So, what's the take away from the whole Strauss-Kahn episode? If you rape a liar you walk free?

One of two things happened in that hotel room.

He paid her and she gave him oral sex. She saw a potential patsy and made up the story to get money.

He forced her, got his rocks off, and she called the cops.

My gut tells me the second scenario occurred. I don't know that for sure and no one else does either - except for them. The cops probably have a good idea, but probably not a certainty. That would take a trial. But we'll never get that. The woman proved to be an unreliable accuser. A liar. The DA says he couldn't make a case with her testimony in a "He Said-She Said" trial.

Now lets assume that the second case was, indeed, true. Is it right that a rapist walks just because his victim has issues with the truth? Or that she's just a bad person with her own issues?







Yes, I know no actual rape was alleged.

lying.

She admitted lying to the prosecutors.

you can rape and pillage with gusto. Literally...

Authorities clearly took it very seriously. He was arrested, his bail was set at a huge amount, and don't see anything to suggest that if a prosecution believed the woman to be credible they wouldn't have taken it to trial.

when his ass should have been in rikers island, with the rest of the scum.

Two different levels of law in the US. One doesn't apply to it's citizens. But if you have enough money -- you get the white glove treatment, and the case falls apart at just the right junction.... :eyes:

He posted bail with conditions.

Are you really advocating for the dismantling of the bail system?

He is out of his job and no longer a contender for the president of france. Your assertion seem kind of empty of substance with respect to this particular incident.

She was a shitty witness and the only witness. The case was unwinnable and that is why it was dropped.

for the political fortunes of one Nicolas Sarkozy. I thought it smelled from the beginning.

of course it is difficult to prove anything in that area. I just find it odd that this is characterized as the 'elites can do anything'. DSK's political life was wrecked. He lost his job. The legal fees were likely enormous.

But DSK's behavior towards women was certainly a vulnerable area for him, to say the least.

It is perhaps not a bad thing that his political career is over and perhaps he can and will get the psychological counseling he needs.

In any event, he is hardly getting away without any adverse consequences. Apart from the global personal humiliation, the loss of his important job at the IMF and the demise (and that is certain) of his political career, he may still face charges in France for attempted rape.

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

because your response doesn't seem to follow logically. Even in the case at hand in France, no actual rape occurred and the accuser's own mother convinced her not to file charges at the time. So it is possible that those events could be subject to differing interpretations.

In the US case, it can't be proven beyond a "gut feel" - which does not suffice as legal evidence of a criminal act - that a rape occurred.

So how can you say with certainty that "he will do 'it' again" - with "it" presumably meaning rape when no rape has ever been proven in the first place?

Even in other cases brought up in France - and believe me, several women came forward with accounts of inappropriate sexual behavior - no actual rape was alleged.

But believe me also, Mr DSK's life henceforth will not be a pleasant one because everyone has been very sensitized and his behavior will be subject to continued scrutiny wherever he goes.

The closing line said to me, "Don't feel so bad he is being punished and will never do it again. I promise.".

there was no case. The woman is a con artist. She lied to the Grand Jury, to the prosecutors, she lied to Immigration, to the housing authorities, she lied about he marital status, about another rape, she practiced how to pretend she was raped. She then lied about the lies she told.

She had money deposited in several accounts around the country which she told different stories about. She lied about her phones. In fact there is hardly anything she didn't lie about.

There was ZERO forensic evidence, she lied about being injured, she refused to provide her medical records when claiming her shoulder was injured. The doctor believed that was an old injury. No vaginal injuries either, as reported initially by Rupert Murdoch's rag, the NY Post.

But most of all she lied about the incident itself, she told three different verions, then lied about them. Only when her electronic key was finally checked did she admit she lied.

Then there was the timeline itself. While DSK was supposedly attacking her, he was talking on the phone to his daughter.

Cyrus Vance would probably have given all he possessed not to have had to drop this case but there literally was no case. She has a lawyer who himself has been cited for ethical problems and two others who quit early on.

What is really sad is that for some people a woman only has to make an accusation and a man is guilty. And even when it is proven, as in this case, beyond almost any doubt that the woman is lying, it doesn't matter. The media has already conducted a trial and the viewing jury has rendered a verdict.

What was reprehensible about this case was that the prosecution knew for over 30 days before finally admitting it had no case that the woman was lying, waiting just long enough to ensure that DSK could not enter the presidential race and that the IMF had a new chief who did what they wanted regarding the Greek Bailout. DSK was expected to make the Banks pay a bit more of the 'shared sacrifice'.

So like the DUKE case. This woman is lucky she has not yet been arrested herself. Any other woman who had committed perjury as she did, lied to Federal officers (see Martha Stewart) would have been arrested long ago.

There should be an investigation of the NYPD Police Chief, Ray Kelly, whose office spread the initial lies, and who is a close friend of France's President, Sarkozy political opponent of DSK, and who was most likely the 'leaker' to the SarKozy bloggers who oddly had a story that had not even happened yet, hours before it did.

The Rightwing wins again whether by a set up or by the spreading of lies. Shame to see people falling for it. This would be the equivalent of Al Gore being arrested in France, frog-marched (although they don't do that in Europe) by a French Police Chief who was a friend of Bush, after being accused of rape by some woman, then throw in jail, with Murdoch's media leading the 'news' on the case. Then the case being dropped AFTER he could no longer run for office.

that the prosecutors determined that they had NO PLAUSIBLE CASE, in part due to at least three diverging stories being told by the accuser. It also noted that her counsel had "no objections" to the case being dismissed in toto.

That all adds to something very fishy in the original accusations.

As usual Sabrina, you post actual facts that can be checked. :hi:

...of power...It is still a very misogynistic society on many levels..

Maybe we should not be judging whole cultures who have survived quite well for far longer than we have, with such certainty that we are always right. The French attitude towards sex is far better imho, than the attitude here. We are in some ways living in the past regarding sexual matters. And it is absolutely wrong to say that rape is not taken seriously in France, that is absolutely false. But they do not convict people based on accusations, as shamefully happened in this case here and in the Duke Lacrosse case. They wait for the evidence.

As it turns out in this case there was zero evidence and nothing but a web of lies including lies to the Grand Jury, but it won't matter, people will not bother to read the court documents, and a man's life, career and reputation, and no, he did not have the reputation of being anything more than a bit of a pest with women sometimes, in France. That was wholly a Murdoch media claim. But then America is dominated by tabloid, rightwing journalism.

The "land of the free" is very much a case of 'not-so-much' when it comes to matters of sex and sexuality...as a Euro it always makes me laugh when I am lectured about the freedoms I didn't have when I was growing up...

we'll wait.

WTF are you talking about?

From the prosecutor's letter she " Lied in a U.S. asylum application that her husband was tortured in jail and died of injuries
Lied about having been gang raped by soldiers in Guinea to help her asylum application
Lied about waiting in the hall outside the suite of the 'attack' until Strauss-Kahn left
Lied by claiming a friend's child as her own for the last two years to get a higher tax refund."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010498/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-rape-victim-accused-prostitute.html#ixzz1VyJPXnVZ

act like a rape victim according to her own statements. She claimed she only did that to help seek political asylum in the US on her papers. She then claimed there was another rape in Africa, causing the prosecutors to wonder if that were the case why did she have to make up the other rape story. You need to read the court documents. This woman has not told the truth about anything. No prosecutor would be stupid enough to go to trial with such a witness. She lied to the Grand Jury, and as the prosecutors stated in their court documents, they feared she would commit perjury on the stand.

It helps to look at the actual evidence, rather than the Murdoch-led media reports which claimed there was evidence of 'sexual assault' but they never said where that information came from. Now we see that that was untrue also, no evidence at all of any kind of asault, the medical examiner states the only injury (shoulder) that was apparent, was an old injury. She has refused to release her medical records.

Face the woman is a con artist and it is because of women like this that real victims of sexual assault are not taken seriously. Which is why WE should make sure from the beginning that we are not supporting false allegations or we become part of the problem.

her immigration chances.. But the story she told was apparently not true.

People "stretch the truth" all the time to make their return to their home country appear to be dangerous to them....sometimes it really is dangerous, but many times, it's a story crafted to make them more likely to be granted a visa.

When money rules the day, there are always people who figure all the angles.

The only people who know for sure what happened are those two people, and both of them could be telling the truth and both could also be lying..

In any case both lives have been irreparably affected by the incident.,

She lied about being raped in Africa.

it isn't just that she was a liar but that she specifically lied about having been raped. I honestly don't know what happened and that is the problem the prosecution had.

What is the specific amount of lies that it takes to make one a liar? On what objective premise is that figure arrived at?

