Dominique Strauss Kahn: Doubts on maid's credibility

[Rosamund1980]

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

This is my whole point. The presumption of 'innocent til proven guilty' is a legal formula/convention. The real life situation is we believe either him or her. I believe her. I believe all women who say they have been raped because I would want that for myself, my daughter, my friends. You can hang on to the legal protection of sexual predators if you like. If this criminal case was in a civil court, decided on the balance of probability, who would you believe?

I would want that for myself, my daughters and female friends, but I wouldn't want that for my sons or the men close to me.

"You can hang on to the legal protection of sexual predators if you like."

I see. So saying 'I don't know, I would specualte but I don't know' makes anyone who disagrees with the 'believe every time' position as being on the side of sexual predators. Yes, women lie about being attacked. I know this. Women also lie about DV incidents. I know this too. So, in my sane world I reject the absurdity of the 'believe every time'. I am not 'hanging on' to anything.

but how do you know he's a rapist - how can you say that for sure -anymore than you can say he's not a rapist

I don't doubt he has come on strong and harassed women but he is not a proven rapist.

Yes, but lots of people including some of the prosecutors - don't! So you can't say he's a proven rapist- he hasn't been convicted.

I believe her. However, a court of law might not. Sadly= the world we live in.

If-a BIG if- the prostitute story is true, then he is also the kind of man who in his early sixties, and married, fancies his own virility to be so potent that a hotel cleaner on her normal rounds would fall under his spell and willingly fellate him and submit herself to anal intercourse. Then he would be shocked when she asked for money. He, of course would never need to pay for sex, as he is irresistible to women, so he refused her. Then strolled off for lunch with his daughter, knowing he was in the right and that the maid was just one of the many women he has seduced in his time.

So far the examples we have are allegations that he is a harasser (his ex- colleague at the IMF with whom he had a short affair claimed he was insistent and that she had felt cornered), a letch (Air France flight attendant to whom he allegedly remarked 'nice arse') and a man allegedly who forces himself on women (Tristane Banon- attempted rape).

Society clearly thinks this behaviour is acceptable, seeing as he is about to go free AND possibly still have a political career to return to.

This story is instructive although depressing and gives some answers as to why rape conviction is so low. It seems you cannot be a victim of rape if you have had sex EVER.

In this instance I don't think her sexual history has been used against her at all. What do you mean?

And for the record, as I'm back in the feminist section, let me say I think 99% of rape allegations are probably true.

I think there are huge practical difficulties with securing a conviction because its so easy to claim its consensual and there are never any witnesses. So lots of men do get away with rape, which is sickening, but I don't believe that anger can lead you to think 'right, anyone accused of rape is definitely guilty', even if they are a sleazy cheat. I'll always keep an open mind, as I do with most accused for bad stuff. Wrong about Harold Shipman (he seemed like a nice old doctor!), right about Colin Stagg (obviously they pinned it on local weirdo).

I agree mary. I think everyone believed her and she got a lot of support from the US police and media. DSK instead, though innocent (technically) was chucked into prison and perp walked in front of the world's media. So I don't see how she has been victimised by the system.

If this prosecution fails and he walks free (v likely) it'll be her fault for lying repeatedly, discussing extorting DSK with a criminal boyfriend, lying (by her own admission) about previous sexual assaults and her movements after the alleged rape. It won't be because 'society' didn't back her.

don't forget that re women 'lying' in rape allegations, two things often happen:

1. the woman is given a very hard time during the investigation, she is treated like a criminal, basically assaulted again during medical examinations, etc, until she is broken by the process and backtracks and says she made it up. I am sure this kind of thing happens less than it used to in this country, but I have no doubt it is still very common elsewhere.

1. if she makes a mistake or gets confused during what is often a very tough interrogation, even about an irrelevant detail, this is taken as her lying.

I don't know enough of the details in this case, but I would certainly not assume that because she has 'admitted lying' she is dishonest/culpable.

remember if you are a woman breaking the law in any way whatsoever (working illegally, prostitution, drug use) this means that in a rape investigation they can prove you are a liar. hell, they could even do it if you were a teenager who had nipped out of the house to meet a boyfriend and told your parents you were at a mate's house.

The victim claimed she was gang raped in Guinea so she could get into America. As it turned out this was utter tripe and she was overheard on a prison phone telling the boyfriend what she had said and laughing about it (according to the US papers). She then asked how much money would she get if she said she had been raped by DSK.

So this is not her breaking under tough interrogation or being confused. This is lying, plain and simple. How can she expect people to believe her under these circumstances? And the worse thing is, she may well have been assaulted.

and how do we know it was tripe and how do we know the person who claimed to hear her talk on the prison phone isn't lying? Is there a recording?

a) because they have a recording of her being coached to say it and laughing about it
b) because journalists have been to her home in Guinea and everyone says no way is it true including family, friends
c) because she admitted she made it up

but why would you automatically believe the hotel worker - why not the guest? is it just on gender grounds? what if they/re both women - then who do you believe?

I wonder if this was a set up actually. I really didn't think that at the start and bent DH's ear on the subject of powerful men thinking they can do what the hell they like and how good to see one get his come uppence. Hope he goes down for 25 years etc etc. But over time I'm not so sure.

The problem is that in every case, people think of reasons not to believe the woman.

Do we really think that a hotel worker would have consenual sex with a guest in between cleaning rooms? If they did have consenual sex, why would he claim that he didn't have sex with her at all to begin with and then later change his story?

If she did try to set him up, how do we explain the physical evidence of a forced sexual encounter that the prosecuter says exists?

If she was a prostitute trying to claim her money and they got into a fight, why would he have left her bruised and beaten? Is he similarly bruised after the fight?

His latest version of the story, suggests that at the very least he beat her up but we're still talking about the man being a possible presidential candidate.

Was she really beaten? I haven't heard that?

All this discussion raises the question about how can the law be changed to deal with the low percentages of rape convictions.

Unless we change the whole principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (or at least remove it for men), and given that rape is usually one person's word against the other, what can we do?