Dominique Strauss-Kahn Arrested

[Leoreth]

1) The fact that the defendant's lawyer has to disprove may mean (to my eyes) that the lawyer has to gather proves of its own that disproves the prosecutor's proves. If you can be proven guilty, then you may want to be proven innocent to avoid any new prove: i wasn't there at the time of the crime.
In France, this work of proof gathering is supposely done independantly and the goal is not to prove someone is guilty or innocent but to find the truth. On a philosophical level, it's totally different.

Finding the truth is also the aim of the American judicial system (it would be ridiculous if it weren't). It's just not always the aim of the defending and prosecuting lawyers (though it may be the goal for one of them or even both, depending on the situation and their knowledge about it).

However, again, that the defendant is innocent does not need to be proven. There's a difference between explaining away or disproving the prosecutor's evidence and proving innocence.

2) may i make a remark on the form of your post? saying "that's false. see above" is rude to my eyes. I have read your previous statement and I think i made my point with previous examples. You may disagree with me, and i would accept it. Your post deny all attemps to discussion.

Well I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but you didn't address the point I was making when I said you were wrong the first time, so I had to presume you deliberately ignored it. I also saw no reason to repeat what I wrote above because, well, you didn't address it the first time.

 

[Disgustipated]

Just a quick point - fellatio by force, sodomy, mouth-rape; whatever one might call it, it is not "being a perverted old man".

we'll see when the real truth comes out whether it was forced or not.

 

[downtown]

Just a quick point - fellatio by force, sodomy, mouth-rape; whatever one might call it, it is not "being a perverted old man".

Yeah. Being a perverted old man is pinching a secretary's bum when she's making copies. This guy is accused of something far stronger than being a pervert.

 

[LAnkou]

Finding the truth is also the aim of the American judicial system (it would be ridiculous if it weren't). It's just not always the aim of the defending and prosecuting lawyers (though it may be the goal for one of them or even both, depending on the situation and their knowledge about it).

However, again, that the defendant is innocent does not need to be proven. There's a difference between explaining away or disproving the prosecutor's evidence and proving innocence.

I think we can make an agreement: we disagree...


@disgustipated
I am strongly for the presumption of innocence. But DSK innocence presomption does not mean that the defendant is not a victim.
There is no presumption of innocence for victim. They are victims and must be treated this way.

There is still the possibility that we finally learn that she was raped by someone who posed for DSK or was mishelped by police force who drived her to DSK...
Innocence of DSK isn't equal to the victim lied.

 

[bhsup]

It's not that attemps get less, it's success that gives more
because punishement is "proportional" to the damage:
Imagine two rapes case following one another, one attempt, then one success, the same punishment. How do you explain to the second victim that the author is punished the same as if it was an attempt whereas she suffered more that "just an attempt"?

In an ideal world, rape would be punishable by the death penalty anyway, so how can you ask for more than that? But anyway, I disagree with how you view it. If society via its legislature deems that rape is worthy of 'x' number of years in prison, why should someone who was too inept to pull it off but tried to get any less? They're just as henious a person and deserve just as severe a punishment for their attempted actions.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think we can make an agreement: we disagree...

Both statements are quite true. Every single American judge in every single criminal courtroom reminds the jury that first and foremost the purpose of the exercise they are about to undertake is to determine the truth. That both attorneys are officers of the court so it is their obligation to do so as well.

And innocence of the defendant never has to be proven. It is the underlying assumption with which the trial starts. That he is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.

Modern jurisprudence isn't really all that different in any developed democratic secular country. They all have the same roots even though their methodology might be a big different.

There is still the possibility that we finally learn that she was raped by someone who posed for DSK or was mishelped by police force who drived her to DSK...
Innocence of DSK isn't equal to the victim lied.

During the bail hearing, the DA pointed out that DSK had been identified by the victim in a lineup within 24 hours of the alleged crime. But I agree it is at least conceivable that it wasn't actually DSK. Eyewitness testimony alone is only one element of the evidence which will likely be submitted by the prosecution.

 

[Steph]

The problem with the identification of the lineup is that she may just know him (perhaps because she saw him before exiting the room?)
If she indeed was attacked by someone else in this room, she could have been shocked, and then later recognize DSK, but not the man how assaulted her.

That's why the timeline is very important : at what time did the evetn exactly happened, when did DSK leave the hotel exactly?

It's not very clear at the moment

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, it isn't. But there is likely a great deal of evidence exactly when all this transpired. The hotel computer system knows exactly when each pass card was used to enter the room, as well as when and how DSK checked out. There are video cameras in the hallways, elevators, and lobby. There were hotel personnel and other guests who liikely saw both of them.

Then there is all the forensics evidence which they collected. If it was a different person who attacked her, it will likely be quite evident.

To me, the most compelling evidence so far that DSK is innocent is that he called the hotel from the airport asking about his cell phone, and then he told them truthfully where he was. I really don't think someone fleeing from sexual battery charges would do so.

