On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, SA wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 11:07 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>> So no rights under the law for women with criminal boyfriends. Even if the
>> evidence is squirted on your dress.
>
> Wait a minute. The information in the NYT piece hardly proves DSK is
> innocent, but the potential problems go deeper than a criminal boyfriend. The
> piece says within a day of the incident she had a secretly recorded phone
> conversation with him in prison about "the benefits of pursuing the case" and
> that over the previous two years he and his "friends" had been making
> deposits into her account totaling $100,000.
How is that more than having a criminal boyfriend? The call was recorded because he's in prison. He used her account as a front. That could be a crime in itself (money laundering), but has no bearing on this one.
And saying it might be a benefit to pursue the case? You're a criminal for having that thought occur to you? That pretty much rules out rights for everyone.
The prosecutors say they don't believe anything she says. But AFAICT, they offer no evidence here anything she said about the incident is wrong.
I think they're just afraid she'll get savaged on the stand and in the press for her associations. Sadly, they're probably right about that.
Michael