DSK

DSK

Marseil
Marseil

June 1st, 2011, 12:23 pm #1

Now that the headlines have cooled down a bit, I'd be happy to know your opinion about the Dominique Strauss Khan story....

Thanks.

Marseil.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

June 1st, 2011, 5:04 pm #2

I don't understand how a wealthy, prominent, intelligent man would risk destroying his life by raping a housekeeper, when he could afford the priciest, most beautiful hooker ever. He could even pay the hooker to role-play a rape scene, if he paid her enough. I hear people claim that powerful men can be smug and think they can do anything and get away with it. But, even so . . do these guys have some hidden desire to salbotage themselves?

Same with Arnold Schwarzzeneger (sp.) If he were going to cheat on his wife, and risk losing her and much of his wealth, why do that with a frumpy, middle-aged housekeeper? Arnold could have afforded to sleep with anyone . . and he chose a woman who makes Maria Shriver look like a Playboy Playmate?

I'm a man and I don't understand some men. No wonder women think men are stupid. I don't care which head a guy thinks with, neither head should be that dumb.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 2nd, 2011, 6:23 pm #3

Now that the headlines have cooled down a bit, I'd be happy to know your opinion about the Dominique Strauss Khan story....

Thanks.

Marseil.
Hey, activity! I thought this forum had closed.

As to your question, it seems to be common for people in power to assume they can take liberties like that and that women will be grateful for it. And often they are, and even seek out such men as a way to advance their own objectives. But Khan picked the wrong woman this time.

Reply
Like
Share

Marseil
Marseil

June 6th, 2011, 1:30 pm #4

So, should I understand both of you think he is guilty, even before he is even trialled?

I, like most of the French, keep on thinking this whole story was a set up ...

Marseil.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

June 6th, 2011, 4:07 pm #5

Every accused person deserves their day in court. I can wait to see how this turns out. I guess I did assume he was guilty, but I would agree that such assumptions aren't really fair. I know that women have fabricated assault stories, so I think we should wait to see the outcome before trashing the man's reputation. I did hear that his DNA was found somewhere on the housekeeper, but I'm not sure just what that means .
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 6th, 2011, 6:19 pm #6

So, should I understand both of you think he is guilty, even before he is even trialled?

I, like most of the French, keep on thinking this whole story was a set up ...

Marseil.
As I understand it he has a history of this with another woman- in France- coming forth now saying a similar thing happen to her. So my impression at this point is that he likely is guilty but I would make no final determination until and unless I saw all the evidence in the trial- and it's unlikely that I will but what I think really doesn't matter since I'm not on the jury.

I can say that in every widely publicized trial I can recall- ie- OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, Richard Speck, etc, I don't think I've ever changed my first impression because of subsequent evidence.


Reply
Like
Share

Marseil
Marseil

June 8th, 2011, 6:49 am #7

And to you both, do you think the final decision from the court will reflect what actually happened, or will it just be the result of the balance of power (or money) between lawyers ?

According to you who has organized that pseudo demonstration from housemaids? and for which exact purpose?

Marseil.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

June 8th, 2011, 12:29 pm #8

They've made themselves necessary (at least in US, and I presume elsewhere) -- no intelligent person would try to conduct business affairs or settle signficant disputes without one -- but I think their overall effect upon our society has been negative.

As you suggest, money (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with the outcome of court cases. My thinking is that a) Lawyers only make money for themslves if they can make money move between or amongst the parties, taking their cut from the "winnings", and b) Lawyers build their reputation (and thus their being in-demand and able to charge higher fees) by taking high-profile cases and, they hope, winning them.

I know that stereotypes are invariably imperfect, but I think the more ambitious a lawyer is, the less he/she cares about guilt or innocence and the more they care about winning. I'm sure we all know lawyers for whom everyone says, "Well, the person must be guilty, cause they got ________ to defend them."

Of course, prosecutors also boast of their "conviction rate", and they would rather convict someone of a lesser crime via plea-bargaining than to lose the case on a stronger charge that they fear cannot be proven. So, a rapist or murderer can get off lightly because both lawyers care more about winning than about truth and justice.

So, in DSK's case, I don't assume that justice and truth will be served. I suspect that it helps him that he is a prominent and otherwise respected person, whereas his accusers are "nobodies". Our hope is that the case is decided by evidence and not simply by the relative skill levels of the attorneys and the money that stands to be made, but I don't hold my breath expecting that to be the outcome. If he is convicted, one would hope it is because he really is guilty of the crime.
Reply
Share

Thumper
Thumper

June 8th, 2011, 1:39 pm #9

I was going to make a comment, but you said it all -- if the lawyer makes money, no matter if he/she is right/wrong, that is the crux of the matter -- money.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 8th, 2011, 1:48 pm #10

And to you both, do you think the final decision from the court will reflect what actually happened, or will it just be the result of the balance of power (or money) between lawyers ?

According to you who has organized that pseudo demonstration from housemaids? and for which exact purpose?

Marseil.
It's hard to say. After the OJ Simpson trial I loss all confidence in the US judicial system. There was a mountain of evidence, a rock solid case in my view- and yet Simpson walked. The whole trial was a farce- incompetent prosecution, incompetent judge, slick tricky defense, and partisan jury. That jury walked into court determined to free their hero from day one and wouldn't have convicted OJ if they had seen him do the killings. Clark was a fool for not insisting on a change of venue.

Reply
Like
Share