So, did he or didn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between bail and bond?

---

Bail is what the judge orders to get the defendant removed from custody and to show up at the next court hearing. The defendant only has to "post" 10% of bail, and can do that with a bondsman or by offering collateral assets. If they don't show up at the next court hearing, the bail bondsman gets a cut to retrieve them, and the defendant is liable for 100% of the bail or collateral.

So if bail is set at $1 million, they "post" $100,000. That can mean a lien on their home that a bail bondsman fronts, like a loan of collateral.

<edit>
That sounded about as clear as mud. :noob: Short answer = bail is the full amount, bond is like insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Bail is what the judge orders to get the defendant removed from custody and to show up at the next court hearing. The defendant only has to "post" 10% of bail, and can do that with a bondsman or by offering collateral assets. If they don't show up at the next court hearing, the bail bondsman gets a cut to retrieve them, and the defendant is liable for 100% of the bail or collateral.

So if bail is set at $1 million, they "post" $100,000. That can mean a lien on their home that a bail bondsman fronts, like a loan of collateral.

---

Right, but the article mentioned $1 million bail and a 5$ million bond...


Also, ideally the investigators would have checked the woman's credibility before making an arrest. At the same time, I can see why they arrested him quickly, he was leaving the country after all, and France does not extradite citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Hazir, france does not extradite citizens AFAIK, so I can see why they arrested him.

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between bail and bond?

---

The Treaty between the US and France does not exclude extradiction of citizens. It's discretionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Right, but the article mentioned $1 million bail and a 5$ million bond...


Also, ideally the investigators would have checked the woman's credibility before making an arrest. At the same time, I can see why they arrested him quickly, he was leaving the country after all, and France does not extradite citizens.

---

And yet we have a man who is limited in his movement on the basis of flimsy accusations for 6 full weeks. Never mention the money, that he will get back, but his freedom can never be given back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Right, but the article mentioned $1 million bail and a 5$ million bond...

---

See my edit. $1 million bail means he had to post $100,000. It's like a deposit, held in escrow. If he didn't have the cash, he'd use a lender and borrow. For most people that lender means a bail-bondsman firm. The $5 million bond is an extra incentive for wealthy people to make sure they return to court. It's really like a lien against property or assets, and only cashed (seized) if they split town and don't show up in court.

Quote:

---

Also, ideally the investigators would have checked the woman's credibility before making an arrest. At the same time, I can see why they arrested him quickly, he was leaving the country after all, and France does not extradite citizens.

---

Right, and the detectives got statements from everyone, including her co-workers and employer. They even tracked cell phone calls, and looked at surveillance cameras. They also had forensics from her physical exam and evidence collected in the hotel room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

And yet we have a man who is limited in his movement on the basis of flimsy accusations for 6 full weeks. Never mention the money, that he will get back, but his freedom can never be given back.

---

If evidence "falls apart" he will most likely not be confined to his (swanky) confines, will lose the ankle bracelet GPS monitoring stuff, and will move about freely pending trial (as long as he stays in the country).

I'm still perplexed how you can automatically presume HE is innocent, and presume SHE is guilty. That's what WE have trials for....

:bulb:

Technically, someone is innocent until proven otherwise :p

Also, thanks for explaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Technically, someone is innocent until proven otherwise :p

---

Yep, and victims are presumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise as well. That can mean a trial by jury, when the evidence collected and statements could go either way. The last thing we'd want are detectives being collectors of evidence, judges of evidence (and character), and juries.

Quote:

---

Also, thanks for explaining.

---

Funky system, huh. For the uber wealthy this is all just moving money around as an incentive to return to court, without really having to "pay" a damn dime. For regular folks it's like posting your house or car as collateral, but having to use a bail-bondsman firm to be the middle man (because your house has a mortgage and your car has a loan). Those without any collateral have to find a bunch of friends to post 10% cash, and pay a higher loan rate to a bail-bondsman firm to "carry their risk". Or they sit in jail waiting their next court date.

I was flipping around cable news channels just now to see how this development is being portrayed in the media.

It varies from procedural protocol, when the prosecution discovers new (and possibly exculpatory) information and is required to share it with the defense team and the judge (something called the Brady rule?) to..... the whole case has fallen apart and DSK's legal team expects all charges to be dropped immediately....

Comon, police/prosecutors judge evidence and character all the time, that's how they determine whether there is a case or not. It's pretty important to judge how reliable a witness (or victim) is, in any case.

