Export thread

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-courts-let-da-drop-sex-case-strauss-174615664.html

Well, that is what I'm thinking anyways. The prosecutors couldn't believe the word of their client and drop the case? what? no way!

If that was the "real way" of doing it, then actual criminal wouldn't actually get away with stuff.......... pssh!

Strauss paid everybody off.

Looking at the whole case and the various issues around it, I'm thinking the prosecutors didn't feel they could prove the attack happened beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. That's quite different from saying he's not guilty. I don't think he needed to pay anyone off, it just wasn't a solid enough case. But then again I'm just speculating based on some of the articles I've read.

That is the problem of being a liar and grifter your whole life, when something bad happens to you, you will not be believed.

sixpackshaker said:

That is the problem of being a liar and grifter your whole life, when something bad happens to you, you will not be believed.

Click to expand...

When evidence comes out you're trying to take advantage of the situation for material gain? Damn right you won't be believed. This case involving Jerome Bettis about 10 years ago turned from sexual assault by him into extortion by her and her uncle.

man. Kobe bryant all over again.

The prosecution has in fact stated that if she can't convince them beyond a reasonable doubt, how can they be expected to convince a jury? It's unfortunate, much of his history seems to point toward this event being believable, but her history too causes much speculation, and there is even a phone call in which she tells a man (ostensibly speaking about DSK) "I know what I'm doing, he has lots of money." Furthermore she has filed a lawsuit independent of the criminal case, which has led many to suppose she has ulterior motives.

Civil lawsuits should not cast that doubt. Criminal trails do not compensate the victims.

I agree but combined with the phone call, I can also see why the prosecution is shaken in their convictions.

He quit as head of the IMF and his chances at a presidential bid are shot to hell... and you guys where actually expecting the charges to not be dropped after that?!

Chad Sexington said:

I agree but combined with the phone call, I can also see why the prosecution is shaken in their convictions.

Click to expand...

I can see why the prosecution was a little shakey but honestly I think they should have gone forward with the case as far as they could unless the woman reversed her story. I mean rapes are already massively underreported and these cases where the prosecutor backs off because he doesn't trust the victim just makes other victims less likely to come forward.

Now of course he shouldn't try to engage in legal schinanigans or use unreliable experts or tainted police line ups in order to make sure the guy goes to prison
but just present the facts and let a judge or jury rule that the case is insufficient.

Dubyamn said:

I can see why the prosecution was a little shakey but honestly I think they should have gone forward with the case as far as they could unless the woman reversed her story. I mean rapes are already massively underreported and these cases where the prosecutor backs off because he doesn't trust the victim just makes other victims less likely to come forward.

Now of course he shouldn't try to engage in legal schinanigans or use unreliable experts or tainted police line ups in order to make sure the guy goes to prison
but just present the facts and let a judge or jury rule that the case is insufficient.

Click to expand...

I also agree. But unfortunately a prosecutor's career depends on conviction rates. That leads me into an entirely different rant, but... I'll leave it be for now.

To be honest, I can't help but feel that the DSK case has been something of a Sacco and Vanzetti case of our times; European(s) accused in the States during a time of political and economic troubles. Now, I know as little as the next person whether or not Strauss-Kahn did it, but there seems to be something of a difference in reporting here: the US articles I've read keep mentioning the protests in support of Miss Diallo, while the few European ones I've read focus on her changing her statements about the events, her lying about the gang-rape in her home country (WTF?!) and declaring she had one more child than she really had when applying for social security.

The whole damn issue has become a clash of worlds, some going almost as far as calling Strauss-Kahn's philandering symptomatic of European politics and others decrying his treatment (an IMF head and a potential presidential candidate made to do the perp walk). So it's no wonder that no matter what the end result is, someone's going to be fucking pissed.

Disclaimer: The author does not condone rape in any shape or form. The author considers rapists the second-lowest form of life, right after pedophiles and tying with people who answer their phones in movie theaters.

North_Ranger said:

some going almost as far as calling Strauss-Kahn's philandering symptomatic of European politics

Click to expand...

That's not really that far...

@Li3n said:

That's not really that far...

Click to expand...

...to judge dozens of independent political systems based on one old goat who can't keep his salami in its wrapper? Sir, I find it as asinine an argument as using that one US governor with an Argentine mistress as a benchmark of US politics. For example.

That's why i prefer to use anti-gay senators that have sex with men: http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/shocker-anti-gay-gop-state-senator-caug

But really, men in power using it to have sex... that's not european, that's universal.