Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

PettyCoat - see what you mean but I think that the French, with their strong sense of their country's international importance and their equally marked tendency to take themselves seriously, would want to differentiate themselves strongly from Italy in this respect (and in other respects, e.g. economically).

jenny you are trotting out the "we should ignore statistics if they don't back up what I'm saying" line. Again. You do it every time people come up with a considerable weight of evidence to show the flaws in your thinking. I bet if the statistic was 94% of rape allegations are made up by women out of spite you'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

You are also creating straw arguments in saying that all feminists are determined to portray DSK as a rapist even when there's no incontrovertible proof and therefore our opinion is borne out of an inherent bias against men. I am saying that, due to the nature of rape accusations generally, plus DSK's own dubious history, plus the forensic evidence, I conclude that the overwhelming LIKELIHOOD is that he is guilty. The link Boney linked to only provided one (not three) area of inconsistency within the case, which is the one I already mentioned and refers to the fact that her account of what happened after the rape varied in her accounts. This is quite typical behaviour in a rape case (and in violent crime generally) and does not prove she made the whole thing up.

While there is always the possibility that this case may be one of the 0.6% in which the accused is innocent, it's not likely, is it. My opinion has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the balance of probabilities. If I walk across a busy road without looking where I'm going, the balance of probabilities suggest I will get hit by a car. Of course there may be a slim chance I wouldn't be, but I would be foolish to ignore THE MOST LIKELY outcome.

ON the other hand your stance shows an incredibly strong will to defend DSK against all odds. That seems highly irrational to me.

Interestingly, every single man I have spoke to in RL takes the same opinion as the feminists on this board.

But we do know some of what happened in that room.

Apparently we are expected to believe that chamber maids are gagging for a hurried suck of complete strangers' cocks in between changing sheets and hoovering carpets.

We are expected to believe that chamber maids will risk their jobs and security for an alfresco blow job with a rich powerful hotel guest that they do not expect to be in a room they are intending to clean.

We are expected to ignore that rich powerful influential hotel guest denied any sexual encounter at all.

The blatancy of the rape myth peddling in this case is astounding really when one takes of one's patriarchy blinkers and engages in a little feminist analysis and critical thinking.

Good point Petty. And lots of others. Gadhaffi was a friend until recently. Wouldn't want to hug him for other reasons but plenty of dictators or generally crappy people have been either elected by their people or accepted by foreign leaders...

Clare the DA has released his official reasons for wanting the case dropped - posted by AyeRobot above, but the court hasn't decided to drop charges based on that request yet. That will be today, and is most likely to happen.

As it is, everyone assumes it will so as far as the French commentors are concerned he is as good as free. You never know, we may be surpised later on... but I doubt it somehow.

ClareinFrance I really hope so. But... Berlusconi?

Plus if said chambermaid was, as DSK's lawyers and the press made her out to be, a regular servicer of the hotel clients, wouldn't someone else have come forward by now to back that up? At least anonymously to the DA?

Poor woman. She deserved the chance to go before a jury. I am appalled. I woud expect this kind of outcome in France, not in the US.

Unless I'm missing something, things are still up in the air, even if there is plenty of supposition based on earlier statements. I think we'll know more about the fate of the criminal case later this afternoon (Tuesday 23rd).

Of course, I don't "know" if DSK raped Diallo, but I feel I do know that he is a shady character where women are concerned, and certainly not the kind of man I'd want to lead the country I live in. Not being able to vote in France, I have no say in this matter - but I comfort myself with the notion that the French are unlikely to elect as President (should DSK ever decide to run) a man whom other world leaders would be unlikely to embrace, either physically or metaphorically because of the whiff lingering around him. In other words, I suspect he is too tarnished by this mega-high profile scandal, and the assorted others it has brought into the spotlight, ever to be able to pretend to such high office. If I am right, then this will have taught the French political establishment a useful bit about how others in the world view the kind of sexual shenanigans it supposedly finds acceptable and normal. And it will have humbled DSK just a bit.

That would be some kind of progress, I think.

slhilly, ok, I take your point at 1355 and apologise for adding your voice to those previously heard.

The point I was trying to make was that if one believes that DSK is guilty on the basis that only 6% of rape claims are fake (as two people have suggested), then why would one not also support a system that makes the same presumption of guilt. No, I don't think anyone would say this - but how is it different to what they are doing?

Given how none of us know what happened in that room, I do not see how believing he is guilty is fundamentally different to believing he is innocent. They are both guesses regardless of how much 'evidence' one thinks they have for their guess.

I have also read the document and I am as convinced as before, if not more so, that it seems implausible the sexual encounter described was consensual.

Chamber maid going about her usual duties decides to hurriedly suck the penis of a complete stranger in a suite she thought to be empty and only went to for the purpose of cleaning. Sounds like utter crap to me.

Rich powerful white guy with a history of sexual predation forces himself on poor powerless woman of colour (and then lies about it). Rich powerful white guy acts entitled and assumes that he will get away with it as he is amongst the most powerful and influential men in male dominated society and the person he has attacked is amongst the least powerful and influential. Yup sounds like a pretty classic event in patriarchal society of classic sexually predatory behaviour to me.

jenny, no I'm not drafting a response to your question. And I never called you a rape apologist but hey, it's always good to put words in people's mouths But to continue the theme of arseyness, you never answered my question about what you are doing on a feminist board. In the words of Nicola Murray, did you come here today with a big bucket of s* and a whisk?

