> I wasn't talking specifically about the DSK case, but about the broader issues it raises, specifically in the matter of rape prosecution.
The question you raised, if I understood you correctly, was: If prosecutors have the ability to drop a case whenever they think they can't persuade a jury, doesn't that open up the possibility that women will get no justice if their situation doesn't conform to classic tropes about rape and femininity. And the answer, obviously, is yes - in that scenario that is a danger. But as I wrote, the NY DA's office says they have a record of winning convictions even where the complainant is a prostitute or drug addict. And in this case those issues never came up. So it's not clear how relevant the question is in this setting.
> But, SA (and Shane, too), do you seriously believe that DSK didn't sexually assault her? Do you have a credible alternative theory about what happened there?
I'll answer your question, but it's interesting to me how many leftists are willing to do a 180-degree U-turn on the basic principles of criminal justice the minute the issue has to do with rape. If this was some street kid facing life in prison for a liquor store robbery, and the case was plagued with holes and unreliable witnesses, I would expect only a right-winger to greet the news that the case was dismissed with the complaint: "hey, he was no angel."
> She seduced him, blew him, and then scattered his semen all over the room to make the physical evidence conform to the rape story that she planned to tell? That's your story and you're sticking to it?
I have no idea what happened obviously, but since you ask for a credible alternative theory, I would offer you these completely hypothetical choices: (1) a paid encounter; (2) a paid encounter gone wrong; (3) a misunderstanding over the exact terms of the encounter. I'll just point out that there have been many leaks from both the prosecution and the defense hinting that these scenarios were considered and might have been raised had things gone further.
On semen: the prosecutors' filing gave a detailed accounting of the physical evidence. Many material samples from all over the hotel suite, the bathroom and the hallway were tested for DNA, but semen was only found on only one spot, a single carpet stain in the room. His DNA was not found under her fingernails, not was her DNA found under his fingernails. (This is apparently a standard test to indicate whether there was a struggle.)
> This "proficient fabricator" stuff could come straight from DSK's attorneys' press releases.
You aren't reading the posts in this thread very carefully. No - it comes from the prosecutors' filing. Please read it if you're going to comment: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/238252/motion-to-dismiss-dominique-strauss-kahn-case.pdf
> (Oops - they don't issue press releases. They have the Grey Lady to do that work for them.) What we have here, as far as I can tell, is someone whose experience with the US legal system has been that you had better make your story conform to a standard script if you want to be believed (cp. the asylum application).
Again, the asylum application turns out to have nothing to do with it. Read the document! Please!
> The inconsistencies in her stories have to do with trying to get the script right.
How do you know that? Please read the prosecutor's motion before you spout off.
SA