IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn resigns amid alleged sexual assault

[Ulysses G.]

Again, that is not the law in the country that is bringing charges against DSK for rape.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[endure]

Again, that is not the law in the country that is bringing charges against DSK for rape.

Can you explain to us what is the law in the country that is bringing charges against DSK for rape?

[Ulysses G.]

Rape shield laws were introduced in the United States in the 1970s to stop the practice of discrediting victims by introducing irrelevant information about them in court, including evidence about a victim's sexual history, reputation or past conduct. Rape shield laws are also in place to prohibit the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim. These laws exist to help ensure a fair and equitable trial, and assure that the accuser will not be subject to public disclosure regarding their identity, sexual reputation, past conduct, and other information irrelevant to the trial.

http://articlesace.c...promised-online

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

She is hardly skulking in anonymity. Her identity is simply protected in the US. She is free to speak to anyone if she wishes. She has an active involvement in pressing charges. If she does not testify, there will be no case.

Once the case goes to court, Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyers will attack her credibility quite vigorously.

[chuckd]

"Skulk" in anonymity? I think that you could have chosen a better phrase for a women who has reported being violently raped.

I have to defer to Scott on this.

Different countries have different laws. I think we can leave it at that. If you don't like the laws in a country, best not to break them.

A woman who has been 'reported as being violently raped'. What does that mean? Who did the reporting? Is the woman willing to stand up in court and accuse her alleged rapist?

Justice involves both the accuser and the accused. If she's not willing to accuse her rapist in public then there's there's no case to answer.

A sitting 23 member Grand Jury empaneled by the State of New York has heard her testimony, either personally or presented by state prosecutors, and has returned an indictment against DSK.

That is sufficient to bind him over for trial, which has been done.

I am relatively certain she will be required to testify at trial, where the defense lawyers can try and destroy her.

Until then, she has done what is required of her.

[koheesti]

Obviously there aren't any women posters here.

[chuckd]

Obviously there aren't any women posters here.

There does seem to be an overabundance of DSK defenders on board. Reminds me of the Assange fiasco.

Edited May 22, 2011 by chuckd

[SteeleJoe]

A woman who has been 'reported as being violently raped'. What does that mean? Who did the reporting? Is the woman willing to stand up in court and accuse her alleged rapist?

You seem to use English well enough, it seems odd you'd have such a comprehension problem:

1st Question: There police and the media have told us that a female human has claimed to have been assaulted sexually in a violent manner.

2nd Question: The alleged victim has reported this to the authorities and the media has reported it to us (readers of this thread and the world at large).

3rd Question: As has been stated already -- and one wonders why you even question it -- she has made a legally binding affirmation that the crime has occurred and she will almost certainly be expected to testify if and when it comes to trial. If she doesn't it wouldn't seem likely that he could be convicted -- so that should be satisfactory to you.

Justice involves both the accuser and the accused. If she's not willing to accuse her rapist in public then there's there's no case to answer.

I'm not sure you've interpreted the law entirely accurately -- can you cite the statute or constitutional amendment or whatever that supports what you've said? (By "in public" do you mean in a court of law"? And are you aware that in some cases charges can be made, cases filed and sentences passed without even a trial?)

The accused has rights. But if there is (allegedly) enough probable cause and evidence to make an arrest and charges have been seen as supportable and are filed, while he is still innocent until proven otherwise, he/she is not on precisely the same footing as the person who has accuse them of a crime. There's no practical way it could be otherwise.

You people (on this thread and its predecessor) who feel the alleged victim isn't being treated badly enough need to check your thinking: if you think the man's arrest is not legally sound, then that's what you should be trying to argue. But this ill-will towards the woman in question with, as yet, no foundation -- that's rather warped in my opinion.

[Sheryl]

Actually a victim's accusation is not necessary for charges of rape to be brought under US law. Which is how it comes to be for example that men accused of rape and murder get can be tried for both, even though the victim is gone. Of course in practical terms, it's hard to get enough evidence together and win a conviction without a victim's account of what occurred.

In any case unless something has drastically changed in the past day or so, he is not accused of rape but rather attempted rape.

And illegal confinement (holding her against her will/forcibly preventing her from leaving)

And an as yet unspecifed "illegal sexual act".

But not rape.

Yes, the vitriol being aimed at the alleged victim is disgusting. but as a woman I have to say it is nothing new. This is exactly why rape and sexual assaults are the most underreported of crimes. A lot of women just don't feel they can face this on top of the trauma of the event itself. More power to those with enough gumption to.

In this particular case I think there is more than just gender bias at work (although that is certainly part of it. There is also class bias and race bias. Not only a woman, but a black woman, and one who was "just a maid" has the nerve to make a criminal complaint against a very wealthy high status man.

