Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Why do you keep insisting that they did not investigate? Do you know how much investigation they did do, or what evidence they had before arresting DSK?

Obviously, they had enough evidence for the grand jury to hand down an indictment, so how long it took them before they made an arrest is a rather moot point.

Your objections to the arrest no longer make any sense since the case is now headed for trial--because there is enough evidence to suspect guilt of a forcible assault and to warrant a trial.

You really enjoy obsessively beating dead horses.

When they removed him from the plane and arrested him and throw him in a cell no test results of any evidence was back so they was going on her word not evidences beyond that.

An it is hardly a moot point to know that in New York State you can end up siting in a cell with your good name being destroy on the word of a woman alone and afterward they will investigate.

Oh and giving incorrect information out about him running to the airport to "escape" the country.

She might have had scratches or bruises, as well as torn clothing, consistent with a report of a struggle, and they might have found blood evidence in the room. You don't have to wait for test results on that sort of thing.
The fact remains that you don't know what evidence they had prior to arresting him--you are making unsubstantiated statements.

They had enough evidence to convince them to arrest him--and to convince a grand jury that there was sufficient evidence of forcible assault, and, therefore, of guilt, to indict him and move the matter to trial.

The arrest was legally justified. Even the defense lawyers have not claimed it was unjustified.

Stop beating a dead horse. That part of this legal case is over.

Tell me how many times a year that a New York grand jury had refused to return a true bill at a request of a DA?

Before even looking I would bet a large sum that the numbers is so low as not to exist.

The theory that a Grand Jury would be some protection for citizens being charge have not pan out and had become just another tool of the prosecutors.

\

I have yet to find the figure for New York State but the true bill rate in the US seem to run to 99 percents or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

In Kentucky, grand jurors are empaneled in each county, at the Circuit level (felonies only) for a four-month term (three panels per year). During the trial jury orientation for the given four-month term, the grand jurors are selected from the trial jury pool, although the method of selection is not necessarily random. The meetings are twice a month (however, grand juries in more populous counties generally meet more often), with each meeting usually going through 20-30 cases in a four to five hour period. The indictment rate is about 98-99%; the grand jury can broaden (about 1% of the time) or narrow (about 3% of the time) the counts in the indictment as well. Usually, fifteen or so[clarification needed] grand jurors are required to report to meetings; the hope is that twelve will show to each meeting, which is the number of jurors required to hear cases (extra jurors can leave). It takes nine yes votes to the question of probable cause to sign a true bill of indictment. Fewer than nine yes votes either causes a no true bill or a narrowing of the indictment (depending on the votes per count).


CriticismThe most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process.[21] Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.[9] The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury[22] and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[9]

After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers and anti-war activists.[23]

You have no idea of what evidence the police and D.A. had prior to making the arrest beside the hotel maid's verbal statements.

There is sufficient evidence supporting the charges to take the matter to trial--and even the defense has not argued with that, they simply said the case "is defensible".

The arrest happened--it's over and done with.

Stop beating that dead horse.


You will just have to wait for the trial to hear all of the evidence.

I do know that a lot of he information they put out in the first few days was not true.

The arrest is over and done with however as an example of police behaviors in New York State it is on concern to anyone who live or visit that state.

With special note of high profile men.

Would you care to have a little side bet that there will not be a trial as the poor victim who will no longer be poor will go away.

No, I have no interest in making a bet, of any kind, with you.

I am more than willing to wait for a trial and to see how things unfold.

I can only hope you will not be holding your breathe waiting for this trial.

Those three lawyers of the maid is likely in negotiations with DSK lawyers now and if not they will be shortly.

In the movie "Maid in Manhattan” the poor hard working maid met and fell in love with a rich politician however it seem a faster and surer method in real life is to meet a wealthy customer and then cry rape.

I bet this division of what is ok for whom changes pretty soon at the IMF.


I am, by the way of tangent to part of that article, not completely against sexual liaisons in the workplace, having enjoyed my own quite a bit, but, looking back, and even then, I could see potential for difficulty. I read a few years ago, maybe on a2k, where mores on that were changing in some firms and their HR departments, back towards a somewhat more lenient stance. A friend married a guy she was not allowed to date. It's been, oh, a fine marriage for thirty years. (I forget how they finessed that, career wise.)

Actually, I would consider a civil settlement prior to the criminal trial, as akin to an admission of guilt on his part, and an acknowledgment that the prosecution's case was too strong to risk a conviction at trial and, therefore, he had to buy her silence. I think that was true when Michael Jackson did it, and when Kobe Bryant did it. I think it reflects much more negatively on the defendant because they are the one trying to block the evidence and testimony that might emerge in a criminal trial by paying off the state's main witness against them.

The Grand Jury system has operated in many countries. The system dates back to the 12th century. It has fallen into desuetude in every country except the US. Why would that be if it is a satisfactory system. ff likes to say the prosecutors must have had good reason to arrest DSK on the evidence that they had arrested him and on that principle grand juries must be unsatisfactory because many countries have had them and dropped them.

