Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Agree that anyone who knowingly placed a false rape charge should be treated as committing a very serous crime not a mild misdemeanor of filing a false police report.

That as Firefly pointed out in the NYC cops case once charge you can almost never clear you name as a not guilty verdict hardly manner in that regard. So there is at least as good an argument to be make in keeping the accuse name out of the papers as there is for keeping the accuser name out of the papers.

Strangely Firefly does no support either of the above two positions.

This man, be him guilty or innocent, is already sacrificed on the the altar of the ultra feminism.

Till the issue of the law process, what else is needed to say?

How exactly do you justify that statement, Francis?
I don't get it.
Surely he was subject to the law of the state?


Simple.
Wait for the trial for the verdict. Let the evidence from both sides be presented, then be considered.
Why is that such a problem?

It must be a huge difference of background between us, msolga.

If this man is innocent, the police/justice system destroyed his life already.

No way he can recover from such huge display of images showing him handcuffed all around the world.

For a huge majority of the viewers, he is guilty already.

Even if he is cleared of the accusations, he will never be an innocent, the images will remain in the subconscious of the layman.

And that is profoundly unfair.

I have seen any number of sexual abuse cases in my own country, Francis.

I cannot excuse any excesses of the media, nor can any possible sexual abuses be excused because of irresponsible media reporting.

But I have a greater faith in the process of the law than you do, obviously.

Let us just wait & see what evidence is provided in the court room.

And if this case never makes it to the courtroom, well then we should all be fully informed about why this is the case.

I cannot excuse the excesses of the police facilitating the media show (perp walk).
Why would we excuse sex abuses is beyond me..

It seems so, indeed.

And it's not the responsability of the media only but also the justice to do so..

Exposing the gender divide
From DSK to Yale's frat boys and Ken Clarke's moment, the past fortnight has shone a spotlight on wildly differing attitudes to rape. But outrage is a force for change

Eva Wiseman
The Observer,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/29/rape-women

Or not.....the number one champions of the victim culture, the American feminists, may well have over played their hand when they went all in for destroying the justice system in the attempt to further their agenda.

So now it's not only the fault of "the altar of the ultra feminism", but also "the excesses of the police".

But, I repeat, whatever the perceived excesses either way, I would really hope this case comes to trial so we can actually hear the evidence from both sides for ourselves.

I really hope one party is not bought out by the other & the trial actually does go ahead.

But why would either side do such a thing (buy silence) if they wanted the full truth of what occurred to emerge, once & for all?

If I remember correctly yes and now why would you not support punishing severely any woman who misused the sexual assaults laws and by so doing not only harm the falsely accuse man but call in question future real rape victims claims?

Given the three lawyers she already have the chance of a Kobe type settlement seem high as those lawyers will know it would be very hard to seize his funds by way of a US civil court judgment so the best and fasts way is to reach a pre-criminal case settlement.

I can see no good reason for actively supporting either a woman or a man who has falsified evidence in any criminal investigation.
Assuming such falsification of evidence is proved in a court of law, of course.

Was the whaling you objected to illegal?

And to accuse some men of hating women just to suit whatever drivel you got out of bed with is derogatory to women. Where is your evidence that any of us men here hate women? I am actually defending women. With you defending them they might be persuaded to dislike women.

What has an immigrant cleaning woman who wangled her way into the US, seemingly pregnant, from a country on the UN Aids risk list and with a dictatorship, and into a $60k job in a posh NY hotel, got to do with "women"?

I made myself unpopular with the landlord in my pub by a persistant objection to him putting the barmaids into bloody uniforms. I bet you accept women being put into uniforms even when there is no necessity in order to pander to show counterjumper's control freakery. Now they once again they look beautiful and they all think the world of me.

It's women like you who give men pause for thought with your instant opinions about complex matters and your ridiculous solutions to them which you have got off the TV while sat on your backside thrumming with indignation.

Objecting to the treatment of DSK on the word of a cleaning woman does not signify anything in relation to our attitude to women. You just want to think it does to make some silly point or other or maybe as an excuse to have a rant. And it doesn't. My attitude would be exactly the same if a male bellhop in the hotel had been in the maid's place.

And the same goes for Mona.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/us-strausskahn-bribe-idUSTRE74P60T20110526

Edition:U.S.
Could money make Strauss-Kahn case go away?
NEW YORK | Thu May 26, 2011 1:26pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The possibility of a payoff arises frequently in cases such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn's sexual-assault charge, where the defendant has power and wealth and the accuser has neither.

It came up again after The New York Post reported on Tuesday that friends of the indicted former International Monetary Fund chief tried to pay off the alleged victim's family in exchange for recanting her claims that Strauss-Kahn tried to rape her and forced her to perform oral sex on him: What would happen to the prosecution's case if the Sofitel hotel maid decided to retract her allegations?

On Wednesday Reuters reported that Strauss-Kahn's lawyers denied the report, and there is no evidence that a payoff attempt occurred. But the conjecture alone raises complex legal and ethical issues.

Prosecutors confronted with a suddenly recalcitrant witness must contend with the requirements of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Their paths around this mandate are limited and not particularly appealing, analysts say.

First they could subpoena the witness, requiring her to testify and hoping she would decide to stick with her original story. But such a move could backfire if the witness backed the defendant's version of events.

If the witness delivered a different account of events on the stand, prosecutors could impeach her credibility by pointing out that she told a different version to police or to the grand jury. The threat of perjury is also available if the witness previously testified under oath -- as she did last week in front of the grand jury.

Normally the hearsay rule prohibits prosecutors from introducing previous out-of-court statements, experts say. But there are exceptions, several of which could be applicable in the Strauss-Kahn case.

EXCITED UTTERANCES

According to authorities, the alleged victim immediately told hotel staff and police officers that she had been assaulted. These statements could be admissible under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule, which allows unsworn statements made spontaneously following a shocking event to be submitted as evidence of what occurred.

"Most likely, there were a whole bunch of excited utterances -- to hotel staff and to the first police officers that arrived," said Daniel Bibb, a former Manhattan prosecutor. "This kind of evidence is common."

Another hearsay exception, known as "immediate outcry," and available only in sex-crime prosecutions, would permit prosecutors to submit certain out-of-court statements the alleged victim made following the incident, Bibb said. This exception is often used to bolster the credibility of alleged victims who do not report the crime to authorities right away.

Prosecutors could also proceed without her testimony altogether, relying on the physical evidence collected at the scene, for instance. Going ahead even without a victim's testimony is done most frequently in domestic violence cases, which are often hamstrung by witnesses who eventually decline to testify to protect their partners. It's generally known as "evidence-based prosecution."

But this would be an unlikely option for Strauss-Kahn's prosecutors. "You don't see that happening in many sex crimes cases," said Anne Milgram, the former attorney general of New Jersey, who doubts a case could be made against Strauss-Kahn without the alleged victim. "The prosecution needs the witness in this case."

In many domestic violence cases, lawyers say, there is additional evidence of a crime: bruises, for example, or neighbors who heard fighting.

PROVING A BRIBE

If, however, the prosecution could prove that the alleged victim's sudden change of heart was due to a bribe or threat from Strauss-Kahn or someone associated with him, their options expand. In such a case, the woman's sworn testimony to the grand jury and her statements to police could be submitted as evidence, even though Strauss-Kahn's lawyers had no chance to cross-examine her, according to David Jaros, a former Brooklyn public defender.

As long as the defendant has "dirtied his hands" by witness tampering, a judge could decide he has waived his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Jaros said.

But proving such a charge against the defendant himself can be difficult. "They would have to show that the defendant was involved in tampering with the witness before they could access any kind of sworn statement that she had made," Jaros said.

On the other hand, a bribe from a third party, not traceable to the defendant, would probably not be enough to erase his right to confront the witness. In such a case, prosecutors could only introduce grand jury testimony to impeach the alleged victim if she changed her account. They could not use it as evidence of what actually happened.

Any bribe paid at Strauss-Kahn's behest would be illegal and subject him to additional charges. In theory, prosecutors could go after anyone who tried to bribe the alleged victim's family although arresting a foreign national -- whether in France or Africa, where the maid's family lives -- might prove difficult.

