|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 19:50:23 GMT
The problem is the neighbours. "We don't want controversial people in our building."
The rich are really a wonderful group.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 20, 2011 21:36:47 GMT
Has now been released. As Kerouac stated, their were complaints from the other tennants in the building not wanting all the attention and security around their building.
Apparently, a temporary situation has been approved. The Defense lawyers were begging for the privacy of his clients.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by rikita on May 21, 2011 6:32:25 GMT
I think it is horrible as well, but I stand by my statement, since I am a realist. What would be insensitive would be to sweep reality under the carpet. Women are victimized absolutely everywhere in the world -- primitive countries and extremely developed countries -- and to deny that the vast majority of women do not do anything about such situations would be completely dishonest. I would even say that it may be more prevalent in developed countries, because in the other places, women do not mix with men, or they wear burqas, or they are accompanied in all circumstances. As to solving the situation, I leave that up to the persons who want this to stop. There are all sorts of possibilities. You can develop the sex industry with professionals, or you can cut off sexual attributes of both sexes, or you can feed bromide to the entire population, or you can take everybody to church and teach them that sex is evil, you can put millions of people in prison for doing anything that the lowest common denominator will consider inappropriate, or you can even try to raise people to respect the opposite sex and never do anything nasty. There will still be problems. And when that happens, should people be taught to just get over it, or should they be taught that this is the most horrible thing that could have happened to them and that they should remain traumatized for the rest of their life with psychiatric treatment? More than once, I have been the victim of unwanted sexual attention, and I really want to know if it should have ruined my life and if I should file a case and send several people (of both sexes) to jail. (Believe me, some of these events were absolutely against the law and yet I just got away and preferred to go on with my life.) hm okay, i think i understand you better now. before, it sounded like the women actually are over it - rather than that they often have no chance than to continue with their life pretending nothing happened... i would think it does leave scars though...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2011 14:51:12 GMT
This case is becoming stranger and stranger. Today's newspaper listed 6 main points of the defense lawyers: 1. Time discrepancies. Nafissatou Diallo always said that the events occurred close to 1pm. It was the police who "corrected" her testimony 24 hours later. Meanwhile, her pass card indicates that she opened the door and it remained open, as required by the rules. Then it was revealed that another employee was already in the room to remove the breakfast cart. Didn't he hear that someone was in the shower? And why did the maid use her pass card if the door was already open? 2. Late call to the police. This assumes that the maid was really in the room shortly after noon. DSK checked out at 12:28. He shared the elevator with a woman customer who found him to be completely relaxed. His key card was disactivated at 12:38 according to the Sofitel computer. The police received a call at 13:32. Why so late? 3. The victim claims not to know who DSK is. There is a board in the employee area where names and photos of all VIPs are posted for all employees to familiarize themselves with the important guests to ensure that they get superior service. The employee has 3 years seniority and is well noted. How could she not know who the guest was? In addition, the exact schedule of all such guests is known, and it is absolutely contrary to policy to clean such a room before the person has checked out. 4. Lunch with his daughter. It was claimed that he "rushed" out of the hotel but he was scheduled to meet his daughter at 12:45 which is exactly what he did. His plane ticket had been reserved several days earlier with no modification. He followed the schedule of the day exactly as it had always been planned. 5. DSK called the hotel from the airport. The first news reports had said that he had rushed from the hotel, leaving behind some of his belongings, including his cell phone. He actually left absolutely nothing in the hotel room but misplaced one of his 5 Blackberrys, but he made a point of calling the hotel and telling where they could deliver it if it was found. Also, if he had been fleeing, he could have refused to leave the plane, because the moment he passed immigration control at JFK, he was on an official duty again and no longer a private citizen due to the schedule of meetings the next day and therefore fully covered by diplomatic immunity -- if he had chosen to invoke it. 6. Fragile victim. Nafissatou Diallo has political refugee status. Since West Africa is not the worst place in the world, just about all applicants from that area have to embellish their stories and rewrite their past to be accepted. They are therefore extremely easy to manipulate and blackmail with threats of sending them home on the next plane -- or worse -- if they do not do exactly as they are told. The investigators say that her reputation will be the easiest thing to destroy in this case. That's a shame, because it's not her fault. As for the prosecution, it has been inferred that some of DSK's sperm was found on the employee's uniform. Since DSK has always been quite generous with his sperm, I'm sure that it is super easy to get a sample of it. Hollywood movies have taught me that it can then be spread on a uniform or on anything else you want, with or without the victim's knowledge. The trial will be fascinating, if it goes to trial. My African jury at the nursing home has already reached their verdict. Awa, Diarra and Aminata told me in unison this afternoon "That woman is a prostitute! Those women don't work in hotels like that unless they are prostitutes!" So much for solidarity among African women... As for the conspiracy theorists, now it is Russia that is being mentioned as an enemy of DSK and the IMF.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on May 22, 2011 18:55:31 GMT
Any man who sexually assaults a woman should be taken out into the desert and shot. I feel better now. You hero you.... I don't thank that we can really comment on this case without knowing all the facts. However I do think that the case has sparked a lot of discussion about rape and how society should deal with rapists...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2011 19:03:02 GMT
That is always one positive aspect -- but isn't this perhaps the 50th major case in the last decade that should have taught everybody a lesson? Or does it only count when it concerns one of the rulers of the world? You know -- those people with the best lawyers on the planet.
