Quote:
Originally Posted by ninasastri
I assume like in every scenario like this, there are powers that are willing to help hide scenarios and some that are willing to uncover it - for political reasons and power.
|
Good for you, Nina. I expected the typical male outrage and condemnation from many of the unwashed here. You'd think that innocent until proven guilty would mean something to people engaging in illegal activity, but many are willing to convict DSK right now.
You'd also think that after the Duke case people would have learned the games the media plays to always make the alleged victim appear more sympathetic. With that case, it was "single mom" and "university student". While that was true, she also was a mentally unstable escort and stripper.
In this case, we see in the American press "single mom", "ideal employee", and "widower". The French are taking an opposite tact likely shocked that we are treating a presumably innocent man like he is guilty already. They have released her name, suggested that she may be HIV+, stated she was a "practicing muslim", speaks French like DSK, and have reported that a lot of the maids in upscale hotels may be willing to perform sexual acts if the price is right. See the link:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/...ssatou-diallo/
The victim's story as has been told by police is that she went into DSK's room, found him there coming out of the shower, grabbed her, shut the door, and forced her to have sex with him. Besides fondling her all over, she performed oral sex on him such that he had an orgasm, and she spit the semen on the carpet. After that, she "escaped".
The "escaped" part is dramatic nonsense that doesn't make any sense, and it is not the only issue.
What bugs me a lot about many Americans is that they get so wrapped up in vengance that they lose sight of what the law is about
: protecting the citizens. And if you look at things from that angle, the best thing that could have happened is that DSK puts down a million dollars bail and flees the country. That way he is presumed guilty, and the victim could get a chunk of the bail money. She could live her life in peace, and the citizens would be spared the cost of a trial and keeping this man in prison. So this whole ordeal IMO is for the benefit of the lawyers and law enforcement: the prosecutors, police, and judge who want fame and the defense attorneys who want money.
The people who want to see blood in this case are not seeing how easily reasonable doubt can be achieved here. There are literally thousands of financial and political reasons to set DSK up and ironically, he himself predicted that he would be. Initially, I thought that too many people would have to be involved for a likely conspiracy, but really it could be as few as three or four. The key players would have to include the maid, the hotel's security officer, and the NYPD detective or dectectives. Anyone who is presuming that DSK is guilty is assuming that these three of four players are pristine, and we have no idea how clean these people truly are.
Then there are DSK' actions. He leaves his DNA on the carpet, has lunch with his daughter instead of fleeing, gets on his scheduled flight, and even calls the hotel where he allegedly rapes someone and asks about his cell phone. These are the actions of an innocent man. Prosecutors are going to have to go with the fact that either DSK was a man of extreme arrogance or extreme stupidity and prove it. Given DSK's political ability, it is going to be child's play for him to convince a jury otherwise.
Then there are problems with the encounter itself. A 32 year old black woman couldn't outrun a 62 year old naked white man to an open door? If a woman is giving a man oral sex and he achieves orgasm, she is consenting. The issue is whether the consent was achieved under duress, and that is a tough nut to crack.
What bugs me is what is not being said. No one in the media is saying the woman said no. He could have said, "Give me a blow job" with his arms flailing like the French do in a threatening way. DSK may have been acting his usual haughty French self, and the woman was frightened. How do you distinguish between a real threat and a perceived threat? There has to got to be some really good objective evidence (bruises, scratches ETC) to show that there was a real threat. Otherwise, it is just her word against his.
Alan Dershowitz said the key is going to be if other women testify against DSK. Nina, as you yourself have shown, one of these women has credibility issues. On top of that, what are the DAs offering? A free trip to New York in exchange for slamming DSK? And let's be honest. If these women committed perjury, nothing is going to happen to them because they live in France/Europe. I can't say seeing five women crying their eyes out at being attacked by DSK wouldn't move me, but I should be taking their testimony with a grain of salt. If the defense attorneys can get these other women excluded, then it may boil down to his word against hers.
Dershowitz said a plea deal will likely be offered, and I agree. I think prosecutors stand an excellent chance at losing in a trial. Many may think if he takes a plea deal that implies guilt, but that is flawed thinking. If you were given the choice of five years probation or the chance of spending 25 years in an American jail, what would you do? If I were French (or maybe even if I was not), I'd take the probation and get the hell out of Dodge.