So, did he or didn't he?

[Hazir]

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.


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.


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.

Oh oh, all of a sudden we have a problem seeing what is being leaked by the investigation.

The justice system did not work, and you were wrong too. If the justice system would have worked DSK would not have spent days in prison or under house arrest. Sloppiness made that it took them 6 bloody weeks to draw the inevitable conclusion that there wasn't really such a strong case against him to start with. You were the one assuming that there was a reasonable case because you can't believe your legal system is so rotten that it would destroy the life of an innocent man.

But, whatever, you believe you live in a country with a legal system that stands for justice. The rest of the world knows a lot better.

P.S. I have never stated anything on the actual sex taking place. And I have still not seen anything convincing that it took place. I do consider it more likely now, given the fact that the accuser had two jobs.

[wiggin]

Oh oh, all of a sudden we have a problem seeing what is being leaked by the investigation.

Uhm, what?

The justice system did not work, and you were wrong too. If the justice system would have worked DSK would not have spent days in prison or under house arrest. Sloppiness made that it took them 6 bloody weeks to draw the inevitable conclusion that there wasn't really such a strong case against him to start with. You were the one assuming that there was a reasonable case because you can't believe your legal system is so rotten that it would destroy the life of an innocent man.

Is it possible they could have expedited some of the investigation into the woman? Maybe, I don't know - but neither do you. I'd prefer they do a thorough job and be sure of it rather than dropping the case on the basis of a flimsy pretext. But whether he would be incarcerated/under house arrest for 3 weeks or 6 weeks, the outcome is largely the same. Nor is this conclusion somehow 'inevitable'.

But, whatever, you believe you live in a country with a legal system that stands for justice. The rest of the world knows a lot better.

Please, I've acknowledged here and elsewhere that our justice system has plenty of flaws, as do most justice systems. But in this case it seems to have acted appropriately.

P.S. I have never stated anything on the actual sex taking place. And I have still not seen anything convincing that it took place. I do consider it more likely now, given the fact that the accuser had two jobs.

You're right, I brought up the sources that indicated there was clear evidence a sexual encounter had taken place, but it was around that time that you stopped pushing the 'conspiracy theory' side of things and instead started pushing the 'lying weasel out for money' side of things. I honestly don't know why you changed your tune.

[RandBlade]

The justice system appears to have worked as perfectly as possible.

[LittleFuzzy]

Is your memory really that short?

I don't recall that comment and the search function, poor as it is, is not bringing it up for me. Lacking the context of the remark, I am hesitant to respond to it. Your comment was right in front of me, and perhaps most importantly, it was directed AT me, as it was regarding sentiments I held.

[RandBlade]

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.

I don't get why you quoted that. I stand by every word I said.

Note the word allegedly, used twice.

[Steely Glint]

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

um, no you didn't. The fact that this woman has lied in the past doesn't mean she wasn't raped in this particular instance. The fact that she called her buddy in organized crime about making money out of it doesn't mean she wasn't raped either. Turns out, sometimes rapist rape women who aren't of unimpeachable moral character? All it means is that her testimony can't be relied upon, which isn't the same thing as proof she made the whole thing up to get money.

I don't know why you're so chuffed with yourself about this, to be honest. Even if you turn out to be right in the end all you've done is taken a guess that had a more or less 50% chance of being correct and got lucky. Meanwhile, your conduct in this thread and near overt misogyny reveals you to be generally despicable human being, but then anyone familiar with your posting history probably already knew that.

[Hazir]

You're right, I brought up the sources that indicated there was clear evidence a sexual encounter had taken place, but it was around that time that you stopped pushing the 'conspiracy theory' side of things and instead started pushing the 'lying weasel out for money' side of things. I honestly don't know why you changed your tune.

I never took the conspiracy theory very serious. But I did see a fascinating pattern evolving during the first days of the investigation.

As for my remarks about the American government not being above anything; that doesn't mean I thought they set him up with this whore, but it sure as hell doesn't exclude the possibility that they used it to their advantage.