It is gobsmacking how you can still lend any credibility to that woman. Her story stank from the get-go, and now she's been exposed as a liar with criminal ties and still you are assuming her charge should get more credibility than his defense.

You appear to think that anybody accused of rape must be guilty. Lynch much lately?

Evidence is important, and they don't just file these charges nilly-willy or without cause. That's why they use a Grand Jury before moving forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Evidence is important, and they don't just file these charges nilly-willy or without cause. That's why they use a Grand Jury before moving forward.

---

Actually in this kind of case the credibility of the accuser is everything. And that credibility at no time warranted what happened to DSK. Anyway, US 'justice' at its best; call rape and see a man's life destroyed. Because women who say they were raped never lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

It is gobsmacking how you can still lend any credibility to that woman. Her story stank from the get-go, and now she's been exposed as a liar with criminal ties and still you are assuming her charge should get more credibility than his defense.

---

From my perspective, you are the one who's presumed DSK's innocence without knowing all the facts. You are the one who disbelieved anyone claiming rape when a VIP is the accused. It was apparent with your first post that you'd made up your mind before knowing all the facts, and you gave undo credence to DSK simply because he was an international figure. :rolleyes:

You should try to give as much leeway to that woman as you do to DSK. Her story didn't 'stink from the get-go'; that was your bias added opinion. If there is new information possibly exonerating DSK, it will be presented and reviewed by a judge, and the judge will make a determination.

The judge will have to weigh factual evidence against circumstantial evidence and decide how to proceed, based on law and precedent---not the reputation or status of DSK. For all we know, the accuser meets the profile of a vulnerable and exploited victim, having been used for her naivete in many ways. Possibly even a victim of the guy (boyfriend?) in prison using her for money laundering purposes....

Quote:

---

You appear to think that anybody accused of rape must be guilty. Lynch much lately?

---

You're full of shit. So full of shit you have to add accusations of LYNCHING. :donkey:

I happen to believe that people don't report rape easily, let alone report it knowing full well the story will hit international news and their own character will be scrutinized, analyzed, and repudiated. Often giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, particularly an international dignitary.

I believe more victims under-report, than make up stories against very powerful people with staffs and teams of attorneys.

Who's full of shit here? She went from a hard-working single mom who was a pious muslim to boot to a run of the mill gangsta slut and still you are defending her case. Seems to me you are incapable of objectivity. A man accused of rape != rapist.

Also cute how you try to turn what I called my instinct against me. Doesn't work really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Who's full of shit here? She went from a hard-working single mom who was a pious muslim to boot to a run of the mill gangsta slut and still you are defending her case. Seems to me you are incapable of objectivity. A man accused of rape != rapist.

---

How's this work in your mind? You don't think the NYCPD or DA is doing a good job, but the things you read from our free press gives you license to be judge and jury? Then you have the nerve to say I'm not capable of objectivity? :donkey:

I have never said DSK is a rapist. I have not proclaimed he is guilty. Not once, not ever, not in any way. I've stated his guilt or innocence is something we armchair analysts can NOT decide, and we have to wait for due process to take its course. Until then, he is presumed innocent.

YOU are the one who decided from the get-go that his accuser was a lying, conspiring gold-digger, and now a run-of-the-mill gangsta slut.

Even if those things could be proven true, it doesn't excuse your knee-jerk reaction to condemn her without any FACTS.

It took them 6 bloody weeks to figure out what kind of a person she was. But they were so convinced they should make an example out of this case that they didn't want to see the signs on the wall. There wasn't a case 6 weeks ago, and there still isn't one today.

If it turns out she is lying... it's a pretty horrible crime. Not only has she ruined a man's career, she's contributed heavily (because this is so high-profile) to the tendency to dismiss rape victims as liars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

It took them 6 bloody weeks to figure out what kind of a person she was. But they were so convinced they should make an example out of this case that they didn't want to see the signs on the wall. There wasn't a case 6 weeks ago, and there still isn't one today.

---

What makes a rape case?

Motive? Opportunity? Testimony from the victim? Physical evidence?

Didn't this case have all of the above?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

It took them 6 bloody weeks to figure out what kind of a person she was. But they were so convinced they should make an example out of this case that they didn't want to see the signs on the wall. There wasn't a case 6 weeks ago, and there still isn't one today.

