So, did he or didn't he?

[earthJoker]

Yeah it's funny makes a comparison just to point out the difference in the next sentence.

Sometimes goolge forgot a not (well German negation is a little differen) which of course is not so good for the understanding.

[wiggin]

Yes, I assume the article also doesn't actually say a young woman brutally raped DSK. Probably missing a 'was' and 'by'.

Yeah that was quite balanced. Made me realise that I should stress there is a difference between my position and that of people who feel DSK deserves better even if he were a rapist and that even in that case the woman bears some of the blame. That is a ridiculous position, if DSK raped that woman he deserves to get a severe punishment. As things stand I doubt the accusation so much that I tend to think there was no rape, and would go as far that I doubt there even was a sexual encounter.

I still don't get this - do you have a reason for believing so? As far as I can tell, DSK had a reputation as a womanizer and has had a number of iffy encounters in the past. It's not uncommon for powerless women to be assaulted by rich and powerful men.

You can claim she has ulterior motives (wanting a civil settlement, some vague conspiracy), but I don't actually see any evidence at all to support that, while DSK's prior behavior suggests it's at least possible.

[GGT]

No, it's not because it happens to famous person. It is because people actually see the abyssmal treatment of suspects in the US, because DSK is famous. And yes, it is shocking to us, this blatant disregard for the dignity of a human being who's not been found guilty.

The charges make a difference. He's not being accused of financial fraud, but sexual assault. There's a victim here, and victim claims are taken seriously, no matter who the perp is. Alleged sexual assault, rape, sodomy, battery, false imprisonment....those charges don't come with automatic bail. Defense has to show they're not a flight risk, and not a danger to the victim or the public. If both can't be proven, the judge can deny bail.

DSK was found on an airplane, ready to leave the country. Doubtful that if he'd made it to France would he have been extradited for trial (see Polanski). He was denied bail because he was found "attempting to flee" the country = clear flight risk. He's rumored to be in isolation to protect him from fellow detainees (who've been known to shank accused rapists) and to keep him on suicide watch. (Not sure why or when suicide became a concern.)

Where in there do you see a "blatant disregard" for DSK's humanity and presumption of innocence? He has high-priced legal representation. He's being kept safe from jailhouse violence, being fed three times a day, with private toilet and shower, with access to attorneys and (presumably) visitors.

[Hazir]

Yes, I assume the article also doesn't actually say a young woman brutally raped DSK. Probably missing a 'was' and 'by'.



I still don't get this - do you have a reason for believing so? As far as I can tell, DSK had a reputation as a womanizer and has had a number of iffy encounters in the past. It's not uncommon for powerless women to be assaulted by rich and powerful men.

You can claim she has ulterior motives (wanting a civil settlement, some vague conspiracy), but I don't actually see any evidence at all to support that, while DSK's prior behavior suggests it's at least possible.

I will admit it is a mere gut feeling. The story we're being fed from that (her) side is too detailed, and contains elements that are highly improbable. Her lawyer's claim that she didn't know who he was before she entered the room is laughable. It simply doesn't happen to people who stay in a $3000 a night room that the staff doesn't know them. If you experience first hand how differently these people are treated it makes an ordinary person quite uncomfortable in his insignificance (talking about myself now).

I don't say he's not enough of a sleazeball not to sexually harrass women, it's just that I don't believe the accuser in this case. Because her story doesn't add up.

[Hazir]

The charges make a difference. He's not being accused of financial fraud, but sexual assault. There's a victim here, and victim claims are taken seriously, no matter who the perp is. Alleged sexual assault, rape, sodomy, battery, false imprisonment....those charges don't come with automatic bail. Defense has to show they're not a flight risk, and not a danger to the victim or the public. If both can't be proven, the judge can deny bail.

DSK was found on an airplane, ready to leave the country. Doubtful that if he'd made it to France would he have been extradited for trial (see Polanski). He was denied bail because he was found "attempting to flee" the country = clear flight risk. He's rumored to be in isolation to protect him from fellow detainees (who've been known to shank accused rapists) and to keep him on suicide watch. (Not sure why or when suicide became a concern.)

Where in there do you see a "blatant disregard" for DSK's humanity and presumption of innocence? He has high-priced legal representation. He's being kept safe from jailhouse violence, being fed three times a day, with private toilet and shower, with access to attorneys and (presumably) visitors.

You don't see how the fact that he's treated special if all they do is keep him safe makes people overhere feel that the US legal system is abusive of people who are still only suspected of a crime?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that all people who call his treatment degrading, that he has some special privilege to harrass women just because he's rich and famous.

