors she might have not fully trusted. And a lot of struggling immigrants might be doing those same sorts of things--it might not be right, but it is understandable. She does not seem to lie maliciously, to lie about others in order to harm them. There is nothing about her "credibility problems" or her past behaviors to suggest she would falsely accuse a specific man of a crime for any reason, even to get money out of him. She really does not seem to be a rotten, heartless woman who deliberately wanted to harm DSK, even for money, and nothing revealed about her past, or her credibility issues, suggests that she is that sort of person.

2 Replies

@firefly,

What she has done, and Vance, is queer the pitch for genuine rape victims and the lot of them ought to be truly ashamed of themselves.

Why Vance is not done with I can't imagine. No friend of female victims he.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

we had a very long trial for OJ, and he is still in limbo.

You must have missed O.J.'s civil trial. He was found responsible for two deaths--that's why he was ordered to pay $32 million in damages.

The question of O.J.'s guilt is not in limbo. He is not regarded as innocent--he was convicted at the civil trial. He is considered guilty of those murders, he just escaped a criminal conviction and criminal punishment for his acts.

When Leslie Crocker Snyder, a former justice of the New York State Supreme Court, says, "The dismissal of the charges in no way means that Strauss-Kahn is innocent, no matter what spin his attorneys may attempt to attribute to it," I think it is reasonable to conclude that this is an expert legal opinion--an opinion that tops yours and BillRM's regarding his "innocence".

The American system does fully exonerate people when charges are dropped because they were determined to be untrue or baseless. The Duke lacrosse players were exonerated. Public statements of exoneration are issued with the recommendation of dismissal in such cases. In the case of DSK, the D.A. made it quite clear that charges were not being dropped for that reason--they did not drop the charges because they considered him innocent.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

When are you going to answer the question about whether the use of a fantasy unbeknownst to the lady in physical contact is rape or not? Does the question scare you?

I don't even understand the question--it is more than slightly incoherent.

I am interested in the legal issues of this specific legal case. I will not answer any of your questions if they don't interest me.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The American system does fully exonerate people when charges are dropped because they were determined to be untrue or baseless. The Duke lacrosse players were exonerated. Public statements of exoneration are issued with the recommendation of dismissal in such cases.

Glad you mention that one - what about prosecuting that accuser? It wasn't done. How can some people commit perjury with impunity while others go to jail?!

3 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

Glad you mention that one - what about prosecuting that accuser? It wasn't done

Well actually, after she stabbed her boyfriend the state did finally decided to go after her....

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Except, apparently, Diallo never did lie on her asylum petition--she did not use the gang rape story on her asylum petition. She said she decided not to use it.

Documentation please...

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Women tend to get away with false charging a man with rape and lying.

In the case of our friendly maid there is zero question that she lied under oath to the grand jury as she confessed to doing so.

That is a felony and hell will sadly freeze over before any charges will be level against her.

Bet an arm and a leg if Vance could had charge DSK with lying under oath he would had done so.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

Glad you mention that one - what about prosecuting that accuser? It wasn't done. How can some people commit perjury with impunity while others go to jail?!

That accuser in the Duke case never went directly to the police with a complaint--she made statements about being raped to the staff of a mental health/rehab facility while she was a patient. She was on anti-psychotic medication and had a history of mental illness. Even the Duke players did not want her prosecuted--they have said they consider her a victim in the miscarriage of justice that went on with them. The real culprits in the Duke case were the police and D.A.. The D.A. was disbarred and there are lawsuits pending against the police and the county.

The Manhattan D.A. can decide whether to prosecute Diallo for perjury regarding her Grand Jury testimony. But, there is no evidence that her account of the sexual assault was untrue or involved perjury--the perjury would involve other issues considerably less central to the case. Generally, they don't bother to prosecute that type of perjury.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Documentation please...

One percents correct Hawkeye she had only lied to investigators and the Grand Jury one in most states is a misdemeanor and the other is a felony.

The idea that she had falsely stated being rape on the INS paperwork come out of her lying to the investigators when she was explaining to them why she lied to them about the gang rape in the first place.

She is a complete liar and will lie about the reason she lie in the first place.

A real piece of work that woman is.
.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Documentation please...

That was reported by the D.A.'s office. First she told them the false gang rape story was on her asylum application, then she told them she had never used it. Which made the fact of her mentioning it to them, at all, completely pointless.

I think that's when they realized she was slightly nuts, and impossible for them to deal with.

You can Google the D.A.'s statements--I think they were already cited in this thread.

1 Reply

@firefly,

If memory serve me correctly the reason given for not charging the Duke rape "victim" with lying was her mental health state.

Then she went on to set fire to an apartment building in an attempt to kill a boyfriend and then went on to in fact kill another boyfriend in a knife attack.

Too bad that the state gave her a free pass for lying as a man might had live instead of dying under a knife held in her hands.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I think you have the story wrong...she lied on her papers claiming gang rape, and in the first days she told Vance's boys and girls about the gang rape, which included the theatrics of wailing and rolling around on the floor of the conference room, but later they found out (how I am not clear on) that she had paid money to a crew to get her into the US. At that point she admitted that she lied, said that she lied only because that is what she was told to do.....it was at this point that prosecuters knew that she they were screwed, because she had told a known lie about rape with the same conviction and hysterics that she told the DSK rape story, they had bought her story, and had now found out that they had been conned. Two months later Vance finally did the right thing by concluding that he could not put a known con artist/lier on the stand, he did not have anything else of much value, so he kicked DSK loose.

EDIT: the final story was that those she gave money to gave her a tape with a story to memorize, which she did. What really pissed Vance's people off is that even after they knew the truth, and begged her to tell the truth, she kept telling the gang rape lie, with theatrics. She was telling this lie when there was no benefit to the lie, because the state had already told her that they had no intrerest in deporting her, they just wanted the truth, which to them meant that she is pathological.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Too bad that the state gave her a free pass for lying as a man might had live instead of dying under a knife held in her hands.

good point, by not dealing with a known false rape accuser the state put the public at risk...

0 Replies

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know