---

All you're doing now is confirming your prejudices outlined in the OP. At this moment you're delighting in news reports painting the victim/accuser in a bad light. Earlier, you were outraged that news reports painted DSK/accused in a bad light. In fact, you were outraged by our open and free media, with the "perp walk" and media coverage in general.

At first, you complained the NYPD and the DA were too quick to move, now you're complaining they were too slow and took six "bloody weeks".

You're seeing a conspiracy that doesn't exist, or if it exists it hasn't been proven yet. You're denouncing our system before it's been fully utilized. But you're jolly well happy to condemn the whole damn thing before all the facts are known.

If that's your way of trying to prove that the Dutch legal and justice system is superior to ours....you're doing it wrong. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

If it turns out she is lying... it's a pretty horrible crime. Not only has she ruined a man's career, she's contributed heavily (because this is so high-profile) to the tendency to dismiss rape victims as liars.

---

Of course you're right on that, Ziggy. Lying about this wouldn't just be perjury or other criminal charges for her (that could send her to prison or deported back to a hell hole) but also taint future rape cases. I find it hard to believe that an immigrant from Africa, working as a maid in a hotel, could create such a web of lies against such a powerful international figure.

If it does turn out to be all lies, there were probably others involved. That itself could take months of investigation....to see if she was an asylum seeker who'd fallen prey to those making false passports and laundering money. Those kinds of underground 'mafia' operations can escalate, and desperate people can do desperate things, especially when threatened with deportation or losing a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

What makes a rape case?

Motive? Opportunity? Testimony from the victim? Physical evidence?

Didn't this case have all of the above?

---

In a case where everything revolves around the credibility about claims about the facts the above is NOT enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Of course you're right on that, Ziggy. Lying about this wouldn't just be perjury or other criminal charges for her (that could send her to prison or deported back to a hell hole) but also taint future rape cases. I find it hard to believe that an immigrant from Africa, working as a maid in a hotel, could create such a web of lies against such a powerful international figure.

If it does turn out to be all lies, there were probably others involved. That itself could take months of investigation....to see if she was an asylum seeker who'd fallen prey to those making false passports and laundering money. Those kinds of underground 'mafia' operations can escalate, and desperate people can do desperate things, especially when threatened with deportation or losing a child.

---

Ah, since she must be a victim you moved her from the 'raped' column to the 'serial abuse' column?

Hazir is assuming the guy is innocent because its bloody obvious. DSK even warned on cameras that this could happen in connection to his presidential ambitions (which were all but a certainty before this scandal). Does anyone really believe that DSK fearing a risk of a frame would nevertheless rape a butt ugly woman near 40 years of age and do it in the US?? You need some amazing leap of faith to imagine that this is anything but a set up.

Well, he could have raped her. Uglier women get raped. The thing is, authentic rape victims don't sound like they're making things up as the story evolves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Well, he could have raped her. Uglier women get raped. The thing is, authentic rape victims don't sound like they're making things up as the story evolves.

---

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you just hate the possibility of women as rape victims, or so adore men in positions of power that they could do no wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you just hate the possibility of women as rape victims, or so adore men in positions of power that they could do no wrong?

---

So, you stopped acquiring the art of reading after you mastered the alphabet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So, you stopped acquiring the art of reading after you mastered the alphabet?

---

Who the hell are you and what the hell are you going on about? Are you an expert on "authentic rape victims"?

If you were, you'd know what victim experts have concluded about memory and recall after a violent assault....

And yet we got a blow by blow account :) I am pretty certain it wasn't DSK who provided us with those 'facts'. Your 'victim' was the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

And yet we got a blow by blow account :) I am pretty certain it wasn't DSK who provided us with those 'facts'. Your 'victim' was the source.

---

From the prosecution's investigations. Same team you condemned a few pages and days ago.

And what the hell is up with you calling the victim 'ours'?

You must have some underlying issues regarding trust in American Justice, American Media....or Women in general. I don't know which, but you're sounding more like a prejudiced bigot every time you post. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Wait, who recorded her phone call with the man in jail? :confused:

---

The prison? They weren't recording HER phonecall, they were recording HIS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The prison? They weren't recording HER phonecall, they were recording HIS.

---

If this is SOP, do you feel confident that both parties knew their conversation was being recorded (and could be used against them in a court of law)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

They took six weeks to establish the questionable credibility of a woman whose story stank from the get-go. They destroyed DSK's career, they forced him to cough up a humongous bail and they basically made him a social pariah.

