So, did he or didn't he?

[CitizenCain]

For what it's worth, I'm loosely involved in a court case, and the prosecutor starting the case (building up, not in court yet, but that's when they had a suspect and enough evidence to start the machinery up) 11 months ago and it's not even in court, yet. And the actual offense was two years ago.

Yup. Last court case I was involved in (on a misdemeanor, no less) took 10 months before it saw a courtroom... at which point the prosecutor quickly dropped the charges. And both the defendant and prosecution were angling to get things rolling quickly. Personally, I think the ridiculously long wait time for something to make its way through the bureaucracy is an indictment of the modern, Western court system, but it applies equally to nobodies and celebrities ensnared in its glacial grasp.

I didn't know that the presumption of innocence had been suspended in the US? You know, where it used to say 'innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law?'.

Understandable... that's not something we like to advertise, and it's really something of an open secret. Being a foreigner and all, it's not surprising no one clued you in.

[GGT]

Did I miss a page of posts? Did Hazir explain how he'd expect the US to represent him as a victim of Rape?

[Hazir]

Did I miss a page of posts? Did Hazir explain how he'd expect the US to represent him as a victim of Rape?

You seriously expected me to answer a question about a hypothetical situation you only asked because you are convinced that some bitch who claimed to be raped must be a rape victim. Get over it, she isn't, she was just after his money and that's it.

[Flixy]

You're right about the timing, Flixy. Seems so much longer than just 3 months passing! Ugh Still, charges could have been officially filed, and victims could have demanded their day in court. I can't speak for everyone, but if I'd been raped, or any of my loved ones had been raped....I wouldn't accept any DA or public prosecutor saying the case isn't strong enough to go to jury, so they "won't even bother".

Also, victims don't have to be deemed "reliable characters" before prosecuting a case with DNA evidence. That's a protection for any/all victims, including prostitutes, and people in subservient positions (workers vs bosses, hotel maids vs powerful political figures).

Official charged had been filed, but if there's not enough evidence to get a chance of conviction, you don't prosecute. First of all it takes a lot of time/money that could be spent on other things, second, lack of evidence could be because the guy is actually innocence (though to you that apparently is impossible), in which case a trial without evidence is nothing more than harassment. Not to mention you can only bring someone to trial for the same offense once, if I am correct, so you wouldn't wanna waste that on an attempt without enough evidence.

And let's face it, DNA evidence or not, absent of any other evidence a rape case is nothing more than a 'he said she said' thing, sex could have been consensual. And if one of the two is not appearing reliable, guess who has a better chance of being believed.

[GGT]

You seriously expected me to answer a question about a hypothetical situation you only asked because you are convinced that some bitch who claimed to be raped must be a rape victim. Get over it, she isn't, she was just after his money and that's it.

Yeah, I seriously expected you to answer. Not because of the hotel maid, but because Rape is a violent crime that turns any man or woman into a victim. I was more interested in your views toward victims in general, not this person in particular.

But I suppose your answer illustrates how little value or credence you give to victims. Again, you'd be disqualified from jury duty pretty fast, and just as well.

Official charged had been filed, but if there's not enough evidence to get a chance of conviction, you don't prosecute.

There was more than enough physical and forensic evidence to proceed to trial. Vaginal bruising, marks on her body consistent with force, his sperm on the floor--mixed with her saliva--consistent with her account of oral sodomy and spitting on the carpet.

Beyond that, it should be disturbing to both men and women, that "If there's not enough evidence to get a conviction", as judged by prosecuting DA's, no attorney will move forward on your behalf. They decide your future, and whether or not "justice will be served". Rape victims are routinely raped twice, using that mindset.

[Hazir]

If this thread were about rape then I might have answered. It's not about rape though, it's about somebody abusing the sympathy most people would have for a rape victim in order to wring some money out of some rich geezer.

[CitizenCain]

Rape victims are routinely raped twice, using that mindset.

While male victims of bullshit rape allegations never get justice, and lying gold-digging whores aren't raped even once.

You're comparing apples and forced buttsekz here, and coming off as more than just a little crazy.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'd like to see proof that any rape trial that involves a seemingly not overly reliable victim goes to trial within three months. The DA reckons his case isn't strong enough to convince a jury, so he won't even bother. That happens all the time, when the case isn't strong enough. That's not special VIP treatment. Or do you think all cases that don't involve famous people always end up in a court, within three months?

