Well, obviously you can’t prove a negative. The absence of ‘Dissenting Wren’s’ convictions for race attacks is not proof that no such attacks took place. The presumption of innocence until guilt is proved is a great and wonderful principle, that we should all despair at the loss of.
‘the supposition that her checkered past and lies on her asylum application mean that she "of course" was not raped.’
Of course, this is all presupposition because none of us have yet heard any evidence, but yes, lying, and lying under oath does indeed place a question mark over testimony. And if reports are true, discussing a possible financial gain from making allegations would also be quite a blow to the evidence.
As for the ‘perp walk’ – this was certainly a public humiliation for a very public figure. As a mind-experiment, just imagine Bill Clinton in chains being led to a Parisian jail on charges of rape. If those charges turned out to be less than well-made, I think Americans would have good reason to object to the French judicial process.
Seeing the bad grace with which Americans reacted to the conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kerchner in an Italian court, Henri-Levy’s article seems positively restrained.