Congratulations. You're a wonderful human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Printable View
Congratulations. You're a wonderful human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Actually, I was wondering why I bothered with anything but the 'go fuck yourself'. Because that would have been the more honest reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What pattern is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
EVERY time I have asked you for specifics about your assumptions - some evidence, justification, or anything else, you've either been laughably vague or just ignored me entirely. Face it: you have no reason for your beliefs in this case, you just thought DSK was innocent. Full stop.
What advantage was that? DSK's term was nearly over, and Lugarde was already the presumptive replacement. What changed?Quote:
As for my remarks about the American government not being above anything; that doesn't mean I thought they set him up with this whore, but it sure as hell doesn't exclude the possibility that they used it to their advantage.
An Anglo blow against French and hence European interests. What else ever excites this obsession from him?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I don't get this. DSK is French, but so is Lugarde, and I doubt there was ever any serious doubt she'd be the replacement (despite plenty of good reasons - outlined here and elsewhere - why a non-European might not be the worst idea as a replacement). What European interest was this attacking? How would this work to American advantage?
Well, unlike you I don't assume that everybody who was speaking FOR this woman was some free agent merely expressing his or own ideas. For starters because that's not the way things go in cultures which have individuality not as high as American culture. A muslim brother sure as hell assumes to be speaking on behalf of this woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Then I started to see how she supposedly was a devout muslim woman, but a single mother and living at a place for people with HIV who almost immediately got a lawyer. Parts of that could be explained, but as far as I am concerned NOT by the stupid Americo-centric thinking of GGT. And that left holes in the picture that made me suspect it was false.
Up till quite recently I never excluded the possibility that DSK had raped her, but I thought it unlikely on the basis of what I thought about the alleged victim.
What advantage? Well, from the top of my head I would say that it wasn't such a bad thing for the US that all the talk over the last few weeks was about the crisis in the eurozone (which certainly wasn't helped by the uncertaintyin the markets about who would head the IMF) and not about the crazy game of chicken being played in Washington.
Oh, didn't know you moved into the stupid corner too. Congratulations to you too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You can't have it both ways - either she's a 'gangsta ho' who isn't even close to a devout muslim and can speak for herself just fine, thank you, or she's a religious muslim who's being spoken for by he brother. Which is it, Hazir?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Regardless, that's the best you can come up with? You think a poorly sourced media report about someone claiming to be her brother is speaking for the maid?
Still don't see a pattern here. First thing I would do in such a situation (well, after calling the cops) would be to get legal representation. And it's hardly crazy for African immigrants to be (1) HIV positive, (2) religious Muslims, and (3) single parents. Plenty of very reasonable explanations for all of those.Quote:
Then I started to see how she supposedly was a devout muslim woman, but a single mother and living at a place for people with HIV who almost immediately got a lawyer. Parts of that could be explained, but as far as I am concerned NOT by the stupid Americo-centric thinking of GGT. And that left holes in the picture that made me suspect it was false.
By 'quite recently' you mean May 23? http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post80181Quote:
Up till quite recently I never excluded the possibility that DSK had raped her, but I thought it unlikely on the basis of what I thought about the alleged victim.
Oh, I'll grant you've never said you're 100% sure, but the level of unjustified vitriol you've directed at this woman is remarkable - and, frankly, damaging to our culture of zero tolerance for sexual assault. (For the record, so was this woman's false testimony if indeed it was a fabricated assault.) I personally find it insulting.
You think market uncertainty was about the head of the IMF? How about political deadlock in Greece, or poor employment numbers in the US, or rising oil prices, or knock-on effects from the Japanese earthquake?Quote:
What advantage? Well, from the top of my head I would say that it wasn't such a bad thing for the US that all the talk over the last few weeks was about the crisis in the eurozone (which certainly wasn't helped by the uncertaintyin the markets about who would head the IMF) and not about the crazy game of chicken being played in Washington.
I honestly can't imagine that the US federal government would push the New York DA to prolong the incarceration of DSK in order to move attention away from debt ceiling negotiations - first off, because there's no way it would work (DSK was a big story for about a week; the debt ceiling and deficit reduction has consistently made headlines for months), secondly because the federal government has much bigger fish to fry. Honestly, this is getting into loony conspiracy theory territory.
