So, did he or didn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

i haven't been paying attention, is the maid's character being assassinated? In forums that have a larger audience than this one I mean (ie. the media). Is this case playing out in a way similar to other high profile rape trials?

---

Not as far as I'm aware. I haven't paid much attention to the media frenzy either (he either did it or he didn't, and we have no way of knowing which), I'm simply referring to Hazir's conduct in this thread, and his motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Too bad for you then that I simply think she's a gold digging liar. :)

---

Sure. That was why you were talking on the first page about false charges being used to destroy a European appointee of a large organization. That was why you made this thread to tell us that, in your opinion, a woman who accused a powerful man of rape is a gold digging liar based on absolutely nothing. Nothing to do with Dominique Strauss-Kahn being (essentially) a French aristocrat in a position which makes him an avatar of European soft-power, and you having such a bizarre, jingoistic attitude about the European Union that it wouldn't be out of date if found in one of the European colonial empires of old*.

I think my assertion that you are a liar is a lot more firmly grounded here than your assertion that she is.

* If this weren't America but a third world nation I can seriously see you demanding we send gunboats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Now let's point out how you create a guilty out of the fact that there was sperm found and that she claims it was the sperm she spit out after being orally raped. See where you write 'after he tried to force her into oral sex? Interesting how you can TRY to force someone into oral sex and still get your sperm into her mouth :)

---

Uh, I said her DNA (sputum) was found on carpet, where she spat, after he ALLEGEDLY tried to sodomize her. You're the one reading all sorts of things into he said/she said. :donkey:

Quote:

---

I don't trust any part of your legal system :) And obviously am right not to trust any part of it. I see people playing tough for political gains, but then Loki tells me that the system is biased in the favour of rich people. :D

---

Rich people can afford better attorneys, that's true. Sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted, that's true, too. DSK will have the best defense money can buy, so his innocence should be pretty easy to prove, shouldn't it. The way you pick and choose who's the victim here is....weird, Hazir. Almost like you expected diplomatic immunity to apply to DSK, because he's such an important European.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Interesting how you can TRY to force someone into oral sex and still get your sperm into her mouth :)

---

This is definitely the kind of sentence that needs a smiley at the end.

Can we agree that even when we think a specific woman accusing a man of rape is a gold-digging liar there are good reasons for not being douchey about it? Just like there are good reasons for not automatically making life hell for everyone who's accused of rape?





Out of curiosity, is there a great deal of money in this for her lawyer?

Hazir might be coming across as an ignorant dumbass, but I do like how he brought out the hypocrisy of certain users when you compare their claims here to their early comments about the Julian Assange accusations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Well. It may, may have something to do with a) the nationality of Strauss-Kahn b) the nation where he's being accused. But you didn't hear that from me.

---

But that makes no sense. It doesn't really feed into that pathological bias he has against Britain.

Jesus, Hazir. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh, so now it has been proven she's a rape victim? What do you base that upon other than what she claims?

---

:rolleyes: Okay, alleged rape victim. I've said earlier in the thread (in fact my first post) that this entire discussion was ridiculous since we didn't have enough information and that hopefully the truth would come out during court (I'll say it again: I do not know DSK is guilty). That's miles apart from deciding a woman who accuses a man of rape is lying just because you feel it's true. That's a very damaging and frankly insulting position to take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

:rolleyes: Okay, alleged rape victim. I've said earlier in the thread (in fact my first post) that this entire discussion was ridiculous since we didn't have enough information and that hopefully the truth would come out during court (I'll say it again: I do not know DSK is guilty). That's miles apart from deciding a woman who accuses a man of rape is lying just because you feel it's true. That's a very damaging and frankly insulting position to take.

---

Yet in your mind she was already a 'rape victim', and I am pretty certain that you're not the only one in the US who needs to have this pointed out with the way this case is treated. From the perp walk, to the 'he was a sleazebaal anyway' report to the 'we protect our little people' comments to the way you're being told now how common the rape of hotel staff actually is.

