> I asked you for a "credible alternative theory." In my world, credible alternative theories have a little bit of evidence attached to them. What you provided in response was this:
>
> "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."
>
>
> So there you go. You proposed prostitution as a "credible alternative theory" and the only evidence you provided was an obscure intimation of "leaks … hinting that these scenarios were considered."
Give me a break. You claim to be "morally certain" DSK raped her, even though the only evidence of a forced encounter is her verbal account, and she has not shown herself to be a very reliable witness.
I'm not the one claiming to be "morally certain" that DSK *didn't* rape her - or that any of these other scenarios actually happened. Your argument originally, let me remind you, was that any other scenario would have to be prima facie implausible. The scenarios I gave were not implausible.
Now, is there "a little bit of evidence" for my scenarios? Yes - a little bit. A prosecution source told the New York Post that "while she was under our supervision, there were multiple 'dates' and encounters at the hotel on the DA's dime." It also reported that "prosecutors are working with three possible scenarios that could each destroy their case against the rape case against Strauss-Kahn. -- They had consensual sex -- Strauss-Kahn paid her for sex -- The maid set him up in an extortion plot."
So, Nafissatou Diallo vs the New York Post. Two very imperfect witnesses. This is why some of us try to restrain ourselves from having so much "moral certainty."
SA