IMF head Strauss-Khan charged with sexual assault, attempted rape and imprisonment of hotel maid in New York

I really hope this woman and her family don't get dragged through the mire. But it's looking likely.

sorry, I've overstated there, people haven't said he definitely won't get off.

she's a single mum too so she may well have had to finish in time for a school or childcare pick-up.

I'm glad everyone thinks he won't get off. I really hope he won't, you just get so jaded after so many apparently open-and-shut cases where the jury still manages to find enough doubt to acquit.

Conspiracy theories are useful to a defence because they can be applied in several scenarios.

Initially they are used to cast doubt on the occurrence of events or actions. If this fails and it is shown that events did occur, the conspiracy theory then shifts to focus on the motive by saying "the events occurred but it was a trap".

I have also worked as a chambermaid and it's bloody hard work to get all your rooms cleaned on time. I had no inclination to shag any of the guests - fat and old or otherwise

I think they will be under pressure to get him - especially if other women complain.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/dominique-strauss-kahn-tristane-banon

He has a reputation for this kind of thing.

'A source close to the defense later told The Post, "There may well have been consent."'

The Post = the Sun

This wasn't said in court at the time & it isn't in the NYT.

There is nothing that puts a woman more in the mood for sex than scrubbing 15 toilets in a row.

He can't use the date rape excuse, he can't claim that she was drunk or wearing a mini-skirt. I think there is a high chance of a successful prosecution in this case.

well, obviously they are going to use the consent line. I would not be surprised if he got off. Because there will be a teeny bit of doubt in the jury's mind, her word against his, mustn't ruin a man's reputation when we're not 101% certain, etc etc.

I worked as a chamber-maid (when I was a student) and is is exhausting, badly paid, depressing work and you do not get to finish (and get the hell out of the place) until you have cleaned all your allocated rooms. You often have a highly stressed Head housekeeper screaming for clean rooms. There is absolutely no way that any chamber maid has the time or inclination to start shagging the guests whilst on duty.

His defence team are going to have to come up with something better than this, even the ludicrous conspiracy theories were more believable.

I feel guilty now... you really made me laugh celadon... So, we give up on the conspiracy theories at least.

New York Post 'she consented' article here:

www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/seduced_and_she_said_oui_oui_Oj0Z4K8iFIheZa4gvTBUWN

Is it cynical to be at the sequence of reported events;

sexual assault charge > "I've got an alibi" > talk of forensic evidence > "she consented guv".

Agree with celadron - how likely is it that a woman at work would have a quick sexual encounter with a stranger whilst carrying out her duties.

I hate that 'women are always sexually available and gagging for it' crap. I blame porn.

We should be cautious - a lot of information is being released here - wasn't he supposed to be having lunch with is daughter at the time, according to yesterday's news? Now he admits he was there, but that "she consented".

BC that's why I was trying to say too! Thank you, am hopelessly inarticulate sometimes.

This just in from the New York Post:

Strauss-Khan's Defense: The Victim Consented:

'' Lawyers for IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn argued at his arraignment that the hotel worker who has accused him of a sexual attack consented to encounter. "The evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter," said one lawyer, while a defense source tells the New York Post, "There may well have been consent." Neither Strauss-Kah nor his accuser had scratches or bruises, but the accuser?s hospital exam supports her account, as might forensic evidence at the scene of the crime. ''

I mean by people talking about the case, rather than in the trial itself

I see what you mean Bc but it does get used a lot more in rape trials than other kinds of trial. And I don't believe it is used in a neutral way (although I agree that it should be a neutral phrase).

Bc you just articulated exactly what I tried to say (more clumsily) in another thread about "innocent until proven guilty".
Bless you for your clarity!

And as for this 'innocent until proven guilty' thing - it doesn't mean that he is innocent, it doesn't mean that he is probably innocent and it doesn't imply anything about the probability of either guilt or innocence.

It means that everybody is entitled to a fair trial, and that until the evidence is heard and judged, a person is in the state of legal non-guilt. It is in effect a very neutral statement when applied properly.

I don't like the way this phrase is often seized upon in the context of rape charges. Bandying it around without qualification, implies that the victim is lying/man in his position couldn't possibly/yada yada yada rape myth yada yada.