As for that woman; the only way I am not going to think she's lying is if there is convincing evidence that what was being fed tous during the first hours after the arrest is not based in her account of what transpired. I am very suspicious of 'rape-victims' who are too detailed in their account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yet in your mind she was already a 'rape victim', and I am pretty certain that you're not the only one in the US who needs to have this pointed out with the way this case is treated. From the perp walk, to the 'he was a sleazebaal anyway' report to the 'we protect our little people' comments to the way you're being told now how common the rape of hotel staff actually is.

As for that woman; the only way I am not going to think she's lying is if there is convincing evidence that what was being fed tous during the first hours after the arrest is not based in her account of what transpired. I am very suspicious of 'rape-victims' who are too detailed in their account.

---

I have the feeling if she had been vague you would have been very suspicious of her not having a more clear account of the searing trauma she had 'supposedly' experienced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yet in your mind she was already a 'rape victim', and I am pretty certain that you're not the only one in the US who needs to have this pointed out with the way this case is treated. From the perp walk, to the 'he was a sleazebaal anyway' report to the 'we protect our little people' comments to the way you're being told now how common the rape of hotel staff actually is.

---

Honestly, Hazir, what is wrong with you? Yes, she was a 'rape victim' in my mind for the simple reason that it's common in civilized society to actually believe a woman when she makes such a claim. In the not-too-distant past, a woman was ignored or disbelieved if she accused someone of rape. Women had virtually no protections under the law, and the indifferent reception they were likely to receive upon making such an accusation generally kept them from doing so. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to take such charges very seriously and work under the assumption that they are true, and act accordingly (i.e. arrest the alleged perpetrator and do a thorough investigation).

As for the rest, really? Really? There have been some distasteful bits in the media, no question. But I have been shocked at some of the things that have come out of the French and European media, and your diatribes here haven't been too far below the shit that BHL was spewing.

Quote:

---

As for that woman; the only way I am not going to think she's lying is if there is convincing evidence that what was being fed tous during the first hours after the arrest is not based in her account of what transpired. I am very suspicious of 'rape-victims' who are too detailed in their account.

---

Why? Honestly, I can't possibly see a reason for you to be calling her a liar (rather than taking a 'wait and see' attitude) unless you are irrationally convinced of DSK's innocence.

Or uhm have problems with people who accuse people of rape





It's interesting though. By saying we should believe her by default we're saying we should assume the accused is guilty by default. I'm inclined to agree that people who may have been raped should not be met with scorn and skepticism by default, but when it gets to the point where we implicityly have to assume from the outset that the accused is guilty it makes me uncomfortable.

Innocent until proven guilty is not such a bad concept after all.

But I don't agree with Hazir that we have nearly enough information to assume her lying so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Innocent until proven guilty is not such a bad concept after all.

But I don't agree with Hazir that we have nearly enough information to assume her lying so far.

---

You, nor anybody has to agree with me of course. I know it's a mere gut feeling about the alleged victim.

What I find disturbing is that what is just as much a gut feeling, leads a lot of people to talk about this case as if it is certain that he's guilty, then as an afterthought throw in the assumption of innocence.

Assuming the woman is a rape victim is wrong. Treating the woman as a lying whore because you don't understand rape is wrong too.
Alleged is a pretty important word in these here dicussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It's interesting though. By saying we should believe her by default we're saying we should assume the accused is guilty by default. I'm inclined to agree that people who may have been raped should not be met with scorn and skepticism by default, but when it gets to the point where we implicityly have to assume from the outset that the accused is guilty it makes me uncomfortable.

---

(emphasis added) This may be where the disconnect is. Treating a woman's rape accusation seriously and following through on the justice system is entirely different from presupposing guilt on the part of the alleged perpetrator. But you're also assuming guilt on the part of the accuser if you just dismiss her allegations as outright lies that are an attempt to make some settlement money. It's nonsensical.

I don't think you'll be able to find many people (on this thread or elsewhere) who are sure of DSK's guilt, though they may be prejudiced towards the 'underdog', but Hazir here and many others seem to be sure of his innocence and thus completely dismiss the allegations. That's the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Innocent until proven guilty is not such a bad concept after all.

But I don't agree with Hazir that we have nearly enough information to assume her lying so far.

---

Ditto to what I said above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yet in your mind she was already a 'rape victim', and I am pretty certain that you're not the only one in the US who needs to have this pointed out with the way this case is treated. From the perp walk, to the 'he was a sleazebaal anyway' report to the 'we protect our little people' comments to the way you're being told now how common the rape of hotel staff actually is.

