The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Strauss-Kahn (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
No, far more than only my aims are noble. And I am not the only one with noble aims, either. But there are some people whose aims are ignoble, and I don't see the harm in pointing that out.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Holy Smoke. Is it possible Ben Stein was right on this one after all????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43619009#43619009
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4732 Posts

Profile of landmark
Purely opinion: I think she was raped. I don't think she has a case that wouldn't be torn apart in court. But even someone with an unsavory character can be a rape victim.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-07-02 21:55, landmark wrote:
Purely opinion: I think she was raped. I don't think she has a case that wouldn't be torn apart in court. But even someone with an unsavory character can be a rape victim.

You're read the latest in the news this evening, that she was working as a prostitute / escort in the hotel? And that she was taped in a call with a boyfriend saying she knew she could get money from DSK?

Not that a working girl cannot be raped, of course. But, at least at the moment, it certainly does seem that every day more of her story is unraveling.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
The story seems to be changing by the hour. The TV channels should be all over this one tomorrow with even more dirt.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4732 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-07-02 22:32, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-07-02 21:55, landmark wrote:
Purely opinion: I think she was raped. I don't think she has a case that wouldn't be torn apart in court. But even someone with an unsavory character can be a rape victim.

You're read the latest in the news this evening, that she was working as a prostitute / escort in the hotel? And that she was taped in a call with a boyfriend saying she knew she could get money from DSK?

Not that a working girl cannot be raped, of course. But, at least at the moment, it certainly does seem that every day more of her story is unraveling.

I've read the stories. Lots and lots put out, by, I assume, DSK's team about her character, which is to be expected, and it could well be that much of it is true. But yes, even a working girl can be raped. I think he did not know the proper boundaries.

Hard to believe, but I 'm actually on the same side of this issue as Woland (less his innuendo that all socialists are rapists).
motown
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta by way of Detroit
5842 Posts

Profile of motown
Hollywood is working on the script as we speak. I can just imagine who will play DSK.
"If you ever write anything about me after I'm gone, I will come back and haunt you."
– Karl Germain
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4732 Posts

Profile of landmark
Some interesting new/old developments:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/04/......re-75399
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1171 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Why is it you think he's guilty?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4732 Posts

Profile of landmark
As I said before it's just an opinion. There have been several other incidents with DSK in which the accusers had little reason to make up their stories, particularly the journalist referenced above. The accused in the hotel incident, according to some testimony, was physically bruised. That, to me, points to more than a consensual sexual encounter.

Frankly my gut feeling is that there was a money proposition going on and he got rough with her. Why do I think so? I can't tell you outright, just my reading of human nature.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-07-03 00:24, landmark wrote:

I've read the stories. Lots and lots put out, by, I assume, DSK's team about her character, which is to be expected, and it could well be that much of it is true.

Most of the material about her character and activities that we've been hearing about was actually dug up by the prosecution, which then sent it to DSK's defense team.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15746 Posts

Profile of tommy
Actually I doubt if that is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Its more likely that its the defence that have “dug it up” and told the witness's to go to the police and make statements.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4732 Posts

Profile of landmark
So the Manhattan prosecutor dropped the case against DSK.

I think that though her case was certainly not airtight, she deserved her day in court.

The character assassination stuff was not convincing to me: the prostitute charges AFAIK were never backed up; the inconsistencies in her story about what she did after the rape are the kinds of inconsistencies that occur all the time in such cases. Confused and abused people don't always act rationally. That she lied on her passport application is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would argue that such lying gives free reign to be raped without consequences to the rapist, if that is what happened.

If character is to be brought into the equation, then it is more telling to me that several women have now come forward to talk about DSK's agressive sexual mode with at least one accusing him of rape. That the women were in agreement with him politically indicates that these allegations were almost certainly not just character assassination attempts. This to me is more telling than whether a woman lied about her children on an immigration application. Even the alleged calls to her jailhouse boyfriend (which again AFAIK have never been backed up) do not preclude rape. It is quite conceivable that she was raped and then told her friend I'm going to sue the B**tard for every penny.