"If people offer bribes to folks in Africa for the purpose of interfering with the testimony of a witness in New York, that conduct would be cognizable by the New York courts, and they might be criminally liable for it," said John Moscow of Baker Hostetler, a criminal defense lawyer in New York.

CIVIL SUIT

The more likely way in which money might play a role in ending the case would be through a civil lawsuit filed by the alleged victim. In general, legal experts say, crime victims are better off waiting for the criminal case to be resolved before proceeding with a civil complaint, for a variety of reasons. But they occasionally proceed simultaneously.

On Wednesday night, Reuters reported that the maid's lawyer, Jeffrey Shapiro, has added two attorneys to her legal team, in part to decide "whether there is a civil case going forward," he said. He noted that any civil suit would need to be filed within one year of the incident.

When basketball star Kobe Bryant was charged with rape, his alleged victim filed a civil lawsuit shortly before the criminal case was dismissed, reportedly because she decided she didn't want to testify. The case eventually settled for an undisclosed sum.

In another celebrity case, pop singer Michael Jackson paid millions in 1994 to settle a civil lawsuit brought by a boy who accused him of sexual assault, even as two grand juries were convening to consider charges. No charges were ever filed, in part because the accusing witness said he would not testify.

If a civil suit has been filed, lawyers can work out a settlement at any time, though they must comply with ethics rules mandating that the criminal and civil cases remain separate.

The suggestion that a witness's testimony in a criminal trial would be affected by a civil settlement could draw obstruction of justice charges and disbarment.

Why do you hope for that when you don't know if the maid will be damaged by it? Are you hoping to be entertained with lurid images? The maid might very well be much better off if she is "bought out".

What is your hope based on?

Sometimes you say such stupid things, spendius.
How about the due process of the law, following all the media speculation some of you have been complaining about?
How about if we get a clear picture of what actually happened, by everyone involved in the investigation, to set the story straight?
"Entertained with lurid images", indeed!

NEW YORK | Thu May 26, 2011 1:26pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In the days since Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest for the attempted rape of a hotel maid, lurid details of the ex-IMF chief's past sexual exploits -- both alleged and admitted -- have continued to fill the tabloids.

But legal experts say that prosecutors will face an uphill battle if they try to introduce any of the encounters as evidence in the criminal case against Strauss-Kahn.

"What the courts want to avoid is showing that he's done it so many times that it's more likely that he did it this time, and to substitute that reasoning for evidence," said well-known defense lawyer Gerald Shargel, who has represented such clients as John Gotti Jr. and disbarred attorney Marc Dreier.

Existing New York law is "tantamount to a presumption" that prior acts of sexual misconduct cannot be introduced at trial.

But there is a limited set of exceptions under which such evidence can be used, for example to show there is something unique about the way a defendant conducted prior sexual activity, to rebut a defense of consensual sex, or to impeach a defendant's testimony.

In contrast, the federal rules of evidence -- which do not apply to New York courts, where Strauss-Kahn's case is being heard -- permit prior sexual acts to be introduced in a sexual-assault case for any purpose.

On May 15, Strauss-Kahn, 62, was pulled off an Air France plane by authorities after a maid at the Sofitel Hotel in midtown Manhattan said he had attempted to rape her and forced her to perform oral sex on him. Strauss-Kahn, who has vehemently maintained his innocence, stepped down from his post at the IMF last week.

After spending several nights at Rikers Island jail, he was granted bail on May 19 on the condition that he be placed under the 24-hour watch of armed guards. He was indicted on seven counts, including attempted rape and first-degree criminal sexual act.

REPEATED EXCUSES

Meanwhile, the media have painted a picture of Strauss-Kahn as a well-known womanizer who has been repeatedly excused for his past behavior on both sides of the Atlantic.

In 2008, Strauss-Kahn admitted to a consensual affair with Piroska Nagy, an economist he worked with at the IMF. While the IMF reprimanded him in that instance, he was cleared of any abuse of power.