[Hazir]

um, no you didn't. The fact that this woman has lied in the past doesn't mean she wasn't raped in this particular instance. The fact that she called her buddy in organized crime about making money out of it doesn't mean she wasn't raped either. Turns out, sometimes rapist rape women who aren't of unimpeachable moral character? All it means is that her testimony can't be relied upon, which isn't the same thing as proof she made the whole thing up to get money.

I don't know why you're so chuffed with yourself about this, to be honest. Even if you turn out to be right in the end all you've done is taken a guess that had a more or less 50% chance of being correct and got lucky. Meanwhile, your conduct in this thread and near overt misogyny reveals you to be generally despicable human being, but then anyone familiar with your posting history probably already knew that.

And you probably wondered why I told you to go fuck yourself in my first reply.

[Steely Glint]

Because you're a sad, pathetic little man who doesn't like to have it pointed out how utterly full of shit it he is literally all the time?

[LittleFuzzy]

And you probably wondered why I told you to go fuck yourself in my first reply.

Because you knew how he, and pretty much everyone on the board would emotionally react to the exultant bigotry you've been displaying with your aptly-labeled misogynist comments and were plainly defensive about it?

[Hazir]

Because you're a sad, pathetic little man who doesn't like to have it pointed out how utterly full of shit it he is literally all the time?

Congratulations. You're a wonderful human being.

[Hazir]

Because you knew how he, and pretty much everyone on the board would emotionally react to the exultant bigotry you've been displaying with your aptly-labeled misogynist comments and were plainly defensive about it?

Actually, I was wondering why I bothered with anything but the 'go fuck yourself'. Because that would have been the more honest reply.

[wiggin]

I never took the conspiracy theory very serious. But I did see a fascinating pattern evolving during the first days of the investigation.

What pattern is that?

EVERY time I have asked you for specifics about your assumptions - some evidence, justification, or anything else, you've either been laughably vague or just ignored me entirely. Face it: you have no reason for your beliefs in this case, you just thought DSK was innocent. Full stop.

As for my remarks about the American government not being above anything; that doesn't mean I thought they set him up with this whore, but it sure as hell doesn't exclude the possibility that they used it to their advantage.

What advantage was that? DSK's term was nearly over, and Lugarde was already the presumptive replacement. What changed?

[LittleFuzzy]

What advantage was that? DSK's term was nearly over, and Lugarde was already the presumptive replacement. What changed?

An Anglo blow against French and hence European interests. What else ever excites this obsession from him?

[wiggin]

I don't get this. DSK is French, but so is Lugarde, and I doubt there was ever any serious doubt she'd be the replacement (despite plenty of good reasons - outlined here and elsewhere - why a non-European might not be the worst idea as a replacement). What European interest was this attacking? How would this work to American advantage?

[Hazir]

What pattern is that?

EVERY time I have asked you for specifics about your assumptions - some evidence, justification, or anything else, you've either been laughably vague or just ignored me entirely. Face it: you have no reason for your beliefs in this case, you just thought DSK was innocent. Full stop.


What advantage was that? DSK's term was nearly over, and Lugarde was already the presumptive replacement. What changed?

Well, unlike you I don't assume that everybody who was speaking FOR this woman was some free agent merely expressing his or own ideas. For starters because that's not the way things go in cultures which have individuality not as high as American culture. A muslim brother sure as hell assumes to be speaking on behalf of this woman.

Then I started to see how she supposedly was a devout muslim woman, but a single mother and living at a place for people with HIV who almost immediately got a lawyer. Parts of that could be explained, but as far as I am concerned NOT by the stupid Americo-centric thinking of GGT. And that left holes in the picture that made me suspect it was false.

Up till quite recently I never excluded the possibility that DSK had raped her, but I thought it unlikely on the basis of what I thought about the alleged victim.

What advantage? Well, from the top of my head I would say that it wasn't such a bad thing for the US that all the talk over the last few weeks was about the crisis in the eurozone (which certainly wasn't helped by the uncertaintyin the markets about who would head the IMF) and not about the crazy game of chicken being played in Washington.

