Arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

[Bob]

I think Bob probably meant that it would be odd for a man of such prominence to take such risk to himself

That is absolutely not what I meant to say. What I meant was that I find it hard to believe that man of such stature and achievement has an interest in raping housemaids in hotel rooms. Your assumption is that I meant to portray DSK as a target or a set-up, not for lack of desire to rape women, but only because he's afraid of the consequences. Perhaps that's how you view DSK, but that's not my view. Assuming I'm right, DSK is not the first wealthy man to be targeted by false accusations of rape. I just find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. man like DSK, who headed the World Bank, is into raping housemaids. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me.

I suspect that he did have sexual contact with this woman, perhaps some oral sex or something like that, which is likely the "source" of forensic evidence that the prosecution claimed to have that supported the alleged victim's accusations. Now she's trying to get some easy money from the NY Post by suing them for "defamation".

[Bob]

Those in positions of power don't expect to get caught.

Yeah! Fry 'im 'cause he's an "elite"! Get that bankster gangster!

[bloodyminded]

That is absolutely not what I meant to say. What I meant was that I find it hard to believe that man of such stature and achievement has an interest in raping housemaids in hotel rooms. Your assumption is that I meant to portray DSK as a target or a set-up, not for lack of desire to rape women, but only because he's afraid of the consequences. Perhaps that's how you view DSK, but that's not my view. Assuming I'm right, DSK is not the first wealthy man to be targeted by false accusations of rape. I just find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. man like DSK, who headed the World Bank, is into raping housemaids. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me.

I disagree. And no, I wasn't making any assumption about your views of some set-up; and I have no idea if he's guilty or not, though the alleged victim's credibility is taking some serious blows.

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, oddly unwilling to view you as a snobby elitist.

But no, being rich and educated does not make a person morally superior. That's ridiculous, a residual hangover from the days of worshipping the aristocracy. As a man who has straddled the worlds of uneducated poor and educated middle and upper middle class, I have seen zero fundamental moral distinctions. The primary difference is that more education and more money makes it less likely that one will get prosecuted; and if prosecuted, less likely to receive the harsher sentences.

Hence your perception.

American lawyers have an axiom: those with an expensive defense team never get the death penalty. This truism extrapolates to all other matters of criminal justice, in all societies.

I suspect that he did have sexual contact with this woman, perhaps some oral sex or something like that, which is likely the "source" of forensic evidence that the prosecution claimed to have that supported the alleged victim's accusations. Now she's trying to get some easy money from the NY Post by suing them for "defamation".

It very may well be the case, yes.

[Bob]

I didn't say being rich and educated makes someone morally superior. What I said was quite specific and admittedly a generalization - that I find it highly unlikely that a Ph.D in economics who is so prominent is the kind of guy who would rape a hotel maid in his spare time. I tend to associate underachievement with that type of behaviour - my guess would be that the if we examined the population of convicted rapists, they'd have a lower average income and level of educational attainment than DSK. Again, I'm making a generalization based on more that just empty conjecture. Sorry, I just don't buy that story on its face.

I've already stated my reservations about believing this hotel worker, and indicated the events that I find much more believable.

[jacee]

I just find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. man like DSK, who headed the World Bank, is into raping housemaids. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me.

Again I say admirable, but perhaps naive and elitist. Sexual predators do chose victims seen to be powerless or under their control. Please read the accounts of the other victim who has come forward and incorporate that into your thinking.

I suspect that he did have sexual contact with this woman, perhaps some oral sex or something like that, which is likely the "source" of forensic evidence that the prosecution claimed to have that supported the alleged victim's accusations.

The forensic evidence was that she said she spit out semen as she ran from the room and it was found where she said, suggestive of non-consensual sex but not conclusive.

I acknowledge that this case is compromised, but I think final conclusions about whether DSK is a sexual predator must wait until we see whether there will be more victims come forward.

Rape is not about sex: It's about affirming power and control.

Edited July 6, 2011 by jacee

[bloodyminded]

I didn't say being rich and educated makes someone morally superior. What I said was quite specific and admittedly a generalization - that I find it highly unlikely that a Ph.D in economics who is so prominent is the kind of guy who would rape a hotel maid in his spare time. I tend to associate underachievement with that type of behaviour - my guess would be that the if we examined the population of convicted rapists, they'd have a lower average income and level of educational attainment than DSK. Again, I'm making a generalization based on more that just empty conjecture. Sorry, I just don't buy that story on its face.

I did some quick research...and while about as far from exhaustive as you can imagine, I did see similar points brought up in multiple sources:

First of all, the majority of rapes, by far, are of the type in which a man might say to himself "Well, deep down I know I'm doing something wrong, but this isn't rape-rape. And she seems to want it!" No weapon is used, and often there has been some flirtation or perception thereof.

Highly educated men are every bit as likely to commit to this act as are their less-educated brethren, as far as studies can tell, not that they're conclusive.

"Stranger rapes" are more often by men with middling-to-low education levels...but no, it's by no stretch a hard and fast rule.

(Interestingly, the single exception to this is the very worst rapists, labelled as "sadistic rapists," who tend overwhelmingly to have lots of education and live a middle-to-upper middle class lifestyle. Which doesn't bear on this particular case, but it undermines your theory to some degree...if it's hard to imagine educated, successful men as rapists, doesn't the fact that the very worst of them are exactly that throw in a bit of a wrench?)

[Bob]

Highly educated men are every bit as likely to commit to this act as are their less-educated brethren, as far as studies can tell, not that they're conclusive.

I don't believe that.

(Interestingly, the single exception to this is the very worst rapists, labelled as "sadistic rapists," who tend overwhelmingly to have lots of education and live a middle-to-upper middle class lifestyle. Which doesn't bear on this particular case, but it undermines your theory to some degree...if it's hard to imagine educated, successful men as rapists, doesn't the fact that the very worst of them are exactly that throw in a bit of a wrench?)

No, it doesn't. And that's assuming your "fact" about men with "lots of education" having a higher proclivity to commit serial-rape is actually a fact.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't believe that.

No, it doesn't. And that's assuming your "fact" about men with "lots of education" having a higher proclivity to commit serial-rape is actually a fact.

Your respect for the establishment may be a bit over done. Look at the character of the man - people do not realize this about sexists -racisist or rapists for that fact - They are not particular where they put their contempt - loathing and bad general faith. A man that dispises woman will also dispise men - someone who hates - hates all. There is a cold and aloft way about Mr. Kahn - This guy could assist in the finacial destruction of a nation just as well advise and support the financial support of a nation. Power does corrupt - actually those corrupted by power are usually those that were corrupt proir to the achievement of power. In fact their power was gained through being dishonest cruel and hard hearted _ Just glad that Kahn is out of the loop - for now.

[bud]

That is absolutely not what I meant to say. What I meant was that I find it hard to believe that man of such stature and achievement has an interest in raping housemaids in hotel rooms.

it happens bob. most likely many rapes even by men with stature and achievements go unreported.

Former Israeli president sentenced to 7 years for rape - link

[bloodyminded]

I don't believe that.

You don't believe educated men are as likley to commit acquaintance rape?

OK. Possibly not. Like I said, from my extremely limited research, I found the matter inconclusive, even if the studies were accurate.

No, it doesn't. And that's assuming your "fact" about men with "lots of education" having a higher proclivity to commit serial-rape is actually a fact.

I didn't say that. At all. I said they might have less proclivity--which is a concession, at least in part, to what you have been saying, unless the admittedly incomplete record on this particular matter is mistaken.

(However, the researchers evince slight surprise that, as burglary, car theft, assault, etc go down as education level increases...the results aren't so clear with sexual assaults. I imagine this is because sexual assaults differ fundamentally from most other crimes. However, convicted rapists tend to be not highly educated...but the difference is less pronounced than it is when other crimes are looked at.)

In short, you may well be right that most rapists are of low educational background; but the difference between education and criminal outcomes is a bigger difference for all crimes except rape and other sexual offenses. (White collar crime being a different category, and the exclusive domain of educated people.)

Apparently, profilers have determined four different types of stranger rape, based on profiles of convicted rapists.

Stranger rape constitutes the definite minority of rape cases (acquaintance rape overshadowing them by a gigantic long-shot).

But of the four main profiles of stranger rapists, the worst--that is, the most brutal--is that of the "sadist rapist."

These are the Ted Bundies. And they tend to be middle class or higher, and have higher-than-average rates of education.

That's not saying the majority of rapists are highly educated.

But the majority of the very worst rape cases (which themselves are a minority of total rape cases) are not committed by uneducated men. Think of sadist rape as the exception to the rule; in terms of education of the perpetrators, it's demographically the white-collar crime of the violent underworld.

It's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't see what there is, natively, to disbelieve about it. There is a correlation between severity of cruelty and financial ambition; not that most ambitious people are cruel and consciously sadistic, but that most consciously sadistic people are ambitious. You see the difference, of course.

That would be a solid hypothetical on its own, but in fact is backed up in this issue with research. Killers and rapists tend to have lower educations and incomes (and tend disproportionately to have been raised in violent homes, a plain and important fact which some people view as an excuse rather than a cold fact). But a lot of the most wantonly sadistic people (a tiny minority of criminals, just to keep that in perspective) have done relatively well for themselves, in the legitimate career world.

Look at the phenomenon of abused wives and girlfriends; most abusers feel a deep sense of shame, mingled with their rage and fits of fury. But the more well-to-do men are the ones most likely to not feel remorse, presumably from a sense of entitlement and inflated ego.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

There might be a difference between educated and intelligent. To be educated all you need is some diligent study and a fairly good memory. I doubt very much that Khan is intelligent. There is an old saying that evil and stupidity are kin. Think of all the so-called "evil genious" in the worlds histroy -Name one who's career or life ended well? I can not find one - Take that flake Hitler for instance - There was not a drop of real intelligence in this creep. He was an actor - and a poser - and puppet. To bad that Hitler was not taken alive..to this day it is still a partial mystery to who was behind the mayhem of WW2.

Similar can be said about the killing of Osama Bin Laden...to bad he was not taken alive - but I suppose if he was --- It would have been very surprising to many on who compormised western safety and security. Dead men tell no tales as they say.

[bloodyminded]

There might be a difference between educated and intelligent.

Oh, definitely. While lots of educated people are intelligent, some clearly are not. And plenty of uneducated people are extremely intelligent.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh, definitely. While lots of educated people are intelligent, some clearly are not. And plenty of uneducated people are extremely intelligent.

It's the tricks of genetics also- In one family you can have a bright child and a sibling not so smart. Most "educated" peole and I mean the high end variety have great confidence that is cruxial for success. This confidence stems from training within the family and privledge. Confidence is of utmost importance. Having witness some great actors at work - I found that those with the least talent - who had confidence instilled in them did better than the great talents..They could fake their way through......Having worked with a few PHDs...I did notice that they assumed that I was also educated...but I was not _ just a very observant child that grew into a very observant adult that absorbs everything and remembers most.

[WIP]

That is absolutely not what I meant to say. What I meant was that I find it hard to believe that man of such stature and achievement has an interest in raping housemaids in hotel rooms. Your assumption is that I meant to portray DSK as a target or a set-up, not for lack of desire to rape women, but only because he's afraid of the consequences. Perhaps that's how you view DSK, but that's not my view. Assuming I'm right, DSK is not the first wealthy man to be targeted by false accusations of rape. I just find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. man like DSK, who headed the World Bank, is into raping housemaids. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me.

I suspect that he did have sexual contact with this woman, perhaps some oral sex or something like that, which is likely the "source" of forensic evidence that the prosecution claimed to have that supported the alleged victim's accusations. Now she's trying to get some easy money from the NY Post by suing them for "defamation".

You "suspect" he had sexual contact because the D.A.'s Office stated that there is uncontrovertible proof that a sexual encounter occurred between the chambermaid and this rat bag! So, he can't deny a physical encounter, but has to resort to the claim that a busy chambermaid trying to get her rooms cleaned was just looking for the opportunity to drop to her knees and blow a wrinkled 80 year old man! There is a long list of stories about DSK the sexual predator, and a long history of women in low-paying domestic positions being preyed upon by wealthy, well-connected men.

So, maybe my personal experiences are a little biased by my time as a youth working in a five star hotel and seeing the sense of entitlement that rich, powerful businessmen walk around with!

[jbg]

All charges were dropped. I'll admit I was wrong at the beginning; there was a rush to judgment. Excerpts below.

