Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

There has been no evidence provided, Francis. You don't know what evidence, in addition to the maid's report, that the police and D.A. had which led to their judgment to make an arrest. And, you don't even know the details of the maid's report, which she first gave to the police and later gave in testimony to a grand jury. All we have actually seen is the criminal complaint against DSK which simply explains why he has been charged with violating certain criminal laws. The rest of what you have heard are leaks--from both sides--and those should really be disregarded at this point in time.

The police and D.A. are not required to make their full evidence public, in any criminal case, immediately after arresting someone. Disclosure of evidence, which must primarily be made to the defense and not to the media, follows a definite organized process. All of the evidence against DSK will emerge at trial, along with defense arguments against that evidence, and, at that time, you can make some better informed judgments about the case.

I can understand that, because of cultural differences, you might view a "perp walk" quite differently than I do. But, it is important that you understand that, in NYC, all people arrested for all crimes are handcuffed. And, until bail arrangements are settled and the accused is released from custody, that person must be handcuffed when they are transported from one location to another. And, because we have complete freedom of the press, reporters can photograph the accused when he is in public view and being moved from one place to another. That's why there were the photos of DSK that you saw. He was being transported when those photos were taken, he wasn't being "paraded" for the press.

Whether the French agree with our practice of allowing people to be photographed in handcuffs, it is necessary to remember that this is standard practice in the U.S.--there was nothing out of the ordinary done with DSK. And there is no reason to believe that such photos prejudice the public, or potential jurors, any more than a front page story describing the arrest, and the charges, accompanied by a stock photo of DSK looking like his usual dapper self. It is the arrest and the charges, and not photos in handcuffs, which do cause a suspicion of guilt, and no one denies that. But, the reality of the arrest and the charges cannot, and should not, be withheld from the public--I don't want the police arresting people in secret. Our criminal courtrooms are open to both the media and the public, and an arrest is a matter of public record and it would certainly become public once the accused enters a courtroom. Again, DSK received the exact same treatment as anyone else arrested for a crime in NYC, except, because he's newsworthy, the story of his arrest, and his photo, landed on the front page. Every night on the local news, considerably lesser known people are shown in handcuffs being put into police cars. Americans are quite used to these images. Also, DSK is not well known to the average American, and the horror the French might feel at seeing a photo of a potential French presidential candidate in handcuffs, did not register the same way with most people in this country.

Our criminal law process is completely open to the press and public. We do differ from the French in that regard. Different practices reflect very real differences in cultural attitudes.

The business of the media revealing the name of the accused, and not the name of the alleged victim, is not a matter of law in the U.S. Nothing stops the media here from revealing the alleged victim's name-- they voluntarily withhold it as a matter of courtesy, and it's important to set the record straight on that score because some posters have been throwing around a lot of misinformation.

So, if the media chooses to withhold the name of the complainant in a sexual assault matter, they are simply acting of their own accord--they are not part of the criminal justice system, they aren't bound by any laws to withhold such names, and they can make their own decisions in such matters. That too is freedom of the press.

But remember, one DSK was arrested, his accuser became the state of NY. The hotel maid is a witness in their criminal case, but the state is now the accuser. So, details about this woman, and her life, become secondary because it is the state of NY who now must prove the criminal charges they have lodged against DSK.

Hopefully, that is exactly what will happen.

No Francis, it's not the images. It's the fact of his arrest, and the charges against him, and all the evidence that will be presented at trial, that will affect his reputation. And the same would be true for anyone charged with serious crimes, and not just crimes of sexual assault. That's because evidence will be presented at trial to support the charges against him, and even if the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict, because they are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence presented might still have convinced some in the public of his guilt. A perfect example is the O.J. case.

In the particular case of DSK, I think you have to have some faith that the NYPD Special Victims Unit, sex crimes investigatory division, and the Manhattan D.A.'s sex crimes unit, did not act to make an arrest and bring charges without sufficient evidence--evidence sufficient to convince these highly experienced law enforcement officials of guilt. These are not amateurs in investigating and prosecuting sex crimes. The first thing they consider is the possibility of a totally false, completely fabricated, accusation, and anything that would arouse red flags about that possibility, would dissuade them from making an arrest--particularly of a very high profile, prominent individual, and even if he was about to leave the country. If they were unsure, they would not have arrested him. But, they still have to prove it at trial.

And, on the face of what we do know, there is no reason to suspect a totally false accusation in this case. DSK is accused of forcibly sexually assaulting a stranger. These two did not have a relationship of any sort. He would have the same charges against him if he had grabbed a strange woman on the street, pulled her into an alley, and tried to rape her and forced her to have oral sex. The usual motives for totally false rape allegations are not present in this case--totally false rape allegations are almost never made against total strangers who have had no prior contact, of any kind, with the alleged victim immediately before the alleged assault. And apparently there is corroborating evidence of sexual contact, and possibly of force as well, so her allegations have some support and the rest is a matter to be determined at trial.

All the melodrama about possible conspiracies, from DSK's political rivals, and even the CIA, are not substantiated by anything we know, and, until such evidence emerges, the alleged victim is entitled to the presumption of innocence regarding her motives and her report.

Similarly, discussions about money the maid might receive in a settlement do not, and should not, impinge on her credibility. If she brought a civil suit that returned a guilty verdict against DSK, she should be entitled to monetary damages. If she brings a civil suit, and he settles with her before a verdict is reached in the civil case, and she then refuses to testify at his criminal trial, I think most people would probably see it as a wealthy powerful man buying his way out of a possible sexual assault conviction--and such a settlement would not, and should not, reflect on the hotel maid's credibility. He is the one with the most to gain by buying her silence at a criminal trial. She can still bring a civil suit against him after the criminal trial, regardless of the verdict in the criminal trial, so she can bide her time, but it is considerably more urgent for him to get out of the possibility of a criminal conviction as soon as possible.

I'm willing to wait for a trial and see whether the state can prove its case. But I really think this case may end with a plea deal, a very good plea deal, for DSK, because I think everyone, on both sides, has motive to want to make this go away as fast as possible. These very high profile cases do become media circuses, and that makes things difficult and more stressful for both the defense and the prosecution because they are both under a magnifying glass, and it winds up trying the defendant in the media rather than in just the courtroom. So, I really do think we might see a plea deal.

That says very little. I live generations past Homer, Rabelais, Sterne, Fielding, Frank Harris and a whole load of other folk but it doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer unless you mean you're of a generation in which nothing offered is of any use.

Thank once more for pointing out that any man can be destroy by a charge of rape and in the DSK case we do not had one hell of an idea what happen but for a police released story that on it face does not made sense.

Hell it was front page news when Copperfield was being charge with raping a woman on some private island of his and ten page news when she was found to be a blackmailer.

Most people when they hear his name to date is likely to think he was a rapist.

Firefly you are still trying to float the idea that a rape had occur in the Duke players case and the poor girl only picked the wrong men out, when every one of the men in that house had their DNA taken and even those they found her boyfriend and a number of other men sperm in her not one match from anyone at the party.

We need to protect men good names until and if they are found guilty of some charge.

Oh if rape is the same as any other crime as you are claiming Firefly then we should not be protecting the accuser name as we do not do so for any other crime.

You seem to wish if both ways as always.

Hardly. Maybe my toes would have curled in embarrassment at the crassness of the vote-getting trick and the original display of being absolutely wonderful.

But as I said, I didn't see it. I did see the frock at the "acceptance of the nomination" gig though. I sprayed cake crumbs all over the books on the occasional table on which I sometimes rest my feet when I want to sit up straight for a period.

I was sticking up for the Gutsy Broad in the Primaries.

Do you think Mrs Clinton would have taken the decision to off OBL?

I'm sorry pan--I missed out "overwhelming and disabling" between "such" and "power". And I really shouldn't have used "power" twice. Substitute "mystical strength" for the first one. My excuse was that I was concentrating on choosing the words to describe his physical state. His mental state having been neutralised. Perhaps DSK is a Rider Haggard fan. He knew a bit about women from that neck of the woods.

