Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Strauss-Kahn walks free after sex assault case dropped

World Aug. 24, 2011 - 06:41AM JST ( 25 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

25 Comments

0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 07:31AM JST

“Put the rapist on trial—not the victim.”

Well said. Diallo was on trial all this time, but DSK? Never. I still want to hear his explanation. He can't possibly have one.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 09:20AM JST

The damage has been done to him, jail time, loss of IMF job and out of politics. He has his retirement to look forward since his career is behind him. He paid this price for some quick sex.
2

MadvertsAug. 24, 2011 - 09:32AM JST

His expanation was it was consensual, he probably claims he paid for it, but that might be being witheld until a possible trial? His weakness is that he's a well known porc.

She has been caught out as a liar and a likely money-grubber.

They should both behave. How many millions of tax dollars have been spunked on this?
0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 10:42AM JST

MadvertsAug. 24, 2011 - 09:32AM JST

She has been caught out as a liar

Everyone has lied about something. She has also been nailed as someone that confesses her lies under pressure. She confessed to lying on her asylum application, a lie she maintained for so long. She confessed to lying about what she did after the assault. But she never said she lied about the assault. In my mind, being someone whose lies are so easily found out only reinforces the stories she sticks to.

All this line of character leads to is the idea that someone with no lies on record can claim rape and be believed even if they are lying this time. The idea of basing it on perceived good or bad character alone just does not pan out.

His weakness is that he's a well known porc.

He is also a liar. He said he had diplomatic immunity when they first arrested him. He said the event never happened because he was having lunch with daughter, then suddenly when his fluids are found he claims it was consensual.

This is more about reputation than the truth, and no one wants to risk their reputation on hers.
-2

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 12:52PM JST

This must be reassuring to rapists and would-be rapists everywhere.
-1

AsagaoAug. 24, 2011 - 01:10PM JST

"some quick sex"..are you for real. He (alleged) RAPED this poor maid, and the same with the one in France. The mental scars from rape run deep and last forever. How is that "quick"?
2

ExportExpertAug. 24, 2011 - 01:44PM JST

Allegations are easy to make and can ruin a person over night.

This guy is ruined now.

If he commited the rape/rapes where is the proof and convictions?

I still think this whole series of events was concocted to discredit him as someone has a grudge or felt threatened by him in some way.

The guy is a deviate apparently but where is the proof?
0

anglootakuAug. 24, 2011 - 02:19PM JST

Pathetic..
-1

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 03:39PM JST

ExportExpertAug. 24, 2011 - 01:44PM JST

The guy is a deviate apparently but where is the proof?

What would it take? A witness? Well, one might be corrupt, so better make it three like in Muslim countries? Do we need video or audio recordings? Does he need to smash her face in before we can say rape? Kill her perhaps?

Please tell me what minimum evidence would compel you. We have his fluid on her uniform and we have his initial denial that anything like that happened, that quick changed when it was reported his fluid was found. Then it was suddenly consensual and he says nothing else. We have no actual story from him at all! How on Earth could it be consensual? How on Earth could it have been set up? Anna Chapman was a believable honey trap. Sexy lady and it took time for her to get in the circle of trust. Look at Diallo and tell me that she is a honey trap, just by walking in the door!
0

SwissToniAug. 24, 2011 - 04:08PM JST

Oracle, all you've presented is hearsay and conjecture. Without a court case the 'proof' as you call it cant be examined. It may not be robust evidence; it certainly cant be considered proof.
-1

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 07:46PM JST

Oracle, all you've presented is hearsay and conjecture.

You are welcome to plug in reasonable alternatives to my constructs. If you cannot, then it is more than hearsay and conjecture.

Without a court case the 'proof' as you call it cant be examined.

What possible proof could there be in this rape case or any like it that would be enough if what I present isn't? Would you honestly support a conviction with the only difference being her so called credibility? If that is the standard, it explains why it seems so many rapists go free.
0

ExportExpertAug. 24, 2011 - 09:39PM JST

Oracle

so going on your theory any women can scream rape on any man at any time and he would be guilty simply because he is accused ?

Pretty flimsey pal, to alledge rape you need evidence and then proof that is the legal system, thankfully.
-1

MadvertsAug. 24, 2011 - 10:02PM JST

Export,

"I still think this whole series of events was concocted to discredit him as someone has a grudge or felt threatened by him in some way."

I thought that myself in the beginning. But now I see a money grubber that used the weaknes of a sex-mad pervert in high places. Even if he did simply pay her for sex and get entrapped on the rape charge, whiwh is my estimation, it's his own stupid fault - nobody in high places should be either that weak, or sucomb to uncontrollable sexual urges throughout the day.
-1

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 10:42PM JST

Boy, I tell you! All the grief I get but NOBODY dares to take the Pepsi challenge! Very much like DSK too! Snipe, and run!

Can someone, ANYONE answer just ONE of my questions? Until you do, you are really just mumbling.

Here, I will give you a very easy one.

What details can DSK tell us to make us believe it was consensual? What I mean is, what could have actually happened in that room that was not just the way the maid tells us that winds up with DSKs fluid on her uniform and on the floor. DETAILS please. Hints: Did he proposition her, or her him? Was he actually not naked when she entered?
-1

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 10:47PM JST

ExportExpertAug. 24, 2011 - 09:39PM JST

so going on your theory any women can scream rape on any man at any time and he would be guilty simply because he is accused ?

Gosh. I have posted at length but not said anything like that. I offered proofs using the evidence, and each proof is tailored to this case and its peculiar and very uncommon scenario. As easy as it is to swing at the neck of someone who has stuck his neck out, I am surprised that you took that wild swing where my neck has never been while keeping your own neck save in avoidance of all my questions.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 11:02PM JST

Asagao, there is no proof he "raped" that maid. She would of been taken apart on the stand. Just saying someone did something does not make it true. I still say it was a set up but he let it happen. If he had remained true to his lawful wife nothing would of ever happened.
0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 11:06PM JST

But now I see a money grubber that used the weaknes of a sex-mad pervert in high places.

Best explanation I have so far despite being so brief. Indeed he was chatting up every woman in the joint it seems and she might have copped on. But it just happens to be the room she is assigned to clean where he is? And she comes in offering free oral service or even for a small fee from out of the clear blue sky and he says "Sure!" It is beyond the bounds of belief that this particular man, head of the IMF, who is well known to have feared a setup would have agreed.

And just supposing that is what happened, and all along the maid planned to file false rape charges and make a million, why would she clean rooms then lie about it? If anybody saw her it would kill her case. Why not go cry in the corner like she said she did? Or go straight to a telephone for the police? Why try and change the time of the actual event? The only answer remotely valid answer is that she never planned anything, but rather dreamed up the scheme while cleaning rooms. But that means we go back to the beginning! Why give him paid or free oral service if she did not plan to file false rape charges later? For the joy of it? Please! For money? But, but! DSK never said he paid! And if he was going to pay, he could have had the services of pros like he has done in N.Y. before! A pro would leave him in the clear, despite allegations from some of them that he was too rough. But he pays this rather fugly woman? That just walked in? While fearing a setup? Anything DSK could say would just beggar belief.
0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 11:15PM JST

And oh yeah, if he did paid it totally behooves him to say so. I guess he just did not think of that yet! And sadly, we will never hear him offer that excuse.

Like I said before there is no way she had a grand scheme in mind as she entered the door. But if she did go to his room with a mind to take money for oral service, why him and apparently no one else? Why get his fluids on her uniform without the grand scheme? Consensual relations just does not add up no way.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 25, 2011 - 02:40AM JST

Oracle, this is the only one we know about. I doubt her other customers (if any) will line up and admit it. Anyhow it is over now except for books, speaking engagements, etc. About your last message, beats me. Men do some weird things at times. Some think they are all perverts of some sort. (not me) Well again this is history as well as the ex banker-jailbird-politician. He might was well take up gardening.
1

sfjp330Aug. 25, 2011 - 04:42AM JST

Oracle..As you describe your version of the alleged assault of the cleaning lady, the problem is that when your a prosecuting attorney in a high profile case such as this, you weight all the evidence throughly and determine what is the possiblity of conviction for DSK. I been in jury duty on few of the felony sexual assualt cases and I can tell you that there is a significant differences from the actual evidence that is presented to how the court proceedings take place. It becomes more of a illusions in proceedings and you have to read between the fine lines. Your idea that common sense with evidence is a slam dunk, but it is not black and white and evidence gets twisted into weird direction during the trial and sometimes it has nothing to do with the evidence. Especially if this women had not been consistant and lied about her past during the investigation. For a defense attorney, this becomes more about defending her character and they will rip her to pieces. Remember, beyond reasonable doubt is exceptionally difficult if she already had one major strike against her by telling lies. The prosecutor knows this and possiblity of conviction is probably very low. They don't want to spend millions for high probablity of losing.
1

SuperLibAug. 25, 2011 - 09:01AM JST

The DA was the one who had all of the information and made the decision. Unless there's some evidence to suggest that he acted with gross misconduct I don't see what the point is in rehashing evidence reported in the media. It would seem that the easy way out would be to just let a trail go forward, especially with all of the media attention.

DSK is probably scum and got what he deserved which is a destroyed career. He's also facing allegations from women in France as well as a civil case by the maid. At the very least he is a married man and politician who had sex with a hotel maid. Just a lovely piece of work there.

Without any physical evidence of a forced encounter a rape case turns into her word vs. his. And lying about past rapes goes a long way in destroying your credibility. Her choice and her fault. I don't have to defend DSK but as a man it is nice to know that prosecutors need more than a simple claim to put someone on trial for rape. They had the entire body of evidence and they made the decision. Case closed.
0

OracleAug. 25, 2011 - 02:57PM JST

sfjp330Aug. 25, 2011 - 04:42AM JST

Your idea that common sense with evidence is a slam dunk, but it is not black and white and evidence gets twisted into weird direction during the trial and sometimes it has nothing to do with the evidence.

Absolutely. The problem with a jury is that they cannot keep everything straight in memory and/or they are not rational enough to take the evidence and spit out a rational conclusion. I completely appreciate the dilemma of "he said, she said" but this was no date rape and the one of the people is very well known and we have details that are very significant to the actual event that in other cases, we would not.

In no other case will you find me so sure. Any other time I would have backed off because everything simply would have been inconclusive.

About the only general things to glean from my statements on this case is that both sides should be made to provide a clear and detailed story at the hearing stage for one. This should be done in complete ignorance of the other's story and any evidence collected. Details given to the press played a hand in the changing of DSK's story, and that should not be allowed to happen. The two stories and how the people backtrack later can tell us what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. But the whole thing was bungled, even if that bungling is standard proceedure, its irrational and unhelpful. Second thing is that it should never be about character, at least not in such a generalized fashion. Its a very stupid postion to think that just because someone lied about some things that they must be lying about this too. And as I said, DSK is also a liar, and its bizarre that that did not matter, but only her lies did.
0

OracleAug. 25, 2011 - 02:57PM JST

continuted...

The courts are just not set up to properly handle a case like this, and its a fault of humanity. If it was Vulcans in charge though...I believe even logically we can account for human irrationality and still find DSK guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a doubt? No. Beyond a REASONABLE doubt? Yes.

However one might disagree with me though, I think we can all agree that hearing his story would expose a hell of a lot. Its a travesty that we don't have it. Like I said, that should have been done at the hearing stage and then we see how they both backtrack.
0

SuperLibAug. 25, 2011 - 04:40PM JST

I believe even logically we can account for human irrationality and still find DSK guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Look, even I thought the guy was guilty as hell when the story first broke and they talked about DNA evidence. But in the end the legal system played out and they did not think they could get a conviction based on the credibility of the accuser. End of story. I think you're mostly going after the "great, white defendant" at this point. If he had less money than the maid you'd probably have a different opinion.
0

OracleAug. 27, 2011 - 10:02AM JST

I think you're mostly going after the "great, white defendant" at this point.

Nonsense.

If he had less money than the maid you'd probably have a different opinion.

A malicious and unfounded spin on something I already pointed out: Because this guy is rich, famous and powerful, we already know a lot about him, from his previous use of prostitutes in NY to his fears that his enemies were trying to trap him. This not some random JQP. What we know about him changes things considerably.

The only reason I have a strong opinion about this is because I have so many details to work with. That would simply not be true if he were some seasonal grape picker from Bordeaux.

But in the end the legal system played out

There was no trial! I would say it was pretty freaking far from played out! The only one judged here was Diallo.

We may get more details when the civil case comes. I wonder what you will be saying then?

and they did not think they could get a conviction based on the credibility of the accuser.

And that says less about the case and the facts I know of it, and more of the unfortunate state of the legal system. I know and appreciate why the case was dropped. Still does not make it right. All it says to me is 1) that they think (and are probably correct) that juries are to dumb to see past credibility and compute the details that don't add up and 2)no one wants to risk losing this high profile case for the sake of reputation.