As for that woman; the only way I am not going to think she's lying is if there is convincing evidence that what was being fed tous during the first hours after the arrest is not based in her account of what transpired. I am very suspicious of 'rape-victims' who are too detailed in their account.

---

You make it sound like the hotel maid made a false accusation, snapper her fingers, and Sofitel, the NYPD and DA's office immediately arrested DSK, then called the press so the "perp walk" could be transmitted across the globe! Because, y'know, Americans just want to defame 'DSK the sleazeball Frenchman', and show the world how our system protects the little people. And you don't see anything wrong with your perspective? Man, that's twisted. :bulb:

You can't both hate our open press, AND complain about what was "fed to you during the first hours" by the press, AND use the press to condemn our legal system.

Quote:

---

you're being told now how common the rape of hotel staff actually is.

---

What the hell....?

Quote:

---

I am very suspicious of 'rape-victims' who are too detailed in their account.

---

That's fucked up.

So just because she claims she was raped she is somehow more reliable than if she had said he had tried to kill her? Just because you and Wiggin buy into feminist shit about rape doesn't mean I have to.

Over the last few days I have read 3 separate pieces on the NYT site that relate to this affair. Or do you really want me to believe that it's a coincidence that they started printing articles and opinions about the dangers of working as a chamber maid?

As for the final point; there are more than enough examples of horrible rape stories that turned out to be mere fabrications. They have in common that the 'victim' are giving it to the interrogators in living colours.

@OG; you appear to be taken in by the attempts of wiggin to log me in with people like Levi who can't concieve of a man like DSK being capable of raping a woman. He may very well be such a man, but I seriously doubt he did it in this particular case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

@OG; you appear to be taken in by the attempts of wiggin to log me in with people like Levi who can't concieve of a man like DSK being capable of raping a woman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Interesting how you can TRY to force someone into oral sex and still get your sperm into her mouth :)

---

You're an idiot Hazir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So just because she claims she was raped she is somehow more reliable than if she had said he had tried to kill her? Just because you and Wiggin buy into feminist shit about rape doesn't mean I have to.

Over the last few days I have read 3 separate pieces on the NYT site that relate to this affair. Or do you really want me to believe that it's a coincidence that they started printing articles and opinions about the dangers of working as a chamber maid?

As for the final point; there are more than enough examples of horrible rape stories that turned out to be mere fabrications. They have in common that the 'victim' are giving it to the interrogators in living colours.

---

Seriously, you see this as some type of FEMINIST SHIT? WTF is up with that?

What you've read in the press (whether it's US or European sources) is only relevant in triggering pre-existing bias. Your biases are quite clear, and it's disturbing on so many levels. You don't believe women's rape charges, you automatically assume a hotel maid is a gold-digger making false accusations against a VIP French banker/politician, you don't believe the US legal system is legitimate, you don't believe our press or media.....yet you make sweeping, premature judgments about all of this, based on what you've read in the press?

This has turned rather ugly, Hazir. Perhaps you should change the title of this thread or start a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

As for the final point; there are more than enough examples of horrible rape stories that turned out to be mere fabrications. They have in common that the 'victim' are giving it to the interrogators in living colours.

---

This I'd like to learn more about, because at first glance it sounds like anecdote rendered extremely unreliable by bias (eg. clearly remembering a few cases of false rape accusations and letting those have an overly strong influence on views on rape in general). Yeah yeah I get it you're your own person we're just smarty-pants on the internet you don't have to justify yourself to nobody we're not your dad yada yada. I'm just saying... "more than enough"? "They have in common"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

This has turned rather ugly, Hazir. Perhaps you should change the title of this thread or start a new one.

---

Change it to what?

So, he didn't.

:noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

You're an idiot Hazir.

---

Trying to show you can't read by not understanding that to get his sperm in her mouth he must have raped her and not just have tried to rape her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Seriously, you see this as some type of FEMINIST SHIT? WTF is up with that?