Strauss-Kahn Drama Ends With Short Final Scene

(link)

August 23, 2011

By JOHN ELIGON

The coda to one of New York’s most gripping and erratic criminal dramas lasted all of 12 minutes.

A prosecutor spoke first, quickly summarizing what had been obvious for weeks: the Manhattan district attorney’s office had little confidence in its case, and even less trust in the accuser it had initially championed. A defense lawyer was next, saying simply, “We do not oppose the motion.”

Then the judge spoke.

And just like that, the sexual-assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn was dismissed Tuesday, bringing an abrupt end to what had been a three-month episodic criminal investigation, each chapter offering a sensational twist on the underlying storyline: Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a man of international power and prestige, was accused of sexually assaulting an immigrant hotel housekeeper after she entered his suite to clean it.

The dismissal order issued by Justice Michael J. Obus of State Supreme Court in Manhattan brought some semblance of legal vindication to Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, after his stunning and embarrassing arrest more than three months ago. He was taken into custody on May 14 aboard an Air France jet at Kennedy International Airport, and then appeared disheveled and in handcuffs before news cameras.

After the hearing Tuesday, Mr. Strauss-Kahn issued his first statement since his arrest, characterizing the criminal inquiry as “a nightmare for me and my family” and thanking the judge, his own wife, Anne Sinclair, and family and other supporters.

He added, “Finally, we are obviously gratified that the district attorney agreed with my lawyers that this case had to be dismissed,” and said he looked “forward to returning to our home and resuming something of a more normal life.”

*********************

But Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s team took the district attorney’s actions to mean something else.

“Today the district attorney has told the court that it does not believe he is guilty,” William W. Taylor III, one of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers, said in front of the courthouse. “What a turnaround. What a remarkable change in the life of a criminal case, and what a remarkable event, what a tragedy in the life of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.”

While he commended prosecutors for investigating and ultimately dismissing the case, Mr. Taylor said, “There was a collective rush to judgment, not only by law enforcement, but also by the media.”

Mr. Brafman added: “You can engage in inappropriate behavior, perhaps. But that is much different than a crime.”

******************

[August1991]

All charges were dropped. I'll admit I was wrong at the beginning; there was a rush to judgment. Excerpts below.

I happen to think - with no evidence at all - that DSK was guilty.

IMV, this woman is truly a victim. Other than her ordeal, she faced a daunting challenge as a prosecution witness. In addition, I suspect that the accused offered her cash to drop her testimony. (I believe that this is illegal in the US but no doubt it happens.)

She wisely looked at the situation (go through the process of rape victim with no personal benefit other than grief) and made a decision. And then the DA's case fell apart. (Incidental, unrelated note: The DA was the son of Carter's federal Secretary of State.)

Was she a "gold-digger"? WTF? Was the "sexual contact" (or whatever the politically correct term nowadays is) voluntary? WTF?

----------

Stories like this make me a Leftist.

OTOH, I cannot say that the end result is wrong. The words "justice" or "fairness" are subject to interpretation.

Edited September 1, 2011 by August1991

[msj]

Before deciding who is and who isn't a victim perhaps we should take a perusal of the document seeking the dismissal of the case?

PDF

[August1991]

Before deciding who is and who isn't a victim perhaps we should take a perusal of the document seeking the dismissal of the case?

msj, I saw that evidence before.

In short, the prosecution had only the testimony of the woman. Well, in her situation, if you were given the choice between 1) endless litigation involving humiliation or 2) a six figure (?) sum under the table - what would you choose?

I reckon that DSK just used taxpayer money (whether through the IMF or TF1) to pay for an expensive form of sexual service.

Pablo Picasso may have created art. His progeny and their ilk rely on taxpayers for their "lifestyle".

This whole saga is a sad metaphor of the modern western world, circa 21st century. Politicians (DSK, Clinton) use other people's money to obtain a release.

Edited September 1, 2011 by August1991

[msj]

msj, I saw that evidence before.

Given your reply not only am I sure you did not read that document prior to your previous post, I am sure you did not read it prior to posting this post.

There is no point discussing anything with anyone who isn't willing to read primary documentation.

It's like discussing a movie with someone who hasn't seen it and yet already has formed an opinion about it.

Oh, wait....