So DSK is going with a consent defense? Excuse me while I

:rofl:

So, this 32 year old widow and single mother is supposed to have consented to taking time out from cleaning dozens of rooms (while under close supervision) to have sex with this 62 year old stranger because she was overcome with his luciousness?

:puke:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/18/strauss-kahn-defence-likely-consent


Unusually, Brafman has already given an indication of how he plans to direct the Strauss-Kahn defence, saying in court that "the evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter". That points to a defence of consent, which in turn presages a so-called "word versus word" trial in which a jury is asked to consider the credibility of the two main parties' testimony. As such, the defence may seek to discredit the main prosecution witness, the maid.

Michael Discioarro, a Manhattan criminal defence lawyer, pointed out that New York law forbids any reference in court to the alleged victim's past sexual history unless it can be shown to be relevant to the case, for instance if she had falsely accused somebody of a sex crime in the past.

"But they will be looking for ways of casting doubt on the maid's credibility in other ways," Discioarro said. Investigators are likely to be sent to her home country of Guinea in west Africa to search for any signs ofpast criminal activity, failure to pay taxes or other skeletons in her cupboard.

older, wealthy, entitled males to have any chance of that one "flying." And, of course, we know how often "wealthy, entitled" males fulfill their jury duty. I'd say he's got one uphill battle on that one.

I guess that's six words.

Assuming the NYPost is right and she has HIV. (From her deceased husband, apparently.)

It only takes one to prevent a guilty verdict.

and replacing dirty sheets, is well known to make hotel maids desperate for the sexual attentions of fat, sweaty, 62 year-old men.

Wouldn't she expect his natural response would be to say he paid her?

Come to think of it, why isn't he saying that now?

She is a single mother and she's been working in a job she needs for 3 years. She wouldn't risk that for some cash and a quickie. And if she had, she wouldn't advertise it.

Prostitution laws being what they are.

with rape charges amounting to 25 years.

Besides, it might be covered under the "commercial activities" exception of the diplomatic immunity laws!

:P

I think there's a lot more to this than meets the eye, and it seems to me that the hotel employee has credibility on her side.

I think so too.

Did you read the article in the NYPost that says her apartment is in a building set aside for HIV patients -- which she appears to have gotten from her deceased husband? This poor woman has been through enough.

have been all over it if there was even a suggestion of that? If so, you have far more faith in the press than I ever will.

he's a pig with a trail of victims and FINALLY has to stand trial for one of them.

makes me want to hurl. since he's never paid the others he's done this to, I wouldn't count on him doing it this time.

No kidding, I've seen that right here in the discussions...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's gotten yes... that bad

Spending a lot of time de-coding lawyerese, that statement is actually ambiguous in relation to the interpretation given to it by the article.

Simpler example:

1. Man is charged with shooting a victim.

2. Lawyer says, "We believe the evidence will not be consistent with my client shooting the victim."

The logical leap being made here is to say, "Aha, he actually STABBED the victim."

The statement is not an admission to a physical encounter, it is a denial of a "forcible encounter" which can mean (a) a consensual encounter or (b) no encounter at all.

But you generally don't deny any more than that of which you are accused.

FWIW...

But I wonder what other logical interpretation there could be. You don't really think he'll deny any encounter at all, do you?

I wonder how long it will take for DNA testing to be completed. Any idea?

In point of fact the only thing he needs to say is "not guilty" when asked how he pleas.

There is NO requirement that anyone come up with an alibi, denial of anything but the overall charges, or anything else.

The requirement here is that the state prove its case.

You can poke holes in the case by cross examination of the witnesses alone if you want.

But there is no circumstances under which DSK can be compelled to admit or deny a thing.

The attorney would be a complete idiot to give ANY indication of how they intend to defend the case, short of required diclosures of witness lists and a few other housekeeping matters. And all indications are that this attorney is not an idiot.

His statement amounts to a general denial of the charges, and that's all it is.

The media wasn't reporting new, the media was inventing news.

I was in a situation involving a celebrity bankruptcy and I was interviewed by a reporter. most of the discussion was just explaining the nuances of a "wealthy" bankruptcy to the reporter. The subject turned to adversarial proceedings which is the circumstance in which a creditor is raising a grievance or disputing the discharge and is the mechanism by which a creditor would make an accusation of fraud. The reporter asked me if he could quote me as saying the bankrupt celebrity was being accused of fraud. I had said nothing of the sort - I was just explaining the process. (The bankrupt celebrity was never subsequently accused of fraud) So rather than quoting me as myself the exact same statement I refused to have attributed to me became the statement of an anonymous expert close to the case and presto - new story, major scoop and a total fabrication.

if they don't find actual ones to right about.

I had been interviewed in my office and the following morning most of the people I worked with were ready to murder me.

how careful you were.

Ultimately I and the managing partners wrote a letter to the publisher completely refuting the story, they refused to retract it saying we had no way of knowing I was the implied source. We didn't think they would do much but it gave us a paper trail refuting the story if a libel action had come from it.

Part of the media strategy in these situations is to quote "informed sources" in order to get named sources to respond to the things the "informed source" says.

What I tell people is this - "The moment you see your lawyer on TV, fire her."

It seemed to me that -- given the prosecutor's actions, including his playing of the media -- going to the media themselves was their only choice.

WRAL was posting .pdf's of the filings, so a lot of "defense attorneys said" stuff was coming out of the actual documents submitted in pre-trial motions.

They were trying to avoid a trial altogether, and weren't looking to preserve options for a plea bargain. Any attorney thinking about communicating with anyone other than her client in a situation like this, needs to think long and hard, and should get advice from another attorney.

I also remember, however, that one of the students made a very strong, public profession of his innocence a few weeks into the case. My mother saw that, and asked me what I thought. Up till then, I'd been assuming they were probably guilty, just like most people here. But that's when I finally started to read all those pdf's on WRAL, and to closely follow the case. I wanted to be able to tell my mother not to worry about that "poor young man." Hah!

I'm watching the Amanda Knox case now. Until they found her guilty, I wasn't paying too much attention -- the whole story sounded nuts (mild-mannered UW student goes off on pot-smoking, sex-crazed murderous rampage) and there seemed to be very little actual evidence. I was sure she'd be let off and that would be the end of it. Now I'm wondering how much the muzzling of the press in Italy is affecting her fate. The prosecutor there has charged her with defamation (carrying criminal charges) for saying she was hit on the back of the head during her interrogation; and he's charged her PARENTS, some attorney, and people in the media -- including some reporter for a local West Seattle newspaper -- for merely reporting what she said. He even ordered Google to shut down some Italian journalists' blog -- and they shut it down, worldwide.

It's a really risky thing. Take the Brafman statement in the DSK thing, and how it has been interpreted in the other thread where we talked about it. Words can be really imprecise things, and imaginations can be very active.

Amanda Knox - Don't know much about it, as much as I like internet "true crime" discussions. The last time I looked at it, it struck me that if she wasn't engaged in the crime, then IMHO she knows more about it than she's let on. But that's really a largely uninformed impression.

Anyone can be a murderer. All they have to do is kill someone.

Defense Position: We do not believe the evidence supports the charges and we believe he has an alibi. Everything subsequent that is a media invention. I don't know if he is guilty or not - but i'm not going to pass judgment based on speculation being projected upon the accused.

I read that one young girl said DSK tried to chat-her-up. Now she's being called another victim. Excuse me, but I think I'll wait for the verdict.

Best guess, DSK will plead guilty to being a dirty old man.