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.
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.