Then there is the possibility that all this was consensual sexual activity that somehow went awry, so DSK had no real idea that the police were even looking for him. But given the circumstances, I would have expected him to say so by now.

And for someone who asked earlier where he was being detained, DSK spent the night in Rikers Island. That is quite a contrast from a $3K per night Times Square suite.

 

[HannibalBarka]

No, it isn't. But there is likely a great deal of evidence exactly when all this transpired. The hotel computer system knows exactly when each pass card was used to enter the room, as well as when and how DSK checked out. There are video cameras in the hallways, elevators, and lobby. There were hotel personnel and other guests who liikely saw both of them.

Then there is all the forensics evidence which they collected. If it was a different person who attacked her, it will likely be quite evident.

To me, the most compelling evidence so far that DSK is innocent is that he called the hotel from the airport asking about his cell phone, and then he told them truthfully where he was. I really don't think someone fleeing from sexual battery charges would do so.

Then there is the possibility that all this was consensual sexual activity that somehow went awry, so DSK had no real idea that the police were even looking for him. But given the circumstances, I would have expected him to say so by now.

I quite agree with every thing you wrote here. I think the NYC Police considered that it hase sufficient material to make the accusation plausible and that's why they arrested him. The fact that he called the hotel about his cell phone and told them where he was indicates that he was not trying to flee, and that's the only positive thing in his case (unless it was just a "mistake", he spoke faster than he should).
DSK's problem is that this is not the first thing some one is accusing him of sexual violence. A youg french journalist said the same thing in 2007, although she did not go to the police (she did not want to be labelled just on that). she is however thinking of suing him now. another french MP confessed that when she was a youg member of the PS, DSK hit on her many times in a very unpleasent way and she since than try to avoid to be alone with him. that does not good for him and that's what make the accusation not that unbelievable, the guy has serious problem when he is alone with a woman, it's more like a sikness, it's not about having sexe as many are repeating here, else he would have just called a call girl.
We still don't know much about the case though, it's a lot of specualtion.

 

[warpus]

His name is.. Dominique? And it's a dude?

 

[Lillefix]

His name is.. Dominique? And it's a dude?

Well, the other French presidential candidate is called Jean Marie. Both rather ambiguous names.

edit: No, it's his daughter this time. I just heard Le Pen was going to participate.

 

[warpus]

I always thought that the masculine version of Domnique is Dominic. Jean to me is masculine, but then again, I don't speak french.

 

[Lillefix]

I always thought that the masculine version of Domnique is Dominic. Jean to me is masculine, but then again, I don't speak french.

It is masculine in French. It's in English it can be both.

 

[LAnkou]

Dominique is for both sex
Jean is masculine in french

There is also the following that can works for men and women:
Camille, Alex, Claude, Sacha, Ange, Morgan

 

[Marla_Singer]

Frédéric for a man and Frédérique for a woman.
Dominique for both a man and woman.

Obviously there's no rule.

 

[Mark Havel]

Well, the other French presidential candidate is called Jean Marie. Both rather ambiguous names.

edit: No, it's his daughter this time. I just heard Le Pen was going to participate.

Well Marie is a feminine name. I'm surprised no one noted that a former French president is actually carrying an entirely feminine name: Valérie Giscard-d'Estaing.

And well, French is well known for its many exceptions to rules.

I peered back at the extradition treaty between France and the US. Indeed, there is no obligation to so, so the case for a potential flight was strong. Keeping DSK in jail is not that surprising, especially considering it's the standard procedure when dealing with foreign citizens. Now, given the very high-profile of DSK, he might as well have been extradited anyway, after a long politico-judicial battle, which would have ruined his presidential hopes the same way the current suit is ruining him now. Since he was caught before departing, this is rather pointless.

For now, the evidence against him seems quite strong and stories about past behaviour are beginning to surface again in France. I'm more and more believing he is actually guilty.

The French socialist primaries will be far more open and bloody.

 

[RedRalph]

Hey, I find the guy despicable. But I find it hard to just believe that a rich fat old man would chase a maid in the public corridor of some hotel, physically drag her to a room, and rape her. Evidence, please.

Evidence has nothing to do with what you believe.

And what on Earth do you find hard to believe about what you describe???

 

[Eniotna]

It's Valéry, not Valérie.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm just curious here, if it was Arnold Schwarzenegger rather than Dominique Strauss-Kahn in pretty much identical circumstances here (substitute IMF business with whatever makes sense), would we all be reacting identically? Aside from the French vs US judicial system questions, that is. Ahnold would seem to have a somewhat similar past history regarding treatment of the opposite sex.

 

[JtheJackal]

I'm just curious here, if it was Arnold Schwarzenegger rather than Dominique Strauss-Kahn in pretty much identical circumstances here (substitute IMF business with whatever makes sense), would we all be reacting identically? Aside from the French vs US judicial system questions, that is. Ahnold would seem to have a somewhat similar past history regarding treatment of the opposite sex.

People would not be coming up with conspiracy theories because they couldn't think of someone prominent who could benefit from Schwarzenegger being accused of it.