For what it's worth, I'm loosely involved in a court case, and the prosecutor starting the case (building up, not in court yet, but that's when they had a suspect and enough evidence to start the machinery up) 11 months ago and it's not even in court, yet. And the actual offense was two years ago.

You're right about the time it takes to bring any sort of major criminal prosecution to trial, but DSK has received special VIP treatment, both positive and negative. The house arrest being an example of the former and the *probable* premature arrest being an example of the latter.

[Flixy]

There was more than enough physical and forensic evidence to proceed to trial. Vaginal bruising, marks on her body consistent with force, his sperm on the floor--mixed with her saliva--consistent with her account of oral sodomy and spitting on the carpet.

Beyond that, it should be disturbing to both men and women, that "If there's not enough evidence to get a conviction", as judged by prosecuting DA's, no attorney will move forward on your behalf. They decide your future, and whether or not "justice will be served". Rape victims are routinely raped twice, using that mindset.

Obviously the DA has his reasons, and I'm fairly sure he is more into the actual case than you are. That said, I don't know your system, but over here if a prosecutor drops a case (because of either too little evidence, or when he doesn't think there even is a case, or when he reckons his time is better off in another case that would benefit society more), you (as the victim) can appeal that decision, and a judge can order the prosecutor to proceed with the case. This is exactly what happened over here in the Wilders case.

You're right about the time it takes to bring any sort of major criminal prosecution to trial, but DSK has received special VIP treatment, both positive and negative. The house arrest being an example of the former and the *probable* premature arrest being an example of the latter.

I thought of those, but about the first I am not sure if rape suspects are usually granted bail (no priors, etc.). If they do, I can imagine 'normal' people to get 'normal' house arrest, where as in this case he had to pay a guard, rent an apartment, all in all costing him a lot of money, which would be a negative 'special' treatment. The second.. I think that had more to do with him being about to leave the country, than his VIP status. If they didn't arrest them, they would possibly never be able to prosecute.

[Hazir]

While male victims of bullshit rape allegations never get justice, and lying gold-digging whores aren't raped even once.

You're comparing apples and forced buttsekz here, and coming off as more than just a little crazy.

But you know, according to GGT any woman accusing a man of rape by definition is a rape victim and the accused is a rapist. She seriously thinks this whole case was about rape, and thus closes her eyes to the truth about the accuser. Who was a woman who obviously lied so much that todays announcement of dismissal to her was dealth with in a minute or so.

[CitizenCain]

But you know, according to GGT any woman accusing a man of rape by definition is a rape victim and the accused is a rapist. She seriously thinks this whole case was about rape, and thus closes her eyes to the truth about the accuser.

Yeah, it's like she wants to encourage violence against women and create widespread distrust of women who cry rape. Well, that's what happens when every women's organization and primate with ovaries gets outraged over these probably false, and obviously unsupportable charges getting tossed. If they actually wanted to help victims of rape, they should scream for blood every time a rape accuser turns out to be making it up, because all that does is reinforce the idea that you can't just take her word for it, even when she's probably telling the truth.

Meh, whatever. A glorious day for rapists everywhere who have another lying, gold-digging whore to point to as a rape accuser.

[LittleFuzzy]

I thought of those, but about the first I am not sure if rape suspects are usually granted bail (no priors, etc.). If they do, I can imagine 'normal' people to get 'normal' house arrest, where as in this case he had to pay a guard, rent an apartment, all in all costing him a lot of money, which would be a negative 'special' treatment. The second.. I think that had more to do with him being about to leave the country, than his VIP status. If they didn't arrest them, they would possibly never be able to prosecute.

"House arrest" is mostly a luxury afforded to those with the money or prestige for it wrt violent felonies. The rest of us get jail. And for the second, his importance and him being about to leave are intertwined.

[Dreadnaught]

And this was a nice, $3000/night hotel with high-paid cleaning staff. *shudder*

On the wall?

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s Hotel Room Was a Semen Stain-A-Palooza

The legal filing on Monday to dismiss charges of sexual assault against Dominique Strauss-Kahn contained within it one crusty footnote, illuminated by the blacklight-wielding investigators of The Smoking Gun: The $3,000-a-night Sofitel suite where the former IMF head stayed last May, and where his accuser said the alleged crime had occurred, contained within it remnants of ejaculate from anywhere from four to seven other men.