I find it hard to believe that the sexual situation was consensual without the exchange of money. Stranger things have happened I suppose, but outside the realm of pornography, do young chambermaids fling themselves at 60+ year old politicians out of lust? I believe that either there was an exchange of money or it was non-consensual. As an immigrant she knew her status was shaky--it would be unusual for her to expose herself to such danger.

As I understand it, she is filing a civil suit, though DSK is free to leave the country. Can someone clarify how that works? What can she file a civil suit for, now that's she's lost the criminal case?

Anyway, as I said before, it may well be she has no case that would ultimately stand up in court. However, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to deny her her chance to make her case.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1171 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
The lack of a criminal case doesn't slow her down in civil court, because of the lesser standard of proof. I imagine there could be multiple causes of action, but battery would probably be the front runner. In a lawsuit, she only has to convince a jury that it's more likely than not that he did it. If he's tried and convicted in criminal court, that helps, but even if he went to trial and beat the criminal charges, that wouldn't mean he didn't do it; only that he wasn't found to have done it beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal acquittal and a finding of civil liability (a la OJ) isn't inconsistent. Even if it were the same jury, it wouldn't be inconsistent, if, say, the jurors thought there were a 60% chance that he did it (or a 50.01% chance).
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4732 Posts

Profile of landmark
Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not clear on why it isn't double jeopardy to bring civil charges after criminal ones.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1171 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-08-24 10:36, landmark wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not clear on why it isn't double jeopardy to bring civil charges after criminal ones.


Legally speaking, for more than one reason, actually. First, the basis for "Double Jeopardy" is the Constitution (5th Amendment), and it only contemplates criminal actions. "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

Secondly, "jeopardy" in a criminal trial attaches not when a suspect is arrested, but when the first juror is sworn. So a pretrial dismissal of charges doesn't have double jeopardy consequences anyway.

Philosophically, it makes sense that double jeopardy not affect a criminal-to-civil transition, for the reasons above. The criminal jury isn't deciding whether he the defendant committed the action or not; it's deciding whether it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have all 12 jurors think that he did it, and still vote to acquit. So beating criminal charges is not a vote of confidence from the jury, and a jury's decision should not have a dispositive effect.

The parties are different in the two cases, as well; in a criminal matter, the prosecuting attorney represents the people as a whole - the public interest in having the defendant convicted and punished. The private citizen's right of redress is separate. It has a different aim(an attempt to make the victim whole; the victim is not even a party to the criminal case), different parties, and a different standard of proof.

If I burn your house down, you have an interest in being compensated for your loss, and the state has an interest in seeing to it that I (and others) don't go around burning houses down. But the state has a much more difficult job in winning its case, because of the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard. It would be unfair for you to forfeit your private right to redress, when all you have to do is prove by any margin greater than 50% that I'm responsible, just because the state failed to meet the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard.

Moreover, there is a mental state requirement for criminal liability that does not (or may not) be required for civil liability. For instance, to be criminally liable for arson, the state may have to prove that I intended to burn your house down, or at least that I consciously disregarded a known risk (recklessness); but the civil case may only require that I failed to avoid a risk that I *should have* known about (negligence, a lesser standard). So it's entirely conceivable that what I did would meet the standard for civil liability but not criminal liability.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

The character assassination stuff was not convincing to me: the prostitute charges AFAIK were never backed up; the inconsistencies in her story about what she did after the rape are the kinds of inconsistencies that occur all the time in such cases. Confused and abused people don't always act rationally. That she lied on her passport application is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would argue that such lying gives free reign to be raped without consequences to the rapist, if that is what happened.

The prosecution discovered most, and maybe all, of the "character assassination stuff". No one is arguing that lying gives free reign to one being raped. But her lies were sufficient and extensive enough that even the prosecution no longer believed her story.