The state is not going to give up its practice of humiliation of the acused, as it is much too profitable and fun. Some where in this thread I linked to an explaination of perp walking that has one of the motivations for it being to bump up morale of the state employes, and this also partly explains the trashing of the accused in the press to the point of leaking evidence. However, a more important reason is that this is how the state tries to sell the police state to the citizens.....mostly with success.

If only the headmistress who caught me putting a mouse down a girl's collar could have spoken so patiently and considerately as that.

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal? completely depends for an answer to what "criminal" means. And that definition has been arrived at today by a process of "hypothetical and philosophical dicussions" ever since Ghengis Khan had a virgin for breakfast every morning.

And its definition today is merely a point in time in an evolving direction. The direction from GK to that point being the only way it could have been arrived at and on which it is utterly dependent. So the direction is what matters and not a minor incident along its path into the future.

Your continuous focus on this point is merely a cheap trick to try to take our minds off the direction so that while we are concentrating on it, you hope, we will lose sight of the process and you can shift the direction a bit more while we are not looking. I feel too much of a duty to the young lads coming up behind me to fall for such an infantile strategy. Midge Decter is craftier than most at such things but she doesn't get past my guard. I can smell "purity for men" from miles off. Like female goats can. It can't be disguised to an afficionado.

When Gauguin first pitched his tent in Tahiti a young lass of about 13 ran in and announced "I your's, me with you". Which is not unlike our traditional bride's wedding vows.

I hope Francis read the rest of the lecture because I can't see anybody else having done.

Right now, you are the one making a false allegation. DSK HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH RAPE.

And, if you were able to accurately process what I said, you would have realized I was referring to the fact that, at a rape trial, or sexual assault trial, evidence is presented to support an act of rape/sexual assault, and some of that evidence may remain in the public mind even if a not guilty verdict is returned. And that's true at all criminal trials and not just sexual assault cases--evidence is presented at trial to support the criminal charges, and some of that evidence remains in the minds of some people. So, a "not guilty" verdict might not erase all suspicions in the public mind--and the O.J. trial was a prime example of that. But we still have to have criminal trials.

Would you suggest that the police and D.A. do not arrest and charge or try anyone they believe committed a forcible sexual assault, or any other serious crime, because it might damage the person's reputation? So, they should ignore crimes?

The Manhattan D.A.'s office has a very high conviction rate on rape cases they take to trial. But again, rape trials are not relevant in this case because DSK has not been charged with rape. So, why are you bringing up rape cases?

We cannot have trials and legal proceedings held in secret--this is not a police state. The fact that someone is arrested and charged with a crime, any crime, is a matter of public record. Anyone can sit in a U.S. criminal courtroom for any criminal justice proceeding and observe what is going on, and hear the names of those charged with crimes, and the nature of the crimes they are charged with. And that is the way it should be for all crimes, including crimes of a sexual nature.--that openness is what insures that nothing inappropriate is going on in those courtrooms. And, in court, the name of the accuser is New York State, and that is true in all types of crimes and not just sexual assault cases.
The media has the right to do anything they want to do. If they voluntarily choose to protect the names of complainants in sexual assault cases, they have a right to make that choice--it's called freedom of the press, BillRM.

Stop briging up rape cases--you are falsely implying DSK is charged with rape. And, even in the cases you mention, the accusations were not made by total strangers, people who had absolutely no prior contact with the accused parties before the alleged assaults--one woman had been at a party with the Duke players, and the other had contact with Copperfield during his magic act and possibly in the Bahamas --and Copperfield was never charged with rape.

In the DSK case, these two people were complete strangers to each other. And he is not charged with rape.

Let's pretend that much of the rest of the world has not figured out how to have a finding of the truth without abusing the accused. You Firefly sound like the Americans who try to defend our transportation system when a great many of us have actually been outside of America, have experienced ourselves what a modern transit system looks like, and who much better it is than America's antique system. Nothing you can say will rub out what we know through experience, which is that America is far behind the times.

It's the media, and not the state, that takes the photos and profits from them. That's why they are camped outside DSK's townhouse right now--every photo they get of him makes money for them.

Both sides engage in leaking--the defense just leaked an assertion that they had evidence that undermines the maid's credibility. Both sides try to manipulate public opinion, and both sides are wrong for doing so.

