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

LeninGrad, how would controlling the media help rape convictions?

IMO the "guilty till proven innocent" hysteria of this affaire has put any sensible discussion of trying rape cases back by 2 decades, by reinforcing every prejudice against women "cry rape" victims that ever existed.

Next time, everyone please just STFU until it comes to court.

My thought was more that this case ticks nearly every rape myth box, and the huge hype around it just increases the problem of overcoming it all.

BTW I lived in NY for a few years, but I don't recall anything quite like this one for upfront dramatic hooha - and there were some big ones at the time.

I just read this, thought it was interesting.

This is all true - but you can't get justice for those who have a pattern of lying because their version just won't stand up in court. Rape is almost always a 'he says/she says' scenario. Juries tend to go with the most believable account and a person that seems most honest.

It's already a bit of an odd situation (though I am not saying impossible)- that a guy would rape a maid cleaning his room and then let her go so she can go running and screaming to her superiors/colleagues whilst he is still there. So take an unlikely scenario and factor in the unreliability of the victim and the case begins to crumble.

But wouldn't any case which is dependent on a persons word have difficulty in getting a conviction if that person shows consistency in lying including lying to a grand jury? I really doubt we will find out what happened now.

Yep, it's an almighty mess and I don't even know if the case will go to court any more.

Jacob Zuma of South Africa was accused (and acquitted of rape) and he is President now. Plus look at Berlusconi with his under age sex.

I wouldn't be surprised if DSK carried on with presidential ambitions and maybe even wins. To many (especially in France) he looks more like the victim than the alleged victim does.

Have they proved, beyond a reasonable doubt she lied in the past? Also, could she have lied by omission, thus causing an inconsistency. Could the inconsistencies have come through errors in translation?

Sorry, but I'm not going to rule out her version of events.

"It's already a bit of an odd situation (though I am not saying impossible)- that a guy would rape a maid cleaning his room and then let her go so she can go running and screaming to her superiors/colleagues whilst he is still there." Really? What was he supposed to do? Hold her hostage? Rape her outside of work? Would that lead to belief of the victim?

It's not odd at all that he let her go. He could hardly hold her hostage for ever could he, he after all had a flight to catch. It makes sense for a rapist to let their victim go, because they know that they won't report the crime, or if they do, who's going to believe them anyway?

flagging, understand that you find it difficult to believe a person who has a history of lying. But if that's the case, why would you believe anything that DSK claims? He has lied through out this episode.

karma I am probably 70% in favour of the maid despite her lying/inconsistencies as I do find it hard to imagine she would make the whole thing up. But I'll be honest, put in a court situation - say I was on a jury - I don't think I could send someone down for rape based on the testimony of someone that has lied about rape before and discussed extorting the alleged attacker. There is just something not quite right.

When I first read this story, my first reaction was "OMG. I can't believe the victim not only had the courage to report it, but that the hotel staff took her seriously enough to encourage her to call the police - given who the alleged rapist is."

We are talking about an immensely powerful man here. Immensely powerful. A person trying to extort money from him would have known she'd have no chance. She'd have known that if it came down to his word against hers, she would lose. A man like that has the power to influence public perception quite strongly.

So why do it? For what ends?

Maybe, just maybe, he did it and she thought because he did di it there would be evidence and she might actually win the case and get justice. Just on the balance of probability and logic, I'd say the chances are she's telling the truth, and that's quite aside from my feminist principles that we believe all victims until proven they are lying.

I don't care what she's done in the past. I'm interested only in what went on in that hotel room and I have no reason to doubt her story in that regard. I can't see any motivation for lying.

Same here, I was surprised that she had the strength to report and that she was supported in doing so by others. I suspect that she assumed that the forensic evidence would be enough to convict him. But even then it appears that although the forensic evidence supports her account, most people would rather believe she was lying.

"It's looking like DSK will get off.."

"Get off.." what?

OP, I don't know what you think of US justice, I suppose it doesn't matter but that's hardly the way to start a post is it?

Eight pages of sterile supposition and argument - it's still up to a US court to decide.

Who can have a fair trial now? The acused or the alleged victim? In fact, no one will have much chance of anything.

Making statements like that just reinforces the case for anonymity for everyone which could seriously hamper police investigations.

Pendeen, are you saying a thread on mumsnet is going to stop DSK getting a fair trial? I doubt we have that much influence.

karmakameleon

Of course we have that much influence! :)

Seriously though, its just I believe any 'trial by media' - whether Mumsnet, CNN or the New York Times is rarely helpful to a case.