yeah evidence, thats what that was, a bunch of circumstantial bullshit, you and Darwyn should start a website

If people don't believe their plan when prior to the campaign they said they'd destroy DSK with incriminating information leaked to the press and they don't believe it when the story was first leaked to UMP activists before anybody else knew about it then I doubt even her confessing to being paid off would convince people like you that there was a conspiracy.

But where's the proof of that? I'm no fan of Sarko either (it's mostly that bum's fault we're involved in the Libya debacle), but that's one hell of a complicated theory built on... what exactly? Because the commissioner got the Legion of Honor? Who's buying off the prosecutors, then?

The maid might have a lot of shady stuff in her past, but, you know, a woman who palls around with drug dealers can still be raped. This needs to be investigated and it's a perversion of justice to dismiss the case just because of some hunch that Sarkozy set the guy up.

incriminating information leaked to the press means hiring a new york african to accuse him of rape, impeccable logic. Perhaps it would have been safer for them to use the French woman who says that she was subject to such advances? No but that would be too easy. What do I know Im just a sheep

Right, of course, I'm a regular Darwyn. Because there has never been an actual conspiracy before.

exactly what Darwyn would say. There has been conspiracies before, therefore, with nothing but completely shoddy evidence and a will to believe that a high powered man you hate is guilty, you can declare that without a doubt there is a conspiracy.

"I do not make any qualms about my distaste for the French public. Without the facts of the case they were in an uproar that Americans arrested a Frenchman, as if being French and powerful absolves you when being accused of Rape." I agree with Santa about this. I think the French public reaction was very disappointing and was illustrative of both their nationalistic instincts and their sexism. Alas, I can very easily picture a very similar uproar from the American public were the shoe on the other foot. Both Americans and the French have, as a group on average, a strong sense of pride in their country that can lead to blindness regarding its failings and an arrogance that looks down on other countries... and both countries, as most countries in the world, have significant issues regarding rape and power. To recognize this is, imo, not being a Francophobe. To the credit of the French, I understand that this case has lead to no small amount of self-reflection about the sexism in their culture. I believe there is significant hope for progress on this cultural issue. Similar in some ways to how the American public's reaction after the OJ Simpson verdict lead to serious reflection on our attitudes about race and justice.

"If people don't believe their plan when prior to the campaign they said they'd destroy DSK with incriminating information leaked to the press and they don't believe it when the story was first leaked to UMP activists before anybody else knew about it then I doubt even her confessing to being paid off would convince people like you that there was a conspiracy."

That first part is something every campaign does, rightly or wrongly. Remember when Hilary's campaign did something similar to Obama? Leaking incriminating information is also a TOTALLY different thing than setting up the grand honey-trap you seem to allege.

As for the second part, I admit the story being leaked to the opposite party is interesting. But is it really true? Forgive me for being suspicious of a claim that I've seen reported literally nowhere in the mainstream media. And what are UMP activists? Are they journalists? Are they precinct captains?

Jesus, Putin33. It's not too complicated here. The guy was accused of rape. There's enough evidence for something going down that even now the case hasn't been dropped. That doesn't mean he did it by any means, but it does mean it has to be looked into.

No, I'm not playing this repeat everything 400 times just for Invictus and Santa to say all I got is a hunch shit again.

UMP partisans reported the story first.
NYPD leaked information about the case to the media.
NYPD chief is bff's with Sarkozy.
Numerous accounts tell of how UMP goons were threatening to destroy DSK if he ran for President.
This story comes out at exactly the same time as a bunch of other "revelations" come out about the "shady character" of DSK.
At the time of these revelations it was widely reported that the UMP was orchestrating a smear campaign against DSK.

And Invictus, I never said the case should be dismissed on a "hunch", or even that it should have been automatically dismissed. But there were plenty of holes in it before it was revealed that the accuser lied to police, but nevermind why bother with you.

None of those things you just listed, Putin, are holes in the case.

"exactly what Darwyn would say. There has been conspiracies before, therefore, with nothing but completely shoddy evidence and a will to believe that a high powered man you hate is guilty, you can declare that without a doubt there is a conspiracy."

Yes of course, shoddy evidence. Whatever you say.

I know they're not, I was asked for evidence of a conspiracy. Christ almighty.

"If she made it up, well then that's bullshit and that sucks a lot, but that doesn't mean you *assume* she made it up lol."

Actually, it does. I'm a huge feminist, but we have *assumption* of innocence for a reason.

Is there an investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy?
Each of those things you listed stand on their own without them being a smoking gun... and having them all true still does not surprise me in the slightest. Leaks are commonplace, police chiefs being palls with right wing politicians also commonplace, political smears to be expected... etc. Where's the conspiracy?

Yeah but assuming innocence is not equal to dismissing allegations, not taking them seriously.

Yes Putin all the things you listed are shady. But that doesn't mean it is impossible that DSK actually raped this woman. As a result the justice system must do its work. Whether his career is destroyed as a result has not much to do with the justice system, it's not like the judge can order him to be elected if he's acquitted. Life isn't fair sometimes.

I would have liked to have seen DSK as Pres of France myself, but not enough to let him potentially get away with rape. Note use of word "potentially."

PS is going to beat Sarkozy anyway don't fret. Aubry is the frontrunner. And Le Pen will sap Sarkozy's possible right-wing support.

And of course political parties admitting they will do whatever they can to destroy their opponents political career with incriminating information is also commonplace I suppose.

""If she made it up, well then that's bullshit and that sucks a lot, but that doesn't mean you *assume* she made it up lol."

Actually, it does. I'm a huge feminist, but we have *assumption* of innocence for a reason."

