tiens-le voila.
Printable View
tiens-le voila.
Wait, who recorded her phone call with the man in jail? :confused:
And how does that matter? I hope you have started baking your humble pie already.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Because I'm curious who was taping a conversation with a convict, and why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Not sure what you mean about the humble pie comment. The prosecutor's investigations led to this update, which is contradictory to your opinion that the DA wasn't doing their job. The NYCPD also did their job as initial collectors of evidence and statements, the Grand Jury agreed, and the DA filed charges appropriately. That's the way it works here.
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.
Maybe that's because our system works differently than yours? It's not a police responsibility to conduct a six week long investigation of the victim before pressing charges. Especially not if the defendant is on a plane out of the country after the initial investigation supported enough evidence to file charges. Police and detectives collect evidence and statements, present it to the DA's office, and proceed from there. A Grand Jury agreed. The investigation doesn't end there, but the charges are still pending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Sorry if you don't like it, but accusations of sexual abuse are taken seriously. Even if made by a "shady" character with "shady" contacts, a known or suspected prostitute, an illegal immigrant, or an asylum seeker with conflicting documentation.
Hazir, how would the Dutch have dealt with the same scenario, if it had occurred in an Amsterdam hotel?
Are you saying no charges would have been filed against DSK until a six week investigation of the victim/accuser had been completed? Is that how it works over there....that police and detectives act as judge and jury first, in order to protect the accused, especially when the accused is a VIP?
:bulb:
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.
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.
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?
I'm not sure how you equate protecting the rights of victims claiming sexual abuse/violence, with "destroying" the accused before trial. Unless you give more up front powers to your police and detectives than your prosecutors, judges and juries.
Again, I think you're actually complaining about our free press and media, and conflating that with our legal system.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
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.
Right, but the article mentioned $1 million bail and a 5$ million bond...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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.
The Treaty between the US and France does not exclude extradiction of citizens. It's discretionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
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
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:
Originally Posted by Flixy
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:
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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.
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:
Originally Posted by Flixy
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.Quote:
Also, thanks for explaining.
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.
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 GGT
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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....
You're full of shit. So full of shit you have to add accusations of LYNCHING. :donkey:Quote:
You appear to think that anybody accused of rape must be guilty. Lynch much lately?
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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.
What makes a rape case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Motive? Opportunity? Testimony from the victim? Physical evidence?
Didn't this case have all of the above?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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: