Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

sunshine yes yes yes - and on so many other things in his life. I'm so angry and not just because my mother in law sai all along that she was lying

It is a total step back in time for women. I can't believe it. I'm so upset. I really should calm down, but I can't.

DSK originally denied any sort of sexual encounter with Ms Diallo. If anyone is already a proven liar, it is him.

I am not on a jury so I don't need to be impartial.

I just believe her. Why wouldn't I? I also believe two of my friends who were raped but the CPS decided not to pursue their cases. Should I fence sit as far as they are concerned too?

I nearly cried when I woke up this morning and heard about this (in France, so all the smug rent a quotes were even more freaking annoying than they are in the UK). I wrote a long rant on my blog about it.

To those who say she referred to his wealth on the phone to her friend in prison : she also referred to the attack as being an attack. There is nothing in her conversation to say the attack didn't happen, just that she knew she was wealthy and may cash in on it. And, sorry, I don't blame her.

This is so wrong on so many levels, and could be a massive setback for women, particularly in France, who will not dare to say anything (still not dare to sa anything) because as soon as someone complains about a man in a position of power they get told she is lying or trying to get money out of him, or that she was asking for it.

Women here were starting to come forward about the scary things they have done, but this will just prove the smug sodding rent-a-quotes right. I'm so angry , just so fucking angry.

Not saying he is innocent or guilty, but it shouldhave gone to trial based on the forensic evidence, not on nasty ways of blackening her name. Agh

AyeRobot -

Most people have pre-conceived nonsense in their heads?

You, on the other hand, are able to determine the truth of the DSK case - finding for Diallo's claims.

How, despite your belief in the prevelance of rape myths, have you managed to remain so much more impartial than the rest of us?

I really wish this case had gone to criminal trial. It seems to me that the inherent power imbalance of the undisputed encounter has just not been considered at all and that there should be some charge that could have related to that at the very least. There seems to be no pressure on him to provide an explanation of why a 62 year old powerful, high status man would go ahead with a rough sexual encounter (which I believe is supported by the forensic evidence) with someone he had just met where he likely had the power to get her sacked or disciplined: all the pressure is on her to explain what happened over and over and be 100% consistent in a very upsetting situation.

I agree with jennyv that it is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt and I don't have any suggestions on this but it is still important that the cases actually go to court as there will never be a chance to prove them otherwise. (not saying I don't understand why some victims choose not to go forwards but that's not the situation here).

I wish her luck in her civil case.

Challenging rape myths so that juries are not walking into the court room with pre-conceived nonsense in their heads is the main way to go, I think. Cases get dropped because of the lack of a realistic chance of conviction. That's because prosecutors know how Joe or Joanna Bloggs approach sexual offences cases.

I still believe her.

Sadly, I agree. Therefore, rape will remain an "occupational hazard" of being female.

Sorry - it was in AIBU a while ago and the posters that came back were more interested in derailment. In the end I had the thread deleted because a few people PMd me to express concern that the levity might be distressing to those who had suffered abuse.

So anyway, yes, I agree it's a problem, but no, I don't think there is anything that can be done about it without undermining the basics of our legal system.

1. Yes. 2. It shouldn't - the weighting (as you put it) should always be on the side of the (potentially) innocent. i.e. It is up to the prosecution to prove the charge and not up to defendants to prove themselves innocent.

Alice, rather depressingly, within the wider context of institutional sexism, I don't think decisions within the criminal justice system regarding sexual violence can genuinely be reformed in a way to remove the "weighting" for the accused (and where the victim is simply a witness to the crime.)

It is and will remain a low risk, high reward activity.

I agree with Scaevola that it is dangerous to use individual cases and presume injustices. However, I agree with you that there is an inherrent difficulty with rape cases.

It is usually the case that only people who will know the truth of the issue are the two people involved. Therefore, whilst forensics will often be able to determine whether sexual activity took place or not, the issue of consent boils down to one person's word against the other.

As you rightly point out, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If this is the case, how does one prove the case of rape? You ask if we can change this situation, but it would be interesting to see what you think we can change it to.

I have posted this question before and not received any responses, so I'm not sure if anyone has a suggestion to improving the situation.

Agree with all Scaevola said. I think you have to choose your battles and this isn't one of them :(

I'm not at all comfortable with the fact that she had been recorded discussing the case with a jailed friend and appeared to refer to Mr Strauss-Kahn's wealth, which his supporters said pointed to a financial motive in her pursuit of the case. But it seems the prosecution were unhappy with this fact, one of several issues they were unhappy with and they know a lot more about the case than anyone here...

The medical/forensic evidence would have been relevant had it supported Ms Diallo's version of events. According to the prosecution it didn't. Now this is the same prosecution which was ready to arrest Strauss Kahn in a blaze of publicity. For them to have such a turn around on such a high profile case suggests there really is a problem with the evidence.

For that reason, I would not want to use this particular case as a basis for anything.

Or at least not at present - if her civil case is successful, then the whole picture changes. But it has not yet even begun, so - useful though the headlines may be as a rallying cry - I think it is premature to base anything on this individual case.