Strauss-Kahn Rape Case 'Close To Collapse'

reply to post by Bordon81


Yes we need to look into the replacement,

I'm more interested in the payments that have been showing up in her bank account. Maybe he was set up or maybe his people got to her and she's throwing the case. Follow the money that's where we'll find the truth of the matter.

reply to post by lokdog


Actually, I did more digging since my last post.

No one is alleging those payments are for political purposes. It seems she was laundering money for drug dealers, not keeping the $100,000. Im sure she got some cut though.

And the other big thing discrediting her is that when she applied for amnesty, to get into America, she claimed she had been raped and abused to make her application more compelling.

So Im back on the fence at this point. Nothing coming out about her is actually compelling proof that there was a plot against DSK. Her background is shady, as many are in the socioeconomic stata she occupies, and she has some drug dealing friends, and lied to make her immigration easier, but really other than to make her a less credible witness and make the prosecution likely to drop the case, none of this evidence actually proves that DSK did not assault her.

Even shady lying people can be assaulted, its just harder to get juries to believe them when it boils down to a he said she said. Especially when the accused is the head of the IMF and the alleged victim is a lying, money laundering maid.

So, they are equal again, in my opinion. Both sides have shady pasts and bad characters which lend credibility to the accusations made about them, and really, its still just he said she said, although DSK has never denied having sex with her, he just claims she consented.

reply to post by burntheships

The politicains in Greece migh had voted yes but the people voted no so maybe greece will return to a type of democracy where leaders get strung up if they do not do as the people want and remember Greece was the birth place of democracy in years gone past.

Odd don't you think that a banker is accused of rape and gets locked up and yet Tony Blair gets a peace prize and a job with the banks for his lies about WMD.

Time we ended this game.

While I have no doubt that Strauss-Kahn is less than squeaky clean, he has clearly been stitched up here. Can there be any doubt? It's an absolute, by-the-book, classic, sting operation. The charges didn't even have to stick - the damage is done and he's finished. I think we should all give a slow hand-clap to the agency that executed this - nicely done, sirs

Originally posted by Reaching
I recall that previously Incrediblelousminds speculated that this could have been a US-led coup aimed at keeping the US dollar more relevant than the SDR.

This link seems to support that theory:

www.theatlantic.com...

Great chart there thanks.

Here is the info from incrediblelousminds in the ATS thread on DSK....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Curio


I disagree.

There is the possibility that that is the case, but still, even in light of the revelations about the maids past and current behavior, there is no evidence that he has been set up for political reasons at all. None.

Possible, doesnt mean probable, and probable doesnt mean certainly.

Its possible, but the probability its a "classic sting" is still really no better than 50-50. And its far from certain. Even if the prosecutors dont choose to prosecute, that decision is a strategic one, not an exoneration. She may well be too discredited as a witness/victim to get a jury to convict him. That says nothing about whether he did what she says he did. It just says juries are known to not believe shady women who have lied about rape in the past and who launder money for drug dealers and talk about how they might profit from their assault.

She clearly is no sweet angel, but then, neither is he. They both have possible motives to lie, and they could also both be telling the truth. Its really a wash in terms of evidence at this point.

reply to post by burntheships


How is the opening claim that "the media is trying to dig up as much dirt on DSK so as to skew public opinion before he ever sees the inside of a court" any different than what is going on with the maid right now?

Her past dirty laundry is being aired to utterly discredit her too, in the court of public opinion, and unlike DSK, the alleged victim may never get a day in court if the she is sullied too thoroughly in the media. No matter how badly the media drags the alleged perp through the mud, they will always be tried on the evidence of the specific case. The victims are not guaranteed that same favor.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew

It is again one of those fishy NYT articles in which not a single source is named. All leaks are anonymous. I find this kind of reporting insidious.

...according to two well-placed law enforcement officials
...prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them
...one of the law enforcement officials said.
...Senior prosecutors met with lawyers
...According to the two officials

www.nytimes.com...