In a letter to the IMF board, Nagy, who has since left the Fund, said she "got sucked in" by the "charismatic" ex-IMF chief's persistent advances. She characterized Strauss-Kahn as "a man with a problem that may make him ill-equipped to lead an institution where women work under his command."

Law enforcement sources told Reuters they are reviewing the Nagy case.

During Strauss-Kahn's arraignment last week, assistant district attorney John McConnell said that Strauss-Kahn had reportedly "engaged in conduct similar to the conduct alleged in this complaint on at least one other occasion."

A source close to the investigation told Reuters that McConnell was referring to an alleged encounter with Tristan Banon, a journalist who has accused Strauss-Kahn of violently attacking her while she interviewed him in 2002. Banon is reportedly considering filing charges, but her lawyer told Reuters last week she would not testify to U.S. investigators.

And on Tuesday, a law enforcement source told Reuters that the day before the alleged attack on the maid, Strauss-Kahn asked another Sofitel employee if she would meet him after she finished work. The employee reportedly declined, saying that it was against hotel policy and that she could lose her job.

Even moments before his arrest, the New York Post reported, Strauss-Kahn made a sexually suggestive comment to an Air France flight attendant.

A BALANCING TEST

Can prosecutors convince a judge to allow them to use any of this information in a possible trial against Strauss-Kahn? Legal experts suggest there is little doubt that they will try.

"That is a highly-charged issue that is resolved pre-trial by motion," said defense lawyer Bradley Simon, of Simon & Partners.

Michael Bachrach, a defense lawyer who represented Al Qaeda conspirator Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, said that ultimately the judge presiding over Strauss-Kahn's case will apply a balancing test to decide whether evidence of past acts should be admitted.

"The judge will balance the relevance and usefulness of the evidence to establish the current charges, versus the danger of unfairly confusing the jury into thinking that just because a past allegation had occurred that this means the present charges are true," Bachrach said.

He said that courts generally are concerned that introducing past allegations will confuse or inflame a jury. But a century-old New York case does give prosecutors a potential avenue for admitting such evidence.

In People v. Molineux, decided in 1901, the Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors can in limited circumstances introduce evidence to show that a defendant has a "signature" or unusual pattern of criminal activity.

For example, if Strauss-Kahn has a history of approaching cleaning women in hotels and trying to coerce them into having sex, that would probably be admissible in this case, former prosecutor Paul Callan of Callan Koster Brady & Brennan said.

OPENING THE DOOR

Another way prosecutors could introduce evidence of past sexual encounters would be if the defense "opened the door" by, for example, arguing that the sex was consensual.

If his lawyers made that claim -- which they appeared to do during his arraignment when they argued that "the forensic evidence ... are not consistent with forcible encounter" -- or argued that Strauss-Kahn was framed or entrapped, that could allow the prosecution to demonstrate that he has done this to women in the past, Callan said. And if prosecutors uncover other instances in which Strauss-Kahn has attempted to "overcome a woman's resistance," a judge might allow that evidence, he said.

"The defense has to tread very, very carefully because they might trigger the prosecutors' right to introduce evidence of his alleged misconduct with any women," Callan said.

But Callan said he did not think prosecutors could convince a judge to allow testimony about Strauss-Kahn's reputation as a ladies' man or the overtures he has allegedly made to other women. The mere claim that he is a Lothario would be inadmissible, he said.

This could all change if Strauss-Kahn testifies. If defense attorneys put him on the stand, prosecutors could use his sexual affairs to attack his credibility, Callan said.

Ultimately, it's too early to predict what will happen in the courtroom. But Shargel said he suspects that the trial ultimately will be "about what happened in the hotel room on that day, not the life and times of Dominique Strauss-Kahn."

(Reporting by Noeleen Walder and Toni Clarke; additional reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by

Spendius point is valid if your main concern is the welfare of the "victim".

Maybe I think it would simply be a good idea if the truth of this whole episode was revealed, minus the b/s?

All the women I know, and it is a goodly number, think militant feminism is against their interests. But it is certainly in the interest of the legal profession, the media and lovers of excuses to be indignant and especially when larded with explicit details about torn pantyhose and semen stains.