> On 24 August 2011 19:14, SA<s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the past, DSK has been credibly accused of incidents ranging from "being
>> too insistent" to "using prostitutes in sordid circumstances" to "attempted
>> rape."
> Hence my question. If she was not actually raped, is it just a
> coincidence that the man she accused of rape is one whose history
> towards women made it so easy to believe?
>
> (I'm not saying this is not possible, only that it is suspiciously
> coincidental.)
I see your point, and this argument does seem compelling at first glance. The problem, though, is that DSK never gave his side of the story, since there was no trial. Had there been a trial, he would have had to produce some account consistent with the physical evidence - presumably of an allegedly consensual sexual encounter. Only at that point could your argument - about the suspiciously coincidental nature of the allegation - have validity.
For example, if he were to claim that the whole thing had been some mutual coup de passion, that would defy credulity to the breaking point - not only because it's implausible in itself, but because of the coincidence you point out.
But if, on the other hand, he were to claim - Alert! Totally hypothetical scenario follows! - that, let's say, they agreed on a paid encounter, but afterward there was a dispute over money, an altercation ensued, and she stormed out....well, then, you could no longer really argue that his story depended on a suspicious coincidence. On the contrary, it would fit perfectly with his track record as a pig. It might be complete bullshit - just a cover story to exculpate himself - but it would not suffer from the coincidence problem.
So you really do have to know the other side of the story before you deploy this argument.
>
>> I can't see how anyone can be so certain which of the two possibilities it is.
> I don't think anyone is being certain about it.
You're right - I withdraw that comment. (Concerning you, anyway.)
SA