Sorry, but to me that doesn't sound like they were showing any competence in doing their job.

---

Fair enough, but there is another potential facet. I seem to recall that someone *it may even have been me, I'm not wading through 20 pages to figure out who* suggested that the NYPD may well have jumped the gun in making the arrest, that they either had to go then *since DSK was leaving the country* or not go at all. It's not like France, who is notoriously uncooperative with extradition requests in American eyes, would ever have let New York have him later, no matter how thorough or air-tight an ensuing investigation and indictment was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

In a case where everything revolves around the credibility about claims about the facts the above is NOT enough.

---

What is? Because Enoch is right, that's basically what makes every rape case. Dialing down even further, even motive and opportunity are tangental. All rape cases come down to "he said, she said" and interpreting the physical and forensic evidence to judge which claim is more believable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

If this is SOP, do you feel confident that both parties knew their conversation was being recorded (and could be used against them in a court of law)?

---

He should have been aware that the prison monitors his communications. How the hell should I know if he actually was aware though, much less her? I'm not like you, GGT, I actually make an effort to NOT assume something without some actual evidence to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I am not versed in criminal law, but I doubt very much the system overhere goes for destroying the accused before he is tried. Especially not in a 'he said, she said' charge.

You'd be hardpressed to find the full name and information of any suspect in a dutch newspaper, and if the person is not some very public person even after the conviction most newspapers will not give you his full name.

---

See, you're not accustomed to seeing full press coverage, which over here means DSK's name would be mentioned immediately.

Quote:

---

I am pretty certain that if this case would have happened in Amsterdam DSK would have been out of custody after a maximum of three days. Given that the only countries he could have run to are countries where a man like him doesn't really want to live.

---

No one would have missed him while spending 3 days in jail during important IMF duties? Even then, are you saying no one would have known he was facing criminal rape charges after he was released? All your police-detective-prosecutor-journalist-news agencies routinely practice censure like that?

Wow, no wonder you're having trouble with how the US deals with accusations of sexual assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

He should have been aware that the prison monitors his communications. How the hell should I know if he actually was aware though, much less her? I'm not like you, GGT, I actually make an effort to NOT assume something without some actual evidence to back it up.

---

Hey, how did my asking a question about recording a conversation turn into that twisted response of yours? :confused: The news says the convo was recorded. The recording would be the evidence. I want to know who "owns" that evidentiary trail and how it's being used, for or against whom, and if it's legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Hey, how did my asking a question about recording a conversation turn into that twisted response of yours? :confused: The news says the convo was recorded. The recording would be the evidence. I want to know who "owns" that evidentiary trail and how it's being used, for or against whom, and if it's legit.

---

The person who made a recording owns it. Always, end of story. Their ability to make use of it, or its right to exist at all, can be questionable. The prisoner does not have any rights to conversations the prison taped anymore than he would have rights to the output of internal video surveillance. Regardless of who owns it, it can be and presumably is in this case a legitimate target for a subpoena even if the owner doesn't want to make it available to the police, prosecutorial, or defense investigators.

Did the woman know her conversation was being taped? That seems to be the more pertinent question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Did the woman know her conversation was being taped? That seems to be the more pertinent question.

---

Are you under the impression that a warrant for a wiretap allows you to record what the target says but not the person he's speaking to? If you can legitimately record one person in a conversation you can record the entire conversation. And if a record exists, it can be subpoenaed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Are you under the impression that a warrant for a wiretap allows you to record what the target says but not the person he's speaking to? If you can legitimately record one person in a conversation you can record the entire conversation. And if a record exists, it can be subpoenaed.

---

No, I'm asking if this may have fallen under warrantless wiretaps, and how that could be used as evidence against the person who'd have no idea the conversation was being taped. Convicts in prison might "suspect" they're being recorded, but how would a visitor or caller have any idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

No, I'm asking if this may have fallen under warrantless wiretaps, and how that could be used as evidence against the person who'd have no idea the conversation was being taped. Convicts in prison might "suspect" they're being recorded, but how would a visitor or caller have any idea?

---

First off, this wouldn't be considered a wiretap, as I understand it.

Secondly, it all depends on the state laws. In many states only one party has to know the call is being recorded.

I can't even begin to imagine how the law relates to phone calls made to/from a prison; a situation where I'm sure there is little to no expectation of privacy.