Printable View
How do you know that?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyway that doesn't concern my critics anyway. All the things that I said that shouldn't have been done because he might be innocent, will highly probably soon be things that shouldn't have been done because he is innocent. Arguing about it will just be easier because - well - who wants to defend the rights of a rapist?
An accusation of rape justifies an investigation. When someone is about to leave for a country that doesn't extradite criminals to the US, it's also fair to take action to keep them in the US.
I can't help but feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea that her lying on an asylum application or briefly returning to work undermines the entire claim. But the lightly-sourced rumors being reported in the New York Post that she may have been a sort of embedded hotel prostitute are more disturbing.
To be honest, my main fear (besides reaching a just conclusion) is this will somehow validate dumb French machismo and insane conspiracy theories about Americans.
EDIT: I think this is well-put.
Quote:
There are two possibilities here, neither of them good:
1) A woman with an unsavory past, who has done desperate things to get out of terrible economic conditions, was raped by a prominent figure, and he's going to get away with it because of her history.
2) A serial cad had consensual sex with a chambermaid, and she attempted to destroy him with a false rape allegation for personal gain. And because of the presumption that women don't lie about rape, she has succeeded in destroying him (and destabilizing the IMF at a very delicate moment), though not so much in the personal gain part. To quote Ray Donovan, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
Neither is very comforting. But that's all we have at this point. An official contacted by the Times sums it up perfectly: "It is a mess, a mess on both sides".
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-doubt/241336/
Hazir, you keep saying it's our legal system you're faulting, but so far it's worked as intended. There hasn't even been a trial yet but you made up your mind based on what was in the news. Now media coverage will swing the other way, and 'smear' the woman's reputation. You don't seem to mind that but were outraged when DSK was the topic.
If you want to complain about our media chasing sensational stories, I'll join you. But dissing our judicial system because a VIP man was arrested? Come on.
As far as I can tell, Hazir, there's not definitive evidence either way. On the day of DSK's arrest, all they knew was that a sexual encounter had taken place in the room, and the DSK was accused of doing it forcibly. That's a very reasonable grounds for arresting someone, especially when complicated by the extradition issues vis-a-vis France. As the weeks unfolded, it became clear that the woman was not a particularly believable witness - changing stories, etc. - and eventually they got a translation of a phone conversation that implies she was interested in personal gain from the rape case. Of course, none of this actually means DSK did or didn't rape the woman, but it became clear this week that a conviction is unlikely given the credibility of the accuser. Dread's quote from the Atlantic is spot on - it's pretty awful either way - either DSK will get away with raping a woman just because she's not particularly believable on the witness stand (and has some character issues), or the woman will be able to do irreparable damage to DSK's reputation by lying. Neither is the fault of the DA, though - they followed procedure and did their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'm not sure why it's the DA's job (or the job of the justice system) to protect DSK's reputation. They wouldn't treat any other accused rapist with kid gloves - why should they do so with DSK just because he's (moderately) rich and (very) famous? For that matter, I find it highly objectionable that you think they were motivated by getting a 'high profile kill'. They acted hastily, yes, but for good reason.
What exactly do you think I was wrong about? I didn't argue that the woman was telling the truth or that DSK was guilty. I rather argued that his arrest was reasonable and lawful, and that the justice system would sort out the maid's story vs. that of DSK... and argued that you had zero evidence that the maid was lying. Which, until a few days ago, you didn't.
By the time they had the bail hearing there was enough to indicate there was somthing fishy about the woman. Not just for me on the basis of a hunch but for the DA's office on the basis of the fact that they had been informed that she had a relation with a man in prison. That was not weeks after DSK was arrested, that was within days. It took them weeks to get the whole picture, but from the moment they heard about her phonecall they had a reason to go softer on DSK. There is no evidence they did.
And then about the treatment of DSK; I find the treatment of all suspects in the US appalling. Your legal system makes a travesty of justice.
Yeah, any woman who has a boyfriend behind bars can't possibly be telling the truth.
A devout muslim woman with a boyfriend behind bars for counterfeiting and alleged drugs trafficking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A) The call took place after DSK was arrested.
B) There was no way to know the guy was her boyfriend until the tape was translated.
The call took place a day after DSK was arrested, it was known within days after that to the DA's office that their pious muslim had a conversation with a man in prison, her boyfriend no less. The exact content of the call was unclear, but the fact itself was as big a signal as you could get.
Nice of you to ignore point B.
Why? It is not true. They could not know exactly what they talked about, but to know he was her boyfriend simply asking what her relation to the convict was should have sufficed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm sorry, I might be missing something, but it seems like you are trying to have it both ways. If our legal system is as flawed as you seem to think, why would it be inconceivable that a pious Muslim woman could have a boyfriend who was wrongly convicted of a crime? For that matter, why can't a devout Muslim have a significant other in prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
There's a huge difference between finding some inconsistencies in a distraught woman's testimony and deciding that DSK is not a flight risk. I'm also shocked that you think having some sort of relationship with someone in prison is somehow automatically suspect. There are plenty of very religious individuals in prison, and approximately 1% of the US population is behind bars (a little less, actually). Only the content of the conversation is troubling, not the conversation itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Would you care to elaborate? Other than allowing him to be photographed in handcuffs (which I acknowledge is a reasonable criticism, though not one I'm particularly exercised about), I haven't heard any good complaints about his treatment.Quote:
And then about the treatment of DSK; I find the treatment of all suspects in the US appalling. Your legal system makes a travesty of justice.
No Wiggin, having a relationship with a guy in prison is something that is not done for a pious muslim woman. Actually, for a pious muslim woman having a relationship with somebody NOT in prison is well beyond the Pale already if she is not married to that man. We're not talking about some minor inconsistencies in her story, we're talking about blatant misrepresentation of who she is. Of course 'pious muslim woman' makes for a much more credible rape victim than 'gangsta ho'.
Within days the character 'problem' was clear, still the DA's office went for bail conditions as they were set. Bail conditions that were considered too heavy when the background was introduced in court. You can try bringing up France's record on extradition, but that didn't seem to be a problem for the judge who set the present bail conditions. Conditions which would have been appropriate 6 weeks ago just as much as they were last friday.
Dragging him to prison, then putting him under severe house arrest - for which he had to pay thousands upon thousands - inflicted damages on him which are totally not reconcilable with his innocent status. If this is how you treat your suspects there is something seriously wrong with your system since it starts retribution well before a person is convicted.
Because devout Muslims don't have significant others they are not married to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Her religion and relationships aren't "on trial", Hazir. Like I said earlier, even 'shady characters' can be victims of crime and aren't prevented from filing a complaint. Police and detectives collect evidence and statements, DAs press charges if there's more than he said/she said and Grand Jury agreed. That's it. The victim doesn't have to proof her character in order to be taken seriously.
You make it sound like the Dutch police first act as judge and jury, scrutinizing the victim first...and if she's a "gangsta ho" or not a "pious Muslim' or has associations with men in prison...they won't move forward on the case. You're more concerned about the reputation of the suspect than the actual truth or whether someone's been victimized. :donkey:
And no true Scotsman would associate with them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
This would be so much more credible if you weren't taking this position before even that first hearing, if you hadn't made up your mind when you first heard "DSK accused of rape by chambermaid"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/wo...france.html?hp Hazir seems to be buying the French vitriol.
I think they don't like or understand our Fourth Estate. But they'll read the tabloids and be 'shocked' at someone of DSK's stature, unshaven and handcuffed on his way to booking. Then they're the ones to make a hasty decision about innocence or guilt, based on those things read in tabloids, and call it media-justice. :rolleyes:
The "devout Muslim" thing was mostly media hype, not to mention irrelevant. To doubt a rape accusation simply because she the accuser someone in jail is little more than devout character assassination.
Now of course the police can, should and did monitor that conversation because the inmate is an inmate. But the mere fact that she called someone in jail doesn't make the case fall apart.
Wait, you hope that there was a rape? There are really many disgusting and sickening views in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No there are not equals of bad, in one case we would have rape, in the other someone was lying. In no way the first case can be better or equal to the second. If there has been no rape it is always better, just because of the single fact that there was no rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Lest anyone forget, everything we've been discussing is only because we have a free press in the US. That includes tabloids and paparazzi, sensational headlines, and bits-'n-pieces of legal factoids.
For all the outrage about a rush to judgement, that would seem that's wanting cake and eating it, too. :bulb:
How did you get that out of what he said? His reply was part of a discussion about awareness of whether prison phone calls were being recorded. He said that if she was lying, he kind of hope she didn't know the call was being recorded *and hence could become known to investigating authorities*Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
That's just not true. I would kinda prefer a situation where someone is raped to one where someone makes a false accusation of rape. The latter harms more people. In your situation, things are better for the potential rapee/liar, but only them. The person accused is more wronged by the lie than one where a rape occurred and lying about rape has broader effects on society and other rape victims than the addition of one more person to their number.Quote:
No there are not equals of bad, in one case we would have rape, in the other someone was lying. In no way the first case can be better or equal to the second. If there has been no rape it is always better, just because of the single fact that there was no rape.
What about personal rights of a possible innocent, they value nothing? This is not the only case where rights conflict, it's an easy solution to give in just one side.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
BTW the post comming from the US seem to be very defensive about their own system, defending it for the only reason of defending your own system.
You trade off a concrete real crime with a potential not proven influence. I don't buy into that.Quote:
The person accused is more wronged by the lie than one where a rape occurred and lying about rape has broader effects on society and other rape victims than the addition of one more person to their number.
And if the influence is, that we some start think how we tread people accused of rape, until the case is proven, well that is not such a bad outcome of the story.
You can "not buy" anything you want. I can't make you change your mind or acknowledge reality in any way, only you can do that. But don't you dare try and claim I or anyone else is "sick and disgusting" because we don't exhibit your myopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Either way, it hurts victims of sexual assault. :sour: It has a chilling effect on victims coming forward to report crimes. It's already an under-reported crime. Will they be believed if the rapist is a VIP, be forced to divulge their sexual history, defend wearing certain clothing, walking alone at night, guilt by association by having family/friends in prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If a victim is supposed to figure out the political climate and their "status" before reporting to police, they probably won't follow through. That means a rapist thinks they can do it again. And they probably will.
I'm having some trouble with our language barrier, perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
DSK is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
(The only thing he's "guilty" of is traveling internationally without an aide or assistant, as most global figures do. They would be his automatic "alibi". He may not have called an attorney right away, for whatever reason, but most high-priced and high-profile attorneys would have brought him a shaver and change of clothes before the 'perp walk'.)
Why should I believe your posts without any evidence? This influence you speak about might be there, but just be so small that it can't outweight a rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
That might be true, but also be one with the most wrong accusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No reason whatsoever, Nessus. Anyone who doesn't think exactly the same as you is sick and disgusting. The world should burn because we're not all sanctimonious jackasses incapable of critical thought, like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker