http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/07/201172521732476971.html
From my experience working in prosecutors' offices, I can tell you that if you're prosecuting a case, you tell your complaining witness to keep his or her mouth shut. Period. You don't want to the witness to seem like s/he's doing this for publicity and even more importantly, you don't want to give the defense the chance to trap her in contradictions or to 'lock in" her story.
That the complaining witness in this case is taking her case to the media tells me that one of two things are true:
a) The prosecution is not really serious about prosecuting this case and so didn't bother to tell her to keep her mouth shut
OR
b) She is ignoring the prosecutor's request, making it even more likely that the prosecutors will not want to bring a case based on her say-so.
Originally posted by sh76Since this prosecutor's office has been leaking information almost immediately, I don't see any harm in her going to the media. Overseas media and the web have had her name all over the place anyway. She gave herself a chance to tell her side of the story and seemed to do it effectively. She also may have believed that it was necessary to put some pressure on this DA's office to not drop the case; she was unapologetic in saying of DSK "I want him to go to jail."
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/07/201172521732476971.html
From my experience working in prosecutors' offices, I can tell you that if you're prosecuting a case, you tell your complaining witness to keep his or her mouth shut. Period. You don't want to the witness to seem like s/he's doing this for publicity and even more importantly, you don' ...[text shortened]... ven more likely that the prosecutors will not want to bring a case based on her say-so.
There is a troubling double standard in sex crimes; I've never heard a robbery victim criticized for telling the media their story. If the prosecutors really hold it against her for speaking out they are, again, showing unprofessional attitudes and to "not go ahead with the case" based in any degree on such reasoning you gave in b) would be an ethical lapse.
Originally posted by sh76This quote is from the link you provided:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/07/201172521732476971.html
From my experience working in prosecutors' offices, I can tell you that if you're prosecuting a case, you tell your complaining witness to keep his or her mouth shut. Period. You don't want to the witness to seem like s/he's doing this for publicity and even more importantly, you don' ...[text shortened]... ven more likely that the prosecutors will not want to bring a case based on her say-so.
"The interviews come with the case against Strauss-Kahn in limbo after New York prosecutors raised doubts about the housekeeper's overall credibility.
"Her word was thrown into question when the prosecutors revealed Diallo changed details of her story about what happened after the purported assault."
In your experience is this something the prosecution tells the media? If they want her to keep her mouth shut about the case, it seems to me that they would not do something that would prompt her to speak out in her own defense, using the media just as they used it. It seems to me that they would have to do this eventually if they officially decide not to prosecute for this reason, so I'm just asking.
Originally posted by JS357Obviously, this is the kind of thing prosecutors only say when they are about to drop the case. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done so already. Maybe they haven't because they know that once they drop the case, he's gone and they won't get another crack at it no matter what new evidence turns up.
This quote is from the link you provided:
"The interviews come with the case against Strauss-Kahn in limbo after New York prosecutors raised doubts about the housekeeper's overall credibility.
"Her word was thrown into question when the prosecutors revealed Diallo changed details of her story about what happened after the purported assault."
In your ...[text shortened]... eventually if they officially decide not to prosecute for this reason, so I'm just asking.
From my own observations it seems prosecutors and defense attorneys alike solely care about winning, regardless of innocence or guilt.
In the case of defense attorneys I have no problem with that whatsoever. Every person is entitled to the most aggressive defense they can muster. In the case of prosecutors... not such a good thing.
There is reasonable doubt all over the place in this. It should have been dropped a long time ago. Perhaps sh76 is correct that they're just waiting to see if new evidence comes to light. So far the prosecutors in this case have been very diligent about doing the right thing by turning over exonerating evidence to the defense.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI agree with their indifference toward justice, but it has been my regrettable experience that they care about two things. I've only ever had direct dealings with about a dozen attorneys, and the majority's first and foremost concern has been financial.
From my own observations it seems prosecutors and defense attorneys alike solely care about winning, regardless of innocence or guilt.
In the case of defense attorneys I have no problem with that whatsoever. Every person is entitled to the most aggressive defense they can muster. In the case of prosecutors... not such a good thing.
T ...[text shortened]... very diligent about doing the right thing by turning over exonerating evidence to the defense.
The one exceptional attorney with whom I dealt directly seemed to have the financial side as a mere afterthought, but justice really wasn't her main concern, either. She had a laser-like focus on getting her name attached to quotable decisions which she considered helpful to her overall cause. She was far more of a purist than the others (although more and more, those seeking financial gain seem to be about as pure in the pursuit as is humanly possible), albeit for ulterior motives, nonetheless. Definitely a ends-means methodology to her practice.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe parroting that there is "reasonable doubt" before a single shred of evidence has been submitted to a jury just again shows both your ignorance of the law and personal bias.
From my own observations it seems prosecutors and defense attorneys alike solely care about winning, regardless of innocence or guilt.
In the case of defense attorneys I have no problem with that whatsoever. Every person is entitled to the most aggressive defense they can muster. In the case of prosecutors... not such a good thing.
T ...[text shortened]... very diligent about doing the right thing by turning over exonerating evidence to the defense.
Originally posted by sh76Obviously there is someone in the prosecutor's office who has been unethically leaking material to the press as soon as it gets into his/her hands. That does not mean that the DA's office itself shares the opinion of this one unethical employee.
Obviously, this is the kind of thing prosecutors only say when they are about to drop the case. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done so already. Maybe they haven't because they know that once they drop the case, he's gone and they won't get another crack at it no matter what new evidence turns up.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou either believe there's reasonable doubt or you don't. Opining one way or the other isn't "parroting."
The parroting that there is "reasonable doubt" before a single shred of evidence has been submitted to a jury just again shows both your ignorance of the law and personal bias.
Also, whether or not there's enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt is the basis prosecutors use to decide if they're going to try a case. What you're suggesting implies every rape accusation must be taken to trial to "see" if there is reasonable doubt. That's absurd, and once again if you have any amount of education in criminal law you should ask for your money back.
What "bias" are you suggesting? That I have an affinity toward rapists?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperEither:
From my own observations it seems prosecutors and defense attorneys alike solely care about winning, regardless of innocence or guilt.
In the case of defense attorneys I have no problem with that whatsoever. Every person is entitled to the most aggressive defense they can muster. In the case of prosecutors... not such a good thing.
T ...[text shortened]... very diligent about doing the right thing by turning over exonerating evidence to the defense.
1) They're waiting for new evidence to come to light
2) They're waiting to see which way the political wind blows to determine whether to prosecute this case
3) As No1 suggested, it's conceivable that the DA himself thinks there is a case even if one or more subordinates do not
Strauss Kahn continues to gain in popularity with regard to the presidential elections next year. The moment news was leaked of the link, and conversations, between the maids correspondence with a jailed former 'cohort,' his house arrest was lifted...every day he is forced to stay in NY, the 'elect Strauss Kahn' brigade gains momentum. Far from destroying him, his former French detractors have taken to a form of defending the man that has an insatiable 'unhealthy' appetite for women as now merely a man that is a 'compensation target' for those that are aware he adores 'all things of beauty..this we know is wholly normal for a man of his standing.' The cheapest way to elect a president ??
Originally posted by RevRSleekerHa!
Strauss Kahn continues to gain in popularity with regard to the presidential elections next year. The moment news was leaked of the link, and conversations, between the maids correspondence with a jailed former 'cohort,' his house arrest was lifted...every day he is forced to stay in NY, the 'elect Strauss Kahn' brigade gains momentum. Far from destroyin ...[text shortened]... is wholly normal for a man of his standing.' The cheapest way to elect a president ??
That's funny... certainly a uniquely French way of looking at things. 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperOne would think that being ludicrously wrong in your assessment of what others might find "beyond a reasonable doubt" so recently would cause you to approach these discussions with a bit more humility, but you insist on blustering on even though you admit you have no qualifications to do so. Curious.
You either believe there's reasonable doubt or you don't. Opining one way or the other isn't "parroting."
Also, whether or not there's enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt is the basis prosecutors use to decide if they're going to try a case. What you're suggesting implies every rape accusation must be taken to trial to " y back.
What "bias" are you suggesting? That I have an affinity toward rapists?
The defense version of consensual sex is far-fetched to say the least. The latest info is that DSK phoned his daughter to meet her for lunch only 9 minutes after the victim keyed open his door. This doesn't give a lot of time for even a French guy to work his wiles of seduction.
There is a credible, consistent version of a sexual assault that comports with the physical evidence. There are some minor discrepancies in the alleged victim's description of events shortly after the attack, but this is common in these types of cases given the trauma of rape (and that the victim was traumatized is consistent with witness descriptions). The victim has a checkered past, but so do many crime victims.
In short, this is an unremarkable sexual assault case of the type that are invariably pursued to plea or trial thousands of times per year in the US. DSK should not be treated differently because he is rich and powerful. If I was a prosecutor, I'd be salivating at the prospect of cross examining him in front of a NY jury.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, please. You yourself were pessimistic about the outcome of the case, albeit for different reasons. You guessed right on a situation with only two possible outcomes and now all of the sudden you think you're the Nostradamus of criminal court cases? LOL wow.
One would think that being ludicrously wrong in your assessment of what others might find "beyond a reasonable doubt" so recently would cause you to approach these discussions with a bit more humility, but you insist on blustering on even though you admit you have no qualifications to do so. Curious.
The defense version of consensual sex prosecutor, I'd be salivating at the prospect of cross examining him in front of a NY jury.
(as side note: you really didn't even guess the outcome)
So now if the strauss kahn case is dropped do I get to be Nostradamus, since I think there's reasonable doubt?
We can debate the details about why we disagree about whether or not there's reasonable doubt, and that's fair. But in this case it's beside the point.
You thought reasonable doubt should only be decided through a trial. Previously you didn't know that the basis prosecutors use to decide to try someone is whether or not there's enough evidence to convict. You (might) have taken a few law classes and learned some fancy terminology, but you're freaking clueless.
You have such an overinflated opinion of your own intellect I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'm not going to get in another pissing match with someone who is both misinformed and dishonest. Your categorizations of my positions are simply lies.
Oh, please. You yourself were pessimistic about the outcome of the case, albeit for different reasons. You guessed right on a situation with only two possible outcomes and now all of the sudden you think you're the Nostradamus of criminal court cases? LOL wow.
(as side note: you really didn't even guess the outcome)
So now if the strauss kah ...[text shortened]... ch an overinflated opinion of your own intellect I don't know whether to laugh or cry.