From the filing:

Three of the other stains on the carpet contained the semen and DNA of three different unknown males, and one other stain contained amylase and a mixture of DNA from three additional unknown individuals. The stain on the wallpaper contained the semen and DNA of a fourth unknown male.

So, let's take stock of what was found: There were four stains on the carpet. Three contained the semen of three different men — one per stain — while a fourth stain contained the semen of three different men, as if blended into some kind of protein-boosted semen smoothie. The mind reels at the logistics of even achieving such a stain. (Hint: amylase is an enzime present in saliva.) And then there was the semen on the wallpaper, which belonged to that fourth male, about whom nothing is known (save for the fact that he was not a dribbler).

The recommendation for dismissal concluded that there was "no evidence that any other person was present during the charged incident" and therefore "the circumstances under which the unidentified DNA was deposited are unrelated." So the possibilities as I see them are twofold: the rumors of Strauss-Kahn's wanton weakness for elaborate, Eyes Wide Shut-style sex orgies are true, or hotel rooms, as a general rule and regardless of cost, are covered in a lot of strange men's jizz. Either way, gross.

http://gawker.com/5833440/dominique-...tain+a+palooza

[Hazir]

Just read that motion to dismiss, sounds like a pathological liar who resented not being paid enough for a blowjob.

[GGT]

Are you running around in high-five mode, Hazir?

First, start a thread about your outrage that DSK was charged or arrested. Also, be outraged that US media showed pictures of DSK in the "perp walk"....while making your determinations by press releases. Then, lambast the NYCPD and NYC DA's office, as examples of how American Jurisprudence is a mockery of justice.

But hang on....maybe the US system really does work after all. At least for VIP European bankers that can buy powerful lawyers?

[Flixy]

Are you running around in high-five mode, Hazir?

First, start a thread about your outrage that DSK was charged or arrested. Also, be outraged that US media showed pictures of DSK in the "perp walk"....while making your determinations by press releases. Then, lambast the NYCPD and NYC DA's office, as examples of how American Jurisprudence is a mockery of justice.

But hang on....maybe the US system really does work after all. At least for VIP European bankers that can buy powerful lawyers?

Well, assuming he was innocent, he lost a lot of money, and his career is completely fucked, which isn't all that great an outcome if you indeed are innocent.

[Hazir]

Are you running around in high-five mode, Hazir?

First, start a thread about your outrage that DSK was charged or arrested. Also, be outraged that US media showed pictures of DSK in the "perp walk"....while making your determinations by press releases. Then, lambast the NYCPD and NYC DA's office, as examples of how American Jurisprudence is a mockery of justice.

But hang on....maybe the US system really does work after all. At least for VIP European bankers that can buy powerful lawyers?

Actually all I see is that he got in a lot of trouble by a claim that should have been thrown out at the outset. This woman is a pathological liar to the extent I wouldn't have taken her word for it if I had seen DSK raping her. There was no evidence of a forced sexual encounter, there is a pathological liar accusing DSK, and still people like you are talking as if a rape took place. Added to that the fact that his carreer was ruined and this all cost him a ton of money I hardly think there could be any talk of a positive outcome. It may be the least harmful, but still so much damage was done that it can not be called justice done in a fair way.

[GGT]

But you kept yammering about how the US judicial "didn't work" to protect innocent people accused of crimes. Care to change your tune?

[Ominous Gamer]

I couldn't care less what it will do to his career.

I don't see a viable alternative other than taking rape accusations very seriously, and vigorously prosecuting cases with enough evidence.

hindsight is a biiiiiiiiitch.

[Hazir]

But you kept yammering about how the US judicial "didn't work" to protect innocent people accused of crimes. Care to change your tune?

No, it merely corrected its initial mistakes.

[RandBlade]

Well, assuming he was innocent, he lost a lot of money, and his career is completely fucked, which isn't all that great an outcome if you indeed are innocent.

Tough shit.

A large part of the reason his career is completely fucked anyway is not simply the dismissed charges, but the large number of other people too who have complained about his aggressive womanising.

[Flixy]

Tough shit.

A large part of the reason his career is completely fucked anyway is not simply the dismissed charges, but the large number of other people too who have complained about his aggressive womanising.

Fair enough, but even without that he'd be far from unaffected by the whole thing. Not saying the police shouldn't have acted on it (what choice did they have, he was about to leave, and rape is a serious enough allegation to detain someone), but to say he walked scot-free isn't exactly true either.

[RandBlade]

Indeed. Still, justice was served in the best possible way.