I completely disagree. ...not about the presumption of innocence, that should still be there... but, consider, in what other crime do we *assume* that the victim is making it up?? I go to the police with bruises and say I was mugged and my wallet taken... Do the police asume I'm lying? No, of course they don't! Only in rape does this happen. The presumption of innocence that DSK is the perp is what you want... that is proper. But the assumption in this culture that the victim is making it up is unique to the crime of rape - and is indicative of the sexism of this culture - as well as the prevailing attitudes about women "asking for it", "no means yes" and other signs of rape culture.

These are honest questions.

1. What is a UMP partisan?

2. Is it unusual for the NYPD to do that in high profile cases, rightly or wrongly?

3. Do you have anything showing that the commissioner and Sarkozy are actually friends? I couldn't find anything besides hearsay from blogs.

4. Why wouldn't the UMP not want a formidable opponent like DSK to run? That's no proof of concocting what happened in New York.

5. That's kinda weird. Of course, it could just be that DSK wanted to get his rocks off after reading those stories too. I do admit that the timing (if that's actually the case) is a pretty strange.

6. A smear campaign does not a fake-rape make.

7. Her story in regards to what happened that night has been really consistent. Her lies were about things like immigration, which (while wrong) makes sense. Again, a shady woman who pals around with drug dealers can still be raped.


I'm not trying to pick a fight with you on this one, Putin33. I just really think you're going down the Darwyn path of investing too much of yourself in the existence of a conspiracy. There's isn't enough here to honestly conclude that, and this is coming from someone who might dislike Sarkozy just about as much as you.

@Smiley - The presumption of innocence is *after* the investigation. Prior to, the police run on a presumption that testimony and evidence gathered is not fabricated, but perform due dilligence to try and confirm that. In this case, the real problem is that due diligence was not performed. Otherwise the shoddy character of the maid and the fact that she has done tricks in the hotel before would have come out.

My suspicion is she offered, he accepted, but then he stiffed her so she cried rape in revenge and that is where the crime here occured. All the conspiracy shit happened after that when the opposition went looking for more "victims" to exploit.

In short, the maid was a whore and she got stiffed in more ways than one, so she decided to get revenge. The media ran with it and the opposition found their "in" to smear him even further.

+1 dexter morgan

And do you guys remember that shit about "oh she's a prostitute" and she is... you know... not at all a prostitute. yeah. indicative, that.

"And of course political parties admitting they will do whatever they can to destroy their opponents political career with incriminating information is also commonplace I suppose." Actually, I do see that... not as much that they promise to destroy their career - usually they aren't so brash... but, "unnamed sources" do tend to come forward during an election cycle, I've noticed. Haven't you? October surprises anyone?

@draug.... "she was a whore" you just made me and dexter's point about rape culture JUST saying

yes, indeed.

Re: everyone responding to me.

I'm not talking about not investigating, I'm talking about putting the guy on freaking Riker's Island, for Christ's sake.

You go to jail before you're charged. You expect the judge to rearrange his entire docket just so DSK can go first and not have to sit in a cell for a few hours?

I think he was envisioning maybe house arrest in a posh penthouse.

You know, cause he's rich. And doesn't deserve to be in jail with riff raff. You know. Obviously.

As for holes in case

1 - She 'mistakenly' entered a room that was occupied in a $3,000 a night hotel. Do hotel cleaners knock before entering? We're to believe DSK had all of his belongings hidden from view, didn't answer the knock (if there was one) and then jumped out to attack her from the bathroom.

2 - The case wasn't immediately reported to hotel security, evidently, and DSK was allowed to leave without any problem.

3 - DSK was evidently in no rush to leave, as he went for a lunch meeting after the incident. So DSK had time to pack his things, check out, have a lunch meeting, go to the airport, go through security, and board a plane before NYPD arrested him.

4 - DSK called the hotel to see if he left his phone there, and told the hotel was at the airport because security offered to bring the phone to him and asked his location. This is the only reason the NYPD was able to apprehend him before he left the country, because DSK told the hotel his location. If he committed such a heinous act, why would he call the hotel?

5 - The accuser went to clean another room after the incident.

6 - The accuser normally did not clean DSK's floor but volunteered for that floor when a co-worker went on leave.

7 - NYPD said DSK chased accuser down the hall. No other workers collaborate that story.

8 - NYPD said accuser reported crime to front desk. All other workers say interviews took place on floor of attack.

9 - How, without an arrest warrant, did they manage to hold up a plane in order to make DSK's arrest?

10 - The accuser is 6' tall and 200 pounds. DSK is not that large of a man, so how did he drag her from room to room?

The fact that she didn't go to the police immediately - she cleaned a couple of rooms before she did - also fits the psychology of rape in this culture. She was reeling... and probably wondering if she *did* actually "ask for it" - because that is what our culture tells us happens - she probably had to process what had happened before she saw clear to report it. (Often rape isn't reported until hours or even days or even years later... see priestly rape of children for the last case) She knew as the victim in a rape case she would be on trial as much or more than her well connected attacker. She knew that her immigration status and connection to a criminal would likely come to light - that no doubt gave her pause. In her mind, she probably felt that she could hide these things - these personal things that didn't have anything to do with the crime. Unfortunately that was a foolhardy thought... and it ended up likely destroying the legal case. Unfortunately. Had she been conspiring this honey-trap from the beginning... why would she delay in her report to the police? I see no motivation to do that if it was a made up offense.

Dexter, is there any evidence whatsoever that you'd find suspicious or give you pause about the story? Or is rape culture the answer to every anomaly?