[Hazir]

An Anglo blow against French and hence European interests. What else ever excites this obsession from him?

Oh, didn't know you moved into the stupid corner too. Congratulations to you too.

[wiggin]

Well, unlike you I don't assume that everybody who was speaking FOR this woman was some free agent merely expressing his or own ideas. For starters because that's not the way things go in cultures which have individuality not as high as American culture. A muslim brother sure as hell assumes to be speaking on behalf of this woman.

You can't have it both ways - either she's a 'gangsta ho' who isn't even close to a devout muslim and can speak for herself just fine, thank you, or she's a religious muslim who's being spoken for by he brother. Which is it, Hazir?

Regardless, that's the best you can come up with? You think a poorly sourced media report about someone claiming to be her brother is speaking for the maid?

Then I started to see how she supposedly was a devout muslim woman, but a single mother and living at a place for people with HIV who almost immediately got a lawyer. Parts of that could be explained, but as far as I am concerned NOT by the stupid Americo-centric thinking of GGT. And that left holes in the picture that made me suspect it was false.

Still don't see a pattern here. First thing I would do in such a situation (well, after calling the cops) would be to get legal representation. And it's hardly crazy for African immigrants to be (1) HIV positive, (2) religious Muslims, and (3) single parents. Plenty of very reasonable explanations for all of those.

Up till quite recently I never excluded the possibility that DSK had raped her, but I thought it unlikely on the basis of what I thought about the alleged victim.

By 'quite recently' you mean May 23? http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post80181

Oh, I'll grant you've never said you're 100% sure, but the level of unjustified vitriol you've directed at this woman is remarkable - and, frankly, damaging to our culture of zero tolerance for sexual assault. (For the record, so was this woman's false testimony if indeed it was a fabricated assault.) I personally find it insulting.

What advantage? Well, from the top of my head I would say that it wasn't such a bad thing for the US that all the talk over the last few weeks was about the crisis in the eurozone (which certainly wasn't helped by the uncertaintyin the markets about who would head the IMF) and not about the crazy game of chicken being played in Washington.

You think market uncertainty was about the head of the IMF? How about political deadlock in Greece, or poor employment numbers in the US, or rising oil prices, or knock-on effects from the Japanese earthquake?

I honestly can't imagine that the US federal government would push the New York DA to prolong the incarceration of DSK in order to move attention away from debt ceiling negotiations - first off, because there's no way it would work (DSK was a big story for about a week; the debt ceiling and deficit reduction has consistently made headlines for months), secondly because the federal government has much bigger fish to fry. Honestly, this is getting into loony conspiracy theory territory.

[Hazir]

You can't have it both ways - either she's a 'gangsta ho' who isn't even close to a devout muslim and can speak for herself just fine, thank you, or she's a religious muslim who's being spoken for by he brother. Which is it, Hazir?

God, I have to spell out everything? If her brother claims she is a devout muslim woman, then that is the image she wants people to believe of herself. Which is NOT coherent with the reality of her life. It was not the media that came up with the devout muslim. As you can see from the way the DA's office was convinced she was the ideal witness in the beginning

Regardless, that's the best you can come up with? You think a poorly sourced media report about someone claiming to be her brother is speaking for the maid?

Ah, so the New York Times doesn't check such basic facts? Good to know. You have better information than the New York Times please give a source to that I may know the truth.

Still don't see a pattern here. First thing I would do in such a situation (well, after calling the cops) would be to get legal representation. And it's hardly crazy for African immigrants to be (1) HIV positive, (2) religious Muslims, and (3) single parents. Plenty of very reasonable explanations for all of those.

Sigh, could you please check the time frame and tell me when she contracted the HIV, great constitution if it was in Africa and still lives, and interesting route of infection if she got it in the US. Also, given the newest disclosures, the fact that I saw a pattern that you didn't doesn't exactly make your case stronger.

By 'quite recently' you mean May 23? http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post80181

Oh, I'll grant you've never said you're 100% sure, but the level of unjustified vitriol you've directed at this woman is remarkable - and, frankly, damaging to our culture of zero tolerance for sexual assault. (For the record, so was this woman's false testimony if indeed it was a fabricated assault.) I personally find it insulting.