What you've read in the press (whether it's US or European sources) is only relevant in triggering pre-existing bias. Your biases are quite clear, and it's disturbing on so many levels. You don't believe women's rape charges, you automatically assume a hotel maid is a gold-digger making false accusations against a VIP French banker/politician, you don't believe the US legal system is legitimate, you don't believe our press or media.....yet you make sweeping, premature judgments about all of this, based on what you've read in the press?

This has turned rather ugly, Hazir. Perhaps you should change the title of this thread or start a new one.

---

I don't believe this particular woman's claim.

And otherwise yes, your legal system is a fucked up mix of grandstanding and inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This I'd like to learn more about, because at first glance it sounds like anecdote rendered extremely unreliable by bias (eg. clearly remembering a few cases of false rape accusations and letting those have an overly strong influence on views on rape in general). Yeah yeah I get it you're your own person we're just smarty-pants on the internet you don't have to justify yourself to nobody we're not your dad yada yada. I'm just saying... "more than enough"? "They have in common"?

---

A little google taught me there is a website called http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ have fun with it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So just because she claims she was raped she is somehow more reliable than if she had said he had tried to kill her? Just because you and Wiggin buy into feminist shit about rape doesn't mean I have to.

---

You do realize my logic works for, say, victims of sexual abuse (who may not be women) just as well as it does for rape victims. It has nothing to do with feminism. In fact, I think the logic should hold for any violent assault - charges should be taken extremely seriously and not dismissed out of hand on the basis of 'feelings'.

Quote:

---

@OG; you appear to be taken in by the attempts of wiggin to log me in with people like Levi who can't concieve of a man like DSK being capable of raping a woman. He may very well be such a man, but I seriously doubt he did it in this particular case.

---

Dude, this isn't some weird rhetorical device I'm using. You have zero evidence for your rather outlandish claims, which implies to everyone here that you made up your mind about the result beforehand. I don't know if you think it's because DSK is a good guy, or you don't believe rape victims in general, or some weird Euro-fetish thing. Honestly, I don't care. But it's completely unreasonable.

Oh, and clearly since there's a blogspot page for the 'false rape society' it's a major societal issue compared to the truly unacceptable number of rapes that happen in the world today - including the developed, 'civilized' world.

Oh well, I am horrible for thinking of her as a liar, you're justified in thinking of him as guilty. :) Seems to me the only difference is that I am honest about where the feeling comes from and you are bullshitting.

I didn't know that site existed, only a glance at their first page shows 3 news reports about false rape claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Trying to show you can't read by not understanding that to get his sperm in her mouth he must have raped her and not just have tried to rape her?
I don't believe this particular woman's claim.

---

Where did you read that his sperm was found in her mouth? Are you making stuff up now? DSK's DNA was found on her shirt. Maid's DNA was found on the carpet. (According to news sources that may or may not be totally accurate, remember.)

Now you're trying to say charges of attempted rape aren't credible, because she really was raped, because you "read somewhere" that his sperm was found in her mouth? OMG Hazir, make up your mind what you're actually complaining about! :confused:

Quote:

---

And otherwise yes, your legal system is a fucked up mix of grandstanding and inequality.

---

Assuming that's true (and often that is true) what's that got to do with your creepy attitude toward women's claims of sexual assault, attempted rape, or rape? What's that got to do with your bias against hotel maids being credible victims, if the perp is an important European?

Would you look at this differently if it had been, say, FDIC chairman Sheila Bair being accused of sexual assault by a male porter in a French hotel? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

That's what she claims that happened yes. Randblade however seems to think his entire life is on trial. It is not.

---

I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article quoted by Dread

One question is: how much privacy should public figures enjoy? American intrusiveness may seem distasteful to Europeans. For their part, Americans do not understand how prominent personalities in Britain can obtain “super-injunctions” preventing journalists from reporting some peccadillo or even the existence of the injunction.

---

To be fair Brits do not like that either and are openly revolting against it. I created a thread about this (that got very little attention).

The idea of a superinjuction like this is a very modern one and stems from European, not British law. British traditions are for a very open, often intrusive and aggressive media - something I like. Judges have adopted European law to create this idea of a privacy law and it isn't popular being subverted completely by both Twitter and politicians. I hope that Twitter and Parliamentary Priviledge combined can kill this ridiculous notion of gagging the press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

A little google taught me there is a website called http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ have fun with it :)

---

I'm glad you linked to that particular blog. I'm not saying it's wholly untrustworthy, but among the most substantial claims it can make with some level of credibility is that the prevalence of false rape accusations in some place somewhere is higher than 2%. And that post is riddled with problems such as double standards. I'm not denying that false rape accusations do occur, and I'm not even denying that they may occur with some frequency or that they have severe consequences--the cockups in the British child-porn cases come to mind--but this seems like fitting data to a prior agenda.