And of course this isn't even a rape case, just "attempted rape," according to American law. As I already wrote, in France this would have been a rape case. (Maybe in the UK as well, but I am not familiar with the law there.)
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 22, 2011 20:37:52 GMT
You're welcome Cheery. I'm afraid all the excuses that are trotted out to justify this and other offences (misunderstood, abused as a child, poor upbringing etc) could be an influence on someone but almost certainly not in this case. And in any event have little sway on my opinion of the person. I am also quite Biblical in my views on punishment, to the disagreement of many.
Anyway, K2, as per my reply at number 14, if it's oral sex then it is rape in the UK. Penetration of any of the three major orifices by a penis is classed as rape. Done by anything else then it's not charged as rape but as Assault by Penetration. As I don't accurately know what he's supposed to have done then......... make your own mind up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2011 20:56:31 GMT
My mind is far from made up. I fully think he is guilty of something; but I am beginning to think that we are heading in the direction of "consensual sex" in judicial terms.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 22, 2011 21:49:43 GMT
When all comes to pass he may well be acquitted of all charges. But judging by the words of other women who have said to have had dealings with him he would seem to be guilty of the offence (sadly lacking on the law statutes) of being a bullying boorish misogynistic shithead.
He appears to fit all the elements both individually and collectively.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 22, 2011 21:58:44 GMT
K2, in British Law there is the defence of consent or believing consent. I don't have the details to hand, but this let off numerous offenders who convinced the jury that no matter what the victim said or did, they appeared to genuinely believe their acts were consented to. Obviously many lied, but a state of mind is difficult to prove or disprove.
This changed due to a challenge some years ago when a test of reasonableness was applied whereby if the actions (and actions of the victim) and circumstances were such that any normal person would easily see there was no consent given, then there was none. The offender was then convicted of rape even though he/she submitted that they 'believed' there was consent.
|
|
|
Post by lola on May 23, 2011 1:31:09 GMT
I felt most sympathetic towards DSK Friday I think when NYTimes printed a front page photo of him appearing either to be on the verge of sucking his thumb or else in the act of chewing his nails, in either case looking hunted and guilty.
I'd like if the nod went to Christine Lagarde.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 23, 2011 1:42:14 GMT
Kerouac, I fear that you would be quite annoyed with me if we had to be on this jury together.
Given that men and women basically/generally think differently on this topic is a barrier that the jury will have to come to terms with to judge the facts presented to them.
Also there are people like yourself who coped with assaults and there are others that cannot process them the way that you were able to and others such as myself who has never been attacked and cannot imagine how I would react.
I have an opinion on this situation, but since it matters to no one, I will continue to listen to what is presented and in the end I will learn something from it, negative or positive, I will still learn something.
At this point, how we each view consensual would be where are views would be challenged.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2011 8:59:32 GMT
Kerouac, I fear that you would be quite annoyed with me if we had to be on this jury together. Mich Oh, I think that reasonable people on a jury can come to an understanding, even when coming from completely different directions. The people you might have a problem with on the jury, though, are the African women from the nursing home! I would certainly have a problem with them as well, but who knows? After all, they have intimate and personal knowledge of what it's like to be an African woman, the way their minds work, their attachment to telling the truth -- or not -- and all sorts of things that I can't even imagine. Even just the way of expressing emotions can be a total mystery -- you can see news footage of 50 African women wailing at the top of their lungs at seemingly nothing (such as paid professional criers at the funerals of people they don't even know), and other scenes of women whose children have just been massacred totally closed off to emotion in ultimate stoicism. Perhaps the trial should take place in Guinea -- they might have a better idea of what's going on!
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 23, 2011 13:45:22 GMT
My fear would be my concrete abilities and my abstract non-abilities, may annoy you. Your description of the African women from the Nursing Home would definetly be a problem for me. I am learning not to believe everything that I am told, but I am not able to interpret emotions yet without assistance.
Culture in men and women from different parts of the world is what I understand this inditement to be about and might be the argument his Defense Lawyer will present.
This argument might be plausible if DSK had never had the ability to experience the culture of the USA, but considering he owns a home in Washington, D.C., has an American wife and has spent his life travelling the Business World he has more education in cultures than most of us.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 23, 2011 15:41:29 GMT
Mich, his wife is French. She was a well-known TV journalist for years, until she quit when he became Minister of Finance because of possible conflict of interest.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 23, 2011 16:27:48 GMT
Oh, I apologize for the error. I must have misunderstood the news reporter. Thank you for the correction bjd. Cheers, Mich
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2011 17:34:56 GMT
Actually, his wife was born in New York, but she is indeed a famous French journalist. She was much more famous than he was until she set aside her career to support him. Her grandfather was an art dealer, and she still owns so many paintings by the masters that she just needs to sell one of them to make everybody happy and pay every conceivable fee. Everybody should be so lucky.
|
|
|
Post by lola on May 24, 2011 12:51:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 14:46:48 GMT
That's a good article. And it's true that just about every fancy hotel outsources the prostitution work rather than relying on the existing staff. However, I still recall why the MGM Grand in Las Vegas burned down that time.
I knew someone who used to work as a maid in a luxury hotel. The thing that shocked her the most was how filthy the guests could be, deciding that the money they were paying allowed them to do anything they wanted. She said it was truly astonishing how often there would be shit all over the sheets.
Meanwhile, in Le Monde today, they was an article about how the government keeps tabs on the sordid private lives of anybody of importance. Most of the participatory libertine establishments keep in good graces with the police by providing a running list of famous politicians who visit. Such tactics are just as repugnant as many of the sexual antics being performed, but somehow we put up with it -- and often even approve when somebody's hypocrisy is revealed. There is no excuse for sexual assault, but lots of people are ready to crucify others just for infidelity.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 24, 2011 15:29:15 GMT
So why did the MGM Grand burn down?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 17:28:16 GMT
I went looking for the reports, but they have been completely cleaned up over the years. Basically, an employee who was supposed to be on duty doing something was too busy giving somebody else a blow job that he did not see that there was a problem. 85 people died.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 24, 2011 17:37:42 GMT
Another indication that I am not wealthy.
When we leave a Hotel room we ensure that the towels we used are placed in the tub, separate from ones not used. We ensure all garbage is in a waste bucket, we rinse the sink and we arrange the bedding neatly. We use the Do Not Disturb sign provided when we are in the room. I thought this was the normal behaviour of hotel guests not just the middle class ones.
Even if I had wealth, I could never behave this way, I wonder if the behaviour is learned or encouraged. It seems that rich powerful people want to seem shocking and unique in all aspects of their lives, including a simple hotel stay. Mich
|
|
|
Post by lola on May 24, 2011 18:40:00 GMT
I, too, am burdened with middle class values, mich. However, that's one way to stay out of the newspapers.
So, Kerouac, the MGM Grand employed a combination male prostitute/fire marshall? Quite the niche position. I'd like to see that job description.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 18:47:33 GMT
Yes, the media coverage was quite graphic, but I don't think he was being paid for what he was doing.
On trips with my mother, before she started wearing "total protection," I was once or twice extremely distressed to leave wet sheets behind, even though I knew that the staff was used to dealing with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 18:16:22 GMT
The French news have tracked down the woman's mother, currently living in Senegal, and I think it is disgusting. Even the mother feels the need to flee now to escape the media.
Of course, it is part of the DSK defense strategy. I read that it is more important to offer to cover the African family members with vast amounts of money. They will then take care of convincing the woman to drop the charges in order to "do the right thing" for the family. After all, Africans are taught to respect their elders.
This is moral torment for me. I don't want him to get off if he is guilty, but if he pays, he significantly improves the life of 30 or 50 or 200 people. If he is convicted, they get nothing.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 25, 2011 19:52:45 GMT
If he is guilty, I want him to go to jail so that maybe 1, 2, 5, 10 other women will not be assaulted/attacked in the future. She can sue him after he is found criminally guilty and goes to jail, and then she can help all the people she wants to. If he is guilty and it is proven in Criminal Court, she can sue him in Civil Court and possibly settle out of court so she does not have to go through a second trial.
Although it is the Defense job to be thorough and provide the best Defense they possibly can, they are often ruthless and are not concerned how they affect the lives of other people.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 20:23:55 GMT
What they "can" do and what they "will" do are completely different things. This woman is not American and it is not part of her culture to sue people (and it should not be). If she were to sue, she would be mostly feeding the families of lawyers, not her own family. The American way of "justice" is not the only way. In her own Muslim culture, everything including murder, can be settled with financial compensation to the family (hence the term "blood money"). Doing things the American way will only satisfy Americans with absolutely no personal implication in the case, just a desire for abstract vengeance.
That's why the case distresses me -- my own culture begs for a resolution in contradiction with the victim's culture.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 25, 2011 20:46:00 GMT
I understand you now. My mind works with what I know, (limited) and then I write, what I think I know.
I think we all want whatever is right/correct for her to do about her own circumstances with her own reasonings.
Therefore, I wish her the strength do to what she feels she should do without the judgement of others.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 26, 2011 6:37:30 GMT
This woman and her family being tracked down and investigated by highly-paid private investigators and lawyers will only put off other women in similar circumstances from reporting them.
One of the reasons for a lack of this kind of news in France was presented by a female journalist -- she said the way the women were treated by the police and the judicial system meant that many sexual attacks went undeclared.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 26, 2011 15:53:49 GMT
if he pays, he significantly improves the life of 30 or 50 or 200 people. But if he is held criminally liable, he won't be doing this to other people, plus it would show that justice applies to even the rich and powerful. Mich says it well: If he is guilty, I want him to go to jail so that maybe 1, 2, 5, 10 other women will not be assaulted/attacked in the future. She can sue him after he is found criminally guilty and goes to jail, and then she can help all the people she wants to. If he is guilty and it is proven in Criminal Court, she can sue him in Civil Court and possibly settle out of court so she does not have to go through a second trial. Doing things the American way will only satisfy Americans with absolutely no personal implication in the case, just a desire for abstract vengeance. We can't know what's in the minds of all people, but this would hardly be "abstract vengeance". The law is supposed to be for everyone. I do think, given the amount of money involved in a trial, plus what is used to keep a person in prison, that maybe it would be more satisfactory to make special laws in the case of the very wealthy. I.e, DSK could plead guilty, pay some kind of recompense to the victim, a fine for the public resources used, and be monitored somehow for X amount of time. I suppose village life meant that a version of that could be applied anyway. If a person robbed, killed, or raped, it would be relatively easy to make him pay back in money, goods, or labor. The fact that he was known by all would make it a pretty good proposition that he wouldn't repeat his crime. This woman and her family being tracked down and investigated by highly-paid private investigators and lawyers will only put off other women in similar circumstances from reporting them. One of the reasons for a lack of this kind of news in France was presented by a female journalist -- she said the way the women were treated by the police and the judicial system meant that many sexual attacks went undeclared. What Bjd says here about France applies to the US and probably many other countries. In the US there are supposedly police personnel trained in sensitively interviewing the victim, but it's hard to believe there would be enough of those trained people to cover every case.
|
|