Too bad for you, and not particularly strong backing it up with a page that is one in which I mostly talk about the idea that DSK's entire life is on trial when he's accused of a single case of rape. Oh, and recently was when I saw the headline 'Straus Kahn case in jeopardy'. That was like 4 days ago?

You think market uncertainty was about the head of the IMF? How about political deadlock in Greece, or poor employment numbers in the US, or rising oil prices, or knock-on effects from the Japanese earthquake?

I honestly can't imagine that the US federal government would push the New York DA to prolong the incarceration of DSK in order to move attention away from debt ceiling negotiations - first off, because there's no way it would work (DSK was a big story for about a week; the debt ceiling and deficit reduction has consistently made headlines for months), secondly because the federal government has much bigger fish to fry. Honestly, this is getting into loony conspiracy theory territory.

Anyway, you asked an example of what could have been to the benefit of the US. I gave you one, I didn't give a full expose of a conspiracy theory I believed in or believe in. See how I started? From the top of my head. If you want to waste much more time on that, be my guest, but I will not.

P.S. my vitriol was nothing compared to what a so-called quality newspaper like the New York Times was doing towards DSK. The flood of articles about his character and the background articles telling how likely you were to be raped as a hotel maid was breath taking. And which union was it again whose members who thought it expedient to shout 'shame on you' when DSK appeared for his first hearing?

[wiggin]

God, I have to spell out everything? If her brother claims she is a devout muslim woman, then that is the image she wants people to believe of herself. Which is NOT coherent with the reality of her life. It was not the media that came up with the devout muslim. As you can see from the way the DA's office was convinced she was the ideal witness in the beginning.

That is an awfully flimsy line of reasoning.

Ah, so the New York Times doesn't check such basic facts? Good to know. You have better information than the New York Times please give a source to that I may know the truth.

I don't doubt the NYT thinks they are reporting the truth, but that hardly means they weren't lied to. The point is that media reports on these sorts of investigations are full of speculation, inaccuracies, etc. - even the better publications. Even if we could believe 100% of what's written in the papers, we'd still have to come to your conclusions on the basis of some pretty shoddy reasoning and thin evidence.

Sigh, could you please check the time frame and tell me when she contracted the HIV, great constitution if it was in Africa and still lives, and interesting route of infection if she got it in the US. Also, given the newest disclosures, the fact that I saw a pattern that you didn't doesn't exactly make your case stronger.

Why do we need those details? Somewhere between 1-2% of Guinea is HIV positive (it may be more; numbers are tough to determine), but it's receiving ARV meds from the US as part of PEPFAR. That dramatically increases lifespan.

Regardless, what do you think my case is? My case is that you manufactured a flimsy 'pattern' based on pretty unconvincing scraps of information available in the media to convince yourself of something you already believed. I don't have any opinion on the guilt or innocence of DSK.

Anyway, you asked an example of what could have been to the benefit of the US. I gave you one, I didn't give a full expose of a conspiracy theory I believed in or believe in. See how I started? From the top of my head. If you want to waste much more time on that, be my guest, but I will not.

You gave a ludicrously absurd example because there aren't better ones.

[Hazir]

Yeah, and I never said it was an extremely strong case. Which is why I did not say he didn't rape her. To the contrary, I have at some points even said that explicitly (ugly people get raped would be the last example of that). That however doesn't really matter all that much because no matter how flimsy the notion was originally, it is congruent with what has been disclosed now. The assumption that the woman is a liar has been proven right, the likelyhood that she lied about the alleged rape has risen exponentially. If DSK is acquitted, I will think it was because he didn't rape her, not because he has such a great team of lawyers.

So in the end it all doesn't matter, I was right, and you with all your 'solid' reasoning were not.

