Strauss kahn accused of rape

RDM said:
The flip side to that though is that due to the case being very unlikely to be proven we fall back to the default position of "innocent until proven guilty". Otherwise we can effectively ruin someones reputation just by making an accusation. I do not know if he is quilty or not, but unless it can be proven then I do think he should be treated as innocent. Is it fair that his reputation is now basically shot?
Click to expand...

In this case, given that the victim hasn't been allowed any anonymity either, I'd say yes.

Both parties should either be totally anonymous, or both named.
 
RDM said:
The flip side to that though is that due to the case being very unlikely to be proven we fall back to the default position of "innocent until proven guilty". Otherwise we can effectively ruin someones reputation just by making an accusation. I do not know if he is quilty or not, but unless it can be proven then I do think he should be treated as innocent. Is it fair that his reputation is now basically shot?
Click to expand...



I have no issue with the purely legal point of innocent until proven guilty, however this is utterly divorced from the more moral issue of whether he carried out the crime. As I've said many times before: about 40% of people who go to jury trial are acquitted, but I'll bet money that most, probably nearly all, did what they are accused off, but escaped due to evidence issues. Such as unreliable witnesses or victims. Yes, if Strauss-Kahn has the charged dropped then he should be treated as innocent. But there are people here (and I quoted one) who are saying that because the witness lied about things she said in order to enter US some years ago, and didn't tell the cops that she spoke to her boyfriend about screwing money out of the case, means that she was not raped. It Does Not Follow.

There seems to be a view, here and elsewhere, that people should not be allowed to make money out of their misfortune, and that going for cash implies that no crime took place. Particularly so if they were attacked, and even more so if they were raped. Why not? If this woman was raped, it seems to me that wanted to hit the perp in the (capacious) wallet is an entirely reasonable sentiment, and not a hint that no attack took place. Why should she be completely satisfied just seeing him locked away? What exactly is the recompense for her? Holding the moral high ground? I'd bet money that most of the posters here, if they had been assaulted by (say) a rich footballer and suffered injury, would want compensation. Big compensation. So why shouldn't this woman discuss with an ex- the idea of payback?


M
 
The Manhattan District Attorney's office is going to request the dismissal of all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn when the former International Monetary Fund head appears in court on Tuesday.

The D.A. will be filing a Dismissal On Recommendation, reports The New York Post. The filing states his office has no way to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Such filings are rare but always granted by the presiding judge, experts say.

Rest of article
Click to expand...
 
So now the questions... Has his life been ruined on one trumped up charge by a random nobody?

Yet another reason for anonyity to be available for both the "victim" and "accused" in cases such as these... :rolleyes:
 
Amp34 said:
So now the questions... Has his life been ruined on one trumped up charge by a random nobody?
Click to expand...

nope, he'll head off home to France & go back into politics, where all this will amount to but the mearest footnote in his bio.
 
Meridian said:
No, she seems to have lied or covered up parts of the story. This is NOT the same as saying that she lied about the rape itself. It simply means that there's no realistic chance of a conviction as the Defence will discredit her as a witness. To quote House: everyone lies. That includes rape victims (or the victims of any other crime) just as much as rapists. The Defence will claim that because she lied about some things then she must have lied about all of them. A view which tends to be shared by the people of this forum, particularly when it's a woman being accused of lying. This is nonsense: everyone lies about some things. Even (and perhaps, especially) Defence lawyers.


M
Click to expand...

A good post
 
Amp34 said:
So now the questions... Has his life been ruined on one trumped up charge by a random nobody?
Click to expand...


No. The Prosecution has decided that because everyone knows that she lied in her application for entry to the US several years before, and because she also phoned an ex- to ask whether she could make money out of the attack, then a jury would probably not believe her story - assuming they could find an unbiased jury. With no chance of a conviction, prosecution has been dropped. In no way does this mean that the attack did not happen, and nothing stated by anyone sheds any direct doubt on her description of that event, although there are issues with her account of what she did afterwards. But you need to bear in mind that MANY crime victims lie, or varnish the truth, about events following a crime, to make sure that they appear in the best possible light. And many criminals escape justice because this is found out.


M
 
Case dropped.

Dumb Ghanian admitting to her crimes even before she's even commited them. I hope they deport her back to her mud hut for all the grief she's caused.

She's currently enjoying her celebrity status, on TV with a media swirl around her.

At least Straus Khan doesn't get to sit the next 15yrs of his life in a cell for a crime he didn't commit. Something he's gotta be happy about.
 
thedoc46 said:
Case dropped.

Dumb Ghanian admitting to her crimes even before she's even commited them. I hope they deport her back to her mud hut for all the grief she's caused.

She's currently enjoying her celebrity status, on TV with a media swirl around her.

At least Straus Khan doesn't get to sit the next 15yrs of his life in a cell for a crime he didn't commit. Something he's gotta be happy about.
Click to expand...

Didn't she waive her anonyminity(sp) anyway? When this was first reported on it just said a maid, not her actual name.
 
IIRC she chose to go public when things started looking bad for her, not that it makes that much difference since her name was already splattered across the French press(and Twitter) from early on in the proceedings.
 
At least prosecution actually ate their own hat and admitted there was serious concerns. I'm sure in many cases, even if they know a man is innocent, they'll keep tight lipped to not embarrass the department.

It seems they actually done their job properly.

Aparently she lied to get into the country seeking asylum by saying she was gang raped by a group of soliders in her native country. Which turned out to be a lie. Don't know how they worked that out, but someone must have come forward, with a convincing story to back up that it was bull.

She falsely claimed a daughter (which didn't exist) on her tax returns.

She spoke in her native language to her brother in prison (which turned out was recorded and later translated) to something along the lines of don't worry I know what I'm doing....he's rich.

Hopefully she'll be arrested and charged on as many counts of what they can throw at her.

Unfortunately this case will now be portrayed as the rich white man winning over the poor black girl, by many poorer black communities.

She's probably caused economic problems now that Straus Kahn has had to resign. Probably would have done a splendid job leading France. Who knows. All this so she could rip off someone for her own personal benefit.

At worst, she'll probably get charged for purjury and maybe spend a couple of months inside... It's just so wrong.

Please oh please at least deport the bitch back to her mud at the very least.
 
thedoc46 said:
Aparently she lied to get into the country seeking asylum by saying she was gang raped by a group of soliders in her native country. Which turned out to be a lie. Don't know how they worked that out, but someone must have come forward, with a convincing story to back up that it was bull.

She falsely claimed a daughter (which didn't exist) on her tax returns.

She spoke in her native language to her brother in prison (which turned out was recorded and later translated) to something along the lines of don't worry I know what I'm doing....he's rich.
Click to expand...


Please show me where this proves that her account of the attack isn't true? No liar always lies. Which is just as well, as everyone lies.


M
 
philip2009 said:
So you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty for the accused? I hope you are never selected for jury service.
Click to expand...

Whereas you apparently believe that she is guilty despite no evidence that she is.

There's no evidence that she made up the accusation, only evidence that they won't be able to obtain a conviction along with a bunch of false rumour such as the one above that she told her brother she was doing it for money.
 
Mr Jack said:
Whereas you apparently believe that she is guilty despite no evidence that she is.

There's no evidence that she made up the accusation, only evidence that they won't be able to obtain a conviction along with a bunch of false rumour such as the one above that she told her brother she was doing it for money.
Click to expand...



An excellent summation, thank you. There seem to be a number of people here who can't tell the difference between being declared innocent by the courts and not actually doing the offence. I have no problem with S-K being released because the Prosecution cannot make an case. But this does NOT mean he did not carry out the attack. Only that he is innocent in law. As I've already pointed out in this thread, in the UK around 40% of Accused are acquitted. Are people seriously telling me that 40% of people did not carry out the crime they were charged with? Or is this only true in rape cases?


M
 
Meridian said:
An excellent summation, thank you. There seem to be a number of people here who can't tell the difference between being declared innocent by the courts and not actually doing the offence. I have no problem with S-K being released because the Prosecution cannot make an case. But this does NOT mean he did not carry out the attack. Only that he is innocent in law. As I've already pointed out in this thread, in the UK around 40% of Accused are acquitted. Are people seriously telling me that 40% of people did not carry out the crime they were charged with? Or is this only true in rape cases?


M
Click to expand...

However just because he has been acussed of rape means he is guilty which seems to be what is coming across from your posts?
 
RDM said:
However just because he has been acussed of rape means he is guilty which seems to be what is coming across from your posts?
Click to expand...



OK, where did I say that? Or even hint it? Just because I point out the errors in one view does not mean I automatically support the opposite view. I think it's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. All I've repeatedly stated is that weaknesses in a victim's character do not imply that they are not a victim. Any more than having the Prosecution drop the case means that the attack never happened. I've made no comment at all on whether I think S-K is guilty of the attack.

M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom