Strauss-Kahn sues his victim

[PhoenixAsh]

SK, former head of the IMF, will press charges against the woman who accuses him of rape in a hotel not so long ago.

He will sue for slander of his name and pressing false accusations and will sue for $1 million in damages.

[Yazman]

What's the problem here? As far as I know there was no case and not anywhere near enough evidence to support her claims, and from what I read there was even evidence to show she was just making some things up completely.

He is well within his right to sue somebody who falsely accused him.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

..I don't understand why he needs to sue tho, if he is definately innocent, what does he gain from sueing? Why does he want $1 million? Who's gonna pay that? The maid?..The guy's plenty rich enough already.
If he's been aquitted, what more has he got to prove?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Her accusations basically cost him the presidency.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Her accusations basically cost him the presidency.

Why do I get the unpleasant feeling that you think this is a loss?

[Ocean Seal]

SK, former head of the IMF, will press charges against the woman who accuses him of rape in a hotel not so long ago.

He will sue for slander of his name and pressing false accusations and will sue for $1 million in damages.
Did he think about how anyone is going to be able to pay him?
The million won't get him his presidency or make a significant difference in the amount of money that he has.

[Yazman]

Why do I get the unpleasant feeling that you think this is a loss?

It IS a loss. Not for us, but it is for him. It almost irreparably damaged his career.

I can't sympathise on a political level but as a human being I certainly can. If that happened to me you can be DAMN sure I would want some shit to go down if I was falsely accused of a crime I didn't commit.

[Per Levy]

I can't sympathise on a political level but as a human being I certainly can. If that happened to be you can be DAMN sure I would want some shit to go down if I was falsely accused of a crime I didn't commit.

well lets see, the last i heard the guy who claimed that the maid told him that she made it all up was a lier, maybe he was even paid to say that, who knows. point is it was enough to destroy her credibility and the case was dismissed because of it.

now the multi millionar is tryring to destroy the live of the woman completly as it wasnt bad enough for her allready. and you have sympathy with that?

also just because the case was dismissed doesnt mean kahn is innocent, it also doesnt mean that the woman is a lier who made shit up.

[Yazman]

well lets see, the last i heard the guy who claimed that the maid told him that she made it all up was a lier, maybe he was even paid to say that, who knows. point is it was enough to destroy her credibility and the case was dismissed because of it.

The case wasn't dismissed JUST because of it, it was dismissed because there wasn't enough evidence to support the claims.


now the multi millionar is tryring to destroy the live of the woman completly as it wasnt bad enough for her allready. and you have sympathy with that?No, I didn't say that. You're inflating my position out of context. What I can sympathise with is the want for somebody making false accusations to be punished! If you make an accusation and it can't be supported by evidence, you damn well better be prepared to suffer the consequences!


also just because the case was dismissed doesnt mean kahn is innocent, it also doesnt mean that the woman is a lier who made shit up.1. There is a principle that is followed that, even as revolutionary leftists is a good principle (in my view). That is, the principle of: Innocent until proven guilty. There was not enough evidence for a case to occur, and even evidence pointing to fabricated claims. Kahn wasn't convicted, nor proven guilty. Therefore, it DOES mean we assume he is innocent UNTIL claims can be proven. As an atheist I am very familiar with the principle that any claims made should be backed up with evidence. I do not hesitate to apply this principle. We shouldn't just be backing claims because somebody made them. If you make a claim against somebody you damn well better be able to back it up.

There may be many flaws in the prevailing legal system of our age, but the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is certainly NOT one of them, in my view.

SHE must prove her claim, not the defense! She couldn't do that and there wasn't anywhere NEAR enough evidence to support the claim! Until the claim can be proven... it's a false accusation!

I also want to say here, it doesn't really come into it whether he's a millionaire or not. I have a feeling that if Kahn was proletarian you would be much more sympathetic to his plight - i'm not saying that this is a guy who's hard done by or anything, and I don't support him politically, but surely you can see how, on a HUMAN level, he would want there to be consequences for his being falsely accused.

It's also worth mentioning that those damages are purely symbolic. It doesn't mean he's going to get that much, or that the court will actually allow that. It is similar to the scenario of the man who committed homicide against Michael Jackson (Dr. Conrad Murray). After his conviction they assessed damages at over $100 million. Obviously Conrad Murray doesn't HAVE $100mn and the court never ordered that to be paid out. It's just meant to be a monetary representation of the damages done to the person.

[PhoenixAsh]

He is now under investigation for another scandal involving rape. This time he is being accused of being complicant in group rape by attending parties organised by pimps who forced women who may or may not have been prostitutes to attend.

This is the third accusation against him for rape.

[PhoenixAsh]

And according to the legal system any accusation is an accusation.

If the accusation is proven it becomes fact.

A false accusation only occurs when an accusation is proven false.


The charges in this case were dropped. Not disproven or proven.

[Tim Cornelis]

She, a maid, had sex with a rich powerful man five minutes after they met (assymetrical power relations). She had bruises on her wrists, and it was proven there was oral penetration. This, at the very least, raises suspicion and is enough to bring such allegations of rape to trial. But since she is friended with a drugs dealer she was no longer credible.

Meanwhile French investigators are investigating his involvement in a gang rape affair in the United States in December 2010. (Dutch source (http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668/Buitenland/article/detail/3258568/2012/05/21/Onderzoek-naar-mogelijke-betrokkenheid-Strauss-Kahn-bij-groepsverkrachting.dhtml)). In March they had already begun investigating his involvement with prostitutes on parties organised by "pimp gangs" (literal translation).

[Neoprime]

Good one more step for Human/Man Rights.:cool:

[Die Neue Zeit]

He is now under investigation for another scandal involving rape. This time he is being accused of being complicant in group rape by attending parties organised by pimps who forced women who may or may not have been prostitutes to attend.

This is the third accusation against him for rape.

Well, that certainly changes the dynamic of what was supposed to be a one-off thing.

[Yazman]

And according to the legal system any accusation is an accusation.

If the accusation is proven it becomes fact.

A false accusation only occurs when an accusation is proven false.


The charges in this case were dropped. Not disproven or proven.

Yes, it's just an accusation, and it will remain as such until such a time as they can provide enough evidence to both make their case and prove their claims.

Until the accusation is proven, I'm not going to crucify Strauss-Kahn for this. Being a member of the ruling class we have enough to criticise him for, without resorting to the unproven accusations of people who could just be fabricating their stories to gain large sums of money.

Not that the prospect of Strauss-Kahn losing money bothers me, but I'm just not going to get on board with a criticism that rests on something entirely unknown and unproven. Like I said, there's enough we have to criticise him for without having to resort to underhanded stuff like that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Three similar situations in the last two years seems a lot of coincidence to me.

The way this particular case was handled is also very underhanded and reeks of class justice. Something we know exists. But considering the facts...if the situation had not involved somebody in a leading political role or from the "upper class" the case would be handled entirely different....and his position definately influenced the DA's position to go to trial even after two grand juries indicted him with seven counts of criminal behaviour in the case.

Then offcourse we have the accusation of the journalist who claims Strauss assaulted her during an interview. These charges were dismissed because they occured in 2003 and France has 3 year statute of limitations on sexual assault. BUT the DA did state that elements of sexual assault weer acknowledged by Strauss. The DA refused however to prosecute the case under attempted rape (which carries 10 years limitation) eventhough these were the particularities of the case for which there was 1) admittance from Strauss and 2) circumstantial witnesses:

“they ended up tussling on the floor, with the politician trying to open her jeans and bra and putting his fingers in her mouth and underwear.”

Banon managed to fight him off, escape the apartment and lock herself in her car outside. She called her mother, Socialist politician Anne Mansouret, from the car and when Mansouret arrived about an hour and a half later, she said she found her daughter still locked in the car and looking “roughed up.” The heel of one shoe was broken, Mansouret recalled to CNN. But Mansouret told her daughter not to file a complaint out of concern that filing charges against DSK would ruin her career. Mansouret later admitted that in retrospect, she felt terribly guilty for not encouraging her daughter to report DSK to the police.