[wiggin]

I will admit it is a mere gut feeling. The story we're being fed from that (her) side is too detailed, and contains elements that are highly improbable. Her lawyer's claim that she didn't know who he was before she entered the room is laughable. It simply doesn't happen to people who stay in a $3000 a night room that the staff doesn't know them. If you experience first hand how differently these people are treated it makes an ordinary person quite uncomfortable in his insignificance (talking about myself now).

Actually I've seen multiple reports suggesting he only paid ~$500 for the night, which is high but not crazy for NYC. It's unlikely he'd get some special treatment, then.

My wife often gets upgrades to 'presidential suites' and the like when she travels for business, and she's a nobody (and no one knows who she is, either). It's mostly because they have the suites open and offer them to frequent business travelers (such as someone on a major corporation account or, you know, the IMF). That doesn't mean they get the red carpet treatment, it just means they get a nicer room.

You're making the same error that BHL did in his article. You have a preconception of DSK's innocence (for one reason or another), so you're making assumptions about the situation based on scanty evidence. BHL claimed that for such a room there would always be a 'team' of housecleaners to deal with a room all at once. I'm betting he hasn't a clue of what the actual SOPs are for the Sofitel's room 2806 any more than you or I do. Similarly, you're taking unsubstantiated reports about the price of the room (with no knowledge of the range of prices for Sofitel rooms, and how special room 2806 really is) and assuming he was given VIP treatment and that even the housekeepers knew who he is.

You could be right, but there's precious little evidence to support it.

I don't say he's not enough of a sleazeball not to sexually harrass women, it's just that I don't believe the accuser in this case. Because her story doesn't add up.

So far, the only part of her story that doesn't 'add up' to you is that she didn't happen to know who he was. That's not exactly convincing.

You don't see how the fact that he's treated special if all they do is keep him safe makes people overhere feel that the US legal system is abusive of people who are still only suspected of a crime?

You do realize there's a difference between being a 'suspect' and being 'accused', right? You can't hold a suspect for more than questioning, but someone who's been indicted and charged with a crime is an entirely different category.

[GGT]

You don't see how the fact that he's treated special if all they do is keep him safe makes people overhere feel that the US legal system is abusive of people who are still only suspected of a crime?

Nope, not seeing it. If he'd been thrown into a cell with "general population" and gotten beat up or knived.....would people overthere "feel" the US legal system was any better?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that all people who call his treatment degrading, that he has some special privilege to harrass women just because he's rich and famous.

I think it's the press coverage you find degrading, when it's merely "distasteful" to Europeans. Our justice system has flaws, but it's supposed to be blind. If anyone here had a mother/sister/aunt/wife/friend who went to police and reported sexual assault, would want any 'special treatment' for the accused perp?

[earthJoker]

Nope, not seeing it. If he'd been thrown into a cell with "general population" and gotten beat up or knived.....would people overthere "feel" the US legal system was any better?

Well would that be a possible outcome? Really that bad?

[GGT]

Riker's is reportedly on the....gritty side.

He's been granted $1 million bail, plus $5 million insurance bond, will be secured in an apartment with his wife, under 24 hour video surveillance and armed guard (at his expense) with ankle GPS monitor.

edit Question for Europeans: Why does France not "allow" pictures of a suspect in hand cuffs? How is it possible for the press to report news if they're supposed to....what, shut off cameras and video between exiting the police car and entering the court house? Even passersby couldn't click a photo from their cell phone? Why not?

[Hazir]

Actually I've seen multiple reports suggesting he only paid ~$500 for the night, which is high but not crazy for NYC. It's unlikely he'd get some special treatment, then.

My wife often gets upgrades to 'presidential suites' and the like when she travels for business, and she's a nobody (and no one knows who she is, either). It's mostly because they have the suites open and offer them to frequent business travelers (such as someone on a major corporation account or, you know, the IMF). That doesn't mean they get the red carpet treatment, it just means they get a nicer room.

You're making the same error that BHL did in his article. You have a preconception of DSK's innocence (for one reason or another), so you're making assumptions about the situation based on scanty evidence. BHL claimed that for such a room there would always be a 'team' of housecleaners to deal with a room all at once. I'm betting he hasn't a clue of what the actual SOPs are for the Sofitel's room 2806 any more than you or I do. Similarly, you're taking unsubstantiated reports about the price of the room (with no knowledge of the range of prices for Sofitel rooms, and how special room 2806 really is) and assuming he was given VIP treatment and that even the housekeepers knew who he is.

You could be right, but there's precious little evidence to support it.


So far, the only part of her story that doesn't 'add up' to you is that she didn't happen to know who he was. That's not exactly convincing.


