So, did he or didn't he?

[earthJoker]

Well, then I let you keep hoping that there was a rape. If you are so happy with that.

[GGT]

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.

That might be true, but also be one with the most wrong accusions.

Again with the language barrier?

Yes, there are false accusations, just as there are false prosecutions and false verdicts. Use of DNA has helped criminologists in general, especially with sex crimes. That means the falsely accused can be exonerated easier now than ever before (when DNA is present).

[earthJoker]

Most cases with wrong accusation I know of have been between people that know eachother. There have been some "I was raped at that place by a unknown" kind of accusations that I know of which where proven to be wrong afterwards, but those a rare.

I think the DSK case is not typical, it is more common to have women who (wrongly) claim to be raped by their husbands to get a better position for a divorce. DNA doesn't help a lot in this case. If you look at the whole Kachelmann case you see that it is much harder to prove anything in those cases. This goes the other way around too, it is almost impossible to prove if a specific intercourse of a couple was consentient or not.

[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"

Well, for someone with my line of work (you know where people try to make me believe their sob stories on a daily basis, and where many people would be willing to lie untill their tongue turns black because the stakes are so high for them) you get to pick up on little things that don't match. Like the brother going on record that his sister is this sweet pious muslim woman trying to make an honest living whose first thought is to call in a lawyer after she supposedly has been raped.

And of course now we'll get our 'she must have been raped' advocate GGT that this is perfectly normal behaviour for a rape victim, but it simply IS NOT for a woman with THAT background.

[GGT]

Well, for someone with my line of work (you know where people try to make me believe their sob stories on a daily basis, and where many people would be willing to lie untill their tongue turns black because the stakes are so high for them) you get to pick up on little things that don't match. Like the brother going on record that his sister is this sweet pious muslim woman trying to make an honest living whose first thought is to call in a lawyer after she supposedly has been raped.

And of course now we'll get our 'she must have been raped' advocate GGT that this is perfectly normal behaviour for a rape victim, but it simply IS NOT for a woman with THAT background.

Let me get this straight. Your new tactic is criticizing the US legal system based on your line of work of adjudicating disability claims? Because you're given the authority as 'judge' for public funds....you think the US police and DA's should do the same with regards to criminal complaints and felony charges?

[Hazir]

No you idiot, what I am saying is that it is not so hard to see holes in people's stories.

[GGT]

No you idiot, what I am saying is that it is not so hard to see holes in people's stories.

That goes both ways. DSK had holes in his story, too.


I must be winning the argument if you're resorting to name-calling, huh.

[earthJoker]

You did a lot of name calling through the whole thread.

[GGT]

You did a lot of name calling through the whole thread.

I did? Well I'm not hunting back through 16 pages to find out. I'll call an idea or statement idiotic or moronic, but I don't call posters names (as in 'you idiot' or 'you moron').

[earthJoker]

Aha, telling someone to be "full of shit" is not name calling? I mean, what is this, some kind of semantic difference?

[GGT]

Aha, telling someone to be "full of shit" is not name calling? I mean, what is this, some kind of semantic difference?

Apparently, yes. Calling bullshit on a poster is not the same as saying, "You idiot" or "You're an idiot".


Edit to EJ: I've sometimes had trouble translating what you say, obviously because English isn't your first language. So I'll give you a tip about English "slang": Bullshit is hot air, a bluff, excuse, or a distraction. Being full of shit is being full of hot air, bluffs, excuses, or distractions. Idiots can't really be bullshitters, because they're too dumb to have any ulterior motive. Bullshitters can play poker and win, but idiots can't.

Does that make sense?

[earthJoker]

But you didn't say bullshit, you said 'you are full of shit'.

[GGT]

But you didn't say bullshit, you said 'you are full of shit'.

Yeah, that means "you are full of hot air".

Full of shit means bullshit, which also means bull, which also means baloney. (Pronounced bull-o-nee)



Technically, it's bologna. That's end scraps and crappy cuts of meat mixed and shaped into a ring and sliced in order to be edible. See the metaphor?

[wiggin]

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'.

A relationship does not imply a sexual one. He could have been a relative, a friend, whatever, and AFAIK that's not a problem for a religious Muslim woman (otherwise some of my friends have some 'splaining to do).

Also, really? 'Gangsta ho' is simply poor taste.