The above is all acknowledged by Strauss...so here is the nice little cherrie on top....

The DA decision to NOT prosecute for attempted rape are as follows...." Since she managed to fight him off before there was actual penetration there is no evidence that he tried to rape her....therefore there is only sexual assault....which passed the statute of limitations."

Then offcourse the latest charges are of two Belgian prostitutes who state that they were forced into sexual acts by Strauss. They state he was violent towards them and that they were held down while Strauss forced himself on them.

Strauss does not deny having had sex with the women but....like with the chamber maid did make the statement that violence was used nor that he knew anybody was paid for sex at the party in question.


So what we have here is a person with a very doubtfull past. Somebody who admitted to using violence and sexually assaulting sombody in the past...who escaped prosecution through some very warped reasoning.

Yet...only the past of the chamber maid is apparantly taken into consideration and deemed relevant in the case in question.


So yes....I do think DSK is a sexual predator and in all probability guilty of using force or coercion....like he admitted in attempting in the past.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It IS a loss. Not for us, but it is for him. It almost irreparably damaged his career.

I can't sympathise on a political level but as a human being I certainly can. If that happened to me you can be DAMN sure I would want some shit to go down if I was falsely accused of a crime I didn't commit.

That'd be a heat of the moment reaction, though.

As a considerate human being (though admittedly my temper subsides pretty quickly!), i'd realise after a while that suing this person who brought up a whole can o' worms would not be the most advisable thing to do. Especially if I were a feminist. Which obviously DSK is not. Nor another 3 letter D-beginning acronym for that matter, clearly sore at the loss of a 'charismatic' leader :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

If he is innocent, it is obviously the logical thing to do. Which also means, if he is not innocent, it is also the logical thing to do to look innocent.

I hope he loses the case, but can't really blame him for suing. Who of us in his place wouldn't?

Luís Henrique

[MarxSchmarx]

And according to the legal system any accusation is an accusation.

If the accusation is proven it becomes fact.

A false accusation only occurs when an accusation is proven false.


The charges in this case were dropped. Not disproven or proven.

The thing is, it doesn't work like that.

In France and America where DSK has been accused and many other societies, they have something called the presumption of innocence. Unless an accusation has been pretty convincingly proven, people are presumed innocent. This is a bourgeois right just like freedom of speech or religion that protects individual citizens against capricious power structures like the capitalist state or the church's cries of heresy.

Anybody can claim anything. Extraordinary claims (like rape) require more evidence than just an accusation. Without proof to the contrary, we as a society have made the decision to believe people don't routinely perpetrate such atrocities. I for one am not troubled by society assuming that people are basically decent.

This is a key difference between leftists and right-wingers. Right-wingers see people as inherently corruptible and, if not depraved, at least prone to considerable evil. This creates a fear and suspicion of other people's motives - a fear which only the patronizing power structures can defend you against. And maybe sometimes its true - for example the stanford prison experiment. So, in truly exceptional circumstances, I can perhaps believe things beak down that lead people to do horrific things - e.g., during war time. But those are the exceptions that actually seem to prove the rule - in the vast majority of societies, a vast majority of people act decently towards each other at least on an individual level, and hardly anybody goes out of their way to deliberately make other individuals suffer tremendously.

Leftists are committed to the view that people are, in a societal context, by and large reasonable and don't go around raping, even if they are imperialist douchebags of the first order like DSK or JFK for that matter. But ultimately, there is no reason to believe such extraordinary claims that they would be so readily fiendish. And that is why we leftists should, at the very least, value things like the presumption of innocence.

[#FF0000]

Good one more step for Human/Man Rights.:cool:

yea we all know how men's rights are under so much threat lol

[Rusty Shackleford]

fuck DSK.

[TheAltruist]

Did anyone else see the Law & Order SVU that was clearly based on this case? Instead of DSK, it was an Italian Diplomat, and the maid was from like the Congo or somewhere. It wasn't too bad.