So, did he or didn't he?

[GGT]

If it turns out she is lying... it's a pretty horrible crime. Not only has she ruined a man's career, she's contributed heavily (because this is so high-profile) to the tendency to dismiss rape victims as liars.

Of course you're right on that, Ziggy. Lying about this wouldn't just be perjury or other criminal charges for her (that could send her to prison or deported back to a hell hole) but also taint future rape cases. I find it hard to believe that an immigrant from Africa, working as a maid in a hotel, could create such a web of lies against such a powerful international figure.

If it does turn out to be all lies, there were probably others involved. That itself could take months of investigation....to see if she was an asylum seeker who'd fallen prey to those making false passports and laundering money. Those kinds of underground 'mafia' operations can escalate, and desperate people can do desperate things, especially when threatened with deportation or losing a child.

[Hazir]

What makes a rape case?

Motive? Opportunity? Testimony from the victim? Physical evidence?

Didn't this case have all of the above?

In a case where everything revolves around the credibility about claims about the facts the above is NOT enough.

[Hazir]

Of course you're right on that, Ziggy. Lying about this wouldn't just be perjury or other criminal charges for her (that could send her to prison or deported back to a hell hole) but also taint future rape cases. I find it hard to believe that an immigrant from Africa, working as a maid in a hotel, could create such a web of lies against such a powerful international figure.

If it does turn out to be all lies, there were probably others involved. That itself could take months of investigation....to see if she was an asylum seeker who'd fallen prey to those making false passports and laundering money. Those kinds of underground 'mafia' operations can escalate, and desperate people can do desperate things, especially when threatened with deportation or losing a child.

Ah, since she must be a victim you moved her from the 'raped' column to the 'serial abuse' column?

[Asmodian]

Hazir is assuming the guy is innocent because its bloody obvious. DSK even warned on cameras that this could happen in connection to his presidential ambitions (which were all but a certainty before this scandal). Does anyone really believe that DSK fearing a risk of a frame would nevertheless rape a butt ugly woman near 40 years of age and do it in the US?? You need some amazing leap of faith to imagine that this is anything but a set up.

[Hazir]

Well, he could have raped her. Uglier women get raped. The thing is, authentic rape victims don't sound like they're making things up as the story evolves.

[GGT]

Well, he could have raped her. Uglier women get raped. The thing is, authentic rape victims don't sound like they're making things up as the story evolves.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you just hate the possibility of women as rape victims, or so adore men in positions of power that they could do no wrong?

[Hazir]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you just hate the possibility of women as rape victims, or so adore men in positions of power that they could do no wrong?

So, you stopped acquiring the art of reading after you mastered the alphabet?

[GGT]

So, you stopped acquiring the art of reading after you mastered the alphabet?

Who the hell are you and what the hell are you going on about? Are you an expert on "authentic rape victims"?

If you were, you'd know what victim experts have concluded about memory and recall after a violent assault....

[Hazir]

And yet we got a blow by blow account I am pretty certain it wasn't DSK who provided us with those 'facts'. Your 'victim' was the source.

[GGT]

And yet we got a blow by blow account I am pretty certain it wasn't DSK who provided us with those 'facts'. Your 'victim' was the source.

From the prosecution's investigations. Same team you condemned a few pages and days ago.

And what the hell is up with you calling the victim 'ours'?

You must have some underlying issues regarding trust in American Justice, American Media....or Women in general. I don't know which, but you're sounding more like a prejudiced bigot every time you post.

[LittleFuzzy]

Wait, who recorded her phone call with the man in jail?

The prison? They weren't recording HER phonecall, they were recording HIS.

[GGT]

The prison? They weren't recording HER phonecall, they were recording HIS.

If this is SOP, do you feel confident that both parties knew their conversation was being recorded (and could be used against them in a court of law)?

[LittleFuzzy]

They took six weeks to establish the questionable credibility of a woman whose story stank from the get-go. They destroyed DSK's career, they forced him to cough up a humongous bail and they basically made him a social pariah.

Sorry, but to me that doesn't sound like they were showing any competence in doing their job.