Otherwise, we're all of us liars (I presume we've all told at least one lie in our lifetimes) and thus, should never be believed...

that is about as close as it gets to being directly on point. If she had lied about other things that would be one thing but she lied, on an offical under penalty of perjury form, about the exact same thing.

sure.

Why can they just send to jail the people that I know, deep in my heart, are guilty?

Because their own plaintiff couldn't decide on which version of the facts she'd most like to use. When prosecuting attorneys realize their client is full of crap, that tells me there's a good chance that the defendant is innocent.

Maybe she should be.

...this guy's idea of dating protocol maybe severely warped, but the witness was as reliable as the electrics on '73 MG and with his m.o. being well known in certain circles, it doesn't take much to put two and two together and come up with a scenario wherein a certain someone gets eliminated from a potential future run at a certain someone else's job...

Who benefitted most and who had most to lose? Those are the real questions...the DA has already said that this woman's story doesn't add up...

rape cases, The losers on this are real victims... and she may or may not be one, but she is not a credible witness, So big picture... rape prosecutions just proved that much more difficult to prove.

Pissed.
Yes, only rape the perfect person (who does not exist.)
x(

I think they had physical evidence of assault/battery against her, and his DNA. Enough for me, don't care that she may have lied some time in the past. Good enough to go to trial, imo.

She was a witness with a sketchy background. Sadly many victims of crime have sketchy backgrounds. Doesn't mean they aren't victims. Unfortunately it just makes it harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

inconsistencies related to the actual case at hand.

:-(

Why are so many folks willfully ignorant of this?

She claimed her shoulder was injured in the 'encounter' but the medical examiner stated it was an old injury. She refused to release her medical record. The reports of 'physical evidence of assault' mostly appeared in the NY Post and many people asked for confirmation from law enforcement, but never got it. The court documents now cleared all of those rumors up. It's sad that we have a media that just publishes whatever sensational stories they want to. But even sadder that the public doesn't take the trouble to question them. Back then lawyers questioned those reports stating that none of that info had been verified nor was it possible to have so early in the case. The court documents state without any doubt there was no evidence of any kind of assault. DNA takes time, btw, so people should have considered the source, Murdoch's Post, and waited for the actual evidence, which is now available.

Who she was is irrelevant. In fact she used her supposed status as a poor, divorced/widowed/married (she also lied about her marital status so no one seems to know what it is at this point) woman to her advantage. DSK was 'guilty' by virtue of being rich and powerful. So that works both ways.

But aside from all the lies she told (three different versions of the incident itself each time she was caught lying eg) the most compelling exculpatory evidence is the timeline itself. The ever changing stories which necessitated constant changes to the timeline, and the lies told by Murdoch's NY Post and the NYPD's lies about DSK 'fleeing' when in fact he did no such thing, made it clear even to observers that were serious problems with the case right from the beginning. His time in NY, two days, was pre-planned and his flight booked in advance. Apparently during this supposed assault we now know he was speaking to his daughter on the phone.

Questions remain about the woman. Eg, who paid her all that money which she keep changing her story about also? And for what? And why did she have all those phones, and why when asked, did she lie to the prosecutors about them?

Her own words in her interviews with prosecutors, are what demonstrated the lies she repeatedly told. And she lied to the Grand Jury. It was not money, or his powerful position, it was her own lies all of which were recorded by the Prosecutors.

Sometimes people lie about these things, as in the Duke case. The problem is that women like this who lie for money, or/and attention, make it very difficult for real victims.

the boy has issues with repeatedly crying "Wolf" when there is no wolf?

and not be punished

That's the only lesson I see here. Never take on power, it will act like a wild animal in a corner and it WILL go right through you at any cost.


It does not care about anything but self-preservation.

I don't we should convict people based on guesses.

the evidence to win a conviction, you do not proceed, unless you are an attention seeking prosecutor.

Just finishing the sentence you started in your header.....

and she wasn't a credible witness.

Years ago, I was physically attacked. I actually was acquainted with my attacker and knew his name all which I reported to the police. There were no other witnesses except myself. Two of his friends provided an alibi... voila, no court case!


On the other hand, when I was a member of a feminist activist group, a woman came to us with a horrible tale of being raped at a fraternity and accused the police and university of being unresponsive to the crime. Some of the women in my group were ready to immediately jump into action, create press releases, protests, etc. Calmer heads prevailed and we spent weeks investigating and going back to the accuser for further interviews.