God, I have to spell out everything? If her brother claims she is a devout muslim woman, then that is the image she wants people to believe of herself. Which is NOT coherent with the reality of her life. It was not the media that came up with the devout muslim. As you can see from the way the DA's office was convinced she was the ideal witness in the beginningQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Ah, so the New York Times doesn't check such basic facts? Good to know. You have better information than the New York Times please give a source to that I may know the truth.Quote:
Regardless, that's the best you can come up with? You think a poorly sourced media report about someone claiming to be her brother is speaking for the maid?
Sigh, could you please check the time frame and tell me when she contracted the HIV, great constitution if it was in Africa and still lives, and interesting route of infection if she got it in the US. Also, given the newest disclosures, the fact that I saw a pattern that you didn't doesn't exactly make your case stronger.Quote:
Still don't see a pattern here. First thing I would do in such a situation (well, after calling the cops) would be to get legal representation. And it's hardly crazy for African immigrants to be (1) HIV positive, (2) religious Muslims, and (3) single parents. Plenty of very reasonable explanations for all of those.
Too bad for you, and not particularly strong backing it up with a page that is one in which I mostly talk about the idea that DSK's entire life is on trial when he's accused of a single case of rape. Oh, and recently was when I saw the headline 'Straus Kahn case in jeopardy'. That was like 4 days ago?Quote:
By 'quite recently' you mean May 23? http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post80181
Oh, I'll grant you've never said you're 100% sure, but the level of unjustified vitriol you've directed at this woman is remarkable - and, frankly, damaging to our culture of zero tolerance for sexual assault. (For the record, so was this woman's false testimony if indeed it was a fabricated assault.) I personally find it insulting.
Anyway, you asked an example of what could have been to the benefit of the US. I gave you one, I didn't give a full expose of a conspiracy theory I believed in or believe in. See how I started? From the top of my head. If you want to waste much more time on that, be my guest, but I will not.Quote:
You think market uncertainty was about the head of the IMF? How about political deadlock in Greece, or poor employment numbers in the US, or rising oil prices, or knock-on effects from the Japanese earthquake?
I honestly can't imagine that the US federal government would push the New York DA to prolong the incarceration of DSK in order to move attention away from debt ceiling negotiations - first off, because there's no way it would work (DSK was a big story for about a week; the debt ceiling and deficit reduction has consistently made headlines for months), secondly because the federal government has much bigger fish to fry. Honestly, this is getting into loony conspiracy theory territory.
P.S. my vitriol was nothing compared to what a so-called quality newspaper like the New York Times was doing towards DSK. The flood of articles about his character and the background articles telling how likely you were to be raped as a hotel maid was breath taking. And which union was it again whose members who thought it expedient to shout 'shame on you' when DSK appeared for his first hearing?
That is an awfully flimsy line of reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I don't doubt the NYT thinks they are reporting the truth, but that hardly means they weren't lied to. The point is that media reports on these sorts of investigations are full of speculation, inaccuracies, etc. - even the better publications. Even if we could believe 100% of what's written in the papers, we'd still have to come to your conclusions on the basis of some pretty shoddy reasoning and thin evidence.Quote:
Ah, so the New York Times doesn't check such basic facts? Good to know. You have better information than the New York Times please give a source to that I may know the truth.
Why do we need those details? Somewhere between 1-2% of Guinea is HIV positive (it may be more; numbers are tough to determine), but it's receiving ARV meds from the US as part of PEPFAR. That dramatically increases lifespan.Quote:
Sigh, could you please check the time frame and tell me when she contracted the HIV, great constitution if it was in Africa and still lives, and interesting route of infection if she got it in the US. Also, given the newest disclosures, the fact that I saw a pattern that you didn't doesn't exactly make your case stronger.
Regardless, what do you think my case is? My case is that you manufactured a flimsy 'pattern' based on pretty unconvincing scraps of information available in the media to convince yourself of something you already believed. I don't have any opinion on the guilt or innocence of DSK.
You gave a ludicrously absurd example because there aren't better ones.Quote:
Anyway, you asked an example of what could have been to the benefit of the US. I gave you one, I didn't give a full expose of a conspiracy theory I believed in or believe in. See how I started? From the top of my head. If you want to waste much more time on that, be my guest, but I will not.
