Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

English lawyers will tell juries "beyond reasonable doubt" means "you are sure". That is definitely different from "we think it's very likely he is". The latter isn't enough to convict. I wouldn't definitely convict DSK based on what I know, if I were on a jury. I'd want to hear the evidence tested first. But I would be minded to convict. Cos his story sounds like a crock of shit, while hers has holes that don't seem particularly important. And alternative explanations like honeypots do seem pretty unlikely. For a start, what incentives could a nefarious Sarkozy aide have offered her to do this? Especially when she could have made just as much money by telling the aide "meet me next Thursday so we can go over our Marvellous Plan" and simply recorded the aide and sold the story to the New York Post for gazillions of dollars, thus avoiding the humiliation and awfulness of the sexual encounter with DSK. And how could the aide have had any reasonable assurance of the scheme's success? And wouldn't the aide have chosen a candidate with the greatest likelihood of entrapment, ie conforming to stereotypes of attractiveness?

And we are not in a court of law giving a verdict after hearing evidence, we're just chewing the fat on MN, discussing what is generally known about this case and seeing how that fits into issues surrounding rape in male dominated society generally.

Cote I have tended to find that there is a bit of a generation gap amongst the views of the French people I know. Younger people think the conspiracy stuff is silly nonsense and that DSK is a sexual predator who is more likely than not guilty of rape. Older people (particularly if the are left-wing) think DSK has been set up and seem to engage in some pretty remarkable cognitive dissonance about his reputation for sexually harassing and assaulting women. They don't have any explanation for what happened to Tristane Banon other than 'she made it up'.

None of us here, one assumes, is or is likely to become involved in either a criminal or civil case involving the parties discussed. Therefore, surely we are at liberty to express whether we feel the alleged attacker to be guilty or not of the assault.

There are two wider issues here related to incidences of rape and sexual assault which are troubling.

Stepping on from Clare in France's example that smoking pot in college or engaging in any illegal or dishonest activity in the past undermines one's credibility as a witness - there do seem to be quite a few examples where people who have less than clean backgrounds have given testimony that has helped lead to a conviction for other crimes. For example, it's not unheard of for someone initially accused of a crime to be given a lesser sentence through a "plea bargain" which involves them testifying against another person.

If in a sexual assault, the victim is regarded as a witness, why should previous examples of illegal or dishonest activity automatically negate her testimony as unreliable? Is there something specific about being a victim/witness of a sexual assault that means previous examples of illegal or dishonest behaviour carry more weight than with other crimes like burglary or murder?

The other issue that seems clear is that sexual contact, regardless of the type of contact, is always presumed to be consensual until proven otherwise. The bar of "proof" is extremely high - e.g. the position of the semen sample in this case which suggested the oral sex was non-consensual and the damage to her underclothes have to be presumed to be the result of consensual sex unless there is considerable evidence to the contrary. And, it seems rare that testimony of the witness/victim will ever be considered as reliable evidence, unless her previous character is unblemished and there is other corroboration, say from a witness.

I could imagine even if there were CCTV footage of a sexual assault, the accused could argue that it was all just part of the "rough sex" that the alleged victim "enjoyed," and the cameras didn't catch the part where she gave her consent.

Gah, the charges have just officially been dropped.

Am I right in thinking that the civil standard of proof ('balance of probabilities') requires a 50%+ 'proof' whilst a criminal standard ('beyond reasonable doubt') requires a 95%+ 'proof'?

Anyway, whatever the numbers, people who think that the case is anywhere above 50% in her favour can believe her whilst also understanding that DSK has not been 'proven guilty' to a criminal standard (as no-one can be without a court process).

I think it is stronger than 'probably', but I guess it's a semantic, subjective argument.

'very likely' does not mean beyond all reasonable doubt, it means probably.

"When people have said "no, we've not decided he's guilty, we just think it's very likely he is""

But that is calling him guilty, since surely 'very likely' means 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I'm not engaging, sorry. You have a fine way with words SLhilly, but I haven't time to go around these circles with you.

If you believe her, you don't believe him. If you believe her you are little different from those that believe him. (I, myself, do not know enough about the case to even have a suspiscion about what may or may not have happened - I'm not sure how this is a position that can attract criticism.)

The legal system favours the defendant (I said this in my first post). I have yet to see an alternative that does not breach the fundamental tenets of any legal system.

That's it. I've no more to add.

"The way the world works for me does not include many chambermaids who suck the cocks of rich strangers on randomly encountering them in hotel rooms"

I live in France, too, and it is widely believed here that DSK was ambushed by Sarkozy because he was going to be PS' candidate for next year's elections. Everyone knows that he was promiscuous, but that is not much of a problem in French politics. Rape, on the other hand, would (and did) kill his political aspiration to be the President of France.

So, you are right, in general chambermaids don't go around proposing blow jobs to rich strangers in hotel rooms, but more than a few women are known to have sprung honey traps on strangers. Given the curious timing of the incident, lack of evidence for rape, and repeated lies of this particular chambermaid to the police, I understand why prosecution dropped the case.

You're the one who's said that people here have decided he's guilty and so that means we all ought to be willing to accept a reversal of the burden of proof. When people have said "no, we've not decided he's guilty, we just think it's very likely he is" and "no, we're not arguing for the reversal of the burden of proof" you're dismissing what they say as mere semantics. That sounds like intellectual skulduggery to me.

You've said that you think it's "unethical" to "condemn" someone without knowing the full facts. I presume you mean it's unethical that some of us are saying publicly "we believe her, we believe he raped her". Why is it unethical to say so?

See I tend to believe her (because women lying about rape is actually very unusual whereas men lying about it is really really common) but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said that no sexual encounter had taken place.

Unfortunately though, the forensic evidence showed that he was lying (as is common with alleged rapists because they don't want to go to jail).

Him now going 'she wanted it' is a classic alleged rapist's lie, and is the usual course of action when the 'wasn't even there guv' defence has been shown to be a lie.

They are all just so alike these sexual predators aren't they? Bit like rich entitled white guys really. And this guy is both.

why is she unreliable?

Alice - I see what you are saying, but I don't agree. I'm not sure that I'm defending the status quo either. If you refer to my first posts you will see that I talked about, what I saw, as a blatant problem with the process. I have yet to see a suggestion as to an alternative though. I also said that the last time this came up there wasn't a (posted) alternative. SLhilly has perhaps posted a link, but I will have to look at that later... We are now six pages in...

Oh God help me - another sermon on semantics.

If you believe her, you have decided that she is telling the truth. No amount of intellectual skulduggary will change that.

Go back and read what you wrote. You didn't say "people in this thread believe he is guilty without knowing categorically that he is". You said "people in this thread have decided he is guilty without knowing categorically that he is".

There is a huge distinction between believing someone is guilty and deciding they are. Decisions are settled conclusions. Beliefs are hypotheses based on what we know - they are not categorical. That is why so many posters have said to you they are willing to concede the possibility that he is not guilty but find it implausible.

I think that his guilt or innocence is irrelevant to lies in the press, but each to their own.

Only in that if DSK had been convicted of sexual assault I would have posted that her chances of getting compensation from any of the gutter press for insinuating she was a prostitute increased a lot today.

Just a gut feeling...

How could they believe her without believing that he is guilty?

If you can explain that I'll reconsider my position.

Jenny, I'm at a loss to understand how your post actually responds to mine.

I said: "I know that I don't know what happened in that room."
You respond with "you do not know what happened in the room."
Did you read what I wrote?

You are not correct in "stating that people in this thread have decided he is guilty without knowing categorically that he is and they seem [to believe they are] justified in doing this." I challenge you to back up this statement with some actual facts - go back over the entire thread and find a quote to show that at least two posters have "decided he is guilty". Facts are supposed to be important to you, that's why you've been making your arguments. But you keep on playing fast and loose with them yourself. Not a single poster has said anything that could lead you to conclude that they have "decided he is guilty". They have instead said they "believe her" or they don't believe him. Indeed, most of the discussion about guilt has revolved around your assertion that other posters have decided he is guilty, and people have repeatedly responded by talking at some length about what they believe, and the reasons for their belief. No-one has said "I've decided he's guilty". You keep on putting words and positions into other people's mouths that they do not hold. That is unacceptable, especially for someone who purports to care about the facts.

I've answered your question about reversing the burden of proof twice. I'll do it a third time, on the off-chance that this time you'll be capable of responding to what I write, rather than just re-asking the same question. Reversing the burden of proof is not an Inevitable Logical Consequence of holding a personal belief that a particular man is guilty of a particular rape: it is, in fact, just a CRAP IDEA that you have dreamt up as a metaphorical stick to beat others with. Unsurprisingly, people who care about this issue don't want to do it. They want to pursue effective means of pursuing justice for rape victims.

Honestly, I think you're now at the stage of embarrassing yourself in public. You've:

• claimed to care about the facts but played fast-and-loose with them in your posts, repeatedly putting words into the mouths of others
• dreamed up strawmen and ignored the fact that others have explained repeatedly why the arguments don't stack up

What do you really want to achieve? What is your reason for posting? Why are you not reading what people are writing more carefully?

Why?
Has she been proven to be a prostitute? No.
What's the relevance of today's developments?

I think her chances of getting compensation from any of the gutter press for insinuating she was a prostitute decreased a lot today...

SandB That's a very good extension of the argument and thank you for a discussion rather than a diatribe. No, of course we all make assumptions based on the balance of probabilities. Life would be impossible if we did not and, in your example, extremely impractical.

There is the question of ethics, though, isn't there? What are the ethics of condemning a person without knowing the full facts of the case. If you are fine with this, then that's up to you. I don't like it.

We are also talking about the legal framework that surrounds rape trials and not my shopping habits. Of course people may decide that they believe one side or the other - but what is the difference between people who guess that there was consent and those who guess that there was not? I do take the point about balance of probability*, but it does remain exactly that - probable not definite - and it comes back to condemning someone on the basis of subjective interpretation.

• Some of which I have taken issue with. For example, the fact that DSK lied does not indicate anything; many people who have consensual sex outside of their marriage lie about it. Espescially ones who may end up on the front pages of newspapers.

I couldn't give two hoots about DSK and if he's guilty then I'm pleased that he'll carry the tarnish from this event for the rest of his life. What I don't like is the idea that defending legal process and balance is the same as defending him.