Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

[aliceliddell]

There is no case to answer because Ms Diallo is an 'unreliable witness'. No medical or forensic evidence is relevant. When raped women are 'witnesses' in the legal system, their credibility is the topic of contention, not the evidence. The issue of consent is largely ignored. Criminal law requires 'presumption of innocence' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Is it this combination that results in an inadequate legal response to sexual violence or other factors? Can this be changed?

The forensic evidence - according to AyeRobot's link - does not provide evidence of force. And, although the prosecutors go out if their way to show it does not necessarily mean this, the lack of his DNA inside her 2nd pair of tights and knickers could be taken to indicate that part of her account is not truthful.

Her multiple accounts of what happened in the immediate aftermath - despite prosecutors repeated requests for the truth - appear to be the main reason for the prosecution to be dropped. Had she changed her story once, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, then the prosecution may well have continued. But at least three versions (one changing in light of key card evidence), and so long after the incident, are clearly problematic. (Though the bit that is missing from AyeRobot's link is information on the supervisor's account - one has to assume however that it is also not indicative of one version over another).

If there is a message here, it is that repeated changes of story will undermine credibility to the point where criminal prosecution is no longer possible.

I hope the civil case will look at why she changed her story so many times and at such a comparatively late stage. Passages within the linked letter show a sympathetic policy towards both those with previous histories of unreliability and to those whose story changes (ie only comes out fully) over time. The (detailed) timeline in this case presents different problems, which do not seem to be covered by typical example.

That's what I mean about the ways the legal system works - by her being a witness, she will be treatedby the defence like any other witness and her testimony discredited by attacking her character and honesty, etc. Whereas he is 'presumed innocent' - so the whole situation is unbalanced to start with

ClareinFrance, I don't know how it works in the US, but I once served as a juror in the UK. I asked for explicit guidance on the question of "if I can construct a very unlikely chain of events in which the behaviour in question was not, in fact, criminal, does that mean I must not convict?" The answer that came back was an unequivocal "no". That bar was too high: instead, I had to test the version of events that the prosecution (and defense) described for plausibility, based on what I knew as an ordinary person about the way the world worked.

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, ie this is a theoretical possibility but hardly a likely explanation. Obviously, you can see where this is going - the defense would then have wanted to try to establish that Ms Diallo had done this kind of thing before. So at least she was spared that ordeal, except of course for all the venal unsourced smears about her sexuality that appeared in the media.

Truly, "Justice? Just us" today.

Scaevola, I'm not sure this is right:
"Passages within the linked letter show a sympathetic policy towards both those with previous histories of unreliability and to those whose story changes (ie only comes out fully) over time."

I think all we can say is that "Passages within the linked letter assert the existence of a sympathetic policy towards both those with previous histories of unreliability and to those whose story changes (ie only comes out fully) over time."

The proof is in the prosecuting (or not prosecuting).

Having read the document I can see why the decision was made :(

Cheria said "I don't blame her for wanting to make financial gain". Sorry, but I would suggest voicing that type of thinking can only help keep the number of successful convictions low.

And (for the conspiracy theorists), one might say that the accusations lasted just long enough for Strauss-Kahn to lose his job at the IMF and someone more favourable to the US to take over, then were suddenly dropped...

jenny you are trotting out the "we should ignore statistics if they don't back up what I'm saying" line. Again.

No I'm not, and never have.... You are accusing me of this, again. Not the same thing.

I have not queried the 6% statistic (although it would be interesting to see how that figure has been reached). I have said that people are taking the 94% and applying it to this case. How do they know this isn't one of the 6%? I agree that the balance of probability may well be against DSK, but I do not agree that that is enough for anyone to say that he is definitely guilty. I am not defending him, I am defending the principle of reserving judgement where one does not know. I am very interested to note that I am being accused of defending DSK even though I am not. If there were people on here saying that they believed she was lying I'd be taking issue with that position too.

Slhilly - you do not know what happened in the room. He may have been guilty of a thousand rapes in the past and it would not make him guilty this time. I am correct in stating that people in this thread have decided he is guilty without knowing categorically that he is and they seem justified in doing this. If they feel that this is justifiable, do they also feel that it is justifiable if a court were to take this view? This is not an unreasonable question.

fewcloudy only voicing what a lot of people would do in that context. No, I don't blame her. She was poor and the victim of someone more powerful and, to her, unbelievably rich. Why shouldn't she get some compensation for what she went through? Why does the fact she was, to some extent, interested in money once she knew who he was, go against her? She wouldn't be the first or the last, and none of us know what we would do in that context.

Alice - I agree inasmuch as no legal system should preclude a rape victim from obtaining justice in court JUST BECAUSE she has in the past displayed "bad character", as legally defined.

A concrete example - I smoked pot as a student; years later I am raped. The defence in the rape case rake up my student drugs dabbling and this is instrumentalised to discredit me as a witness. In my book, this would be wrong. It would also be wrong if my history involved shoplifting or more serious crimes. There is no reason to deny a shoplifter justice when he or she is the victim of a crime.

