Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

Boney I personally don't consider those three versions to be anything like as big as DSK's lie that he hadn't been there at the time and that he certainly hadn't had sex with her. Don't see why a case would fall apart on that.

One of the inconsistencies is that she said she left the room and went to complain immediately, but in fact went into another room first.

Another is that she apparently denied having unrelated, consensual sex the night before, when in fact she admitted to doing so later. This apparently would explain the red marks and bruising though personally I am fairly sure a doctor would be able to decide how recent the red marks are ie within the last couple of hours or a couple of days old.... Anyway...

about half way down

Boney can you find a link to that, please? I'm not aware of any inconsistencies related to the case, other than the fact that she didn't report the rape straightaway, which has an eminently plausible explanation and is a common occurrence for a rape victim (see rape myths link posted earlier).

sunshineandbooks

Ms Diallo told the prosecution 3 different versions of the event. According to reports from the prosecutors.

Rape myths are not something dreamed up by feminists either. Their existence is well-documented by many different organisations, including those not generally known for their pro-feminist perspectives.

A nice example from the Times here fortunately viewable because it was written before the introduction of the pay wall.

jenny - DSK is a special case among them! Way out there. And so is bleeding Anne Sinclair. Not many French women I come across can understand her attitude.

jennyviathewindow - just wondering what you're doing on a feminist thread? Because I'm quite sure that blaming women for the actions of men is NOT part of Feminism 101

No one is claiming to have the definitive version of the truth. But as long as none of us are involved in the case we are all entitled to our opinion based on what facts are known.

These are:
Forensic evidence proves that 'rough' sex had taken place (regardless of whether or not that was consensual)

DSK originally lied about having sex with Ms Diallo and only changed his story when faced with evidence proving the contrary

DSK is at the centre of a number of allegations about sexual misconduct (to put it mildly)

Ms Diallo's version of events have been consistent throughout (her status as a 'liar' is based on other areas of her life, not this case)

Less than 6% of rape allegations are false.

Rapists do get away with rape. 94% of allegations are true and yet only 6-7% are ever prosecuted.

I am prepared to concede that yes ok, I will never know the exact truth of what went on it that room on that day. But IMO anyone who can look at these facts and decide that the likelihood is that DSK is a poor innocent man exploited by a manipulative lying woman is someone who either views most women as manipulative liars generally or at the very least has internalised most of the rape myths about women.

Bonsoir - I can't think of many powerful men who are not womanisers. Perhaps when young attractive women stop throwing themselves at the feet of aged millionaires this will cease to be the case.

CRIKRI - very good point. This is, therefore, one aspect of the situation where the allegations are supported rather than the defendant's possible innocence. I haven't seen this acknowledged before.

Fewcloudy - I wasn't 'seeking' this, I was just putting it out there for discussion. I agree with the status quo on the basis of Crikri's argument. Please be careful with the assumptions you make.

I think we do know, however, that DSK is a serial womaniser of epic proportions and that his wife turns a blind eye (perhaps because she hoped to become the First Lady of France).

I find DSK to be a deeply suspiscious character who, as SandB pointed out, initially lied about the situation.

However, it seems to me that we don't know the truth of the situation any more than those who claim Dialllo was fabricating her case. Nor do we know what really happened with Banon. Just as some will take this case to add to their own prejudices about women making false claims, some will take this case to add to their belief that powerful men can do what they want to women.

The civil case will proceed anyway, so let's see what happens with that.

I agree that the accused shouldn't be named - it seems a bit unfair.

jennyviathewindow

Not sure the banning of reporting of rape is necessary but you would achieve what you seek by not naming the accused, something which many have been asking for years...

Sorry, I have had DSK overkill - the media here are obsessed and it is really upsetting to realise how bloody sexist they can be over here, women included. I really worry about bringin my daughter up here too, but not sure anywhere else is better.

Jenny, there are some who argue the name of the accused should be withheld from reports of rape cases until and unless there is a conviction. That goes with the assumption that to be accused of rape is somehow far more damaging than to be accused of any other crime, including murder. However, it is my understanding that the reason those accused of rape are named in media reports is to encourage others who may be able to provide evidence in the case (e.g. witnesses, others who allege assault against the same person, etc.) to come forward.

If there is a media "blackout," there would not be the opportunity to appeal for other witnesses, which would of course be a downside to it.

They are already trying to smear Tristane Banon. I heard her being referred to on the radio this morning as an opportunist. FFS, much much nearer the time of her alleged assault she actually talked about it on TV (they beeped his name out when it was boradcast). How is this opportunism now? AND, why the fuck didn't anyone pick up on it at the time? The other people in the studio laughed and joked about it; The police could have been informed but wouldn't have done anything anyway. Believe me she will be painted out to be either a liar or asking for it too.

Sometimes I hate France.

As one possible suggestion as to how some the problems may be mitigated, what would be the effects of banning the reporting of rape be?

In this, high profile case, it seems that the legions of 'I told you so' commentators would have been denied that position.

With you too Cheria

Yes Sunshine. In his original statement, he denied any sexual contact - saying he was having dinner with his daughter at the time of the incident. It was only when forensic evidence most definitely showed he was engaged in some kind of sexual activity with the witness that he stated, "any sexual activity was consensual." It was a way of not stating categorically that sexual activity took place, but "if it did" he insisted it was not forced.

This may seem a bit far out, but the fact is, prosecutions for sexual assaults are as rare as hen's teeth. Like AyeRobot, I do not believe that the paucity of convictions does not mean either that sexual assaults are very rare or that women who report that they have been raped/assaulted are automatically liars.

However, are we all colluding in some great fantasy that if a woman (or man or child for that matter) is sexually assaulted that they stand anything but a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the perpetrator be held accountable for their actions in law? Are we not adding major insult to injury here?

First, the person is raped and has to deal with the physical, emotional and social trauma arising from that - something that will be different for each person and each context. Then if they report it to the authorities, they have to "relive" the assault over and over again in statements, medical tests and if it gets that far, the court process. All the time, they will be challenged and pushed in ways to undermine them and portray them as liars. The culmination will probably be either the case never gets to court or if it does, the accused is acquitted. In either case, the final assumption is that if there was no conviction, the man is innocent and the victim - sorry, "witness" is a liar, full stop.

I can see that some will say that unless men believe there could be some sanction, some punishment for rape, there will be no disincentive to them. But, let's be honest, I don't think there is much disincentive at the moment. You've got a much higher risk of being caught and punished for driving a few miles over the speed limit than forcing someone to have sex against their will.

I belive her too and feel sick to my stomach on her behalf. Tristane Banon will be much harder to smear so more power to her in bringing her case against DSK in France. He sounds like a really dangerous character. Not that it will be much consolation to this poor woman

The thing which got me from the beginning was women, one i particular but I heard it a LOT when he was arrested (in France):

1. She was ugly so DSK would never have gone for her
2. It is impossible to orally rape someone

I have argued with this woman in tears trying to get her to see my point of view on both these and other points, and on Sunday (when they started saying charges would be dropped) I got a smug email saying she was right all along. It is so upsetting.

And as for the sodding politicians who now think he should rejoin the presidential campaign, don't get me started on them.

Sunshineandbrooks, that is indeed a very good point.

Ayerobot, I am asking whether your assertion that 'everyone else' is prejudiced whlist you are able to view the case on its own merits is a fair position to take. Or, as you say you do not need to be impartial, are you saying that you are prejudiced too, but the other way?

Alice, some feminism has some pretty extreme sexism in it so, whilst I take your point in theory, I'm not sure it's a safe rule of thumb.