Head of the IMF arrested for sexual assault

Owlish wrote:

Actually it does matter, because of the statement you posted above. Crimes like robbery or even assault are crimes no matter what the circumstances, so the issue is proving that the person committed the act. Sex is not a crime, so the issue usually is not whether the act occurred, but whether it was consensual, which, far more often than not, can't be proved by anything other than the victim's credibility. Even a drug-trafficking money launderer can be robbed, and evidence can prove it--but if the drug-trafficking money launderer is raped, it's all but impossible to prove.

You are putting way too much stock into what evidence can and cannot prove. It can only prove something happened. It cannot conclusively prove that the thing that happened was criminal in nature.

Assault cases can also turn on witness credibility (Did the victim provoke the defendant? Was the defendant the cause of the victim's injuries as claimed?), as can robbery cases (Was the victim's fear that the defendant had a weapon reasonable? Was the threat of harm imminent?). It can change a criminal act of assault into a justified case of self-defense, or a robbery case into a charge of filing a false police report.

Penguin wrote:

you're perfectly fine with "innocent until proven guilty EXCEPT FOR RAPE CASES THEN ALL RULES GO OUT THE WINDOW BECAUSE WITCH HUNTS ARE TOTES AWESOME ALSO TOTES IS A WORD"

I love how objecting to the way rape victims are vilified, slandered and held up to intense scrutiny by the defence, media and every fuckstain with a blog becomes "YOU WANT GUILTY UNTIL INNOCENT YOU DERANGED MANHATING BITCH REEE REEE REEE SHITTING MY UNIFORM". Maybe you've forgotten the Julian Assange case, where his accuser Ms. A was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion based on the word of an anti-Semite who hadn't even got his facts straight. That's what I'm objecting to, o ye of limited reading comprehension. It says a lot about you that "it's bullshit that so many rape victims are accused of being lying whores for whatever reason" becomes "FUCK DUE PROCESS, LOCK UP PEOPLE WITH NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAN SOME WOMAN'S WORD".

Cyberwulf wrote:

Penguin wrote:

you're perfectly fine with "innocent until proven guilty EXCEPT FOR RAPE CASES THEN ALL RULES GO OUT THE WINDOW BECAUSE WITCH HUNTS ARE TOTES AWESOME ALSO TOTES IS A WORD"

I love how objecting to the way rape victims are vilified, slandered and held up to intense scrutiny by the defence herp derp derp I totally made an argument here and that says a lot about you herp derp derp

On the contrary, it says a lot about you. It says a lot about you that you had to go to such lengths to make this comment sound remotely reasonable. You could defend what you said, which attacked the whole point of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, you could attempt to clarify your point beyond said idiotic attack, or you could try to make ad hominem attacks against me. I'll give you a protip, the latter is the tactic of someone who simply can't admit they're wrong.

As for the court of public opinion, congratulations, you've noticed that sensationalism sells. The court of public opinion is not the court of law, and, as such, is not the court that actually matters. Otherwise, Casey Anthony would be dangling from a noose right now.

Case Dismissed: Charges Dropped Against DSK

Quote :

Update, 1:46 EDT: A state appellate court has denied Diallo’s request to appoint a special prosecutor. DSK’s total liberation now appears imminent.

–

By now, the news is more than a tad anticlimactic, but news it is nonetheless: A Manhattan judge mere moments ago granted the Manhattan district attorney’s request to dismiss charges against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss Kahn.

But there’s a caveat: Under the ruling made by Manhattan judge Michael Obus, the order will not go into effect until an appellate court has ruled on the alleged victim’s request to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the case. Click here for the story, from the WSJ’s Michael Rothfeld and Chad Bray.

In court papers Monday, lawyers for Nafitassou Diallo, the alleged victim, said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s office was “unfit” to bring the case, accusing Manhattan prosecutors of “unfair treatment” and “bias.”

New York judge Michael Obus earlier Tuesday denied her request; an appeals court is slated to rule on that request Tuesday. Click here for the WSJ story on that ruling. Click here for all previous LB coverage of the DSK story.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Assistant District Attorney Julie Illuzzi-Orbon said Diallo lied repeatedly.

“She was untruthful about matters great and small,” Illuzzi-Orbon said.

Strauss-Kahn departed the courthouse after the hearing, smiling and looked at the media flanking the walkway outside. His attorneys also wore large smiles. A chorus of boos and angry slogans greeted him as he boarded his SUV and left.

In a statement, Dominique Strauss-Kahn said:

These past two and a half months have been a nightmare for me and my family. I want to thank all the friends in France and in the United States who have believed in my innocence, and to the thousands of people who sent us their support personally and in writing. I am most deeply grateful to my wife and family who have gone through this ordeal with me.

. . .

[W]e are obviously gratified that the District Attorney agreed with my lawyers that this case had to be dismissed. We appreciate his professionalism and that of the people who were involved in that decision.

We will have nothing further to say about this matter and we look forward to returning to our home and resuming something of a more normal life.

On Monday, Thompson spoke to reporters of his disappointment with Vance’s decision. He “has denied the right of a woman to get justice in a rape case,” Thompson said.