Bullshit it was the state that have him photos in handcuffs surrounded by police officers.

The state is supposed to work for us, that should mean that we can stop their wrong doing at least. PLus, the state has much of the power in our "justice" system, it is only those rare cases where a jury comes into play where the citizens get a say in the determination of facts. Also, laws often have been vaguely written and sold in a dishonest pitch which is a process where the state purposefully negates what is supposed to be the citizens control of the laws. Let's for instance talk about the sex offender registries, which were sold as a method to keep the citizens more safe, but for which the assertion was never more than a theory, a theory which has been now proven to be false now that the feminist stonewalling of science is finally breaking down. But do we hear the state coming to the people saying "opps we were wrong, what we said is not true, so we are abusing sex offenders above other types of offenders for no benefit"? Of course not, because our state has proven over and over again that it will roll over the citizens when ever it can get away with it when it thinks its interests profit in the the exercise of injustice and violation of the Constitution.

I take your post as an admission from you that the state does not work for us, as your entire line of reasoning does not work if we are to assume that it does.

Everyone, arrested for any crime in the U.S., will be in handcuffs and have a police officer next to them, when they are moved from one location to another, until the time bail is set and they are released from custody.

The state cannot stop the press from gathering in public areas to take photos when the accused is being moved. We have complete freedom of the press in such matters. Those photographers had been camped out for hours waiting to get those photos because they knew DSK would be moved to return him to the building he was being housed in. If he was a nobody, the media would not have been there, but the police would still have treated him in the exact same way. Prior to being released on bail, the police must handcuff the accused, and accompany him at all times, to protect themselves, and the public--and it doesn't matter what kind of crime is involved.

It's the media that wants the photos, and that's who profits from them.

But you need him to ff. Then you can keep giving him lectures about "incidents" in the general flow of things rather than on the direction of them which, it seems obvious, is being kept secret.

After all, it is called "The Movement" isn't it that is redefining what is criminal these days. It admits a directional power by its name. A movement is a passing from one place to another as any hospital matron will tell you.

I can only surmise that the company you keep allows you to work this simple trick upon them because either they don't know any better or are indulging you for some reason. The habit does look to be ingrained enough.

"Votes for women, purity for men" must be kept in mind. I used to know an old lady, a relation, who could say "MEN!!!!Bah!!" in a shudder which it is impossible to describe but would not have been out of place had she been offered a slug pie. And she was on her third husband at the time having buried the two previous ones.

DSK is merely an exemplar of The Beast. What this says about the men persecuting him is that the direction of the drift has arrived at the point where they are. DSK is a sort of sacrificial effigy of themselves but they don't see it simply because a woman has never had the effect upon them that I speculated that Ophelia had allegedly had upon him. The effect that Mr Coppola staged so brilliantly in Alpocalyse Now when the soldiers rushed the stage after the flapper at the end of the chorus line lifted her short skirt and wafted them. DSK is in the position of the last guy to drop off the rope hanging from the escaping helicopter. I think Mr Coppola's having run out of money, again, possibly prevented him having a shoal of alligators gobble the guy up in a foam of blood. I hardly think he hadn't considered it.

I hope you didn't think it was actually happening rather than it being a dramatically staged metaphor which is what it obviously was.

Excuse me tittering hawk.

According to the criminal complaint against DSK, the effect she had resulted in a criminal forcible sexual assault against her, against her will.

So, are you blaming her for her own assault?

So, by your logic, if you walk down the street wearing an expensive Rolex watch, and you get held up or mugged for the watch, the criminal act is your fault, because you had a desirable object right?

Yes--and all the appropriate persons will be notified, possibly for a fee, when this event is to take place, and where, and the police officers will perform their duties in the manner expected of them by the public. And, of course, their Moms and Dads, other relations, and friends. A manner associated with that of conducting a wild animal from one zoo to another.

Do you think they draw lots for the privilege?

An everyone get prose for pictures before a mob of video cameras like you would prose some game animal you had just shot I assume.

You just need to prosed the prisoner as he is move around.

Come on being dishonest is one thing but being that dumbly dishonest is another thing.