I had the following quote from Glenn Greenwald posted under another NYT-article, but I think it is worth reposting:

In very limited circumstances, anonymity is valuable and justified (e.g., when someone is risking something substantial to expose concealed wrongdoing of serious public interest).

But promiscuous, unjustified anonymity -- which pervades the establishment press -- is the linchpin of most bad, credibility-destroying reporting. It enables government officials and others to lie to the public with impunity or manipulate them with propaganda, using eager reporters as both their megaphone and shield. It is the weapon of choice for reporters eager to serve as loyal message-carriers and royal court gossip columnists. It preserves and bolsters the culture of secrecy that dominates Washington -- exactly the opposite of what a real journalist, by definition, would seek to accomplish.

www.salon.com...

Thanks for the comments by Greenwald, so very true.

I recall The New York Times pussy footing around
with John McCain during the 2008 elections. DSK was given an entirely different treatment.

The New York Times published a controversial profile of John McCain on the eve of the 2008 presidential election alluding to his apparent past extra-marital activity. It has showed no such coyness with Strauss-Kahn's past, now he has been accused of attempted rape. In a provocative column about the disturbing tendency of the majority of French to believe DSK is the victim of a conspiracy, Roger Cohen took the scandal international. "Countless Franco-American differences of culture have been highlighted by the DSK case -- in the judicial system, the press, attitudes to public figures' private lives, sex and the gravity of a rape charge -- but a very fundamental one lies in the relation to authority. French deference to power -- with the accompanying conspiracy theories -- has encountered the hard-knuckled application of US law as applied equally to anyone accused of a serious crime.

"There are plenty of facts, incidents and complaints -- never fully investigated by the French press -- to suggest that the serious charges against Strauss-Kahn are not 'absurd' and that a young African woman's voice raised against violent abuse by the powerful should have its day in court. Bin Laden is dead. Facts count. Conspiracy theories are the refuge of the disempowered."

www.theaustralian.com.au...



It seems The Australian takes a different approach to Journalism.

reply to post by burntheships


Are you seriously trying to say the different treatment in the press of McCains alleged extra marital affairs and DSKs alleged rape of a maid are because of politics?

Honestly, Im no McCain fan, but I seriously doubt it. Cheating =/= rape. One is frowned upon, one is a violent crime. Of course the violent crime is going to get different treatment in the press. In order to make a reasonable claim that someone is being treated in a discriminatory fashion, all other variables should be close to equal. And, clearly, they are not when comparing "cheating" and "rape."

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by burntheships

 

How is the opening claim that "the media is trying to dig up as much dirt on DSK so as to skew public opinion before he ever sees the inside of a court" any different than what is going on with the maid right now?

I see your points, and agree with the caveat that its the timing thats highly suspect in this case.

I would not be one to dismiss a womans claim of sexual abuse out of hand, certainly not based on
predjudice against women, as I am one.

We can look at the response from the DSK team, they were to base a defense on the premise that it
was consensual sex, rather than rape.

Now we know that DSK is no angel, a very good read on that here. www.time.com...

It seems that the maid also has some very shady dealings...

All of that is fairly run of the mill in politics, and political scandals. Its the accusation of
rape we must focus on, and its timing. Those are the keys to understanding the possible conspiracy.

At least in my humble opinion.

just read that he has been ROR.
www.bloomberg.com...

This is a mad, mad world. I always did suspect that nothing much would come of this.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by burntheships

 

Are you seriously trying to say the different treatment in the press of McCains alleged extra marital affairs and DSKs alleged rape of a maid are because of politics?

No, not at all. I was pointing out the difference of treatment to highlight that a big name
news outlet such as The NYT can, with a mere hint fan the fames of scandal, without naming sources,
biased as they may be and get away with it. Thats all.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


As I said, I agree that Strauss-Kahn is a bit shady. But he's not a moron - you really think he would trap a maid in his room and force himself on her? Knowing that would almost certainly mean, at the very least, the end of his career? In his position he could get a woman whenever he wanted - why not just get an escort to come to his room? Then it turns out the maid has a history of crying rape and has also received huge amounts of money into her account? She had $100,000 sitting in the bank and she was working as a maid? The money came from drug dealers.....and intelligence agencies have never used drug money before, right?

