> the problem is not that she's a "proficient fabricator". By all evidence, she's not very good at it
No, that's just the point. She was so good at it that she fooled multiple seasoned prosecutors and sex crimes specialists - more than one of whom was left "in tears" by her invented story.
> Is it also the case that DSK sexually assaulted her? Oh hell yes.
It's amazing you can be so sure of this. I hope in the event you're called for jury duty you disclose your sixth sense for these things beforehand.
> Now, here's what creeps me out about this whole discussion
We're getting a tad heavy-handed with the self-righteousness, but okay, go on....
> Now, here's what creeps me out about this whole discussion:
> --Lots of talk about the things that make the complainant less than credible; none about similar features pertaining to DSK.
Okay, let's say DSK is totally non-credible. Then that means neither of them can be believed. In which case he still shouldn't be convicted - that is how our system is supposed to work, right? Innocent until proven guilty and all that?
> --SA's willingness to proffer the alternative scenario that she's a prostitute, in the absence of any evidence.
This is ridiculous. *You* were the one who demanded an alternative scenario - since apparently no other scenario could possibly be believed. I gave you three hypothetical scenarios. Now you're complaining I don't have all the evidence to back them up. Well, of course I don't - they were hypothetical!
> --Turning my reference to a real and difficult conflict between the rights of the accused and common tactics used by the defense in rape cases to "a 180-degree U-turn on the basic principles of criminal justice".
There is no issue in this case of the conflict you mention, because the defense didn't use any of the tactics you're referring to. I made the 180-degree comment in response to what I took to be your implication that hey, DSK must be guilty because why else would she accuse him.
> --A certain delight in piling on Nafissatou Diallo for bringing this on herself after the fact, rather than considering how an asylum applicant's experiences with the U.S. justice system might conclude that the maxim "just tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the justice system will do right by you" might not always work.
I don't know how you could have possibly read the filing and come away with this conclusion. Jim Dwyer, the NYT metro columnist who had earlier criticized the DA for wanting to drop the case, changed his mind after reading the filing, and his column today had the pullquote "Why did Nafissatou Diallo repeatedly tell a fabricated story of a gang rape to the very prosecutors who begged her to be honest with them?" You talk like she was defenseless before a scary legal system. But she had an experienced federal prosecutor as a lawyer. The DA's office deals with these cases all the time and know that women whose stories are true often nevertheless have reasons to shade the details. That's why they do everything they can to assure the complainants that it's in their interests to be straight with them. They tried that with Diallo - over a period of months - and instead she invented one new story after another.
> If anyone can teleport to a world where prosecutors eagerly pursue rapists independently of the status of women who have been raped
That's exactly what happened in this case!
> Until then, I'll be creeped out when guys pronounce on how women who have been sexually assaulted should have conducted themselves afterwards.
I'm sorry to say this, but you really give PC a bad name.
SA