Posted on 07/01/2011 7:02:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Surprise, the accuser is a lying major drug dealing whore who obviously framed the mark for personal profit.
Now how do the cops and prosecutors avoid the mud of bad publicity themselves when the mark has sufficient wealth to assure the true story gets out.
The problem here is the prosecutors, we be Nifong, and that does so much for a career.
Uh...no. Every statistical database available says no higher than 5 percent with most coming in at 2-4 percent. However this could be a setup. DSK was going to run for president of France. Sarkozy might have had a different idea.
Do you have a source for that assertion?
So after the system has culled out cases where the alleged victim “doesn’t seem credible” and cases where “the evidence doesn’t seem to hold up”, we still see a sample where 25% of the men in prison for rape are later exonerated by DNA evidence?
That makes the 25% figure seem way low when compared to the complete universe of all rape accusations.
It looks like the French government interceded with Hillary’s state Dept. and low and behold the once concrete case against the serial perv is derailed. So they go and find iconsistencies in the victim’s story (or make up inconsistencies) after all he’s got all the money for lawyers and investigators while she has the politically atuned DA of Manhattan. The whole thing stinks.
If you are going to rape someone, pick a defenseless, compromised woman so that you can get away with it. It worked for slave owners. Still works for anyone raping prostitutes. The more powerful you are, the more you can rape with impunity. No one will believe the little piece of crap woman.
/s
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2720480/posts
Business Insider article saying he had an “Ironclad” alibi - lunch with his daughter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2721020/posts
RFI English (and may others) report the French Press is saying that DSK’s defense intended to argue that the accuser was “too ugly” to rape.
So much for ‘from the very beginning he said it was consensual’.
If you are arguing the selection bias's tend to cancel each other out completely - that is an interesting way of looking at numbers - but hardly a rigorous or widely accepted way of looking at it.
Of the group selected by the DNA exoneration projects for the likelihood of being innocent (lack of evidence, lack of prior convictions, heartfelt protestations of innocence, etc) - 3/4 were guilty.
Where did anyone say that? Rapists lie too, though, for what it’s worth.
But let me ask you a question.
What the hell does it matter if she is a drug dealer? If the rape took place, would it be ok then?
Or does the incident of rape not matter who the victim is?
If it does matter, then there is not equal application of the law.
If it does not matter, then it is irrelevent as to whether she is a drug dealer or not.
That is the point.
Strauss-Kahn was getting ready to leave the country that morning. The maid, from French-speaking Guinea, comes into a $3,000 a night suite believing it was empty and is confronted by a 62 year old man in a towel emerging from the shower. He chases her down and rapes/sodomizes her for no apparent reason, i.e., just because she is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I find that hard to believe, especially when you start looking at the background of the woman involved. I suspect the sex was consensual with the deal being conducted in French, the native language for both. She then concocted the story to get a big pay day figuring that some deal could be struck to buy her off. She may not have been aware of exactly who the mark was.
Isn’t this why we have a trial?
To determine the truth?
That being the case, does the fact that she is a drug dealer mitigate the false statements he provided to police and investigators?
She claimed she was raped in Guyana, so the fact that she claims she was raped here makes her suspect, right?
But Strauss-Kahn was accused of rape in France. Doesn’t that hurt his veracity in this case as well by that standard?
The law must be fair. If you are trying to find the truth, you follow the relevant facts of the case before you.
Just as it could be a frame up by her, it could also be a rape by him.
To say “Oh she lied about X, and even though X has nothing to do with the accusation, it proves she is lying about the accusation” is an affront to the idea of the rule of law.
his lawyers say, according to French radio RMC
Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers claimed in court that he left the hotel where the rape is said to have taken place in the hurry because he had a lunch appointment. They have promised to produce the person he was due to meet. The website of RMC.fr radio on Monday said that they hoped to provide an alibi by arguing that he had left the hotel an hour before the alleged rape for a lunch appointment with his daughter
This is not primary source material. How many times have the MSM got it wrong?
In fact, the MSM has been speculating as to what defense DSK would use. No one knows what the defense will be. All of this information about the credibility of the maid comes from the PROSECUTION. The defense may have even more damaging information. DSK has just been released WITHOUT BAIL, which should tell you something.
The Duke lacrosse case, the Olympic bombing in Atlanta, etc. demonstrate how foolish it is to try people in the press without having all of the facts. DSK has said little to nothing about the incident in public. He is lawyered up. You don't have primary sources for your assertions and in reality, neither do I. Guilty until proven innocent is not the way our system should operate.
His lawyers talking to the COURT is a primary source. They said he had an alibi in Court.
Hard to get from those facts that he ‘from the very beginning’ said it was consensual.
He did not. His lawyers attempted an alibi defense (in court) first.
Do we really think this man would not do anything...ANYTHING...to win?
I smell Bill Clinton-type shenanigans at work. Real evil here.
Actually rapists DO have a reason...pure power.
The guy was just coming off a high of having high-power meetings in NY, he is on track to win the Presidency of France, he has a track record of sexual exploitation in the past including at least one charge of rape (and BTW he is an extreme leftist and we know how they feel about sexual responsibility in general).
A quick assault just before he knows he's out of the country? Not hard to believe in the least IMO.
Sounds like they are both suspect and not really credible.
Yes, that is why we have a trial. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes, it is relevant if the accuser has a record of lying and criminality. It goes to her credibility.
She claimed she was raped in Guyana, so the fact that she claims she was raped here makes her suspect, right?
That was part of the alleged basis for her seeking and receiving asylum in this country along with genital mutilation. It is not about the rape, but about lying. Her asylum application allegedly does not contain the rape charge.
The law must be fair. If you are trying to find the truth, you follow the relevant facts of the case before you. Just as it could be a frame up by her, it could also be a rape by him.
Exactly right. The MSM have already tried and convicted him. This new information released BY THE PROSECUTION about the "victim" raises questions about her veracity. Under law, this information must be disclosed to the defense. They will be making their own case based on this information and other facts.
I can remember how the Duke lacrosse team was tried and convicted by the MSM. There was a petition signed by Duke professors condemning the accused before they were even tried. Duke had to pay significant damages when the truth came out.
Now that we have new information on the "victim" of the alleged rape in the DSK case, there are legitimate doubts about her credibility and the veracity of her story. This seems to anger some on this thread who have their minds made up and consider such information extraneous. The NYPD has released DSK on his own recognizance as a result. I have no doubt that more information will be forthcoming.
To say “Oh she lied about X, and even though X has nothing to do with the accusation, it proves she is lying about the accusation” is an affront to the idea of the rule of law.
Not really. It is done all the time when you have a case of he said/she said. The defense and the prosecution try to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. The information disclosed BY THE PROSECUTION about the "victim" is a real problem for obtaining a conviction. And the prosecution knows it.
Pure speculation. This is the way the Left operates. Rich, powerful white man rapes/sodomizes poor, black female immigrant. Social justice must be done.
The problem I have with our criminal justice system is that when a woman claims rape the government almost always assumes the woman is correct with her accusation and the man is guilty. The act of due process, conviction and sentencing is just a formality and the guy goes off to jail. DSK is a good example of the attempt stuff him into a hole. Since he has good lawyers now the credibility of the alleged victim is coming into question.
Domestic abuse is the same way. If a man claims domestic abuse the law just laughs at him. He has to bring in real proof, not just an accusation, in order for the law to take him seriously.
All a woman has to say is ‘rape’ or ‘abuse’ and the man SOL.
What happened with DSK was probably a political character assassination attempt like you said.
Think Clintons, for example. Do you really think they would have sat down and shut up with access to the best trial lawyers, an opponent a lowly hotel maid, and a 30% lead on a current President. Uh huh.
Those are hard facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.