Case Against DSK Reportedly Near Collapse

[Antonio the Sixth]

I suppose all the "guilty until proven innocent" folks will apologize and admit they were wrong now, right? ...right?

They won't, of course. They'll say that "by the time, it was the most logical conclusion bla bla bla". And next time an innocent man is brought to trial (especially if he's white, rich and French) they'll act exactly in the same way.

I hope people will enjoy Christine Lagarde.

[Gustaf]

I suppose all the "guilty until proven innocent" folks will apologize and admit they were wrong now, right? ...right?

They won't, of course. They'll say that "by the time, it was the most logical conclusion bla bla bla". And next time an innocent man is brought to trial (especially if he's white, rich and French) they'll act exactly in the same way.

I hope people will enjoy Christine Lagarde.

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but I don't think I ever claimed to know that he was guilty. At a point in time, his guilt seemed very probable (I think even you agreed to that) so I'll readily admit that I thought it more likely at that point.

Most of my posts were about things such as you thinking that the main problem in the justice system is its prejudice against rich, white men. I still think you're wrong in that respect. And I still don't think one's first reaction to rape accusations should be that they're probably made up.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'll put my hand up and say that I still think it's more likely than not that he did it, and that I'll continue to think so unless evidence changes my mind. But if there's reasonable doubt, a jury can't (and generally won't) convict, and when it comes to rape and sexual assault trials... well... society is the way that it is, isn't it? Which means that if there are doubts of any sort about the 'character' of the victim, then, yeah. It's not even worth taking it to trial, especially in a high profile case like this one.

Of course, unlike most posters here, I actually have genuinely left-wing views on the structure of society and the nature of the criminal justice system. The rest of you are conservatives, though you know it not.

[Gustaf]

I'll put my hand up and say that I still think it's more likely than not that he did it, and that I'll continue to think so unless evidence changes my mind. But if there's reasonable doubt, a jury can't (and generally won't) convict, and when it comes to rape and sexual assault trials... well... society is the way that it is, isn't it? Which means that if there are doubts of any sort about the 'character' of the victim, then, yeah. It's not even worth taking it to trial, especially in a high profile case like this one.

Of course, unlike most posters here, I actually have genuinely left-wing views on the structure of society and the nature of the criminal justice system. The rest of you are conservatives, though you know it not.

Right, we'll likely never be able to fully know what happened in that hotel room.

As for your last paragraph...are you implying that rich, white men with lots of power are not often persecuted and mistreated by society? You socialist rabble-rouser.

[minionofmidas]

It seems fairly clear that some form of consensual sexual encounter, of a type that politicians don't want the public to know about, happened.

[Franzl]

Yeah, it's the end.


Props to all the proud fighters for the Just Cause, the tabloid press, and all the people who just knew he was guilty. The mediatic justice has done a great job as usual.

I think he's guilty...and this doesn't really change that. Just means it can't be proven.

[GMantis]

Yeah, it's the end.


Props to all the proud fighters for the Just Cause, the tabloid press, and all the people who just knew he was guilty. The mediatic justice has done a great job as usual.

I think he's guilty...and this doesn't really change that. Just means it can't be proven.

Yes, because false accusations of sexual assault never happen.

[Franzl]

Yes, because false accusations of sexual assault never happen.

Yes, they do happen. And it so happens that I don't believe this one is false. It can't be too difficult to understand.

It also appears that the only witness isn't credible and going to court with her would very likely lead to him being found innocent.

That doesn't prove that he is innocent. But thankfully, innocence doesn't need to be proven in America and most of Europe.

[GMantis]

Yes, because false accusations of sexual assault never happen.

Yes, they do happen. And it so happens that I don't believe this one is false. It can't be too difficult to understand.

It also appears that the only witness isn't credible and going to court with her would very likely lead to him being found innocent.

That doesn't prove that he is innocent. But thankfully, innocence doesn't need to be proven in America and most of Europe.