[Hazir]

Indeed. Still, justice was served in the best possible way.

You should love being falsely accused.

[CitizenCain]

Indeed. Still, justice was served in the best possible way.

No, justice will only be served if this lying bitch spends a couple years in jail for filing false charges and perversion of justice, and then she's forced to repay DSK every cent her lying bullshit cost him. (Should only take her a few hundred years working as a maid and two-bit conman.)

That's justice...ish. Having the bitch walk away completely free of consequences after fucking over someone she KNEW to be innocent isn't even close.

[Enoch the Red]

No, justice will only be served if this lying bitch spends a couple years in jail for filing false charges and perversion of justice, and then she's forced to repay DSK every cent her lying bullshit cost him. (Should only take her a few hundred years working as a maid and two-bit conman.)

That's justice...ish. Having the bitch walk away completely free of consequences after fucking over someone she KNEW to be innocent isn't even close.

I don't think the prosecutor has determined that she lied about being raped, just that there wasn't enough solid evidence to get a conviction, and enough questions about her character to muddy the waters.

That isn't to say she's innocent, I just don't know, but it's a far cry from her being guilty.

[Hazir]

No, justice will only be served if this lying bitch spends a couple years in jail for filing false charges and perversion of justice, and then she's forced to repay DSK every cent her lying bullshit cost him. (Should only take her a few hundred years working as a maid and two-bit conman.)

That's justice...ish. Having the bitch walk away completely free of consequences after fucking over someone she KNEW to be innocent isn't even close.

Well, she may be kicked out of the country. That feels a tiny bit like retribution.

[CitizenCain]

Not really, not to me anyway. Illegal getting kicked out of the country for being dumb enough to bring legal attention to herself? Seems more like inevitability.

Oh, and speaking of illegal immigrants, rapes and deportations...

For Proclaiming His Innocence of a Brooklyn Rape, An Illegal Immigrant Faces Deportation



Poor sod, but a great illustration of why it's NEVER in your best interests to talk to cops (at least under our legal system). Even if they decide you're innocent, they still might screw you over anyway.

[Hazir]

I don't think the prosecutor has determined that she lied about being raped, just that there wasn't enough solid evidence to get a conviction, and enough questions about her character to muddy the waters.

That isn't to say she's innocent, I just don't know, but it's a far cry from her being guilty.

Actually, it WAS stated that there was no evidence of a forced sexual encounter. That means there was no evidence to get a conviction, on top of that the accusor repeatedly changed her story about what transpired during those 6 minutes in that hotelroom and immediately after. After which she lied about having changed her story. THEN in addition to all of this it turns out that she lied about her personal past, and that she had filed false claims. To put the cherry on the cake, she had a drugs dealer boyfriend with whom she talked about her chances of fleecing DSK.

You see? It's not just about a questionable character, it's about a 'victim' that couldn't even get her story straight about that supposed rape situation.

I know there are dozens upon dozens of commentators who try to make it sounds as if this lying whore was on trial because of her shady past. That however was just the coloring of what kind of a bitch she really was. The core of the problem with her was that she blatantly lied about what happened in that hotelroom that day.

[Enoch the Red]

Actually, it WAS stated that there was no evidence of a forced sexual encounter. That means there was no evidence to get a conviction, on top of that the accusor repeatedly changed her story about what transpired during those 6 minutes in that hotelroom and immediately after. After which she lied about having changed her story. THEN in addition to all of this it turns out that she lied about her personal past, and that she had filed false claims. To put the cherry on the cake, she had a drugs dealer boyfriend with whom she talked about her chances of fleecing DSK.

What, if anything, constitutes evidence of a forced sexual encounter? Does a rape victim need to have a black eye or two or rectal bleeding to become credible?

Again, it's entirely possible she is guilty of concocting the whole incident, but if there was significant evidence for that then the Prosecutor can pursue those charges against her. As near as I can tell they haven't.

You see? It's not just about a questionable character, it's about a 'victim' that couldn't even get her story straight about that supposed rape situation.

I know there are dozens upon dozens of commentators who try to make it sounds as if this lying whore was on trial because of her shady past. That however was just the coloring of what kind of a bitch she really was. The core of the problem with her was that she blatantly lied about what happened in that hotelroom that day.

Are you saying a victim of a crime will always, without fail, have a wholly complete and accurate recollection of the crime, the aftermath, and the events preceding it?