You do realize there's a difference between being a 'suspect' and being 'accused', right? You can't hold a suspect for more than questioning, but someone who's been indicted and charged with a crime is an entirely different category.

I know the upgrade thing, and it is not the same. Just as much as they know the real target audience for the most expensive rooms, they also know who's been upgraded. You'll still get good service, but nothing close to the real thing. Like when I flew business class earlier this month. I was impressed with how much energy they put into service, a flight attendant who actually knew what my connection would be in Zurich, remembering my preferred drink and those kind of nice things. But right next to me somebody was welcomed aboard personally by the purser.

Now back to DSK; he is one of 'those' people; people who make management of a big hotel nervous. They don't want them to have any negative experience while they are staying at their hotel. Not just because they use expensive rooms, but because they keep returning and could actually bring a lot of business if they happened to favor a hotel for official visits. Your idea that DSK's exact preferences were not known by the hotel staff is so unlikely I won't entertain it.

[GGT]

Now back to DSK; he is one of 'those' people; people who make management of a big hotel nervous. They don't want them to have any negative experience while they are staying at their hotel. Not just because they use expensive rooms, but because they keep returning and could actually bring a lot of business if they happened to favor a hotel for official visits. Your idea that DSK's exact preferences were not known by the hotel staff is so unlikely I won't entertain it.

He was due to check out that day. Usually check-out time is 11am (not sure of Sofitel's policy), and it's often done in-room via CCTV so they can bypass the front desk. The maid was "told to clean the room" by her superior, according to news reports, and expected the room to be empty. Lots of hotels use one set of staff for daily room service, and another team for thorough check-out cleanings. It's entirely possible this maid never saw DSK, had no idea who'd been in that room.....and knowing his personal preferences wouldn't matter for check-out cleaning. Hotels also have CCTV in hallways, and can recount e-key activity.

Why are you so intent on discounting this woman's claims?

[Loki]

I'd also like to know how many New Yorkers, let alone uneducated immigrants, know what the IMF is.

[Enoch the Red]

He was due to check out that day. Usually check-out time is 11am (not sure of Sofitel's policy), and it's often done in-room via CCTV

Checkout through CCTV? I can't imagine that's right. I've been in some Hotels that have an automated checkout program on their television, but wouldn't a CCTV circuit in the room indicate that there is video footage?

[wiggin]

I know the upgrade thing, and it is not the same. Just as much as they know the real target audience for the most expensive rooms, they also know who's been upgraded. You'll still get good service, but nothing close to the real thing. Like when I flew business class earlier this month. I was impressed with how much energy they put into service, a flight attendant who actually knew what my connection would be in Zurich, remembering my preferred drink and those kind of nice things. But right next to me somebody was welcomed aboard personally by the purser.

Now back to DSK; he is one of 'those' people; people who make management of a big hotel nervous. They don't want them to have any negative experience while they are staying at their hotel. Not just because they use expensive rooms, but because they keep returning and could actually bring a lot of business if they happened to favor a hotel for official visits. Your idea that DSK's exact preferences were not known by the hotel staff is so unlikely I won't entertain it.

Do you actually know any of this is true, or are you just bullshitting? Because I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I'm sure you're right, that with the genuinely wealthy or famous this is the case. Yet I guarantee you that before this week you'd be hard-pressed to find 5% of Americans who had any idea this man existed, let alone that he was the head of the IMF and a major contender for the presidency of France (I think I'm being generous with the 5% here). His net worth is modest ($2 million according to his lawyer), and though he has obvious political connections I honestly don't think he makes it onto the A-list for American hotels. Furthermore, you have yet to connect some special service the concierge or whatever would give him with what the immigrant worker cleaning his room is going to know.

You can speculate all you want, but I'm very skeptical you have any idea of SOP at the Hotel Sofitel wrt VIPs, and whether (a) he's considered worth it, and (b) the maid would have known who the hell he is. Even supposing you're right on both counts, you have to somehow then believe (c) she concocted this whole story just to get a settlement. You have zero evidence for all three assumptions, yet you continue to essentially call the rape victim a liar.

[GGT]

Checkout through CCTV? I can't imagine that's right. I've been in some Hotels that have an automated checkout program on their television, but wouldn't a CCTV circuit in the room indicate that there is video footage?

You'd have to ask a computer person. Hotel televisions have that closed-circuit option just by turning the set on. A dedicated internal "channel". I thought that was a connection to their computer billing for check-out. What do you mean about video footage?