Over the course of the investigation, it became clear that it would be foolish to attach any activism to this particular accuser. The details of her story changed so many times that we ended up with nothing except a complete muddle. This woman was a wonderful person but there is no way I was going to accuse any member of that fraternity of rape based on her testimony.

but the cases are piling up -- and do hope that the niece/"god daugther" of his

wife will be the next to try!



Meanwhile, in looking at this case, the pile up of maids being attacked in NYC is

notable!! DSK also holds unions and union members in disdain.


From what the niece said and what the maid said, this man's portrayal as a

"rutting pig" seems apt!!

after some inconvenient facts emerged as to her activities after her encounter with DSK. She had one story and then she had another. That in itself was not fatal, but prior misrepresentations on the record, her phone calls to her prison boyfriend about the case (it sure is a good thing that most criminals are incredibly stupid), and other assorted 'character flaws' made her a witness for the defense and the only witness the prosecution had. No case. We can speculate all we want about what happened and how morally depraved DSK is, but justice was done here.

He said her story only changed in respect to her asylum statement regarding a rape in Ghana - which did in fact occur. She was raped in Ghana.

His statement is supportable by the evidence. And it was a clear and unequivocal expression of fact.

so I guess one of those two will have to be disbarred, at least according to your theory. The DA dropped the case because their only witness had not been exactly truthful in several accounts of the incident.

And the DA who made it quite clear that the witness was not viable. So we can discount the PR statements from the lawyers hired for both parties, but we really can't dismiss the statements from the prosecutors office on the same grounds, can we?

Read some of the documents --

This woman was sexually assaulted by DSK --

and one way or another -- preferably before many women women are harmed --

he should be stopped.

I think perhaps you are not looking at this case objectively?

The pressure on the DA was to bring this case to a successful conclusion, not to have the massive embarrassment of first bringing these charges against a high profile person, and then having to drop those charges because there was no viable case to be made.

The last thing Vance wanted to do is what he just had to do.

DSK has a history of attacking women sexually --

including other maids in hotels --

Even his wife's "god daughter" wasn't off limits!

You're defending a thug -- a pervert --

Time will tell --

something she feared would also happen to her daughter -- !!

and numerous accounts of his assaults on women!

You should read the recommendation to drop charges, it lists the numerous "changes" in her stories, including her lying previously about rape.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/22/nyregion/dsk-recommendation-to-dismiss-case.html?hp

How much?

Fifty bucks

Zip

Suck

Uuumph

Spit

Zip

Bye.




All the time would be in the duration of the "suck."

And it's unlikely she'd be able to attempt a scheme like this again as she's already proven herself to have a poor regard for the truth.

all in nine minutes....

Who knows what her motivations were. All that's known for sure is that she couldn't keep her story straight at all. If your own attorneys think that a case needs to be dropped, that doesn't speak very well to the merit of your case, does it?

1) A sexual encounter between DSK and the accuser took place.
2) Subsequently, she accused DSK of rape.
3) She couldn't keep her story straight so much that even her own attorneys decided that her case had no merit.
4) She made a phone call to her boyfriend on the day after the claimed assault where she said something to the effect of "Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing." in her native language.

Doesn't seem like quite a conspiracy theory to me. Sounds like common fucking sense. You really have a hard time that some people like to do really shitty things in order to make a quick buck. It happens all the time.

Someone asked for a scenario. I provided one.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can you hear that?

Doesn't mean it did not happen.

If you commit a crime, and the victim or witness has no credibility, and there's no forensic evidence, then you'll probably get away with it.

in order to secure a conviction in a case such as this? Lying about a previous rape, TO THE PROSECUTORS, severely undermined the accuser's credibility. What else can be relied on to secure a conviction absent a credible witness? :shrug:

Strauss-Kahn will probably never be even tried for this, much less ever convicted.

BUT, He did have to spend some time in jail, and under "mansion arrest". He is now widely believed to be an even lower slim-ball than most mega-bankers. He is no longer in the power banker position he controlled. He was in contention to possibly be the next president of France, and has been knocked out of the running. And he did have to spend a few hundred thousand of his own money in legal fees and for his private guards while under mansion arrest.

Not saying that is was enough, but more than most Oligarchs pay for abusing the help.

...