Of course we don't know for sure....but I am sure that 2+2=4

more proof that the american corporate prpoaganda media is a bunch of lies and bs

Originally posted by burntheships


I would not be one to dismiss a womans claim of sexual abuse out of hand, certainly not based on
predjudice against women, as I am one.

Statistically, your being a woman doesnt indicate you are more sympathetic towards female rape victims, but rather, that you are more likely to disbelieve them, or blame them. Not saying that is true for you, personally, only the statement that you are a female and thus should be considered sympathetic to her is not founded in reality. Being a female means you are more likely to discriminate against her.

Originally posted by burntheships
All of that is fairly run of the mill in politics, and political scandals. Its the accusation of
rape we must focus on, and its timing. Those are the keys to understanding the possible conspiracy.

At least in my humble opinion.

Well, in terms of her credibility, and timing, she worked at the hotel for what 3 years? And the deposits to her account from drug dealers occurred over what, two years the press is claiming? So if this is a sting, its been in the works for 2-3 years? And how could they be sure he would be in THAT hotel, at THAT time, in those political circumstances 2-3 years into the future?

Even if she is lying completely about being assaulted, its far more likely in my opinion that she is just an opportunist who was solicited for sex with someone she knew to be a big wig, and hoped to make something from the claim of rape.

Although when considering that possibility, it does make you wonder why should would try to drag him to court where the dirt about her WOULD come out, and why should wouldnt just try to extort money from him quietly.

I just dont see any evidence at all that there is some big international plot, nor so far, does anything I do see make that probable. Possible, yes. Probable, no. And absolutely not certain. It just doesnt add up in the timeline of her bad behavior that we know of to date.

As for him, the timing WAS highly suspect, but when you overlay the things being used to discredit her, and her timeline, it really doesnt make sense that over the course of 2-3 years this plot was developed, she acquired the job, and was paid in the guise of deposits to her account by drug dealers. I dont see how anyone could be so certain he would be in that hotel, at that time, 2-3 years into the future.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

As for him, the timing WAS highly suspect, but when you overlay the things being used to discredit her, and her timeline, it really doesnt make sense that over the course of 2-3 years this plot was developed, she acquired the job, and was paid in the guise of deposits to her account by drug dealers. I dont see how anyone could be so certain he would be in that hotel, at that time, 2-3 years into the future.

I dont think she was waiting for DSK for three years, no. Of course not, and there is no proof that
the deposits are linked to payment for her accusations. The payments are however linked to someone
in jail, which links her to a convicted criminal.

That is of course if any of the "accusations" they have made against her are true.
Of course, we dont know that yet, as they are in the news by unnamed sources,
so how do we know that the "officials" who have leaked the info on her are not part of the same sting?

We dont.

This is an interesting exercise; the events as they are known lead to no conclusive end point.

However, I believe that with a record of allegations of abusive conduct to subordinate women, it would be imprudent to reject scrutiny of the allegations.

The 'characterization' of the victim is legal pro-forma; ask many rape-victims (or alleged rape victims) and you will find that this is something the prosecution could have expected. In matter of fact, the more elite the accused, the more likely the alleged victim is mercilessly maligned in the 'influential' press.

The man's elite status is the predominately complicating factor here. Otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing this, as there are hundreds of rape allegations pending in the courts right now... and the public seems generally disinclined to debate them.

Perhaps we should trust the justice system (pause for laughter) to determine the actual events.... or will this boil down to a 'settlement' or 'plea bargain?"

Personally, I suspect "political expedience" will factor greatly in the outcome of this case.

since he was "forced"to leave the IMF....wat do we know about the new director Lagarde...why is she there....???

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Her background is shady, as many are in the socioeconomic stata she occupies,

We don't know for a fact she profited from money laundering. In situations like this it would be fairly easy for one of her nefarious acquaintances to use her bank account. Targeted by one bully probably a target of many. I'm not even sure Strauss-Kahn was asked to pay for that sex at this point.