How The Rich & Powerful Skirt The Law

I don't know if we are ever going to get the whole truth out of this case, as it seems to be drifting out of court where it should be resolved.

There was a movie some years back called The Devil's Advocate which showed how a young rape victim was put on trial and essentially accused of instigating the rape herself.

Scenes like that make you understand why rape victims rarely report the crime and powerful men know they can intimidate women and get away with it.

The legal system should send a message to sexual predators that such crimes will be seriously persecuted, but the message it's actually sending is that it may turn a blind eye to the crimes of the rich

. . .since what can the poor do anyway?

I don't know if we are ever going to get the whole truth out of this case, as it seems to be drifting out of court where it should be resolved.
It shouldn't be resolved in the court of public opinion. It should be resolved in the legal system. If the legal system determines no trial is needed, that's it. Why can't you see that?

There was a movie some years back called The Devil's Advocate which showed how a young rape victim was put on trial and essentially accused of instigating the rape herself.

Scenes like that make you understand why rape victims rarely report the crime and powerful men know they can intimidate women and get away with it.

The legal system should send a message to sexual predators that such crimes will be seriously persecuted, but the message it's actually sending is that it may turn a blind eye to the crimes of the rich
You are turning blind EYES on everything you are talking about. Any valid points you make are lost because they don't apply here. Apples and oranges. Why do you continue to cast doubt on his character and imply this person is guilty while you demand he be put on trial to prove your claim? You are the face of the type of person who is willing to do anything it takes to put someone on trial, only because you need that pesky "guilty" verdict before you can make an example of him. That's fucked up.

. . .since what can the poor do anyway?

Any public defender could have beaten this case.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Yes, rape is under-reported and it takes a lot of courage for the victim to seek justice.
As bad as rape is, falsely accusing someone of the crime is as bad if not worse. Anyone proven to be bearing false witness should automatically do time. Please notice I did not say if someone loses in court after claiming to be raped they should do time. Finding the alleged rapist innocent does not mean the victim was lying. It means there wasn't enough proof to convict him. I use the term "proven" to mean convicted of a criminal act.

Not a single one of your examples applies in this case. None. The only thing big money did was get DSK out on bond. That is the single advantage in this case. A poor guy might still be in jail but the DA (not the defense, get it?) wouldn't prosecute him either with facts as they appear to be.

You seem obsessed with this. This is America where you are presumed to be innocent. Not only is there no evidence he committed a crime, it appears that there is evidence he didn't commit one.

PS Still waiting on a link from you showing he has a history of committing sexual assaults.

I don't know if we are ever going to get the whole truth out of this case, as it seems to be drifting out of court where it should be resolved.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

So what are you advocating? Once charges are filed, that the DA never dismiss them even if it becomes clear that he's not going to win. That the DA can't change his mind once new evidence comes to light. How fucked up would that be?

If you have a serious point, I'd love to hear it. But if the evidence isn't there, the case needs to be thrown out before it goes to court, not "resolved in court." Frankly, the NY DA gets points in my book for not trying to hide the flaws in the case and fuck the Defendant around needlessly. It looks like, based on what little I know, that he's doing a stand up job -- something that is all too rare in DA's offices around this country, I can assure you.

So what are you advocating? Once charges are filed, that the DA never dismiss them even if it becomes clear that he's not going to win. That the DA can't change his mind once new evidence comes to light. How fucked up would that be?

If you have a serious point, I'd love to hear it. But if the evidence isn't there, the case needs to be thrown out before it goes to court, not "resolved in court." Frankly, the NY DA gets points in my book for not trying to hide the flaws in the case and fuck the Defendant around needlessly. It looks like, based on what little I know, that he's doing a stand up job -- something that is all too rare in DA's offices around this country, I can assure you. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

+1

It sounds like many folks have already decided even without a trial that this predator should be set free, . . .

. . . but personally, I think this case is headed the wrong way and sending the wrong message to the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/ny...t.html?_r=1&hp

It sounds like many folks have already decided even without a trial that this predator should be set free, . . .

. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

And you have convicted him without a trial.

That sure makes it easy to pick one of these 2 sides.

I think I pick the side that obeys our laws and respects the Constitution. The side that tells the rest of the world we are who we say we are,

And that ain't your side, bud.

With enough money, you can get away with anything, lol. Unless you get greedy or brag about it!

Personally, I find this case very troubling.

This DSK character has a known history of predatory behavior, but he has gotten away with it by intimidating his victims and now this case seems to be unraveling because the witness credibility has been shattered.

Well, that is exactly what defense attorneys are paid to do for their clients, but this time it seems like the so called defense was doing the work for them.

. . . Without a trial, we may never know what happened in room 2806, but the district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr who should dispense justice instead appears to be kowtowing to the rich and powerful.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

From this evidence I conclude that he paid for a half-hour, and that the 12:26 re-entry to room 2806 was to bring him a hot towel to clean up.

The defendant has not claimed that he paid her anything.