An it's fortunate that no one can be convicted on "beliefs", or he would be convicted (well, depending on the opinion, but I suspect that Franzl is probably in the majority). By the way, in which European countries does innocence need to be proven?

[Franzl]

I agree completely, of course my personal opinion should not be enough to convict...or even popular opinion. That's a very very good thing. Still doesn't keep you from suspecting someone is guilty without there being enough evidence to convict in court. I'm not claiming DSK should be convicted. There very clearly is reasonable doubt.

As to Europe...I was thinking of Russia (ok...maybe not really Europe) and perhaps something like Ukraine and Belarus. Places where there doesn't seem to be a fair and independent judicial branch.

[GMantis]

I agree completely, of course my personal opinion should not be enough to convict...or even popular opinion. That's a very very good thing. Still doesn't keep you from suspecting someone is guilty without there being enough evidence to convict in court. I'm not claiming DSK should be convicted. There very clearly is reasonable doubt.

As to Europe...I was thinking of Russia (ok...maybe not really Europe) and perhaps something like Ukraine and Belarus. Places where there doesn't seem to be a fair and independent judicial branch.

Belarus I might agree with, but I wouldn't say that the problem in Russia is so much with the judiciary but more to do with the prosecution and the way it collects evidence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course there is still a possibility that he might be guilty. Sadly, for most of cases like this it often remains impossible to prove anything with certainty. We can only regret it.

Now, let's be serious. It isn't hard if you focus on facts, to determine what is more likely. That a plaintiff who repeatedly lied to the authorities, changed 3 times his version of the fact, has ties with drugs business and called a detainee during the trial telling him that "this guy has a lot of money" was effectively raped ? Or that she made up this story for personal gain ?
Al, are you going to seriously claim option 1 is more likely ? Seriously ?

And yeah, Gustaf, I was refering to you, though to be fair most of people in this forum were just following the angry mob spurred by the mediatic slur campaign. You can say as you want that "you didn't claim he was guilty". Indeed, you didn't. You just went on the assumption that he was. Which in the end gives the exact same result.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Should be home for dinner in the French Alps this weekend

[patrick1]

I think Cyrus Vance was pretty happy with the timing of the earthquake. His office has had several high profile screw ups lately. Anything that distracts people from mismanagement is a plus.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think Cyrus Vance was pretty happy with the timing of the earthquake. His office has had several high profile screw ups lately. Anything that distracts people from mismanagement is a plus.

Like daddy, like Jr, but I'm not a fan of the Carter Administration, clearly.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The fact that the woman went to the civil court and sued for money, without even waiting for the criminal trial to begin, should persuade even the more skeptical that she was a gold-digger looking to fleece somebody famous, not an innocent victim looking for justice.

[Insula Dei]

While the victim almost certainly was a 'gold-digger', that doesn't exclude the possibility she was raped.

Just saying.

[Landslide Lyndon]

While the victim almost certainly was a 'gold-digger', that doesn't exclude the possibility she was raped.

Just saying.

Maybe. But rape victims are usually more concerned with putting their rapists in jail, not making money out of their predicament.

[Gustaf]

Of course there is still a possibility that he might be guilty. Sadly, for most of cases like this it often remains impossible to prove anything with certainty. We can only regret it.

Now, let's be serious. It isn't hard if you focus on facts, to determine what is more likely. That a plaintiff who repeatedly lied to the authorities, changed 3 times his version of the fact, has ties with drugs business and called a detainee during the trial telling him that "this guy has a lot of money" was effectively raped ? Or that she made up this story for personal gain ?
Al, are you going to seriously claim option 1 is more likely ? Seriously ?

And yeah, Gustaf, I was refering to you, though to be fair most of people in this forum were just following the angry mob spurred by the mediatic slur campaign. You can say as you want that "you didn't claim he was guilty". Indeed, you didn't. You just went on the assumption that he was. Which in the end gives the exact same result.

Your first reaction was to assume that he was innocent. Mine was neither that he was innocent nor guilty.

I realize you had strong emotional ties in this case that prevented you from even understanding what anyone was saying (you got really mad at me for some tounge-in-cheek comment early on, as I recall) but I'd really prefer it if you didn't slander me as claiming that he was guilty. Going on the assumption that he was is a concept I'm not sure I understand. I never assumed anything.

The claim that she said that he had a lot of money or whatever on the phone has been denied, btw. Can't say that I know if it was true or not though.

[Insula Dei]

While the victim almost certainly was a 'gold-digger', that doesn't exclude the possibility she was raped.

Just saying.

Maybe. But rape victims are usually more concerned with putting their rapists in jail, not making money out of their predicament.

Don't know about that. Why should people conform to your ideas about reasonable behaviour for a victim?

FTR, if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably say DSK was innocent of rape, but there are some not-quite-correct generalizations flying around here.

[Gustaf]

While the victim almost certainly was a 'gold-digger', that doesn't exclude the possibility she was raped.

Just saying.

Maybe. But rape victims are usually more concerned with putting their rapists in jail, not making money out of their predicament.

Don't know about that. Why should people conform to your ideas about reasonable behaviour for a victim?

FTR, if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably say DSK was innocent of rape, but there are some not-quite-correct generalizations flying around here.

Oh, come on, any man posting a picture of a hot girl on the internet every day is likely to be very knowledgeable on the psyche of female rape victims.

The victim's desire to see the perpetrator in jail is likely the reason why they all secure evidence and quickly report to the police.

[Landslide Lyndon]

While the victim almost certainly was a 'gold-digger', that doesn't exclude the possibility she was raped.

Just saying.

Maybe. But rape victims are usually more concerned with putting their rapists in jail, not making money out of their predicament.

Don't know about that. Why should people conform to your ideas about reasonable behaviour for a victim?

FTR, if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably say DSK was innocent of rape, but there are some not-quite-correct generalizations flying around here.

Oh, come on, any man posting a picture of a hot girl on the internet every day is likely to be very knowledgeable on the psyche of female rape victims.

The victim's desire to see the perpetrator in jail is likely the reason why they all secure evidence and quickly report to the police.

Are you joking or just trying to become more annoying than JJ?

And if pictures of naked women offend you then you can start by cutting off your internet connection and joining a monastery.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course there is still a possibility that he might be guilty. Sadly, for most of cases like this it often remains impossible to prove anything with certainty. We can only regret it.

Now, let's be serious. It isn't hard if you focus on facts, to determine what is more likely. That a plaintiff who repeatedly lied to the authorities, changed 3 times his version of the fact, has ties with drugs business and called a detainee during the trial telling him that "this guy has a lot of money" was effectively raped ? Or that she made up this story for personal gain ?
Al, are you going to seriously claim option 1 is more likely ? Seriously ?

And yeah, Gustaf, I was refering to you, though to be fair most of people in this forum were just following the angry mob spurred by the mediatic slur campaign. You can say as you want that "you didn't claim he was guilty". Indeed, you didn't. You just went on the assumption that he was. Which in the end gives the exact same result.

Your first reaction was to assume that he was innocent. Mine was neither that he was innocent nor guilty.

I realize you had strong emotional ties in this case that prevented you from even understanding what anyone was saying (you got really mad at me for some tounge-in-cheek comment early on, as I recall) but I'd really prefer it if you didn't slander me as claiming that he was guilty. Going on the assumption that he was is a concept I'm not sure I understand. I never assumed anything.

The claim that she said that he had a lot of money or whatever on the phone has been denied, btw. Can't say that I know if it was true or not though.

You can deny it as much as you want now, but your statements at the time were those of someone who had already sentenced him. Then again, you were not the only one.

No, I've no particular "emotional" tie with DSK, even though as a French I know how much my country lost with this affair. Having a particular sympathy for a guy isn't necessary to stand up against his mediatic lynching and try to bring some common sense.

And yes, I don't like to be called a sexist (even when it is "tongue-in-cheek", as you say). I realize it was necessary to fit your vision of a world where "good guys" stand with the poor black victim against the white rich rapist. Believe it or not, there is nothing I despise more than sexism, racism and other discriminations.

[Gustaf]

While the victim almost certainly was a 'gold-digger', that doesn't exclude the possibility she was raped.

Just saying.

Maybe. But rape victims are usually more concerned with putting their rapists in jail, not making money out of their predicament.

Don't know about that. Why should people conform to your ideas about reasonable behaviour for a victim?

FTR, if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably say DSK was innocent of rape, but there are some not-quite-correct generalizations flying around here.

Oh, come on, any man posting a picture of a hot girl on the internet every day is likely to be very knowledgeable on the psyche of female rape victims.

The victim's desire to see the perpetrator in jail is likely the reason why they all secure evidence and quickly report to the police.

Are you joking or just trying to become more annoying than JJ?

And if pictures of naked women offend you then you can start by cutting off your internet connection and joining a monastery.

They don't offend me. Why would they? It's not as if I'm very socially conservative. I just find the male posters on here who make confident comments on how women work rather, eh, amusing. Especially if they seem to spend more time with pictures of women than with real women.

In this case, your analysis seems to run contrary to everything I've ever heard of rape victims. And I know at least one personally.

[Gustaf]

Of course there is still a possibility that he might be guilty. Sadly, for most of cases like this it often remains impossible to prove anything with certainty. We can only regret it.

Now, let's be serious. It isn't hard if you focus on facts, to determine what is more likely. That a plaintiff who repeatedly lied to the authorities, changed 3 times his version of the fact, has ties with drugs business and called a detainee during the trial telling him that "this guy has a lot of money" was effectively raped ? Or that she made up this story for personal gain ?
Al, are you going to seriously claim option 1 is more likely ? Seriously ?

And yeah, Gustaf, I was refering to you, though to be fair most of people in this forum were just following the angry mob spurred by the mediatic slur campaign. You can say as you want that "you didn't claim he was guilty". Indeed, you didn't. You just went on the assumption that he was. Which in the end gives the exact same result.

Your first reaction was to assume that he was innocent. Mine was neither that he was innocent nor guilty.

I realize you had strong emotional ties in this case that prevented you from even understanding what anyone was saying (you got really mad at me for some tounge-in-cheek comment early on, as I recall) but I'd really prefer it if you didn't slander me as claiming that he was guilty. Going on the assumption that he was is a concept I'm not sure I understand. I never assumed anything.

The claim that she said that he had a lot of money or whatever on the phone has been denied, btw. Can't say that I know if it was true or not though.

You can deny it as much as you want now, but your statements at the time were those of someone who had already sentenced him. Then again, you were not the only one.

No, I've no particular "emotional" tie with DSK, even though as a French I know how much my country lost with this affair. Having a particular sympathy for a guy isn't necessary to stand up against his mediatic lynching and try to bring some common sense.

And yes, I don't like to be called a sexist (even when it is "tongue-in-cheek", as you say). I realize it was necessary to fit your vision of a world where "good guys" stand with the poor black victim against the white rich rapist. Believe it or not, there is nothing I despise more than sexism, racism and other discriminations.

So, even though I never said he was guilty and even though I explicitly have denied it you're free to assume that I did because of your say-so? For someone so big on presuming innocence you're very quick to judge, it seems.

I don't recall calling you a sexist. I made a joke on the stereotypes of French sexism. At which you exploded and called me an idiot and a racist. From that point on I wasn't very sympathetic to your posts on the subject. Given what then came out both in the media in general and on the forum it became a bit bizarre that you kept insisting that there can be no problems of sexism and racism anywhere and certainly not in France. Your complete blindness to racist and sexist structures in society makes it hard to believe that there is nothing you despise more. You don't even seem to think it constitutes much of a problem in society.

You seem very quick to take things personally. You kept defending yourself as if I was attacking you, but most of my posts really had nothing to do with you personally.