[wiggin]

GGT, CCTV normally refers to security cameras and the like that have a 'closed circuit' (i.e. not generally broadcast) TV feed to a monitor or two (such as at a security office). It's very common in places like the UK, and in most businesses in the US.

[GGT]

Oh, okay, semantics. There are "security cameras" in hotel hallways. There are televisions in rooms connected to "check-out computers", but not cameras. Card keys are connected to some kind of computer system. All those internal histories can be saved and checked.

[Hazir]

I'd also like to know how many New Yorkers, let alone uneducated immigrants, know what the IMF is.

Utterly irrelevant, the management of the hotel knows, they know who this man is and they don't want their staff to set one foot wrong with a guest like that.

[Hazir]

Do you actually know any of this is true, or are you just bullshitting? Because I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I'm sure you're right, that with the genuinely wealthy or famous this is the case. Yet I guarantee you that before this week you'd be hard-pressed to find 5% of Americans who had any idea this man existed, let alone that he was the head of the IMF and a major contender for the presidency of France (I think I'm being generous with the 5% here). His net worth is modest ($2 million according to his lawyer), and though he has obvious political connections I honestly don't think he makes it onto the A-list for American hotels. Furthermore, you have yet to connect some special service the concierge or whatever would give him with what the immigrant worker cleaning his room is going to know.

You can speculate all you want, but I'm very skeptical you have any idea of SOP at the Hotel Sofitel wrt VIPs, and whether (a) he's considered worth it, and (b) the maid would have known who the hell he is. Even supposing you're right on both counts, you have to somehow then believe (c) she concocted this whole story just to get a settlement. You have zero evidence for all three assumptions, yet you continue to essentially call the rape victim a liar.

I think you are the one who is bullshitting; the percentage of Americans that knew this man is utterly irrelevant to the question how a 5-star hotel treats this kind of man. The average American isn't working in the part of a 5-star hotel in the part where the monied people stay. DSK by the way is not just the president of the IMF, he also is a very rich Frenchmanand was a serious candidate for the French presidency, staying at a French-owned hotel.

[GGT]

What does any of that have to do with taking her claims seriously?

[wiggin]

I think you are the one who is bullshitting; the percentage of Americans that knew this man is utterly irrelevant to the question how a 5-star hotel treats this kind of man. The average American isn't working in the part of a 5-star hotel in the part where the monied people stay. DSK by the way is not just the president of the IMF, he also is a very rich Frenchmanand was a serious candidate for the French presidency, staying at a French-owned hotel.

Actually, it's very relevant. If the management knew who he was (possible, but doubtful IMO), that's one thing, but even if they mentioned that someone relatively wealthy or famous was staying in the suite to the chambermaid (also possible but doubtful), do you think she would have any idea who he was if they told her?

And he's not 'very rich', unless his lawyer is lying.

Lastly, what does it matter if the ownership of the Hotel is French? I guarantee you no one working at the hotel is, nor do they follow French politics.

[RandBlade]

There are many disgusting and sickening views in this thread. A woman has allegedly been molested by a man who allegedly has a track record of molesting women.

Yet apparently the biggest concern is not how he has potentially gotten away with abusing women for a period potentially running a decade or more, but queries about how he has been brought to justice.

Abusing women is unacceptable and far too common still in our modern society. Most rapists and other sexual criminals get away with it. Too many women are forced to suffer abuse that they never see result in justice. Many are afraid, intimidated etc and most of the time the criminal gets away with it.

Rather than bringing ire on a hotel and a woman allegedly abused by someone, how about we hold off for justice - whichever way it goes? And if he is indeed guilty then the big question is how he has been allowed to get away with it so long? Look at the system that has failed once more to protect vulnerable women from predatory men. This should not be happening in our modern society, and it is sick that people are more concerned with pathetic tittle-taddle questioning the potential victim, than the potential failings that have allowed an abuser to get away with it for so long.

[GGT]

Well said, Rand.

I've been reading about the IMF and their culture. Seems there's been a long-standing attitude to overlook work-place sexual harassment, not take it seriously, sweep it under the rug. They have new "codes of conduct" and a new panel to address those concerns.

It's strange for me to hear Europeans say the US is puritanical when we address sexual harassment and/or assault, and try to protect victims.

[wiggin]

There are many disgusting and sickening views in this thread. A woman has allegedly been molested by a man who allegedly has a track record of molesting women.

Yet apparently the biggest concern is not how he has potentially gotten away with abusing women for a period potentially running a decade or more, but queries about how he has been brought to justice.

Abusing women is unacceptable and far too common still in our modern society. Most rapists and other sexual criminals get away with it. Too many women are forced to suffer abuse that they never see result in justice. Many are afraid, intimidated etc and most of the time the criminal gets away with it.

Rather than bringing ire on a hotel and a woman allegedly abused by someone, how about we hold off for justice - whichever way it goes? And if he is indeed guilty then the big question is how he has been allowed to get away with it so long? Look at the system that has failed once more to protect vulnerable women from predatory men. This should not be happening in our modern society, and it is sick that people are more concerned with pathetic tittle-taddle questioning the potential victim, than the potential failings that have allowed an abuser to get away with it for so long.

I have to return the favor, RB. I agree 100%.

Though I have to admit I actually don't know what 'tittle-taddle' is, so maybe I shouldn't endorse it so fully.

[Crowheart]

Sounds equivalent to "ticky-tacky"...irrelevant, trivial, etc.

[Timbuk2]

Tittle-tattle. It means idle gossip.

[Dreadnaught]

Peggy Noonan-

The allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who stepped down as chief of the International Monetary Fund after being charged with seven counts including attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment, are just that, allegations. He's been indicted, not convicted. But half the French establishment knew about what they called his woman problem, and at least one previous accusation of harassment. It was an open secret. "Everyone knows that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a libertine," said Gilles Savary, a member of the European Parliament Socialist party. He "doesn't try to hide it."

DSK, as he's known, is almost a classic villain—elegant, august, satyrlike in his multithousand-dollar suits and his multithousand-dollar suite. He is the perfect "champagne socialist," as they're now calling him, who preys on the weak—for who is less defended and more at the mercy of the world than a 32-year-old hotel maid, a widow, a West African immigrant working to support herself and her daughter?

But what is most startling about the story is not the charge that a powerful man did a dreadful thing. It is the utter and profound difference between the U.S. response to the story and the French response.

America was immediately sympathetic to the underdog. The impulse of every media organization, from tabloid to broadsheet to cable to network, was to side with the powerless one in the equation. The cops, the hotel's managers, the District Attorney's office—everyone in authority gave equal weight and respect to the word of the maid. Only in America (and not always in America) would they have taken the testimony of the immigrant woman from Africa and dragged the powerful man out of his first-class seat in the jet at JFK.

In France, the exact opposite. There, from the moment the story broke, DSK was the victim, not the villain. It was a setup, a trap, a conspiracy. He has a weakness for women. No, he loves them too much. Hairy-chested poseur and Sarkozy foreign-policy adviser Bernard-Henri Levy sneeringly referred to "the chambermaid," brayed about DSK's high standing, and called him "a friend to women." Jean Daniel, editor of Le Nouvel Observateur, sniffily asked why "the supposed victim was treated as worthy and beyond suspicion."

Why wouldn't she be treated as worthy, buddy? One is tempted to ask if it's the black part, the woman part or the immigrant part.

As David Rieff wrote in the New Republic, to French intellectuals, DSK deserves special treatment because he is a valuable person. "The French elites' consensus seems to be that it is somehow Strauss-Kahn himself and not the 32-year-old maid who is the true victim of this drama."

Americans totally went for the little guy. The French went for the power.

Lafayette would weep.

Someone once sniffed, "In America they call waiters 'Sir.' " Bien sur, my little bonbon. It's part of our unlost greatness.

he French are a very great people. They have filled the world with so much beauty, you have to wonder if God didn't send them down here just for that. As David McCullough observes in his tender new book, "The Greater Journey," generations of Americans, starting in 1820 or so, journeyed to Paris to learn the best in art, medicine, science and literature. They came back and filled our nation with the innovation and expertise they'd acquired there. The French didn't just enrich us, they helped America become itself.

Today they are great talkers, but for all their talk of emotions, and they do talk about emotions, they need, on this story at least, an attitude adjustment. They need to grow a heart. If the charges are true, this isn't a story about sex, romance and the war between men and women, it is about violence, and toward a person who is almost a definition of powerlessness.

Their mindless snobbery is unworthy of them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...189763560.html

[Timbuk2]

Only in America ... would they have taken the testimony of the immigrant woman from Africa and dragged the powerful man out of his first-class seat in the jet at JFK.

A sweeping statement based on absolutely nothing.

[RandBlade]

Agreed with Tim, also:

Why wouldn't she be treated as worthy, buddy? One is tempted to ask if it's the black part, the woman part or the immigrant part.

What about the poor part?

[Dreadnaught]

Normally I would agree that Noonan is just being wistful and hyperbolic were it not for the 57% of French who apparently think DSK was set-up as part of some conspiracy (per CSA poll).

http://www.france24.com/en/20110518-...-opinion-poll#