You'd think that she'd be able to recount what actually happened if it was so traumatic rather than changing her story multiple times. The story seems rather clear cut as of now. She wanted money and was willing to ruin someone's life for that money. I'd be happy when she's in jail for pulling this kind of crap.

it was reported immediately as she gained her composure with the quiet normalcy of her job. Minutes.


Most victims take far longer to regain their balance. Most never do, most never report.


And now fewer will.

Why was that necessary? Maybe because the sex was consensual and she had to make up the rest of the story to suggest that it wasn't. First it was that she waited in the hallway until DSK left. Then it was that she cleaned an adjacent room and came back to DSK's room after DSK left. Then it was that she returned to another room to pick up some personal items. Then, of course, there's the phone call to her boyfriend and the six figure sum transferred to her bank account by known felons over the past few years.

So I guess the truth isn't so important to you when dealing with a rape accusation? The accuser should be free to tell any lies they'd like and still expect their case to be taken seriously? Why don't you afford the same luxury to the accused?

debunked by the medical tests. I see you are an expert on a case you apparently haven't taken the time to read about. The Prosecutor's motion to dismiss negates all the Rupert Murdoch NY Post 'evidence' about the actual crime which is what people were regurgitating. I remember asking over and over again if any of it had been verified by the Authorities, but when people are in the mood for 'a hanging' who needs evidence? :eyes:

..If DSK was a middle-class salesman this story would have never happened...the ONLY reason this web of lies went anywhere was because he was rich and powerful...I am not parroting anything...she lied...not much else to say...

This is admitted by her own attorneys. You can't tell multiple versions of a story which can't be reconciled without having lied. She's lied multiple times. That's not something that someone does when they have an honest case against someone. You really are invested in DSK being a smarmy rapist for some reason.

Not sure why you are taking this so personally, but the accuser lied and a man's reputation has been gleefully smeared by a willing media...

Make sure you don't present that poster with any links to backup your assertions either. He/she will accuse you of having to resort to "intellectual backwater". You know, for providing objective facts.

If they were accused by someone who couldn't keep their story straight from one minute to another, I'm sure they'd like to have the case dropped. But when it's someone who's rich and powerful, they're guilty no matter how many times the accuser lies, even if the accuser makes comments to her boyfriend about "knowing what she's doing" and the accused having lots of money. The legal system in the U.S. has a shitload of problems, but in this case, things seemed to work out right. Why people are so distressed that our legal system worked is well beyond me.

Then I'll go here and reread the comments.

At least not for that. And I'd want his accuser to face justice as falsely accusing someone (especially of rape) is a disgusting and unconscionable thing.

What don't you understand about this? If her lawyers were continuing to support her, you might have slightly more of a case. If your own lawyers think you're a lying piece of crap, how far would you expect your case to go? You really have a hard time understanding things, don't you?

On June 30, 2011, the district attorney sent a letter to Strauss-Kahn's defense team disclosing information about the housekeeper.<32> Prosecutors met with Strauss-Kahn's defense team the same day.<7> That evening The New York Times reported the case as being on the verge of collapse and quoted law-enforcement officials as saying investigators had uncovered major holes in the housekeeper's credibility.<7> She admitted she lied about the events immediately following her encounter with Strauss-Kahn.<8><33> She had initially said that after the alleged assault she waited in a hallway until Strauss-Kahn had left. She later said she cleaned an adjacent room, and then returned to Strauss-Kahn's room to clean there before reporting to her supervisor that she had been attacked.<33> She now says that after the assault she only visited another room briefly to pick up some personal effects.<1> Also amongst the discoveries were her statements to investigators differing from what she had put in her asylum application, her claiming to have only one phone while paying hundreds of dollars a month to 5 phone companies, and individuals, including known felons, putting almost $100,000 into her bank account over the past 2 years.<7>

In addition, the prosecution learned that, the day following the alleged assault, the housekeeper had made a phone call in her native Fula language to her boyfriend in an immigration detention center.<34><35> The New York Times quoted a law enforcement official as saying that a translation of the call revealed she had used words to the effect of "Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing." Prosecutors claimed that the conversation, one of at least three they recorded, raised "very troubling" questions about the credibility of the accuser "because she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing charges against a wealthy man."<36><8> According to the Times, the translation of the call "alarmed prosecutors" as being another in a "series of troubling statements."<34>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn_%28dismissed_charges%29

If that's not a testament to her lack of credibility, I don't know what is.

