Thread: IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn : France's would-be president , accused of sex attack

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

He likes hookers.

or - he likes to assault hookers/women

Sex is an act of violence.
(some might say)

All those acts of beastliness on the charge sheet are in practice fun - if in the right context. i.e between consensual adults.

So was consent given? Many of the members here (who apparently were in the same room), confirm that it wasn't. I prefer to disregard their testimony.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

So was consent given?

A key question the defense is sure to hammer on. Really only two things prosecution needs to prove "rape". Did sex take place and was it non-consensual.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

What extra services does a $1500 Manhattan hooker provide compared to a 2000 baht Pattaya hooker?????

Probably not much, if anything. It's just market conditions and the basic supply/demand situation. It's about 45,000 Thb vs 2000Thb....probably the same ratio as good hotels, restaurants, taxi rides etc. Also NY has lots of guys with real money and expensive tastes, not like the bottom feeders and losers that frequent Pattaya on shoestring budgets and 30 day tourist visas...

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

So was consent given?

A key question the defense is sure to hammer on. Really only two things prosecution needs to prove "rape". Did sex take place and was it non-consensual.

He already admits there was a sexual encounter.

She also does, and says all those things he did to her on the charge sheet were non consensual.

Was she screaming and yelling 'RAPE !' I don't know. I guess so. Wow, I wonder if anyone in the next room heard her. Given it was a hotel.....

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by DrAndy

I will wait for the evidence to be presented

A wise move but even then you may be amazed by the jury's verdict. I sure was after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the OJ Simpson trial.

But in the criminal trial, lots of evidence was excluded, and things like Mark Furman and the glove that didn't fit were brought in to discredit what was left.

In the civil trial, the criteria for evidence submission was a lot looser, which probably explains why he lost so badly.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

He already admits there was a sexual encounter.

They did but will need to be established in court. Also, the specific nature of the encounter. We talking a tit groping and a bit of grab ass or ???.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

But in the criminal trial, lots of evidence was excluded

Likely have the same in this case as it relates to backgrounds. Past behavior should be irrelevant to the case.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

So was consent given? Many of the members here (who apparently were in the same room), confirm that it wasn't. I prefer to disregard their testimony.

I don't think conjecture and ramblings of pretentious old fools is counted as "testimony"

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

He already admits there was a sexual encounter.

Link please. I have not heard of anything of the kind. He may have to make that claim though soon if there is DNA-evidence.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

But in the criminal trial, lots of evidence was excluded

Likely have the same in this case as it relates to backgrounds. Past behavior should be irrelevant to the case.

trouble is, now the newspapers are having a field day, it is difficult to have an unbiased opinion, as shown even in this thread

Past behaviour and possibly convictions are regularly taken into account. And rightly so.

not in the UK, past convictions are not allowed to be evidence

I didn't know that.

So a serial cat burglar (with convictions) could get the same sentence as a first time offender?

Don't know if that's good.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

I don't think conjecture and ramblings of pretentious old fools is counted as "testimony"

Agreed...it's best you stop posting then!

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

He likes hookers.

or - he likes to assault hookers/women

Sex is an act of violence.
(some might say)

All those acts of beastliness on the charge sheet are in practice fun - if in the right context. i.e between consensual adults.

So was consent given? Many of the members here (who apparently were in the same room), confirm that it wasn't. I prefer to disregard their testimony.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

So was consent given?

A key question the defense is sure to hammer on. Really only two things prosecution needs to prove "rape". Did sex take place and was it non-consensual.

He already admits there was a sexual encounter.

She also does, and says all those things he did to her on the charge sheet were non consensual.

Was she screaming and yelling 'RAPE !' I don't know. I guess so. Wow, I wonder if anyone in the next room heard her. Given it was a hotel.....

I don't know if he has admittet to a sexual encounter, but if he has do you also disregard that he allegedly started out saying he was not even there but at lunch with his daughter, and refused anything at all had taken place.

This looks like a new defense ploy after facing overwhelming forensic evidence, so they start the "she wanted it" crap - very predictable and even more distasteful.

I hope the case will get a strong decisive Judge, so it don't end up like one of those "dream team" farce US trials, (did the laboratory assistant wear the prescribed white socks when carrying the vial with DNA, ohh not, OK evidence inadmissible)

This was in a top 5 star hotel in a super luxury suite, not a cardboard Thai guest house, no one would have heard squat if she had been shouting for help.

History has shown that most people who resign to mount a defense, are guilty.

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Past behaviour and possibly convictions are regularly taken into account. And rightly so.

In my Country first at sentencing after guilt have been established, not during trail only the actual complaint and it's evidence is considered, but past behavior is an indicator for the rest of us before a trail, but nothing more.

apparently there is a video footage of the maid leaving the room in panic,

basically he went for anal fun but she didn't agree to it

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Past behaviour and possibly convictions are regularly taken into account. And rightly so.

In my Country first at sentencing after guilt have been established, not during trail only the actual complaint and it's evidence is considered, but past behavior is an indicator for the rest of us before a trail, but nothing more.

Yes, agree. I was mixing things up.

It's considered at sentencing.

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

I didn't know that.

So a serial cat burglar (with convictions) could get the same sentence as a first time offender?

Don't know if that's good.

no, during the trial. Once found guilty then the judge has access to all previous convictions for the sentencing

oops, just saw your post above, sorry

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by DrAndy

I don't think conjecture and ramblings of pretentious old fools is counted as "testimony"

Agreed...it's best you stop posting then!

it was quite possibly referring to you, amongst others

I was certainly not putting forward any testimony

Originally Posted by hillbilly

History has shown that most people who resign to mount a defense, are guilty.

what does that mean, Hilly?

51%+.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by thegent

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I suppose you did not read the bit that said she'd been told the room was empty and sent to clean it.

I read a lot but don't always understand everything

Ahh, the dullard speaks. Explains a lot.

ahhh, resorting to misquotes now

shown to be a fool and a pedantic loser, theGents is inside pissing out

full of shit and living up to his name

Good one Dr Andy! Inside pissing out!
You guys sure get your knickers in a knot here in the free (almost) world.
This thread is becoming quite entertaining.
Let's keep it up just 'cause it makes life more bearable in Ulaan Bator where the pretty little maid cums once a day.

Inside pissing out! 5555!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

apparently there is a video footage of the maid leaving the room in panic,

Apparently?

You're doing it again "pupa" rumour and speculation...not good.

Not long ago you were absolutely convinced this case was a set-up, what's changed your mind?

Oh and "toomy's" gone very quiet too?