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.

Since when were these character problems clear by the bail hearing? Certainly nothing was publicly known by then, and yet you were quite happy to jump to an unfounded conclusion.

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.

*shrugs* I'm not too exercised about this - he always had the option of staying in jail for free, and he was a legitimate flight risk.

[earthJoker]

Yeah, that means "you are full of hot air".

Full of shit means bullshit, which also means bull, which also means baloney. (Pronounced bull-o-nee)

Shit is shit, I see that. But the difference is between, "you're..." and "that's..."

[GGT]

Yes. That's what semantics means. Do you have another question or comment for me, or can we move along, EJ?

[Dreadnaught]

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.

I would argue that a false accusation of rape is equally bad, as it makes it harder for actual rape victims to report what happened to them and get justice.

[earthJoker]

I would argue that a false accusation of rape is equally bad, as it makes it harder for actual rape victims to report what happened to them and get justice.

There were and will be wrong accusations. We need to be able to handle them, this case won't change that fact.

What should be result from the case, is not to take rape accusations less serious, but that "innocent until proven guilty" are not just some empty words, but a crucial part of both western (continental and Anglo-Saxon) judicial systems.

[Loki]

Are you going to bring up one non-sequitur after another?

[earthJoker]

Yeah I got a LoL response

[LittleFuzzy]

There were and will be wrong accusations. We need to be able to handle them, this case won't change that fact.

What should be result from the case, is not to take rape accusations less serious, but that "innocent until proven guilty" are not just some empty words, but a crucial part of both western (continental and Anglo-Saxon) judicial systems.

Well that and apparently that Dread is sick and disgusting because he's placed anything in some kind of comparable range to rape.

I'm impressed by your chutzpah, going after GGT for "you are full of shit" and "idiot" when you did worse just last night.

[earthJoker]

Is your memory really that short?

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.

And I didn't went after GGT for calling Hazir full of shit, I found it strange that she has a problem that he calls her "idiot" at the same time as she is using terms like "full of shit".

BTW you probably mean, "this morning".

[Hazir]

A relationship does not imply a sexual one. He could have been a relative, a friend, whatever, and AFAIK that's not a problem for a religious Muslim woman (otherwise some of my friends have some 'splaining to do).

He was her boyfriend. The call was known to the DA's office within days of the arrest. All they needed to do was ask her 'hey who's this guy in prison you were calling the other day?

Also, really? 'Gangsta ho' is simply poor taste.

Not more so than calling a serial liar a 'pious muslim'.

Since when were these character problems clear by the bail hearing? Certainly nothing was publicly known by then, and yet you were quite happy to jump to an unfounded conclusion.

I never claimed absolute knowledge of what happened. I just said the whole thing smelled fishy. What is worse is that the DA's office knew within a few days that her story was indeed smelly and didn't act upon it. Quite to the contrary they stuck to the line that this woman was credible, which was already disproven by then. They had no reason to demand the conditions for bail they demanded, yet they did as if it was a given that DSK would be convicted. They could also have taken away his passport, which then would have made it near impossible for him to leave the country.

*shrugs* I'm not too exercised about this - he always had the option of staying in jail for free, and he was a legitimate flight risk.

Yeah, he could have stayed in prison, which also is not the place where an innocent person should be. Interesting that you don't have any problems with that either.

[wiggin]

He was her boyfriend. The call was known to the DA's office within days of the arrest. All they needed to do was ask her 'hey who's this guy in prison you were calling the other day?

Maybe they did, and maybe she - *gasp* - lied.

Not more so than calling a serial liar a 'pious muslim'.

No one did, though. They called someone who identified as a religious Muslim what she said she was.

I never claimed absolute knowledge of what happened. I just said the whole thing smelled fishy. What is worse is that the DA's office knew within a few days that her story was indeed smelly and didn't act upon it. Quite to the contrary they stuck to the line that this woman was credible, which was already disproven by then. They had no reason to demand the conditions for bail they demanded, yet they did as if it was a given that DSK would be convicted. They could also have taken away his passport, which then would have made it near impossible for him to leave the country.

Bulllshit. For one, you had no a priori reason to doubt the story. For another, you have yet to justify your claim that the DA knew 'within days' that her story was unlikely to produce a conviction. Pretty much as soon as they had the translation of the phone call, the prosecutors changed their story. Seems reasonable enough.

Yeah, he could have stayed in prison, which also is not the place where an innocent person should be. Interesting that you don't have any problems with that either.

It is the place an accused rapist should be, unless they can offer sureties (normally financial) that they won't fly the coop.

[Hazir]

Actually I don't have to justify anything as her story is not credible and my hunch was right. Your presumption of guilt on the other hand was not.

[Steely Glint]

Speaking of liars... no one presumed Strauss-Kahn was guilty, in fact no one else except you presumed anything at all about this case, least of all wiggin who pointed out how ridiculous the thread and the poll are when none of us could possibly no what occurred in that hotel. It's only you who's insisted on trying to frame this whole thing as some kind of stupid 'did he, didn't he' discussion', as if anyone here could possibly know what really occurred in that hotel room.

[wiggin]

Actually I don't have to justify anything as her story is not credible and my hunch was right. Your presumption of guilt on the other hand was not.

Uhm, yes you do. You're complaining that the DA knew the case was falling apart even before the bail hearings, when AFAIK that's completely untrue. It's irrelevant if her credibility is questionable based on evidence they have now - what's relevant is whether your assumptions of her being a liar from the getgo are justified based on the evidence available at the time, and furthermore whether the DA's choice to pursue the case aggressively was justified based on the information they had at the time.

I'm not even going to address you going back to this ridiculous trope of a 'presumption of guilt'. My first post in this thread is me arguing against your entire way of thinking about this. This entire thread has been you making unsubstantiated claims and accusations while I and others ask you to provide evidence or backing for your outlandish statements.

[Hazir]

Uhm, yes you do. You're complaining that the DA knew the case was falling apart even before the bail hearings, when AFAIK that's completely untrue. It's irrelevant if her credibility is questionable based on evidence they have now - what's relevant is whether your assumptions of her being a liar from the getgo are justified based on the evidence available at the time, and furthermore whether the DA's choice to pursue the case aggressively was justified based on the information they had at the time.

I'm not even going to address you going back to this ridiculous trope of a 'presumption of guilt'. My first post in this thread is me arguing against your entire way of thinking about this. This entire thread has been you making unsubstantiated claims and accusations while I and others ask you to provide evidence or backing for your outlandish statements.

Rubbish, the information about the phone call was given to the DA's office within days of it taking place. The bail hearings were 5 days after the accusation.

I can only laugh as with every little piece of information we get this whole affair is turning into what I though it was from the beginning. Some whore trying to take advantage of a rich customer.

Which makes it rather irrelevant if my claims were unsubstantiated; they have been falsified already. The problem is that you can't admit that with all your 'reasonable' arguments, you were still plain wrong.

Now GGT can hector on about how a whore can be a rape victim too.

[Hazir]

Speaking of liars... no one presumed Strauss-Kahn was guilty, in fact no one else except you presumed anything at all about this case, least of all wiggin who pointed out how ridiculous the thread and the poll are when none of us could possibly no what occurred in that hotel. It's only you who's insisted on trying to frame this whole thing as some kind of stupid 'did he, didn't he' discussion', as if anyone here could possibly know what really occurred in that hotel room.

Damn right you are, I presumed something about this case which turned out to be the truth. Now go fuck yourself.

[wiggin]

Rubbish, the information about the phone call was given to the DA's office within days of it taking place. The bail hearings were 5 days after the accusation.

This is ridiculous! Half a dozen people have already pointed out that the fact there was a phone call is not enough to derail the case, it's the content that was troubling.

I can only laugh as with every little piece of information we get this whole affair is turning into what I though it was from the beginning. Some whore trying to take advantage of a rich customer.

Neither of us actually know what happened - let alone whether the woman in question was a 'whore'. What we know is that a conviction is unlikely due to questions about the credibility of the accuser. And IIRC you first opined this was a conspiracy to take DSK down before the elections, and only later decided it was a woman out for a civil settlement once it became clear that a sexual encounter had taken place.

Which makes it rather irrelevant if my claims were unsubstantiated; they have been falsified already.

Uhm, it matters quite a bit. Unsubstantiated assumptions are a big problem here; in fact, it's the entire problem with this thread. Nearly everyone else here has argued that we should wait for the justice system to do its work, and it appears that it has.