The single most important factor that's driving this discussion is your prior opinion that this woman is a lying gold-digger who's falsely accusing DSK of rape. Of course the second most important factor is probably the opinion that you're outta whack :p the "facts" on either side are at present immaterial no matter how hard we try to shoehorn them into our various positions. Why? Because we know next to nothing about the case itself and even if we did ffs we aren't anything close to being experts who're able to judge the reliability of a claim no matter which blogs we read on our free time. What we do know about are peripheral things like the issue with the "perp walk" :bored:

Yeah whatever, you know exactly what I am like with women because I believe this particular one is a liar, and what's even worse, I think a 'rape victim' is a liar. With the nonsense being published about this case it's not so difficult to understand why people come to conclusions. There were false reports about his DNA, there were reports about her saliva somewhere. Blame me for connecting the dots. Of course I was wrong to think truth had any relevance to the reporters.

What you people don't understand that my job consists on a daily basis of sifting through mountains of information to establish the truth. I have learned over the last nine years that my gut feelings are important indicators. My decisions are tested in court an hardly ever are overturned. If you deal with bullshitters every day, bullshitter's stories are easy to pick out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I'm glad you linked to that particular blog. I'm not saying it's wholly untrustworthy, but among the most substantial claims it can make with some level of credibility is that the prevalence of false rape accusations in some place somewhere is higher than 2%. And that post is riddled with problems such as double standards. I'm not denying that false rape accusations do occur, and I'm not even denying that they may occur with some frequency or that they have severe consequences--the cockups in the British child-porn cases come to mind--but this seems like fitting data to a prior agenda.

The single most important factor that's driving this discussion is your prior opinion that this woman is a lying gold-digger who's falsely accusing DSK of rape. Of course the second most important factor is probably the opinion that you're outta whack :p the "facts" on either side are at present immaterial no matter how hard we try to shoehorn them into our various positions. Why? Because we know next to nothing about the case itself and even if we did ffs we aren't anything close to being experts who're able to judge the reliability of a claim no matter which blogs we read on our free time. What we do know about are peripheral things like the issue with the "perp walk" :bored:

---

Yeah, I am looking at the situation with different eyes. The eyes of somebody who gets lied to so often that you don't take anybody's word for anything.

Looking at Wiggin and GGT (mostly them anyway) in this topic is really interesting; they have pre-concieved ideas about this case (assumption of guilt) yet think they are in a position to hector against me because I am a creep with pre-concieved ideas :)

While I find many of the posts on that blog to be objectionable, I'd like to recommend the following post for consideration:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com...-never-as.html

In support of the otherwise universal norm that punishing the innocent is worse than letting the guilty get away. In the context of non-legal punishment (eg. being crucified by the media and by the public) it's an interesting discussion.

You people? Your gut feelings have been "tested and confirmed" in European court of law, therefore....your gut instincts trump US criminal charges and court proceedings that haven't even happened yet? And you have the nerve to say the US system is messed up?

You are the one BULLSHITTING here, Hazir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You people? Your gut feelings have been "tested and confirmed" in European court of law, therefore....your gut instincts trump US criminal charges and court proceedings that haven't even happened yet? And you have the nerve to say the US system is messed up?

You are the one BULLSHITTING here, Hazir.

---

9 years of sifting through lies you idiot. Lies that are told to me by people who'll do everything to make me believe them. I've had more people cry in front of me to underpin their bullshit stories than all of you put together times 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yeah, I am looking at the situation with different eyes. The eyes of somebody who gets lied to so often that you don't take anybody's word for anything.

---

I can understand that, but I think it's problematic to let experiences with other people erode one's ability to show respect to an unknown person. We've had discussions in this community about the notion that even basic respect and kindness and the like has to be earned, and for my part I can't accept that position. It's worse to condemn an innocent person--eg. by not according him the basic respect required to believe that he isn't lying through his teeth about everything he tells you for impure reasons--than it is to let a guilty cheat go free (eg. by showing him respect you don't think he deserves).