ColdTruth, I've now read the thing from one end to the other. Bluntly, I don't see the reasons why the case failed. I think the document clearly establishes:

• That the defendant has lied about a whole range of other matters, and that her testimony has been inconsistent in relation to this
• That the physical evidence is clear that there was a sexual encounter but could not show whether it was consensual

slhilly if you read the reasons you will see why the case failed

I started to read the motion but got no further than the front page. I was stunned by this:
"After an extensive investigation, it is clear that proof of two critical elements - force and lack of consent - would rest solely on the testimony of the complaining witness at trial." and this
"Indeed, the case rises and falls on her testimony."

That is the sexism of rape trials writ large. Of course her testimony is important. But it is not the only testimony that is important. His testimony is important too. What ought to matter is the relative credibility of the testimony. He has already publicly lied about basic facts, and this ought to matter.

After reading that link I can see why the case was dropped, I don't think this is a case which you can use as an example.

Section D on the last page is interesting. I hope in the future no decent actress ever accuses anyone of rape because she won't be believed.

Tsk.

jenny, I don't understand what you mean. I am not the law. Why is it morally wrong for me to take sides? And why do you describe doing so as "automatic"? It's not, it's based on the facts as reported and what we know about how rapes take place. It's a considered view. We don't need to know what happened to have an opinion on what we think probably happened.

The fact that some voices here may want a punishment you think is too harsh for anyone accused of rape should not be used to browbeat the rest of us into not voicing a view that we think it's likely that DSK raped this maid. And I think you ought to be more careful with your facts and suppositions if you're going to complain about other people being too free with theirs. You say "There are some voices here who would hang any man following an accusation of rape and this can not be right." That is a strawman assertion which is not based on the facts. No-one has argued anything like this position.

I presume that by your final statement, what you actually meant was that "some people here appear to believe that men accused of rape should be treated as guilty until proven innocent by the justice system". Otherwise, your statement doesn't make much sense. I'm not aware that anyone has argued that this is the solution. In fact, people have been here to voice their despondency about the failures of the justice system in this case, more than to argue for the kinds of change they'd like to see. You can read about the kinds of practical steps many women would like to see happen to improve justice for raped women by looking at websites like this

AyeRobot - interesting reading. Legally they have wormed their way out of it. I still believe her though.

Full text here

I still believe her even though I understand why the case has been dropped.

And which version of his are we supposed to believe?

The one where he said no sexual encounter took place or the one where he said that it was consensual?

Make your mind up white powerful rich guy.

I choose to go with his first version - except the forensic evidence shows this to be a lie. Surely one would have to be exceptionally incurious as to not wonder why he would lie about such a thing.

(Quite obviously the explanation of trying to protect his reputation or his wife is not the correct one. He is proud of his sexual predation womanising and every woman in France, including his wife, knows that he has trouble keeping his dick in his pants.)

Beachcomber, that is entirley correct. I refer to my very first posts on this thread wrt to my personal view of how the law works.

Shilly, I have made this statement already. The law can not and should not look to previously recorded cases for an insight into what happened this time. I believe that it is wrong to automatically take sides and that is what many people are doing here. I think people who are saying DSK are innocent are wrong to do so and I think that those saying he is not are equally wrong. We do not know. There are some voices here who would hang any man following an accusation of rape and this can not be right.

I would be interested to see if anyone is brave enough to say outright that they believe men alleged to have committed a rape should be guilty unless proven innocent. It certainly seems to be some people's belief.

All women need to wake up to the reality that most rape is, in practice, legal.

Proper criminalisation is feared by men (and some women) because it would probably curtail men's 'right' to casual sex.

jenny, believing her is not at all similar to believing him. Believing her is a position that is more likely to be right than believing her.

Fewer than 6% of rape allegations are false. That is a rational basis for believing her. It's not a basis for asserting anything definitive, but it is certainly a rational basis for believing her.

What would you have to believe, to believe him?

• That this chambermaid, in a low-status job where job security is poor, room-cleaning turnaround times are very high, CCTV is everywhere and management is tight, was willing to risk a sexual encounter with a guest
• That she was specifically willing to risk an encounter with a fat old white guy in a very expensive suite, who comes from an utterly different culture from her. I'm sure such cross-cultural encounters do happen, but I'm equally sure they're pretty wildly unusual
• That the only material thing DSK lied about was his initial denial of the very fact of the encounter, and that his reasons for doing so are plausible
• etc etc

I think Occam's razor alone suggests that the more plausible explanation is that she was raped vs it having been consensual.

It does seem however that a lot of people choose to understand that 'innocent until proven guilty' means that DSK is innocent unless he has been declared guilty by a court of law.

Of course in reality the term does not mean anything of the sort - it is just a neutral legal concept that means that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to the opportunity to defend themselves. The term does nothing to imply guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. Hijacking the term to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest (MIL I'm looking at you...)

If DSK is not pronounced guilty by a court of law because the case is dropped, that doesn't make him innocent, it makes him untried.

Another thumbs up to Aliceliddel's post.