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?

jenny - the legal process is so unbalanced in rape cases that defending that process does amount to defending him. Legal process evolved in the same society as endemic rape, therefore both reflect the same power relations

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

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.

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.

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...

why is she unreliable?

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.

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?

"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.

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.

"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'.

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

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

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).

Gah, the charges have just officially been dropped.

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.

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'.

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?

Agree CRIKRI about consent. In so many rape cases the assumption from the offset is that the sex was consensual and the victim has to prove it was not.

Why are we not starting from the legally logical assumption that the sex was not consensual and it is up to the defendant to prove that consent was obtained?

We are back to this issue of society considering that women are in a perpetual state of consent unless they have categorically said 'no' and have serious injuries to add weight to their word.

Currently we assume two things about women; the first that they are in a perpetual state of consent and the second, that they are liars.

Beach - nice to see the 'left' so reliable in promoting the interests of working class women as bleedin usual

OK, your choice Jenny.

For a while, I thought we were getting somewhere - that you were willing to concede that people weren't just simply say "he's guilty, cos they all are" but were saying "I believe he's guilty, because the facts point in that direction". And then you said you'd look at the actual practical solutions that Women Against Rape have proposed to improve justice for raped women. But we seem to have run into the sand on both these points.

The latter is the only one that matters to us all, though: improving the way the system works to defend women better. So I'm going to post the link again. I know there are also many other organisations and individuals out there pushing for change.

www.womenagainstrape.net/campaigns

Bloody hell, Beachcomber, are you saying you're not? What are you, some kind of lesbian?

"Cos his story sounds like a crock of shit, while hers has holes that don't seem particularly important."

Exactly slhilly.

@ alice

@ aliceliddell

No I'm frigid - nothing an encounter with the rutting chimpanzee 'The Great Seducer' couldn't sort out no doubt. He has any woman gagging to suck a perfect stranger's penis within seconds doncha know....uncanny.