In which case, it seems to me, there must be some unique reason why the US has not followed suit. As the direction of civilised values has been more and more towards being fair to the accused there is a good chance that the reason all these other countries have dropped the Grand Jury system was to develop that direction further. Thus, on this thesis, the US lags behind the other developed parts of the world in providing a fair trial for an accused. I presume on behalf of the power elite. The legal profession. In which case all this bullshit about equality under the law for every citizen justifying the treatment of DSK must be something to do with him being French.

When DSK was shown in court at the first hearing every educated European saw shades, admittedly delicate ones, of how Miguel Servetus was produced in the Geneva courtroom many years ago under the direction of that Calvin bastard. It might have been less extreme but the motive was the same. To make him look contemptible as was also the reference to the Polanski case which caused the judge to reprimand the counsel and which came too late to erase the impression intended. Did counsel know he would be reprimanded? One might hope so.

It is within the powers of the prosecution to deny the accused access to the Grand Jury hearing. Was that power exercised in this case? Is the GJ held in secret?

So what I think led some Europeans to being "aghast" was a sort of visceral impression that the US is not as civilised as we thought it was. And programmes about your jail conditions reinforce that impression as does the use of capital punishment which in itself disqualifies the US from entering the EEC irrespective of whether it wishes to or not. To say that DSK was treated just as everybody else is makes us see how everybody is treated in the US which we hadn't quite realised before. He has shown your system to the world.

That's disingenuous in the sense that the State has the resources to make a settlement an economic necessity for most accused persons in difficult cases so it can use its money power to get a quasi-guilty verdict without having to prove guilt. Hence seeming to justify itself.

You can consider it anything you care to however most people if given a choice between taking a risk no matter how minor of spending the remainer of your life behind bars and paying someone money to go away would pick the payment option whether they was guilty or innocent.

It is very hard to loss when you have the power of the state on your side in blackmailing someone and if the lady was not in it for the money there would not be three of her own lawyers in the picture no matter what fantasy world you live in Firefly.

Almost no one will talk to a grand jury that is charge with a crime, as you have no protections at all and are not even allow a lawyer with you.

All GJs are held in secret and are just a tool and a rubber stamp for the prosecutor as 98 to 99 percents of the time they will give the DA his true bill.

The requirements for having a Grand Jury system on the Federal level is written into our constitution and we also still have them in some states because they are a wonderful tool for prosecutors to use in investigations.

To sum up an institution first set up as a protection for people charge with crimes had growth into a tool for the state.

And I might add that the people representing the State, if such they are, which I don't accept for a moment, are not using their own money. They are using the money of the taxpaying mugs most of whom, I should think, don't give a shite about an alleged blow job in a flash hotel. I certainly don't.

Many years ago I saw a film about two reporters who went to India and got two "untouchables" all spruced up and took them to a cafe. They deliberately introduced these two "untouchables" to two Indian gents of a higher caste and they spent an hour or so socialising. Then they told the posh guys that these two others were "untouchables". The two posh guys went beserk. One might have thought from their demenour that the sky was going to fall off the shelf.

To what extent is real harm to be compared to affronts to dignity? As I understand things Eskimos offer visitors the use of their wives sexual attributes and their dignity is affronted if the visitor refuses the offer. Which makes sense looked at in a certain way.

The subject, without a shadow of doubt, is feminine dignity and one look at the prosecutors tells me that that is the last thing on their minds when they are on the vinegar stroke.

And Islam has a very effective method of assuring feminine dignity which avoids its ladies cleaning anonymous men's **** up in hotel rooms even if it is alpha ****. The sheets in DSK's vacated room could have been lathered with his ejaculated juices and nothing would be said about her having to deal with them.

What a load of sanctimonious cant and hypocrisy we are witnessing.

It's amazing what can be done with sex-obsessed puritans.

OK, no one added any facts, strong rumors or otherwise to my earlier post, so now I'm focusing on the trial.

Assuming the police do have DNA, the smart thing for team DSK to do is claim consensual sex and that is what is seems they are going to do. It's also possible that DSK's lawyers go for broke and do something like implying that there was sex for money involved or that the maid asked for money. If that doesn't come off as credible, that could backfire both in court and in France where attacking the alleged victim is not part of the system so I don't think they will go there. This means the prosecution is effectively facing the Hawkeye test. They are going to have to show that the two people involved did not know each other (that should be fairly easy), that she resisted and was forced. The state will put her co-workers on the stand who will say she acted like a rape victim when they found her. She will testify to what we've already heard, but will be cross-examined. What may seal the deal is if she did injure him and if she suffered some injuries herself. Of course DSK will counter that they played rough, but if he was injured on a cabinet in a place where it doesn't make sense to get a blow job DSK's claim will seem pretty weak. I think the state's entire case could hinge on whether she managed to injure him, how and where.

There are all these claims in France that DSK was a "rutting money", but none of that is admissible in court. What could really sink DSK is if that 31 year old who claimed DSK tried to rape her comes to testify. Since she is completely out of the closet with the story (and has been for several years now) it is not out of the question that she and maybe her mother would come to testify. I wonder if their testimony to the character of DSK would be admissible.