Yeah, and I never said it was an extremely strong case. Which is why I did not say he didn't rape her. To the contrary, I have at some points even said that explicitly (ugly people get raped would be the last example of that). That however doesn't really matter all that much because no matter how flimsy the notion was originally, it is congruent with what has been disclosed now. The assumption that the woman is a liar has been proven right, the likelyhood that she lied about the alleged rape has risen exponentially. If DSK is acquitted, I will think it was because he didn't rape her, not because he has such a great team of lawyers.
So in the end it all doesn't matter, I was right, and you with all your 'solid' reasoning were not.
You explicitly said in the post I linked that you think the maid lied about being raped. Sounds like you said he didn't rape her. Furthermore, my issue isn't that your assumption is probably right now. It's that you made any assumption at all before you had any evidence. That's been my entire problem with this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No, you weren't right. You weren't right to make unfounded claims about an alleged rape victim on the basis of a flimsy pretext. That discourages reporting of a heavily underreported crime and flies in the face of our justice system, where we don't automatically blame the (alleged) victim. And you aren't right now to claim that the DA acted wrongly regarding DSK's imprisonment and bail conditions. Based on the information available at the time (which you yourself acknowledge hardly makes a strong case about the maid's credibility) they did everything correctly... and once circumstances changed, they didn't cover anything up but freely acknowledged that the case was in jeopardy.Quote:
So in the end it all doesn't matter, I was right, and you with all your 'solid' reasoning were not.
edit: This entire thread has been you fighting one argument while the rest of us fight another one. You're fixated on this 'did he or didn't he' nonsense, where you try to come to conclusions on nearly nonexistent information to match your preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. The rest of us simply profess not to know, leaving it up to the people with access to all of the actual evidence to sort it out... and we just object to your frankly insulting take on this whole situation. We don't care that the maid is not now a credible witness.
Folks, can we tone it down a bit? On either side of the issue, this need not get quite so hostile.
Fair enough, Dread. I think I've made my point ad nauseum anyways.
This thread is the context. And yes, it was kind of an evil parody of RB post, as he was the one calling us (he was speaking ing general and in plural, so who did he meant other then Hazir) having disgusting and sickening views.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Very late call here, but lets do it.Quote:
Folks, can we tone it down a bit? On either side of the issue, this need not get quite so hostile.
@ wiggin, the essence of this whole discussion is that you work from the premise she was a credible rape victim, which I did not see at all, something that started quite early.
Well, obviously this thing was set up by Sarkozy (scared for facing him in an election), who is of course big buddies with the neocons who secretly still run the US government. That, and DSK figured out that 9/11 was an inside job and obviously had to be shut up. Comon, isn't it obvious?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Anyway, the system seems to have worked more or less. The case was properly investigated, there's a lack of (credible) evidence, and they let him go. Maybe they were a bit quick in arresting him, but he was leaving for France, so I can see why they did that.
My biggest concern is still the complete lack of privacy suspects get over there. And no, I do not just care because he is famous, I always have objected to it, but this case makes it all the more clear how damaging it is. I am happy to live in a country where suspects have their privacy protected, especially with grave allegations like rape. Once you have publicly been named and shamed, there is no turning back.
And finally, one newspaper here mentioned that DAs are elected over there, and they like to make big, high profile arrests with a lot of media attention, to 'cash in' popular support. I find that, well, a bit uncomforting to be honest, that DAs (and judges sometimes, apparently), have to care not only about justice but also about their own position politically. It can seriously affect judgment. I am not saying it happened here, and if it did it backfired since they have to let him go, but the idea makes me a bit uncomfortable.
The DA (prosecutor) also has to be competent. The current NY DA replaced a 95 year old who was in the same office for about 30 years. And already it looks like he won't be re-elected because of these high-profile cases. But one goal of electing a prosecutor is to avoid a situation where well-connected elites don't get prosecuted for doing bad things, which seems to be all the rage in France.
But I still don't quite grasp what kind of privacy one can reasonably expect in a case like this. When DSK didn't show up to work for a few days, wouldn't someone notice and ask where he is? Same goes for anyone.
Let's take the case away from rape for a second. Imagine a bank employee is briefly arrested for bank theft of another bank, then released on bail while charges are filed. Does his right to privacy really mean his employer can't learn that their employee has been indicted for robbing banks?
As difficult as it can be, I don't see the compelling interest in keeping indictments secret.