Because if you don't, you're just being idiotic. And if you do, the proper thing would be to state precisely what it is that you disagree with. Otherwise, you're just being a pest. Everything I posted is absolutely public record. You could verify it extremely easily.

You've proven yourself to be extremely ignorant regarding this case, simply ignoring every post by anyone showing you how full of shit your assumptions are. That you continue to defend this scum with religious fervor after she's proven to lie time and time again astounds me. Got any other lies or bullshit from Murdoch's rags that you'd like to trot out?

Your repeated asinine assumptions are absolutely worthless. Tell me exactly where the Wikipedia article got it wrong and then provide some sort of proof for your assertion. Until you've done that, you've failed to utilize any sort of logic in defending your ridiculous assumptions.

It's alright though. If you'd have posted something substantial or intelligent, I'd be getting worried. Let me ask you this. Does anyone who makes an accusation against someone else about any particular thing deserve their day in court? Or are some people's claims so absurd and so obviously lies that the case needs to be dismissed before hand?

Apparently you thought that unleashing a profanity laced strawman would bolster your argument a bit. It didn't, it was just an epic fail like the rest of your posts defending this piece of crap.

It's an intellectual backwater written by partisans and read by the great uneducated masses.

It has a place, but that place is never in a serious conversation.

If it was really such an unreliable source, you'd have NO PROBLEM finding contradictory information. Any idiot can do that, but you seem to be having a difficult time with it. But, since you seem to have a hard time using these little things called references (they're called references because they reference the original article from which they're obtained), I'll provide them for you (even though they're quite conveniently provided by Wikipedia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/nyregion/one-revelation-after-another-undercut-strauss-kahn-accusers-credibility.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&sq=kenneth%20thompson&st=cse&scp=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/nyregion/new-yorkers-and-french-await-latest-dominique-strauss-kahn-legal-turn.html?_r=1
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec11/imf1_07-01.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44230772/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TlKk37-9zQ4
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-DSK-Rape-Case-Charges-Hearing-Maid-128153578.html

But don't worry, I'm sure it's not YOU that's full of shit. The New York Times, PBS, MSNBC and NBC New York are just "intellectual backwaters", right? They have their place, but never in serious conversation, right? I'm guessing the only reputable source is the tripe coming from your mouth (or your fingers, as it were), right? What's your next move, Chachi?

I even provided the links for you. All of that information from Wikipedia came from those sources. That's why they were referenced? Or do you have no idea what a reference is? I'm kind of guessing that APA formatting is a little bit beyond your intellectual capacity.

Let me repeat myself. The information I posted from Wikipedia was taken from the NYT and various NBC sources. Are you saying those sources are full of shit? If so, you should be prepared to offer some evidence to that course (something you've failed to do in every single one of your posts on this thread.) Certainly an intellectual giant like yourself should be able to provide at least an inkling of evidence in support of their argument, right? I should I take your word on this issue because the strong feelings you have for this case overcome any of those pesky things like logic and evidence? I anxiously await your next brilliant reply.

Simple stuff.

And if you disagree with any of the information, you can use those references to say exactly how Wikipedia misinterpreted the information. You didn't do that, of course, because that would have required you to actually be right about something and you have a rather large difficulty with that. That's all a moot point now, though, because I've provided you with the direct links and you STILL haven't found a single point of contention. But hey, don't stop now, you're on a roll. Usually people get tired of being wrong after a while and simply give up. You're running a marathon of ignorance and idiocy, I'd hate to shatter your record.

You've had more than ample chance to review them and show me where they got ANYTHING wrong. You've been unable to do so, but you have provided me wonderful entertainment. So, in the hopes of getting a bit more of that entertainment, I'll ask you once again. Is there ANYTHING in those links I provided you which is inaccurate. I'm waiting.

An ad hominem attack is one in which the person who made the argument has a personal attack against them which has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Me attacking your ability to read or even make sense of incredibly simple logic goes DIRECTLY against your argument. The fact that you've provided absolutely zero evidence to back up your claims goes DIRECTLY against your argument. You'd make the world's worst lawyer, but at least the jury would have a good time laughing at you.

I demonstrated that quite simply in my many posts to you. You had more than ample chance to offer up these little things called "facts", but you continue to insist that your strong emotion trumps any facts. There's a word for someone who believes that emotions trump facts.

And who believes their strong feelings trump objective facts. I'm sure she's just beaming.

I've showed you on a number of occasions that the information I presented to you on Wikipedia comes from a number of legitimate sources. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you'd have looked at the references yourself. I even went through the trouble of providing you with the references one by one, but you're still too daft to provide any sort of rebuttal. You're still welcome to provide that rebuttal. Or you could spout of more platitudes and idiocy. I'm guessing you'll choose the latter (crosses fingers).

I've shown you multiple times that the information comes directly from NYT and the like, but you haven't addressed that in the slightest. Your argument is so incredibly idiotic that your best course of action is to once again harp on Wikipedia. I don't blame you, you can't teach a dumb dog new tricks.

are hard to defend. Drop it, she is a con artist, proven by her own words and actions. The prosecutor should be sued for ever taking her seriously to begin with and for not having her arrested for lying to get cheap housing, to get into the country and for whatever she was involved in regarding all that money she has in her accounts.

No need for Wikipedia, the Court documents now condemn her and she may yet be arrested actually. The lawyer she has left, has himself been cited for ethics violations and some think he should be cited again for his behavior in this case.

I also hope she is sued by DSK along with Sarkozy's friend, Ray Kelly the NYPD Police chief, who apparently orchestrated all this from the start. He did help his friend Sarkozy though. But he does need to be investigated now for any connections between him and DSK's political enemies in France. We do know he called them before there was even a formal arrest. Definitely looks like the NYPD once again is involved in some questionable business.

How about you read the court documents instead of making foolish, baseless comments here? According to HER everyone is wrong, the interpreters, the DA, the doctors (why won't she provide her medical records btw), everyone, except her. Thank god for modern science which has helped prove her lies every step of the way.

I'm not a lawyer, but if she were my sister, I'd be on the phone to one right about now.

She was tried and found to be an incredible liar. Hopefully DSK will pursue a counter-suit and then she'll be found guilty.

The issue is that she's a liar, not that he got away with rape. We don't know that he's a rapist. That's the point. How can a district attorney prove a rape if the alleged victim can't be trusted to tell the truth?


Or should we just assume he's a rapist in spite of everything and try him anyway? And if the jury finds him innocent should we just say a rapist walked away?

he is rich and he is powerful, two prime reasons why he HAS to be found guilty of being a rapist according to a section of DU.

I find it quite fascinating to be honest how people will create all kind of conspiracies and theories of what REALLY happened when they don't like what reality shows.

DSK lost his job, lost his shot at the presidency of france, and was under house arrest for months.

You've succeeded in showing your own biases.

The OP states two scenarios.

The OP states that no one but those involved know the truth.

The OP states my own opinion about what happened. Not alleged fact. An opinion.

But the POINT of the OP was to question in a far more broad sense whether a victim who has serious issues with the truth loses the right to remain a victim. That question, as far as I can tell from reading this thread, remains largely unaddressed.

This is a discussion board, but acts far too often as an accusation board.

Sad.

the question isn't her right to remain a victim - that doesn't even make any sense. The question is should the state prosecute somebody when the primary evidence of the crime is testimony that can only be considered dubious at best?

If the tables were turned and this was one of the several recent documented cases of prosecutorial malfeasance - as in the the recent West Memphis Three case, or the harrowing episode documented in "the Confessions" on Frontline, or that poor son of a bitch Cameron Todd Willingham who was murdered by the state of texas and governor goodhair perry, the demands that the prosecution honestly evaluate the merits of the evidence would of course be the vast majority opinion here.

Premise one: We don't know.

Premise two: We do know.

The question is nonsensical.

It doesn't make any difference if she's a bad person (or a saint). The point, and the one that should always be kept in the front is "what is the evidence?" If it is strictly a she says-he says case, then yeah, credibility becomes a factor. It can be very frustrating, but sometimes people will get away with crimes--the alternative is to increase the number of innocent people who serve time (and you'll still have some people get off that are guilty).
The thing is, it really can't be about the victim. It is about the witness. In cases where they are the same, obviously the flaws of the victim will also be flaws in the witness. It is always wrong to drag victims' reputations into the equation. It is just as much an injustice to ignore the credibility of witnesses.

We need actual evidence.

I don't think we should convict anyone without evidence. Do you?

:yoiks:

does not lie!

The witness is not credible and there would be reasonable doubt. So in this case it looks like things worked out.

in addition if your going to put someone on trial you have to be confident you can convict. In this case the victims own actions caused her credibility to be shot to pieces so the DA didnt think he had a good chance of winning a conviction