[wiggin]

Yeah, and I never said it was an extremely strong case. Which is why I did not say he didn't rape her. To the contrary, I have at some points even said that explicitly (ugly people get raped would be the last example of that). That however doesn't really matter all that much because no matter how flimsy the notion was originally, it is congruent with what has been disclosed now. The assumption that the woman is a liar has been proven right, the likelyhood that she lied about the alleged rape has risen exponentially. If DSK is acquitted, I will think it was because he didn't rape her, not because he has such a great team of lawyers.

You explicitly said in the post I linked that you think the maid lied about being raped. Sounds like you said he didn't rape her. Furthermore, my issue isn't that your assumption is probably right now. It's that you made any assumption at all before you had any evidence. That's been my entire problem with this thread.

So in the end it all doesn't matter, I was right, and you with all your 'solid' reasoning were not.

No, you weren't right. You weren't right to make unfounded claims about an alleged rape victim on the basis of a flimsy pretext. That discourages reporting of a heavily underreported crime and flies in the face of our justice system, where we don't automatically blame the (alleged) victim. And you aren't right now to claim that the DA acted wrongly regarding DSK's imprisonment and bail conditions. Based on the information available at the time (which you yourself acknowledge hardly makes a strong case about the maid's credibility) they did everything correctly... and once circumstances changed, they didn't cover anything up but freely acknowledged that the case was in jeopardy.

edit: This entire thread has been you fighting one argument while the rest of us fight another one. You're fixated on this 'did he or didn't he' nonsense, where you try to come to conclusions on nearly nonexistent information to match your preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. The rest of us simply profess not to know, leaving it up to the people with access to all of the actual evidence to sort it out... and we just object to your frankly insulting take on this whole situation. We don't care that the maid is not now a credible witness.

[Dreadnaught]

Folks, can we tone it down a bit? On either side of the issue, this need not get quite so hostile.

[wiggin]

Fair enough, Dread. I think I've made my point ad nauseum anyways.

[earthJoker]

I don't recall that comment and the search function, poor as it is, is not bringing it up for me. Lacking the context of the remark, I am hesitant to respond to it. Your comment was right in front of me, and perhaps most importantly, it was directed AT me, as it was regarding sentiments I held.

This thread is the context. And yes, it was kind of an evil parody of RB post, as he was the one calling us (he was speaking ing general and in plural, so who did he meant other then Hazir) having disgusting and sickening views.

Folks, can we tone it down a bit? On either side of the issue, this need not get quite so hostile.

Very late call here, but lets do it.

[Hazir]

@ wiggin, the essence of this whole discussion is that you work from the premise she was a credible rape victim, which I did not see at all, something that started quite early.

[Flixy]

I don't get this. DSK is French, but so is Lugarde, and I doubt there was ever any serious doubt she'd be the replacement (despite plenty of good reasons - outlined here and elsewhere - why a non-European might not be the worst idea as a replacement). What European interest was this attacking? How would this work to American advantage?

Well, obviously this thing was set up by Sarkozy (scared for facing him in an election), who is of course big buddies with the neocons who secretly still run the US government. That, and DSK figured out that 9/11 was an inside job and obviously had to be shut up. Comon, isn't it obvious?


Anyway, the system seems to have worked more or less. The case was properly investigated, there's a lack of (credible) evidence, and they let him go. Maybe they were a bit quick in arresting him, but he was leaving for France, so I can see why they did that.

My biggest concern is still the complete lack of privacy suspects get over there. And no, I do not just care because he is famous, I always have objected to it, but this case makes it all the more clear how damaging it is. I am happy to live in a country where suspects have their privacy protected, especially with grave allegations like rape. Once you have publicly been named and shamed, there is no turning back.

And finally, one newspaper here mentioned that DAs are elected over there, and they like to make big, high profile arrests with a lot of media attention, to 'cash in' popular support. I find that, well, a bit uncomforting to be honest, that DAs (and judges sometimes, apparently), have to care not only about justice but also about their own position politically. It can seriously affect judgment. I am not saying it happened here, and if it did it backfired since they have to let him go, but the idea makes me a bit uncomfortable.

[Dreadnaught]

The DA (prosecutor) also has to be competent. The current NY DA replaced a 95 year old who was in the same office for about 30 years. And already it looks like he won't be re-elected because of these high-profile cases. But one goal of electing a prosecutor is to avoid a situation where well-connected elites don't get prosecuted for doing bad things, which seems to be all the rage in France.

But I still don't quite grasp what kind of privacy one can reasonably expect in a case like this. When DSK didn't show up to work for a few days, wouldn't someone notice and ask where he is? Same goes for anyone.

Let's take the case away from rape for a second. Imagine a bank employee is briefly arrested for bank theft of another bank, then released on bail while charges are filed. Does his right to privacy really mean his employer can't learn that their employee has been indicted for robbing banks?

As difficult as it can be, I don't see the compelling interest in keeping indictments secret.

[Flixy]

The DA (prosecutor) also has to be competent. The current NY DA replaced a 95 year old who was in the same office for about 30 years. And already it looks like he won't be re-elected because of these high-profile cases. But one goal of electing a prosecutor is to avoid a situation where well-connected elites don't get prosecuted for doing bad things, which seems to be all the rage in France.

But I still don't quite grasp what kind of privacy one can reasonably expect in a case like this. When DSK didn't show up to work for a few days, wouldn't someone notice and ask where he is? Same goes for anyone.

Let's take the case away from rape for a second. Imagine a bank employee is briefly arrested for bank theft of another bank, then released on bail while charges are filed. Does his right to privacy really mean his employer can't learn that their employee has been indicted for robbing banks?

As difficult as it can be, I don't see the compelling interest in keeping indictments secret.

First of all: agreed they should be competent, obviously. AFAIK over here it's a 'normal' job, so if you are not competent you are fired. I can see the goal you mention, on the other hand they may protect people who are important for support in during a campaign (political heavyweights, community leaders, etc.), or not prosecuting popular figured to begin with. I don't think there's any system that is 100% perfect.

Regarding your bank employee: there are two distinct things I have to say about that. First of all, being employed at a bank requires a screening here, because it's easy to commit fraud, or abuse personal information. So the bank would be informed in this case, similar things apply for, for example, teachers and allegations of child abuse. OTOH, due to privacy, the employer requires you offer a 'certificate of good conduct' specifically for that job description, but they are not allowed to see your files at the DOJ. This means that the employee has to request a certificate, and he either gets one or not, but the employer only sees the certificate, or not, without knowing why it was or was not granted.

For jobs where you don't need a certificate of good conduct (and you need one for a lot of jobs), I imagine you could call in sick, or call in to say you have legal troubles without specification. It's not really their business is it, if it doesn't affect your work. Especially since at this time you are only a suspect and not convicted.

More importantly, there is a difference between telling your family, friends, and professional contacts, on a need to know basis if you want, and it being publicly announced. If you are accused of abusing a child, chances are your house may be trashed and you are forced to move, for only being accused. The big issue is that in one situation, the person decides himself what he shares with who, and in the other the DA/media spread it. That is a huge difference.

Note that indictments are not kept secret here, but privacy is also protected. I don't think it's law, but more of a gentleman's agreement that media never report the full name of suspects or recognizable images. Not knowing the name obstructs their fact finding jobs, not publicizing it does not. Of course, if a suspect seeks media attention himself, they can report it because he chose to make it public himself. Which is what usually happens with more famous people, since otherwise sooner or later people start to notice it is probably about him. Exceptions are made if it is important to the public, for example if someone is suspected of a crime and wanted, and also dangerous to the public, they will release images, but they generally don't do that lightly.

A slightly amusing consequence is that Geert Wilders accidentally put a wrong photograph in his 'movie' Fitna when he wanted to show Mohammed B., who is the murderer of Theo van Gogh (notice how over here he is known as Mohammed B., instead of his full name). Instead he showed a photograph of a muslim rapper

[earthJoker]

Seems the Dutch system is very similar to ours.

The shortening of names was used in the campaign of the SVP for their anti-foreign-criminals proposal


Notice the "Ivan S." (shortened name) and the black bar that they used to symbolize a criminal (rapist in this case).