First of all: agreed they should be competent, obviously. AFAIK over here it's a 'normal' job, so if you are not competent you are fired. I can see the goal you mention, on the other hand they may protect people who are important for support in during a campaign (political heavyweights, community leaders, etc.), or not prosecuting popular figured to begin with. I don't think there's any system that is 100% perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Regarding your bank employee: there are two distinct things I have to say about that. First of all, being employed at a bank requires a screening here, because it's easy to commit fraud, or abuse personal information. So the bank would be informed in this case, similar things apply for, for example, teachers and allegations of child abuse. OTOH, due to privacy, the employer requires you offer a 'certificate of good conduct' specifically for that job description, but they are not allowed to see your files at the DOJ. This means that the employee has to request a certificate, and he either gets one or not, but the employer only sees the certificate, or not, without knowing why it was or was not granted.
For jobs where you don't need a certificate of good conduct (and you need one for a lot of jobs), I imagine you could call in sick, or call in to say you have legal troubles without specification. It's not really their business is it, if it doesn't affect your work. Especially since at this time you are only a suspect and not convicted.
More importantly, there is a difference between telling your family, friends, and professional contacts, on a need to know basis if you want, and it being publicly announced. If you are accused of abusing a child, chances are your house may be trashed and you are forced to move, for only being accused. The big issue is that in one situation, the person decides himself what he shares with who, and in the other the DA/media spread it. That is a huge difference.
Note that indictments are not kept secret here, but privacy is also protected. I don't think it's law, but more of a gentleman's agreement that media never report the full name of suspects or recognizable images. Not knowing the name obstructs their fact finding jobs, not publicizing it does not. Of course, if a suspect seeks media attention himself, they can report it because he chose to make it public himself. Which is what usually happens with more famous people, since otherwise sooner or later people start to notice it is probably about him. Exceptions are made if it is important to the public, for example if someone is suspected of a crime and wanted, and also dangerous to the public, they will release images, but they generally don't do that lightly.
A slightly amusing consequence is that Geert Wilders accidentally put a wrong photograph in his 'movie' Fitna when he wanted to show Mohammed B., who is the murderer of Theo van Gogh (notice how over here he is known as Mohammed B., instead of his full name). Instead he showed a photograph of a muslim rapper :p
Seems the Dutch system is very similar to ours.
The shortening of names was used in the campaign of the SVP for their anti-foreign-criminals proposal
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/typo3tem...c4278ee171.jpg
Notice the "Ivan S." (shortened name) and the black bar that they used to symbolize a criminal (rapist in this case).
This sounds both highly opaque and a bit strange. Not knowing why an employee has/hasn't gotten a "clean bill of health" in their criminal background seems like a recipe for bureaucratic nightmare. It also basically creates a system where someone who has done something wrong is basically scarred for life in the employment market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
We have background checks where employers can specifically see if there is a criminal past. A bank shouldn't hire a convicted thief. But I don't see any reason why a carnival operator shouldn't hire one. People deserve second chances after all.
Once again, I think the opaque nature of this can really muddy the waters in a very different direction. The DSK case has been a media mess, but it doesn't negate the public interest in knowing if someone is indicted for a crime.Quote:
More importantly, there is a difference between telling your family, friends, and professional contacts, on a need to know basis if you want, and it being publicly announced. If you are accused of abusing a child, chances are your house may be trashed and you are forced to move, for only being accused. The big issue is that in one situation, the person decides himself what he shares with who, and in the other the DA/media spread it. That is a huge difference.
Note that indictments are not kept secret here, but privacy is also protected. I don't think it's law, but more of a gentleman's agreement that media never report the full name of suspects or recognizable images.
Using the logic of this "gentlemen's agreement" (which I'm sure protects the elite more than anyone else), Osama Bin Laden's name could not be published as the mastermind of September 11 simply because he was never formally convicted.
I realize that's an extreme example, but I'm trying to highlight how subjective this "gentlemen's agreement" actually is. I think that matters of law and media deserve clarity, not agreements to censor facts from the public.
The background check is specifically for one job, e.g., the one I had to get for the nuclear power plant was only for 'access to sensitive information' and 'vital infrastructure'. Plus, most things are erased after a number of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Why would it protect the elite more? If anything, they are exposed more often because people can put one and one together. Especially the non-elite are protected by this.Quote:
Once again, I think the opaque nature of this can really muddy the waters in a very different direction. The DSK case has been a media mess, but it doesn't negate the public interest in knowing if someone is indicted for a crime.