What is most ironic to me is that both he and many of those outraged at this being handled in simple accordance with the prevailing laws (as opposed to "special treatmnet" based on his wealth/status) are members of the French Socialist Party. A strange brand of socialism indeed....

[Scott]

The prosecutor will level as many possible charges as they can. The strongest and most easily verifiable charges will be tried and the others will be dropped.

Charges are usually backed up by evidence. This can include medical and physical evidence of the crime.

When the attorneys are done with her, there will not be much left of her reputation. You can bet that the hotel took a careful look at this case before calling the police. Those $3,000 a night suites are probably hard to rent out and he's a big spender for the hotel.

[koheesti]

What is most ironic to me is that both he and many of those outraged at this being handled in simple accordance with the prevailing laws (as opposed to "special treatmnet" based on his wealth/status) are members of the French Socialist Party. A strange brand of socialism indeed....

Not so strange when you look over the past 100 years and what Socialist the world over do to people when they get absolute power. And I'm sure this IMF bigwig thought he had absolute power.

Edited May 23, 2011 by koheesti

[lomatopo]

From: http://manhattanda.org/press-release/district-attorney-vance-announces-indictment-dominique-strauss-kahn-sexual-assault-cha

Defendant Information:

DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN, D.O.B. 4/24/1949

Charges:

Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, a class B violent felony, two counts

Attempted Rape in the First Degree, a class C violent felony, one count

Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a class D violent felony, one count

Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree, a class A misdemeanor, one count

Forcible Touching, a class A misdemeanor, one count

Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree, a class B misdemeanor, one count

A class B violent felony is punishable by up to 25 years in prison, a class C violent felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, a class D violent felony is punishable by up to 7 years in prison, a class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail, and a class B misdemeanor is punishable by up to three months in jail.

[1]The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Sexual Offenses in New York State Penal Law

§130.50 Criminal sexual act in the first degree.

A person is guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree when he or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with another person: (Eff.11/1/03,Ch.264,L.2003)

By forcible compulsion; or

Who is incapable of consent by means of being physically helpless; or

Who is less than eleven years old; or

Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more.

Criminal sexual act in the first degree is a class B felony.(Eff.11/1/03,Ch.264,L.2003)

[midas]

The prosecutor will level as many possible charges as they can. The strongest and most easily verifiable charges will be tried and the others will be dropped.

Charges are usually backed up by evidence. This can include medical and physical evidence of the crime.

When the attorneys are done with her, there will not be much left of her reputation. You can bet that the hotel took a careful look at this case before calling the police. Those $3,000 a night suites are probably hard to rent out and he's a big spender for the hotel.

now that he has phone access I have been wondering if DSK is spending his time

working closely with his lawyer to see if this can be made to go away like all the other

alleged incidents? If this lady is from a poor background, what would stop DSK through his lawyer

approaching her and making her an offer she couldn't refuse? If she dropped the charges

would the New York district attorney still proceed with this case?

[metisdead]

A reply to a post has been removed as the act of replying to the post altered the quoted text.

[lomatopo]

what would stop DSK through his lawyer

approaching her and making her an offer she couldn't refuse? If she dropped the charges

would the New York district attorney still proceed with this case?

The victim has testified before a Grand Jury. If she were to recant her testimony she would be prosecuted for perjury.

In any potential, and subsequent, Civil trial a settlement can be made.

[Ulysses G.]

Breaking news?

Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody...

http://www.foxnews.c...victims-family/

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

Breaking news?

Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody...

http://www.foxnews.c...victims-family/

there you go I knew that someone who allegedly kept saying " don't you know who I am? "

believed that ultimately he could try to buy his way his way out

[midas]

what would stop DSK through his lawyer

approaching her and making her an offer she couldn't refuse? If she dropped the charges

would the New York district attorney still proceed with this case?

The victim has testified before a Grand Jury. If she were to recant her testimony she would be prosecuted for perjury.

In any potential, and subsequent, Civil trial a settlement can be made.

so are you saying she can just keep refusing to accept a pay off no matter how big

and allow him to go through the criminal trial process and then sue the pants off him

for the same amount of money in a civil suit?

Edited May 25, 2011 by midas

[cloudhopper]

what would stop DSK through his lawyer

approaching her and making her an offer she couldn't refuse? If she dropped the charges

would the New York district attorney still proceed with this case?

The victim has testified before a Grand Jury. If she were to recant her testimony she would be prosecuted for perjury.

In any potential, and subsequent, Civil trial a settlement can be made.

so are you saying she can just keep refusing to accept a pay off no matter how big

and allow him to go through the criminal trial process and then sue the pants off him

for the same amount of money in a civil suit?

She would be well advised to go that route. Anyway, it's The People vs. DSK now regardless of what she does.

[midas]

what would stop DSK through his lawyer

approaching her and making her an offer she couldn't refuse? If she dropped the charges

would the New York district attorney still proceed with this case?