His lame defense is that the sex was "consensual".

To my mind, that right there was the first red flag in this case.

A tired maid comes into a room and immediately instead wants to do an old fat man? The sonofabitch assaulted her because he saw her as another weak victim whom he could intimidate.

If he had been a real dignified gentlemen he would have claimed it was a setup and I would have been inclined to believe him, but to make a lame claim that the sex was consensual is total bullshit.

I find that insulting and yet no one seems to focus on that key question.

There were also bruises on her body that were inconsistent with his story.

The fact that the maid may have had lowlife friends should not really factor into it.

Are maids supposed to associate with the social elite?

If the district attorney had any balls he would rip into their bullshit defense about the sex being consensual instead of mucking up the waters by magnifying the irrelevant importance of the social status of her friends.

With enough money, you can get away with anything, lol. Unless you get greedy or brag about it! Originally Posted by AimeeAims

Like Phil Spector?

Personally, I find this case very troubling.

This DSK character has a known history of predatory behavior, but he has gotten away with it by intimidating his victims and now this case seems to be unraveling because the witness credibility has been shattered.
I've asked you for links to prove this numerous times. Not a one from you yet.

Well, that is exactly what defense attorneys are paid to do for their clients, but this time it seems like the so called defense was doing the work for them.

. . . Without a trial, we may never know what happened in room 2806, but the district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr who should dispense justice instead appears to be kowtowing to the rich and powerful.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You ignore all aspects of due process. You would try and convict in the court of public opinion.

Guess what I think of your character and credibility?

The defendant has not claimed that he paid her anything.

His lame defense is that the sex was "consensual".

To my mind, that right there was the first red flag in this case.
Lame? What mind?

A tired maid comes into a room and immediately instead wants to do an old fat man? You're right. She wouldn't need the money cause she was laundering money.The sonofabitch assaulted her because he saw her as another weak victim whom he could intimidate.
She specifically requested to do his room. It was not on the floor she was doing.

If he had been a real dignified gentlemen he would have claimed it was a setup and I would have been inclined to believe him, but to make a lame claim that the sex was consensual is total bullshit.
What proof is there that it was not consensual? This is America. Presumed innocent till proven guilty.

I find that insulting and yet no one seems to focus on that key question.
So what if you are insulted. The lack of evidence and the lack of witness credibility are key.

There were also bruises on her body that were inconsistent with his story.
He doesn't have to explain her bruises.

The fact that the maid may have had lowlife friends should not really factor into it.
They are criminals regardless of their social status.

Are maids supposed to associate with the social elite?
And your point is?

If the district attorney had any balls he would rip into their bullshit defense about the sex being consensual instead of mucking up the waters by magnifying the irrelevant importance of the social status of her friends.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Balls have nothing to do with it. You can't post links to anything a jury can consider. You have no understanding of due process.

You seem obsessed with this. This is America where you are presumed to be innocent. Not only is there no evidence he committed a crime, it appears that there is evidence he didn't commit one.

PS Still waiting on a link from you showing he has a history of committing sexual assaults. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Well, someone certainly seems to be obsessed and it's fairly obvious who that someone is.

So far you have not stated one single thing worth noting and expressed only your shallow and one-sided opinion which you mistake for the truth.

All you have really demonstrated with your barrage of tirades is that you are a typical troll whose sole purpose is to act as a provocateur to stir up trouble on the board.

. . . If you had a brain you would be dangerous!

---------------------
Note to mods: I recommend that this individual be summarily pointed before he stirs up more trouble with his intentionally provocative posts that serve no purpose other than to attack.

[quote=Fast Gunn;1478554]Well, someone certainly seems to be obsessed and it's fairly obvious who that someone is.

So far you have not stated one single thing worth noting and expressed only your shallow and one-sided opinion which you mistake for the truth.

All you have really demonstrated with your barrage of tirades is that you are a typical troll whose sole purpose is to act as a provocateur to stir up trouble on the board.

. . . If you had a brain you would be dangerous!

---------------------
Note to mods: I recommend that this individual be summarily pointed before he stirs up more trouble with his intentionally provocative posts that serve no purpose other than to attack.Translation: He keeps stating his opinion and cites the law of the land in response to my opinion which seems to ignore the law of the land.[/quote]

First things first.

Fuck off.

OK.

Now in America, the accused doesn't have to say anything. It is up to the prosecutor, if they feel the evidence warrants a trial, to prove guilt.

I'm still waiting for any shred of proof or a link backing up anything you have said.

Note to mods: Please do anything you feel necessary. I have no reason to doubt your judgment.

So far you have not stated one single thing worth noting and expressed only your shallow and one-sided opinion which you mistake for the truth. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Neither have you and also you are accusing him of doing the same things you are doing.

All you have really demonstrated with your barrage of tirades is that you are a typical troll whose sole purpose is to act as a provocateur to stir up trouble on the board. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Before you starting tossing the "troll" label around on others...

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=16447

Start with yourself first.