Quote:
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

If character is to be brought into the equation, then it is more telling to me that several women have now come forward to talk about DSK's agressive sexual mode with at least one accusing him of rape. That the women were in agreement with him politically indicates that these allegations were almost certainly not just character assassination attempts. This to me is more telling than whether a woman lied about her children on an immigration application. Even the alleged calls to her jailhouse boyfriend (which again AFAIK have never been backed up) do not preclude rape. It is quite conceivable that she was raped and then told her friend I'm going to sue the B**tard for every penny.

"At least one" accused him or rape. Is it one or is it more than one? AFAIK, it is NONE. DSK WAS charged with sexual assault (attempted rape), but not rape itself, by French writer Tristane Banon.

I do not know precisely what her politics are, but she was (still is?) a columnist for at least one right-wing newspaper in France. AFAIK, and contrary to what you said, she does NOT share DSK's politics (though her mother does). (FWIW I believe her mother had consensual, albeit rough, sex with DSK.)

I'm not saying DSK is a nice guy. He may well be a sexual predator. But we should be clear about what he has and has not been accused of, and by whom.

Quote:
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

Anyway, as I said before, it may well be she has no case that would ultimately stand up in court. However, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to deny her her chance to make her case.

I think she had her chance to make her case. She failed to do so, early on in the process.

As the prosecutors said in the court papers asking the judge to drop the case, "“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant ... If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1171 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-08-24 11:07, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

The character assassination stuff was not convincing to me: the prostitute charges AFAIK were never backed up; the inconsistencies in her story about what she did after the rape are the kinds of inconsistencies that occur all the time in such cases. Confused and abused people don't always act rationally. That she lied on her passport application is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would argue that such lying gives free reign to be raped without consequences to the rapist, if that is what happened.

The prosecution discovered most, and maybe all, of the "character assassination stuff". No one is arguing that lying gives free reign to one being raped. But her lies were sufficient and extensive enough that even the prosecution no longer believed her story.

Quote:
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

If character is to be brought into the equation, then it is more telling to me that several women have now come forward to talk about DSK's agressive sexual mode with at least one accusing him of rape. That the women were in agreement with him politically indicates that these allegations were almost certainly not just character assassination attempts. This to me is more telling than whether a woman lied about her children on an immigration application. Even the alleged calls to her jailhouse boyfriend (which again AFAIK have never been backed up) do not preclude rape. It is quite conceivable that she was raped and then told her friend I'm going to sue the B**tard for every penny.

"At least one" accused him or rape. Is it one or is it more than one? AFAIK, it is NONE. DSK WAS charged with sexual assault (attempted rape), but not rape itself, by French writer Tristane Banon.

I do not know precisely what her politics are, but she was (still is?) a columnist for at least one right-wing newspaper in France. AFAIK, she does NOT share DSK's politics (though her mother does). (FWIW I believe her mother had consensual, albeit rough, sex with DSK.)

I'm not saying DSK is a nice guy. He may well be a sexual predator. But we should be clear about what he has and has not been accused of, and by whom.

Quote:
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

Anyway, as I said before, it may well be she has no case that would ultimately stand up in court. However, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to deny her her chance to make her case.

I think she had her chance to make her case. She failed to do so, early on in the process.

As the prosecutors said in the court papers asking the judge to drop the case, "“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant ... If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”


Your last paragraph suggests that the first paragraph is overstated. It's not (necessarily) the case that the prosecution didn't believe her; it's that it impacts her credibility to the extent that it may not be demonstrable (or believed) beyond a reasonable doubt. They could certainly still believe that she's telling the truth, but if all or almost all that they have in the case is her word, that might not be enough.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
"They could certainly still believe that she's telling the truth"

Sure. Or not.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15746 Posts

Profile of tommy
He was never in jeopardy. One is said to be in jeopardy only after a trial starts, which is when one is in put into the hands of the jury more or less. As he did not stand trial, if new evidence arises for example, then he could be be recharged for the same criminal offence.

One is never in jeopardy of being found guilty of a crime in civil court as its a cival matter.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Strauss-Kahn (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL