Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Only one of them is legally accused of breaking the law.

There is no reason to doubt her account, given what we currently know. And the forensic evidence seems to indicate that contact between the two did take place--which is why his lawyers are hinting that the defense will be that it was a non-forcible consensual situation. So, at the very least, she does not appear to have fabricated a story about an encounter that never took place. So there is no real reason to suspect she filed a false report. The rest becomes a matter for a jury to decide, based on the evidence and who seems more credible. Even if he is found not guilty, that would not mean she had broken any laws--it would just mean a jury wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

And, once he is charged, his accusor becomes the people of the state of N.Y. and she is simply another witness in their case.

I love the idea that in the future a maid can run out of a sitting Justice of the Supreme court hotel room claiming rape and we should then locked him up and afterward do the investigation. Oh we would have the police do the perp walk with handcuffs on the Justice before the TV cameras.

This is the start of open season for all men of power.

Just like in the Duke case but no matter what the truth turn out to be she will be allow to walk.

As it is a free shot to accuse any male by any woman.

A woman had not responsibility for bringing false charges and yes I know that is your position that it the state false for believing her not her false.

I thought your position is that the laws are already open season on all men...did I get this wrong??

You and I do not have people willing to paid women to bring false charges so we are at a lot lower level of risk from that form of attack.

But can you see for example a Supreme court session dealing with say billions of dollars worth of oil leases and all you need to do is stop one of the Justices who is the swing vote from showing up.

Hopefully it would be Thomas so Firefly could point out that we all knew what a sexual pervert he is from his hearings.

Take note of a twitter breaking the news before the event had happen.

A time machine anyone??????

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8516275/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-Was-it-a-stitch-up.html

Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Was it a stitch-up?
Conspiracy theories that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was the victim of a politically-motivated set-up gained ground after it emerged that the first person to break the news of his arrest was an activist in Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP party.

Jonathan Pinet, a political science student, tweeted the news of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest before it had even happened, according to Le Post, a French newspaper.

Meanwhile the first person to re-tweet Mr Pinet was Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor who had been previously involved in publicising the details of Mr Strauss-Kahn’s luxurious lifestyle.

The first website to break the news, meanwhile, was the French right-wing news blog, 24heuresactu.

Some have suggested Mr Strauss-Kahn could also have been stitched up by his rivals inside the International Monetary Fund, as well as by rivals within the French political establishment.

Mr Pinet immediately denied that he was part of a right-wing plot against Mr Strauss-Kahn, merely saying that he was told the news by a friend of his working at the Sofitel hotel.

Nevertheless, Mr Strauss-Kahn’s supporters seized on the news. “I am convinced it is an international conspiracy," said Michelle Sabban, a senior councillor for the greater Paris region and a Strauss-Kahn loyalist.

"It's the IMF they wanted to decapitate, not so much the Socialist primary candidate," she said. "It's not like him. Everyone knows that his weakness is seduction, women. That's how they got him."

And some of Mr Strauss-Kahn’s rivals also found it hard to believe the news.

“It is totally hallucinatory. If it is true, this would be a historic moment, but in the negative sense, for French political life," said Dominique Paille, a political rival to Strauss-Kahn on the center right, on BFM television. Still, he urged, "I hope that everyone respects the presumption of innocence. I cannot manage to believe this affair."

"We cannot rule out the thought of a trap," Henri de Raincourt, minister for overseas co-operation in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, said in a broadcast interview.

"I refuse to have a personal opinion and say, 'Yes it was a trap,' or 'No, it wasn't a trap.' I don't know," he said.

"I note that this has happened just after the affair of the car and the suit in a short space of time," he added, referring to sniping at the socialist presidential hopeful for using a Porsche and wearing tailor-made clothes.

"I am not ruling anything out," Raincourt added. "If this turns out to have been a trap, let me tell you that it would not be to the credit of those who set it."

Francois Hollande, the former Socialist party chief, said: "To commit an act of such seriousness, this does not resemble the man I know."

Bill, let's just say for sake of arguement that he did rape her, what should the City of New York do then? You seem to have assumed he's innocent from the off, and I can't see where all this 'anti-powerful men conspiracy' nonsense is coming from. Rape is a disgusting, violent act, and a total humiliation of another human being. I can't talk about the USA, but in the UK rape has an incredibly low conviction rate compared to other crimes, and that's not including all the rapes that never get reported. The way the law is now, the odds are stacked in favour of the rapist not the victim. And that's when the rapist is some unemployed scroat off a council estate. This man is very rich and powerful, he's not going to go short of good lawyers

when and if you are ready to to apply that same moral indignation to economic violence/humiliation (for instance the corporate class relentlessly driving up ceo pay and down worker pay) or political violence/humiliation (the crimes the JTT keeps going on about) then we should talk. Till then you are only rationalizing your prejudices and appetite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world/europe/17france.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Rape is disgusting and false rape charges are equally disgusting and as a ten years studies had shown in a US middle Western city and in a study dealing with US airforce personal with thousands of cases the false rape rate can reach up to 43 percent!!!!!!!!!

See the postings on the rape thread for more details.

Now as far as this case is concern he should at the very least be granted bail as without passports and with say a leg GPS location device where is he going to run to?

You are not suppose to be able to punish a man for rape before he is found guilty of any crime and what the hell do you think the perp walk was for my friend or not granting him bail for that matter right away.


Oh the word disgusting come to mind concerning your court system trying two ten years old in an adult court for rape for playing doctor with a little girl playmate.

I think you'll find it was a bit more than Doctor they were accused of. They were NOT tried in an adult court.

Hawkeye said

when and if you are ready to to apply that same moral indignation to economic violence/humiliation (for instance the corporate class relentlessly driving up ceo pay and down worker pay) or political violence/humiliation (the crimes the JTT keeps going on about) then we should talk

I did that a long time ago.

Actually Bill I do agree that he should have been granted bail with all the conditions attached.

Sorry but I follow that case closely and it was indeed an adult court and they was charge with rape however the little girl on the stand let out that they was playing doctor with her willing consent and that no penetration had occur.

The story that led to the charges that she told her mother was due to her not wishing to be punish by her mother.

When this came out the rape charges was drop but by some strange logic they was found guilty of attempted rape instead.

The story can be google and the appeal court judges by their own words question why the two boys was placed into the adult court system in the first place.

.

Google is wonderful................and they was indeed tried in adult court not youth court.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298124/High-Court-judge-condemns-decision-try-10-year-old-boys-rape-Old-Bailey.html

An Appeal Court judge condemned the decision today to try two boys aged 10 accused of raping an eight-year-old girl at the Old Bailey.

In an extraordinary case that sparked a review of how children are treated in a criminal court, the two boys, now aged 11, became Britain's youngest sex offenders when they were found guilty of attempting to rape an eight-year-old girl earlier this year.

But today judges at the Court of Appeal criticised the decision to bring the case to the highest criminal court in the land, saying the youngsters should have faced the trial at the youth court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to overturn the boys' convictions today.

Their barristers argued that the trial judge should have thrown out the case when their eight-year-old victim admitted in cross examination that she had lied about the attack.

But Lord Justice Hughes, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Maddison ruled that it was right for the trial judge to allow the case to continue for a jury to consider even though the girl's evidence was contradictory.

The two boys were accused of luring the eight-year-old girl away from her home in Hayes, west London on October 27 last year.

The boys allegedly dragged their victim around a block of flats and bin sheds where they repeatedly exposed themselves, yanking down the girl's underwear despite her protests.

Then they led her to a field where they 'helped each other', taking turns to carry out the sexual assault.

After a two-week trial at the Old Bailey, a jury cleared them of rape in May this year.

But they found them guilty of attempted rape by a majority, even though the victim admitted that she had lied as she feared her mother would deny her sweets if she found out she had been 'naughty' with the boys.

Yesterday appeal judges said they had been troubled by the case and criticised the decision to bring it to an adult court.

Lord Justice Hughes said: 'We should say that, like the judge, we have found it a painful case to consider and a difficult one in which to apply the rule of law which we are obliged to apply


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298124/High-Court-judge-condemns-decision-try-10-year-old-boys-rape-Old-Bailey.html#ixzz1MYrrwMQ0

I'm just going on what I heard on the news a while back. You're talking about it as if it were a daily occurance. It was headline news over here. There's been a lot written about it, with lots of opinion. Kids don't think like adults, children can be put under pressure. From what I remember the little girl was very badly hurt by the whole incident. Anyway, the boys weren't named, they won't be sent away for long, they'll be able to get on with their lives. We can argue back and forth about the relative merits of our countries' jurisprudence. There was an article on Newsnight about American juveniles locked up for life without the chance of parole, and one was a 14 year old boy who happened to be sat in the same car as the man who pulled the trigger.

I don't want this to get off the point, again I'm talking about the UK not America. Rape has a far lower conviction rate than other crimes. You mentioned earlier that his conviction will not deter any would be rapists, which is true. What stops most people committing crime is the fear of getting caught, not the sentence. If they introduced the death penalty for speeding, but there was only one speed camera in the whole of America, it wouldn't have any effect, apart from the few poor sods that did get caught. If they reduced the fine to $1, but there were so many everywhere, you'd get clocked three times just going a mile people wouldn't speed.

If you don't prosecute rich and powerful men you can lead to a culture of impunity. You can start to excuse criminal behaviour as a consequence of power which it should not be.

I see, so in your opinion if people re not obeying the solution is to get a bigger hammer.....sounds familiar. The solution to the bully in the school yard is a fast sure shot to the face, the solution to a government overlord is to replace the government.

A chick on Spitzers show on CNN just said "what if he did not do it, what if he can prove that he is innocent?"

Ya, that about sums up America's attitude towards guys accused of sex crimes against women.

Spitz then pointed out that based upon other cases that is going to take at least a year unless the maid recants.

I wasn't suggesting this as a course of action I was using it as an example to show that what putpeople off committing crime is the fear of getting caught. people don't think about the sentence when they commit a crime they think about the likelihood of getting caught. If people thought they'd get caught they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place. (Admittedly there are some people who want to get caught)