Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@hawkeye10,

I think if they thought they had absolute proof that DSK wasn't even in the hotel at the time of the alleged attack, they'd have used it at the bail hearing.

Instead, DSK's attorney said, "The forensic evidence, we believe, are not consistent with forcible encounter."

Seems as though they've dropped version #1 and are going for version #2.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

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

I think the wheeling and dealing that probably goes on between the rich and powerful is such that we'd most likely go weak in the knees if we witnessed it.

Beyond that, one of the attorneys commenting said that only 1 in 200 criminal cases ever go to trial in New York.

Despite what some of DSK's acquaintances have said, I think he'll go for a plea bargain.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/plea-bargaining

according to this reference, about 90 % of criminal convictions come from plea bargaining

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Quote:

I think if they thought they had absolute proof that DSK wasn't even in the hotel at the time of the alleged attack, they'd have used it at the bail hearing.

When the cops were saying that the event happened at 1:00 defense did have proof that dsk was not in the hotel at the time, as the hotel computer shows that he checked out at 12:25. When the police changed their story this defense no longer worked. You seem to be having great difficulty understanding a fairly simple argument.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

When the cops were saying that the event happened at 1:00 defense did have proof that dsk was not in the hotel at the time, as the hotel computer shows that he checked out at 12:25.

apparently not so much - the latest word is he left without checking out

(something about his departure being caught on surveillance cameras)

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

When the police changed their story...

Other than your claim of this, I haven't seen anything reported as fact.

Remember, you also claimed DSK was 'probably heading to France to drop off his wife' because you 'heard' she was with him in New York.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Quote:

Other than your claim of this, I haven't seen anything reported as fact.

Perhaps you should refrain from comments on this case until you take minimal efforts to educate yourself on the events......

Quote:

Police say at 1 p.m., a hotel housekeeper entered room 2806 at Sofitel in Manhattan -- a luxury $3,000-per-night, multi-room suite -- when Strauss-Kahn allegedly walked out of his bathroom naked and forced himself on the 32-year-old woman.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/dominique-strauss-kahn-imf-chief-accused-sexual-assault/story?id=13606952&singlePage=true

We know that DSK checked out at 12:28. He was accused of an attack at !:00, he was not there at the time so he can not be guilty. It was widely reported that police said 1:00, and later there was a quote from police that the event happened earlier but so far as I have seen never an explaination for why police gave the wrong time.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Other accounts report that, according to a court complaint, the alleged victim entered to clean the room around noon.

There've been all kinds of claims floated about what happened, but few real facts and I'm not sure why anyone should be obligated to believe your source's account over any other. It's mostly he said/she said at this point.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Other accounts report that, according to a court complaint, the alleged victim entered to clean the room around noon.

There've been all kinds of claims floated about what happened, but few real facts and I'm not sure why anyone should be obligated to believe your source's account over any other. It's mostly he said/she said at this point.

Yes, that is the claim made later....you are quick I tell ya....I can't help that you dont pay attention.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I pay attention. I just don't rely on AllWomenAreEvil.com as my main source of info.

1 Reply

I was glad to see that Strauss-Kahn was released from Riker's island. The terms seem more than adequate to ensure his appearance in court.

Equal justice under the law is an important principle that should be enforced. However, there was nothing equal in the media frenzy that followed the arrest of this very prominent individual. A less well-known individual would have simply been ignored. His "perp walk" would have gone unnoticed and likely unphtographed. For that reason I believe the Police of NY should have taken some precautions to protect the privacy of one who, though accused, had not been convicted.

I can understand the outrage of the French who saw a prominent person, one (then) likely to be a strong candidate for their Presidency treated in this way so suddenly. Imagine the reaction of the U.S. media if (say) candidate Obama had been treated this way in another country under analogous circumstances.

It is important to ensure that Strauss-kahn doesn't leave the country or otherwise escape jurisdiction, and that he is tried in a court of law under the same conditions that anyone charged with a similar crime would face. However that doesn't require the destruction of his public character in the opening steps of the process.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Gee, I agree completely.

0 Replies

I'm glad he's out of Riker's too.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

I pay attention. I just don't rely on AllWomenAreEvil.com as my main source of info.

I am not familiar with that site, I subscribe to theamerican"justice"system/feministteamsucks.com

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

He's being released tomorrow - our current DA (son of the former Secretary of State) has done his homework concerning past prosecutions that got nowhere - money, not assault: http://www.economist.com/node/326340

Quote:

.....the Paris prosecution service was asking for DSK to be formally investigated for fraud. The stay in Vietnam was curtailed in favour of an early meeting back in Paris with the prime minister, Lionel Jospin. Two days later, Mr Strauss-Kahn, normally so suave but now simply grim, stood before the cameras and his dispirited, almost shell-shocked staff to hand in his cards “because of morality and a sense of responsibility. For me, it is inconceivable that a minister can stay in office when there is the slightest hint of a judicial procedure that might affect the whole government.”

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I'm mystified by the hysterical tone when a simple legal question has been asked - and not yet answered. Find out what "arrest charge" means, btw.
One would hope that the rules of the English language hold enough here to figure out the answer...that would be a charge used to arrest the man. The other charges were added later.

I'm sure that's true, but the arrest charge also seems to be the key charge: if he really pushed the woman into a room and locked the door (the door to the suite locks automatically) then coercion is proven; but if he didn't, all the other (sex-related) charges come down to "yes, but I thought she agreed!"

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

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

And he would known how a strange woman would react to the point that he would be willing to risk his manhood over it?

You are claimiing the the hormones of his 62 years old body would be enough to drive out all commonsense out of this him?

That is also more of the overall problem with this story a genus level 62 years old man would had lost all of his commonsense that he would attack a random maid in his hotel room.

Give me a break........................................................................

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

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

.

And her testimony without her being at trial is legally worthless as you have a right to confront your accuser under our constitution so no accuser no case.

In domestic violence cases where the women are not willing to testify the idea of the best available evidence had been used however the courts had ended this practice for the reasons given above.

If our maid in Manhattan takes the money and become unavailable there is no case period.

1 Reply

Quote:

She could refuse to testify, but she's obviously not doing that yet,

Oh Firefly her LAWYER is not going around giving interveiws out of the goodness of his legal heart.

Nor would she need a lawyer for the criminal case only for gaining $$$$$$ from DSK.

Now they could go the route of a crimianl trial and then a civil trial hoping that in years that everythings will go their way or she could take a settlement now and walk alway being very rich with her lawyer only needing to do a few hours in settlement talks for his reward.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

What money are you talking about? Where have you read that the alleged victim has been offered any money, either to induce her to make a complaint or to persude her to drop it? I can't think of any cases off-hand of a sexual assult victim being bought off even though several posts over the course of this thread imply it happens all the time and women make assult charges in the hope of getting a payout.

Of course we are all just speculating, but I don't see any big payout coming based on what it out there so far and the history of how assult victims are treated in the US.

2 Replies

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know