The victim has testified before a Grand Jury. If she were to recant her testimony she would be prosecuted for perjury.

In any potential, and subsequent, Civil trial a settlement can be made.

so are you saying she can just keep refusing to accept a pay off no matter how big

and allow him to go through the criminal trial process and then sue the pants off him

for the same amount of money in a civil suit?

She would be well advised to go that route. Anyway, it's The People vs. DSK now regardless of what she does.

I hope so in the interests of justice. I hope she can hire an attorney like the one that won against

OJ. I hope she makes a fortune from these duplicitous French . and I hope she can make even more money

from the movie rights

[geriatrickid]

Case against Strauss-Kahn near collapse: report

-NYT reports that prosecutors do not believe the accusations.

- Accuser has been caught epeatedly lying to police

- NYT reports law enforcement officials had uncovered questions related to the 32-year-old hotel maid's asylum application, and unconfirmed links to criminal activity, such as involvement with money laundering and drug dealing. Multiple individuals made cash deposits -- amounting to some $100,000 -- into the accuser's bank account in the last two years, and prosecutors had recorded conversations with the maid where she discussed with a heavy duty drug dealer currently inarcerated.

http://www.nytimes.c...n-jeopardy.html

This case is looking more like a set up.

Hey look at that, it seems I am vindicated once again.

I find the story hard to believe. The timeline doesn't make sense. Is this an attempt at political sabotage? A blackmail attempt gone wrong? Or is the wrong guy being accused ? Please be fair when considering the case and wait for the actual facts to be established.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4424988

And what of the lynch mob that didn't want to let the police investigate? Will some of you reconsider?

Edited July 1, 2011 by geriatrickid

[FOODLOVER]

Woops, sorry we ruined your life. Carry on.

[Ulysses G.]

Woops, sorry we ruined your life. Carry on.

At least he has plenty of dough to enjoy his early retirement.

[DP25]

So they were able to turn up some dirt on an African immigrant, and she considered the monetary implications of the attack, shocking. Guess he picked the right woman to try to rape

Edited July 1, 2011 by DP25

[elcent]

D Strauss-Kahn could get free today.

It was obvious that this was a setup.

[Lite Beer]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is freed from house arrest

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is freed from house arrest, prosecutors say maid accusing him of sexual assault lied to grand jury, though ex-IMF chief still faces charges.

-- TNA 2011-07-02

[midas]

Case against Strauss-Kahn near collapse: report

-NYT reports that prosecutors do not believe the accusations.

- Accuser has been caught epeatedly lying to police

- NYT reports law enforcement officials had uncovered questions related to the 32-year-old hotel maid's asylum application, and unconfirmed links to criminal activity, such as involvement with money laundering and drug dealing. Multiple individuals made cash deposits -- amounting to some $100,000 -- into the accuser's bank account in the last two years, and prosecutors had recorded conversations with the maid where she discussed with a heavy duty drug dealer currently inarcerated.

http://www.nytimes.c...n-jeopardy.html

This case is looking more like a set up.

Hey look at that, it seems I am vindicated once again.

I find the story hard to believe. The timeline doesn't make sense. Is this an attempt at political sabotage? A blackmail attempt gone wrong? Or is the wrong guy being accused ? Please be fair when considering the case and wait for the actual facts to be established.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4424988

And what of the lynch mob that didn't want to let the police investigate? Will some of you reconsider?

Not at all……………..not yet

And this is so reminiscent of the movie ....” And Justice For All “ with Al Pacino

“ The one thing that bothered me, the one thing that stayed in my mind and I couldn't get rid of it, that haunted me, was why. Why would she lie? What was her motive for lying? If my client is innocent, she's lying, why? Was it blackmail? No. Was it jealousy? No. Yesterday I found out why. She doesn't have a motive, you know why? Because she's not lying... And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution is not going to get that man today, no, because I'm gonna get him! my client, the Honorable Henry T. Fleming a.k.a. DSK, should go right to fuc_king jail! The son of a bitch is guilty! ”

[TAWP]

Since when does her background mean her allegations are incorrect?

[Naam]

Woops, sorry we ruined your life. Carry on.

At least he has plenty of dough to enjoy his early retirement.

no retirement if acquitted based on clear evidence that the maid lied as far as rape is concerned. some work is waiting for him when he takes over as president of France from Sarkozy next year.

[SteeleJoe]

-NYT reports that prosecutors do not believe the accusations.

It does not say prosecutors do not believe the accusations. It's a bit more nuanced than that, no?

I don't recall anyone saying the case shouldn't be investigated (I certainly advocated for the precise opposite). What I do recall was people dismissing the possibility that he had done it because of who he was, claiming he should get special treatment because of who he was, and going after the victim without cause.