Using the logic of this "gentlemen's agreement" (which I'm sure protects the elite more than anyone else), Osama Bin Laden's name could not be published as the mastermind of September 11 simply because he was never formally convicted.
I realize that's an extreme example, but I'm trying to highlight how subjective this "gentlemen's agreement" actually is. I think that matters of law and media deserve clarity, not agreements to censor facts from the public.
Of course it's somewhat subjective, but in OBL's case there were the extra circumstances: 1. he was big in the media around the world so everybody knew him anyway, 2. he was on the run and dangerous. Both reasons to make the name public. I think Dutch people who were convicted of terrorism are still somewhat anonymous, including for example the convicted murderers of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.
Well, DSK was somewhat "big" around the world, and he was a public media figure in Europe. He was also "on the run" and leaving the country where the alleged crime took place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
This "gentlemen's agreement" of keeping indictments secret would only feed into the mis-perception that arrests or indictments are just one step away from cut-and-dry convictions.
For all this talk about the French (or Europeans) believing in presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, it looks like arrest, arraignment, or Grand Jury indictments are (over the pond) one step away from conviction. There's also the assumption that the legal system and the media should censure itself, as Europe does, because people would rush to judgement.
The reason given is that the (European) defendant couldn't possibly get a fair trial, but that's only because you guys think indictments and media coverage means a prejudiced jury and automatic conviction. That's circular reasoning without much foundation, seems to me. :noob:
There's a couple of things wrong with everything you wrote here. First of all, it does not feed any mis-perceptions like that at all, not sure why you think that. Second, not all European countries are the same (far from). Third, it's not just because people would rush to judgment, but mainly to protect a person's privacy. Fourth, it's not really secret, AFAIK courts are open to public, media report on cases, they just don't breach privacy unless there is a reason to. And finally, in my country at least, we don't even have juries.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So, Wilders name was never mentioned in the press during that court case/appeal...to protect his privacy? Your media is the arbiter of what's a "reason" to breach privacy? :confused:
No, wilders' name was mentioned because he talked to the media about it himself. Plus, in that case , the entire case was about his public statements and who he is, so it probably would have been mentioned in the media otherwise, yeah. See it as a 'we don't report it unless it is important to the public to know'. And yeah, media generally have editors and perhaps an ombudsman to decide what can be reported and what can't, even US media does that ;) But if they breach the privacy of someone and that person starts litigation, a judge will be the arbiter, I suppose.
On a side note, there has not been an appeal in that case. Looking at your last two posts you have pretty much only stated things that are wrong (it's not secret, we're not french and european countries are not the same, we don't have juries, wilders was mentioned in the press).
Who wanted that case to be televised by the way?
You forgot the question of liability in case of acquittal and the fact that in Europe privacy is an actual and recognized basic right.
Based on the reactions (mostly Hazir) that simply being arrested, arraigned and covered in the news is tantamount to....egregious violations of a suspect, or a witch hunt, or something. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Sure, we know countries over the pond aren't all the same. None are quite like the US, either. We have a Free Press and a public legal system with very open rules, where arrests are published in newspapers (minor's names aren't disclosed, and sexual assault claimants are un-named unless they waive that.) Suspects are still considered innocent.Quote:
Second, not all European countries are the same (far from). Third, it's not just because people would rush to judgment, but mainly to protect a person's privacy.
I suppose ours comes from the other angle---there's no reason for secrecy unless there's a good reason, and it takes a judge's gag order for that. Why don't you have juries? :hmm:Quote:
Fourth, it's not really secret, AFAIK courts are open to public, media report on cases, they just don't breach privacy unless there is a reason to. And finally, in my country at least, we don't even have juries.
<Latest news is that DSK's arrest was disseminated on Twitter well before the press even knew.>
But that's not a background check —*you're referring to a centralized clearing house for telling employers who has a record and who doesn't. It basically subjects workers to an up-or-down rating. And more importantly, it defeats the purpose of a background check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
The media agreeing not to mention the names of public figures who are indicted is clearly designed to protect the elites, because the elites are who the media cares about. It's not as if Jerome Kerviel had his name protected while he was indicted. But DSK would have because, well, he's part of the political elite and the French press is deferential to the political elite.
