Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Dominique Strauss Kahn: Doubts on maid's credibility

206 replies

Rosamund1980 · 01/07/2011 13:25

It's looking like DSK will get off, as doubt is placed on the maid. Why do these stories repeat themselves?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13986970

OP posts:
dittany · 03/07/2011 09:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 22:32

You have said I am being deliberately obtuse and you are repeatedly twisting what I actually said, which is you have to look to the media for the important strands in opinion forming on this. Not your opinion - it's not about you. It was a serious point about the flows of information about these developments.

It is however abundantly clear now that such an approach is not considered valid, I have nothing more to say.

RafaNadalIsMyLoveSlave · 02/07/2011 22:02

As I said earlier, the point is that it has been proven that she gave false testimony to the grand jury and, as far as I know, DSK hasn't.

That is the only relevant point to come out of all this, and that is what will bring the case down. Whatever her reasons for doing so, the jury would not be able to convict DSK 'beyond reasonable doubt' now, surely. This business about whether prosecutors do or don't want to prosecute rapists is something of a smokescreen; it's irrelevant now.

dittany · 02/07/2011 21:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 21:37

Dittany:

A) you don't own this thread. It's not about you. And your critiques of my posts - when you admit upthread that you do not understand what I wrote - are getting a little hard to follow as they become contradictory.
B) you actually rejected as worthless my point that the media had a key role in this. Perhaps you weren't reading what I actually wrote and are now attempting to have it both ways.

But as the personal attacks on me are likely to continue, I'll leave you to it. And hope that any other posters who make it this far will assess what I actually wrote and linked. Not what is said about it by someone who posted that they didn't understand.

dittany · 02/07/2011 21:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 21:27

MoreBeta: I agree: I think what her lawyer put into the public domain yesterday was concerning.

dittany · 02/07/2011 21:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 02/07/2011 21:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MoreBeta · 02/07/2011 21:04

I was watching all of this live on US TV yesterday and the maid's lawyer basically came out of the court and gave a very graphic summary on live TV of the forensic evidence. I'm pretty sure no lawyer in the UK would have done that on live TV before the case had been heard.

the US justice system is different to the UK but to my eyes it was almost if the trial was being held on the steps of the court in front of TV cameras with lawyers and spokesmen for all sides stating their position.

One summary I read put the state of the evidence very simply 'its a mess'.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 20:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 20:00

I think his changing story was well known to both sides and extensively reported in the media (not sure how disclosure procedures would work for that, it would depend on what time in the early stages he said what - but he was consistent by the time it hit the courtroom, so there isn't a question of perjury).

With apologies to those who think the role of the media is unimportant, I thought others on this thread might like to see This CBS article "Seismic changes" which is typical of narrative around this, and which may prove opinion forming (not just on this case, but also for wider perceptions).

This is another interesting article, specifically about the "PR battle" in this case.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 19:45

If he were demonstrated to have committed perjury before the Grand Jury, then it would be.

Remember - it's the prosecution who had to disclose this information. And her lawyer (who had extensive airtime yesterday) did not dispute the information disclosed.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 19:40

I'm glad there are at least two other posters on this thread who appreciate the role of the media in this! Especially in forming the narrative round it.

flagging: can you find that article and gist it to us (The Times, unless you mean NY Times) is behind a pay wall - I haven't seen this (or similar) and won't be able to get to it as I don't subscribe to the paper.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 02/07/2011 19:36

LeninGrad - legally, he has no "history": Banon did not press charges in 2002.

flagging · 02/07/2011 19:34

Yes liars can be/are victims. But why would a jury believe a liar when it is his word against hers? Unless the prosecution can prove he's lied too she comes off worst.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 02/07/2011 19:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

coccyx · 02/07/2011 19:33

She lied under oath, she has only herself to blame. He hasn't lied. stupid to say he will get off, innocent until proven guilty.