Fair enough, but there is another potential facet. I seem to recall that someone *it may even have been me, I'm not wading through 20 pages to figure out who* suggested that the NYPD may well have jumped the gun in making the arrest, that they either had to go then *since DSK was leaving the country* or not go at all. It's not like France, who is notoriously uncooperative with extradition requests in American eyes, would ever have let New York have him later, no matter how thorough or air-tight an ensuing investigation and indictment was.

In a case where everything revolves around the credibility about claims about the facts the above is NOT enough.

What is? Because Enoch is right, that's basically what makes every rape case. Dialing down even further, even motive and opportunity are tangental. All rape cases come down to "he said, she said" and interpreting the physical and forensic evidence to judge which claim is more believable.

If this is SOP, do you feel confident that both parties knew their conversation was being recorded (and could be used against them in a court of law)?

He should have been aware that the prison monitors his communications. How the hell should I know if he actually was aware though, much less her? I'm not like you, GGT, I actually make an effort to NOT assume something without some actual evidence to back it up.

[GGT]

I am not versed in criminal law, but I doubt very much the system overhere goes for destroying the accused before he is tried. Especially not in a 'he said, she said' charge.

You'd be hardpressed to find the full name and information of any suspect in a dutch newspaper, and if the person is not some very public person even after the conviction most newspapers will not give you his full name.

See, you're not accustomed to seeing full press coverage, which over here means DSK's name would be mentioned immediately.

I am pretty certain that if this case would have happened in Amsterdam DSK would have been out of custody after a maximum of three days. Given that the only countries he could have run to are countries where a man like him doesn't really want to live.

No one would have missed him while spending 3 days in jail during important IMF duties? Even then, are you saying no one would have known he was facing criminal rape charges after he was released? All your police-detective-prosecutor-journalist-news agencies routinely practice censure like that?

Wow, no wonder you're having trouble with how the US deals with accusations of sexual assault.

[GGT]

He should have been aware that the prison monitors his communications. How the hell should I know if he actually was aware though, much less her? I'm not like you, GGT, I actually make an effort to NOT assume something without some actual evidence to back it up.

Hey, how did my asking a question about recording a conversation turn into that twisted response of yours? The news says the convo was recorded. The recording would be the evidence. I want to know who "owns" that evidentiary trail and how it's being used, for or against whom, and if it's legit.

[LittleFuzzy]

Hey, how did my asking a question about recording a conversation turn into that twisted response of yours? The news says the convo was recorded. The recording would be the evidence. I want to know who "owns" that evidentiary trail and how it's being used, for or against whom, and if it's legit.

The person who made a recording owns it. Always, end of story. Their ability to make use of it, or its right to exist at all, can be questionable. The prisoner does not have any rights to conversations the prison taped anymore than he would have rights to the output of internal video surveillance. Regardless of who owns it, it can be and presumably is in this case a legitimate target for a subpoena even if the owner doesn't want to make it available to the police, prosecutorial, or defense investigators.

[GGT]

Did the woman know her conversation was being taped? That seems to be the more pertinent question.

[LittleFuzzy]

Did the woman know her conversation was being taped? That seems to be the more pertinent question.

Are you under the impression that a warrant for a wiretap allows you to record what the target says but not the person he's speaking to? If you can legitimately record one person in a conversation you can record the entire conversation. And if a record exists, it can be subpoenaed.

[GGT]

Are you under the impression that a warrant for a wiretap allows you to record what the target says but not the person he's speaking to? If you can legitimately record one person in a conversation you can record the entire conversation. And if a record exists, it can be subpoenaed.

No, I'm asking if this may have fallen under warrantless wiretaps, and how that could be used as evidence against the person who'd have no idea the conversation was being taped. Convicts in prison might "suspect" they're being recorded, but how would a visitor or caller have any idea?

[Enoch the Red]

No, I'm asking if this may have fallen under warrantless wiretaps, and how that could be used as evidence against the person who'd have no idea the conversation was being taped. Convicts in prison might "suspect" they're being recorded, but how would a visitor or caller have any idea?

First off, this wouldn't be considered a wiretap, as I understand it.

Secondly, it all depends on the state laws. In many states only one party has to know the call is being recorded.

I can't even begin to imagine how the law relates to phone calls made to/from a prison; a situation where I'm sure there is little to no expectation of privacy.

[GGT]

All I know is....practically every company I speak to on the phone is required to announce that "this call may be recorded". I have no idea how jails or prisons wouldn't be expected to announce the same.

[LittleFuzzy]

No, I'm asking if this may have fallen under warrantless wiretaps, and how that could be used as evidence against the person who'd have no idea the conversation was being taped. Convicts in prison might "suspect" they're being recorded, but how would a visitor or caller have any idea?

No, it does not fall under warrantless wiretaps or any similar restriction. Prisons can read prisoners mail, listen to their phone conversations, copy their email, etc. There is very little communications privacy in prison. Discussions with your lawyer are protected, there MAY be some privileged spousal or family communication, but that's about it. And it doesn't matter if he or she happened to be aware of that state of affairs or not.

An expectation of privacy ONLY protects you if you have good reason to expect privacy. Ignorance of the law is not and never has been a good reason.

All I know is....practically every company I speak to on the phone is required to announce that "this call may be recorded". I have no idea how jails or prisons wouldn't be expected to announce the same.

That's almost always simply boilerplate, it's for civil suits which have different rules of evidence, and it's mostly addressing people who do not have any sort of diminished protection from search and seizure. It is not a good reference to use to try and understand THIS phone recording.

[GGT]

So we don't have some provision for immigrants (or children or ESL speakers) who may not completely understand that when they're talking to a convict in jail, there is no presumption of privacy? They are not told their conversations may be recorded? That doesn't sound right to me.....

[LittleFuzzy]

So we don't have some provision for immigrants (or children or ESL speakers) who may not completely understand that when they're talking to a convict in jail, there is no presumption of privacy? They are not told their conversations may be recorded? That doesn't sound right to me.....

They may be told. There may even be exactly that sort of message you're used to hearing from private companies. I have no idea, I've never had a phone conversation with someone incarcerated in a New York State prison. I do know that there was nothing wrong about recording that call *those calls? I forget if there were multiple conversations* unless it turns out somehow she was his lawyer or something, which doesn't seem all that likely right now, and that there is nothing wrong with investigating authorities obtaining that call so long as basic procedural rules were met, rules which are a matter between the authorities and the OWNERS of the recording, not the people recorded.

[Hazir]

Not that it matters much, exonerating evidence is admissable regardless of source.

[Loki]

Some specifics: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/ny...agewanted=1&hp

[Hazir]

Well that explains a bit why it took them so long to come to their conclusions. Then again it also seems to have been caused by the DA taking the sex offender specialists off the case.

[wiggin]

Honestly, Hazir, this just seems like the the justice system working as intended. It certainly seems less likely that DSK is likely to be convicted given the newer allegations, yet I don't think that anything was done incorrectly.

[RandBlade]

There was more than enough evidence to justify an arrest and investigation from the start.

I don't understand GGT's point about the phone call. It doesn't matter if she knew or not, if she's lying I kind of hope she didn't.

[Hazir]

Honestly, Hazir, this just seems like the the justice system working as intended. It certainly seems less likely that DSK is likely to be convicted given the newer allegations, yet I don't think that anything was done incorrectly.

Actually, it looks nothing like that at all. You may stick to reading your headlines, but the underlying articles give an entirely different picture; they could have known what they knew within days (hey, pious muslim woman makes phonecalls to a suspected drugs dealer in prison, how odd) and they removed specialists from the case which (appears to have) led to a conflict inside the DA's office. It is not 'less likely' DSK will be convicted it is near impossible that he will be convicted, even if he were to admit to voluntary sex taking place.

This is only 'justice working' because the end result of the criminal case is predictable now, if it still takes place. It is not justice working if you take into consideration that the DA's office doing its job could have prevented the damage done to DSK. He's not getting back his career, he's not getting back the money he was forced to spend to comply to the conditions of his bail. Which probably already runs in the hundreds of thousands. If you think 'justice is working' because a DA destroyed a man's life just in order to go for a high-profile kill, then you have a very sick idea of justice working.

You can try to ignore that you were wrong, but that doesn't mean you were not as wrong as can be. The signs that this woman was a liar were there for everybody to see. Some us pointed them out, some of us cared more to close their eyes. THAT is a fact.