It's a farce —*any indictment should be fair-game for press coverage. It may lead to sensationalized stories from time to time, but that's the point of an open press.
I have to say I don't know the French system, I even don't know if they have a similar agreement there. On the other hand I can assure for Switzerland you that this agreement is protecting the average Joe more than for the elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
How does that defeat the purpose? Checks whether you are 'safe' for a particular job (be it working with children, handling sensitive information...), which seems like it's the point to me. Plus since it's issued by the DOJ they have access to more info (e.g. you could have an FBI file or something, or are part of an ongoing investigation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And well, like Earthjoker I can't speak for the French situation - but over here it protects the small guy a lot better than the elite. Since with prominent figures, the person who it is is newsworthy in itself and may be mentioned. Not so famous people: the name is not newsworthy, ergo it is not mentioned. People like DSK would probably have hit the media here, while a person like Kerviel would definitely remain known as Jerome K., for example the guy who walked out with more than a million in cash from the central bank here and fled to india is not known by his full name. The idea is to protect mostly the average joe from allegations ruining his image and invading his privacy. It doesn't really add anything to the news story to have a name and a face, usually, but it does do a great deal of damage to that person. Therefore editors and ombudsmen make a judgment that generally has their privacy protected. Public figures on the other hand, by being public, give up a certain amount of their privacy (also legally) by choice already and are therefore more likely to be mentioned.
France may be different, they do seem to have a problem with elite covering eachother's asses.
Oh, so that is the point of an open press, I must have missed that, here I was thinking it was for checking on the government, factfinding, informing the public of important stuff, etc.Quote:
It's a farce —*any indictment should be fair-game for press coverage. It may lead to sensationalized stories from time to time, but that's the point of an open press.
I suppose it's also the point of your justice system to help them with that? I can see no other purpose of the 'perp walk' - only helping sensationalist media, and humiliating the arrested.
And wait till you hear about their families...
Well, her privacy evaporated when her husband got arrested. But if you don't want to do the walk don't commit the.... Oh wait, she's only guilty of believing in the innocence of her husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Not sure what y'all are talkin' 'bout but I still think he did it. So she's a lyer, a sheister, a money grubber. He still raped her. And I think he's going free. Maybe that's karma catching up with her - lie cheat and steal long enough and it will come back around sooner or later. At least that's what honest folk like to believe. But there's plenty of billionaires that came out of the realestate crash hunky dory that put the notion of karma to the test I think.
Btw, GGT, re. your question about juries. I dunno 'bout Dutchieland, but in Swedish courts you usually have a panel of judges consisting of expert and non-expert members. It's our version of a jury, only the members are appointed (afaik) by elected officials at the municipal and county levels. I think many civil law countries have a similar setup.
I was surprised to learn that Swedish trials occasionally do feature juries, but only in matters of freedom of press.
It's happening...
Quote:
Dominique Strauss-Kahn Accuser Speaks Out in Exclusive ABC News Interview
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_r..._110724_wg.jpg
July 24, 2011
In an exclusive television interview, ABC News' Robin Roberts speaks with the hotel employee who alleges she was sexually assaulted by former International Monetary Fund Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
For the first time viewers will hear, in her own words, her version of the events that allegedly took place at the Sofitel Hotel in New York in May.
Strauss-Kahn, once considered the French presidential frontrunner, was recently released from house arrest after prosecutors said they had concerns about the hotel employee's credibility.
Strauss-Kahn denies all the allegations that have been made against him. The interview airs on Tuesday, July 26 on "Nightline" (11:35 p.m. ET) on the ABC Television Network.
A portion of the interview will air first on "Good Morning America" on Monday, July 25. In addition, excerpts will air on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline" and be available on ABCNews.com, ABC News Radio, and ABC NewsOne.
Seems like nobody who counts thinks he did it. Or at least, that it can't be proven, and that's all that counts. I hope he'll sue her for the expenses.
What point is there in him suing her for expenses? All he'll end up with is a higher legal bill, an uncollectable debt, and probably have to suffer through months or years more of being dragged through the muck to get it. Yippie, "justice."
Dunno maybe it deters others like her.
Actually, she's already suing him already. Which is a pretty bad strategy before there's a criminal case in trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir