Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@BillRM,

I don't know you'll have to ask a rapist.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Your logic is very week and crazy indeed.

Here is your comment I was replying to

Quote:

that doesn't make a lot of sense - she's not the one who laid the charges - the police did - is he going to pay off the entire American government?

Now if your comment had any sense to it at all it would be that because she had convicted the police to press charges falsely or not that action relate in some manner to if she after that point she no longer bear the primary responsible for the charges.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

it would be that because she had convicted the police to press charges falsely

what?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

to if she after that point no longer bear the primary responsible for the charges.

what?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

what?

Ok less runs it again if a woman "victim" is no longer willing to aid the state in prosecuting her attacker charges are normally drop see the Kobe case in point.

Forcing her to testify when for example she is lying on a beach offshore spending her settlement money beyond the reach of New York courts would end the matter.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

what did she convict the police of?

(your posts are making less sense than usual)

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Hell the very existed of proof that oral sex having occur is a strong strong indicate that there was no rape.

He's not charged with rape. Don't you even know what he's charged with?

She entered what she thought was an unoccupied hotel suite to clean it, because that was her job. And she left the hall door to the suite open.

His lawyers are going to have to come up with a scenario that plausibly explains how non-forcible sexual contact suddenly took place when she discovered him in the room--and they are going to have to do that, if at all possible, without putting him on the stand. The defense has to claim she suddenly, in the midst of her working day, decided she wanted to have consensual sexual contact with this stranger, and they are somehow going to have to convince a jury of that, and then convince a jury of why she immediately reported it as assault. That's not going to be a very easy defense, particularly if they want to keep him off the stand.

Look, this case will be tried on forensic evidence and the testimony of witnesses.

There is no reason, in terms of what is known, to assume that this woman willingly engaged in consensual sexual activity with a stranger and then immediately falsely accused him of assaulting and imprisoning her.

There is no reason to assume that the NYPD Special Victims Unit does not know how to properly evaluate a complaint of sexual assault--that's all they do.

Even if Strauss-Kahn is guilty of doing exactly what the maid accuses him of doing, it still has to be proved to a jury's satisfaction--and that's what the prosecution will try to do--and the defense will try to destroy the prosecution's case in order to raise reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

But, without knowing the evidence in this case, all the speculation you are engaging in is meaningless.

People do force other people to engage in oral sex. It is hardly unheard of.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Playing word games I see how nice for you however you can not get away from the fact that the claim of force oral sex on if face is unlikely to be true for the reasons already given.

If one of her central claims seem not true then why would anyone give the rest of her story that the long list of charges are base on any credit at all?

Her whole story need to hold together or the case is over.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

People do force other people to engage in oral sex. It is hardly unheard of.

Are you that ignorant of sex crimes?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Perhaps if you hold a gun at the women head or a knife at her throat you could get away with forcing oral sex on a strange woman with no fear of harm, however I had not hear of any gun or knife being involved.

A strange woman who you have no idea how she will react and you placed your dick by force into her mouth yeah right. There would be a lot of rapists with short dicks.

So once more let hear about any of the men here supporting that it is likely that she would be force into oral sex for the reasons given.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Perhaps if you hold a gun at the women head or a knife at her throat you could get away with forcing oral sex on a strange woman with no fear of harm, however I had not hear of any gun or knife being involved.

If her version is true, and this strange naked man suddenly came after her, locked the door, chased her down a hall, grabbed her breasts, threw her on a bed and tried to rape her, then dragged her into another room and forced her to perform oral sex, by the time he got to the oral sex, this woman must have been terrified out of her mind--she might have been afraid he would kill her--she might have been afraid to anger him, by biting him--she probably wasn't thinking straight, she just wanted to get out of the room--she didn't know who this lunatic was, or how much crazier he might become--she just wanted to escape. And, as soon as she did escape, she went to hotel security and they called the police.

Do some reading on sex crimes. People can, and do, force other people to have oral sex.

Thank God he doesn't have you defending him. Laughing

Terror can be as good as a gun in getting someone to do something.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

BillRM wrote:
to if she after that point no longer bear the primary responsible for the charges.

what?

He means - and OK, he's no master of literature! - that with arrest charges the DA can continue with prosecution even if the alleged victim withdraws the complaint. I'm no criminal lawyer but from the list - available online - looks like one charge qualifies, that he pushed her into a room and locked the door:
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/AttorneyWelcome

Quote:

Case Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case # 2011NY035773
Defendant Strausskahn, Dominique
Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence
PL 130.55 00 B Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Sexual Abuse 3rd

PL 130.50 01
**TOP CHARGE** B Felony, 2 counts, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Crim Sex Act-1st:by Force

PL 135.05 00 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Unlawful Imprisonment 2nd

PL 130.65 01 D Felony, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Sx Abs:cntct-frcbl Cmplsn

PL 130.50 01 B Felony, 2 counts, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Crim Sex Act-1st:by Force

PL 130.52 00 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Forcible Touching

1 Reply

Quote:

May 19, 2011
No diplomatic immunity for Strauss-Kahn

.(CBS News) Diplomatic immunity is off the table for the now-former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), CBS News Correspondent Michelle Miller reports. The State Department has wrapped up its legal review of the case and decided Dominique Strauss-Kahn doesn't have diplomatic immunity because, when he was arrested, he was not on official business for the IMF.

Strauss-Kahn, who is accused of sexually assaulting a maid at a New York hotel over the weekend, is in "a funny situation," according to CBS News Legal Analyst Jack Ford.

Ford explained on "The Early Show" that there are "treaties out there in some countries, somebody like him, in his position, would have almost absolute immunity -- get away with almost anything. The U.S. isn't part of that. The U.S. has said, 'Unless it's part of your official job, we're not going to protect you."'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/19/earlyshow/main20064255.shtml

1 Reply

@firefly,

That's been known for the longest time - unless on official business Strauss-Kahn had no claim to diplomatic immunity. Even then, France or the IMF would have to apply on his behalf to the Manhattan DA stating their grounds in support of an immunity request; nobody has made such a move.

Instead of posting non-news, can't you do some legal research on the only arrest charge against him? If he only closed the door without locking it (and his prints would be on the key, forensics would be sure to check it) and the remaining charges are dropped by the accuser, can he still be prosecuted?

This is the charge in case you missed it, copied from the full list of charges posted on this page: PL 135.05 00 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Unlawful Imprisonment 2nd

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

BillRM wrote:
to if she after that point no longer bear the primary responsible for the charges.

what?

He means - and OK, he's no master of literature! - that with arrest charges the DA can continue with prosecution even if the alleged victim withdraws the complaint.

I have no idea how you pulled that out of what he wrote, but good on you
Very Happy

If that is what he meant, it's what I'd already posted - that he was apparently responding to and disagreeing with.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

Instead of posting non-news, can't you do some legal research on the only arrest charge against him?

Why don't you do your own research?

This is the criminal complaint against him.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4dd14f3dccd1d5e91e1e0000/strauss-kahn.jpg

She can't drop charges--the charges are brought by the state in the name of the people. She could refuse to testify, but she's obviously not doing that yet, so why waste time on meaningless speculation. She already has given testimony before the grand jury, and they are due to hand up an indictment.

3 Replies

@firefly,

My own research is posted earlier on this thread - the counts are exactly those listed, and there's only one arrest charge, as you would know if you typed less and read more. Once again, the legal question is: if that single arrest charge turns out to be unfounded (via forensic examination of the door key) and the accuser drops the remaining charges, can he still be prosecuted on non-arrest charges? Simple enough question - perhaps you know the answer to it?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

Once again, the legal question is: if that single arrest charge turns out to be unfounded

He is charged with preventing her from leaving the suite--by restraining her. How could they determine that charge was unfounded prior to trial?

I think they do know that she left the door open after she used her pass key to open it.

I'm not really interested in meaningless speculation. She's been a fully cooperative witness, she'll probably continue to be a cooperative witness.

Do your own research--you're the one who is interested in pursuing that line of inquiry.

1 Reply

I can't shake the feeling that a) this case will never go to trial, and b) DSK will never spend a day in a U.S. prison.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

I think it will go to trial--but probably not for at least 6 months. I think interest is going to die down considerably by then in the U.S., but probably not in France. I don't think most Americans were really familiar with this man, and they'll have even less interest in him in 6 months.

He's already competing with Arnold Schwarzenegger in terms of a sex scandal, and more people here know Arnold.

I wouldn't even venture a guess on whether he'll be convicted.

Why do you think it won't go to trial?

1 Reply

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know