But the situation is different if my "bad character" is constituted by my lying/failing or refusing to be consistent about the circumstances of the alleged rape. These lies or omissions go to the heart of the issue of whether or not there was rape, or whether or not the proven sexual encounter was consensual.

At the beginning of the case, I worried on Diallo's behalf that the DSK defence juggernaut would bring up lots of evidence of her unreliability IN OTHER ASPECTS AND PERIODS OF HER LIFE to discredit her and blow off the case. They had a go at doing so but the prosecution persisted.

But things are different if she lies about the circumstances of the alleged rape itself. What can the prosecution do in such a case but give up?

"Beachcomber - I don't think we are being asked to believe that "chambermaids" (plural) are gagging to "service" anonymous hotel guests in hotel rooms and to risk their livelihoods with louche behaviour, etc, etc. This is a case about one chambermaid, not all chambermaids"

I disagree.

We are surrounded by characterizations of female sexuality that come direct from the male gaze, and which are spun all the time, to give credit to the idea that women who are going about the daily business, are sexually available and will jump at the opportunity of a bit of hurried rough sex with a stranger - the sexy nurse, the up for it secretary, the hot teen, the prick tease student, the French maid, etc etc.

Mrs Diallo is a victim of that sort of patriarchal bullshit. We are expected to believe that she would engage in a sexual encounter with a perfect stranger because everyone knows that chamber maids are hot for it. Not the other way round as you put it.

The up for it chamber maid is a pretty old patriarchal construct (it is the modern version of the up for it servant to the rich). It has been around for a lot longer than poor Mrs Diallo and the odious DSK.

Beachcomber - but then do we have to believe that the apparently sincere decision by (male) prosecutor Cyrus Vance Jr to take up the case was actually some other part of the worldwide patriarchal conspiracy? A ploy to make women believe that the courts care about them? If the US establishment subscribed to the "hot chambermaid" cliche then why bother even following up Diallo's accusation?

Jenny if you want to reserve judgement because you don't know all the evidence, you may do so. I am under no such obligation because I am not involved in any way, shape or form in the trial.

Do you apply this honorable principle to every aspect of your life? I very much doubt it. We all make assumptions about things many times every day since it is impossible to be in full possession of the facts about everything and life would be unworkable if we had to.

For example, do you know that the food you are buying from the supermarket was properly prepared? No. You assume it was because there are rules about this sort of thing and the balance of probabilities is in your favour. But you weren't there to see it, were you? And every now and again we see a case where a plaster is found in someone's tin of beans...

Bet you don't start refusing to buy food from shops though.

Diallo shouldn't be judged on her past behaviour or on the behaviour of any other person - a sentiment that I completely agree with. Are we saying this about DSK too then?

Again, I'm not defending DSK, I'm enquiring as to balance.

To back up beachcomber's point here is one of the rent-a-quote's comments when he was arrested : video and script

Roughly translated this guy said the DSK's misdemeanour was nothing more than a bit of skirt liftinwith a servant ! You see how these people laugh it off?

Here's another interesting link for you: oh it makes me so angry

Shows the attitude over here in France we were discussing earlier. Grrr

Cheria - but that's the French view (or a French view - the view, unfortunately, of a few high-profile dolts here). I don't know if it's fair to ascribe the same view to Americans/American men/all Americans.

Sorry I don't get your point? Who is ascribing a view to all Americans? I might be being a bit thick sorry

Surely you meant 'Why shouldn't she get some compensation after what she is alleged to have went through?

Dominique Strauss-Khan/Julian Assange, both a right pain in the ass for the US, both accused of sexual assault, how very convenient. Mission No 1 accomplished, DSK no longer head of the IMF, first case can now be dropped. Let's wait and see...

I'm just saying that male dominated society is more likely to run with scenario;

a) hot chambermaid/scheming out for money bitch/lying scheming woman (and in this case all three!!)

than it is with;

b) sexually incontinent male with sense of entitlement and a whole lot of power and international level influence gets let off the hook.

Even though b) is common and therefore plausible and a) is not. (Unless one watches too many porn films and adheres to rape myths that is.)

Your notion of a conspiracy with regards to the courts leading women to believe courts care about them is just weird and not very related to what I am saying.

Defending alleged rapists comes done to one thing - convincing juries that 'she wanted it'. There are various methods for doing this; the victim's choice of clothing, the victim having ever in their entire life lied about anything, the victim being portrayed us the sort of person who would suck a stranger's penis whilst doing their job. Enter rape myths stage right.

Yes, that is what I meant fewcloudy. I also hope she gets compensation from (I think) the Daily Post or some other rag for insinuating she was a prostitute.

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.

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

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

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?

fewcloudy - if you want to refer to the martyrdom of St Julian of Assange, please look up Israel Shamir in Counterpunch. He was the sole accuser of the women involved and it turns out he's an antisemitic quasi-fascist. Nice.

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

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

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...