As with rape so with basic human interaction, esp. in a professional context.

And here's another problematic thing: if the story's too good, it's probably a lie. But if the story's not too good, it's probably a lie. How does one win this fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

While I find many of the posts on that blog to be objectionable, I'd like to recommend the following post for consideration:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com...-never-as.html

In support of the otherwise universal norm that punishing the innocent is worse than letting the guilty get away. In the context of non-legal punishment (eg. being crucified by the media and by the public) it's an interesting discussion.

---

Just so that you know; I didn't know the site and probably you've looked at it longer now than I have before I gave you that link.

By the way there is a huge debate about the percentage of false claims of rape. 2% appears to be on the lower side of the debate, 8% was the result of a british/english project (IIRC) though there was a lot of debate if the researchers used the right parameters. Guess 8% was more than the opponents were willing to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I can understand that, but I think it's problematic to let experiences with other people erode one's ability to show respect to an unknown person. We've had discussions in this community about the notion that even basic respect and kindness and the like has to be earned, and for my part I can't accept that position. It's worse to condemn an innocent person--eg. by not according him the basic respect required to believe that he isn't lying through his teeth about everything he tells you for impure reasons--than it is to let a guilty cheat go free (eg. by showing him respect you don't think he deserves).

As with rape so with basic human interaction, esp. in a professional context.

---

Hmm.. I don't really feel I am obliged to show respect to a person who is not even remotely connected to where I write my opinions where the other side of that conflict of interests has already been dragged through the mud and was forced out of his job. No harshness in the way I express myself about that will ever bring balance to that. And if she was raped, then I was wrong. But so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh well, I am horrible for thinking of her as a liar, you're justified in thinking of him as guilty. :) Seems to me the only difference is that I am honest about where the feeling comes from and you are bullshitting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yeah, I am looking at the situation with different eyes. The eyes of somebody who gets lied to so often that you don't take anybody's word for anything.

Looking at Wiggin and GGT (mostly them anyway) in this topic is really interesting; they have pre-concieved ideas about this case (assumption of guilt) yet think they are in a position to hector against me because I am a creep with pre-concieved ideas :)

---

I would like to direct you to my first two posts here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Honestly, Hazir, what's the point of the poll? Is law a popularity contest?

Whether or not he did it, unless he can very quickly and very convincingly refute the charges, his political career is over. The French are willing to overlook a lot of sexual improprieties in their politicians, but sexual assault is not one of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Of course it's possible; innocent until proven guilty and all. He should get the same protections afforded any other accused criminal. It doesn't change the fact that a poll is utterly meaningless. Neither you nor I have any data whatsoever as to his guilt or innocence. Why make a poll on it?

I don't get this. Do you honestly think there's some conspiracy to carry out character assassination? Oh, I suppose the maid could have made it up, but it seems awfully far-fetched that some part of the US government is trying to discredit a French politician by charging him with sexual assault. This is an incredibly high profile case, and I doubt their ability to carry out such an elaborate farce for such ridiculous ends.

Honestly, I feel like people are just willing to believe conspiracy theories because they're fun or something. I heard plenty of similar things about OBL's death, though it's obviously a ridiculous suggestion that he wasn't found and killed.

---

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't know if DSK is guilty or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yeah, I am looking at the situation with different eyes. The eyes of somebody who gets lied to so often that you don't take anybody's word for anything.

Looking at Wiggin and GGT (mostly them anyway) in this topic is really interesting; they have pre-concieved ideas about this case (assumption of guilt) yet think they are in a position to hector against me because I am a creep with pre-concieved ideas :)

---

That would be more of your bias and bullshitting. Wiggin and I (and plenty others) know full well that both accuser AND accused are given the same presumption to be telling the truth. We don't dismiss a victim's claim outright, and we don't dismiss a suspect's innocence-until-proven-guilty, either. That's why we use police, forensics, attorneys, and due process to sort these things out.

You're the only one who's made pre-conclusions here. Everyone else has taken the stance that a court of law needs to sort this out, with proof. Both victim and accused are believable from the outset.