Posted on 05/23/2011 6:27:02 PM PDT by for-q-clinton
According to the maid’s account, as told to investigators and relayed to FoxNews.com, the maid entered the room and was confronted by a naked Strauss-Kahn, who emerged from the bathroom and began grabbing the maid’s breasts while trying to pin her down on his bed.
The maid is deeply religious, investigators said, and immediately put her hands over her eyes so she wouldn’t see the naked Frenchman. He ran to her, began grabbing her breasts and pulling her down the hallway inside the luxury suite toward the bedroom.
The maid said she tried a variety of tactics to get herself out of the room and away from Strauss-Kahn. She said, “my manager is in the hallway,” which he wasn’t -- but the former IMF chief wasn’t scared off. The single mother allegedly told the Frenchman that the job was important to her and any conflict with a hotel guest would result in her losing her job.
“Please stop. I need my job, I can’t lose my job..." she told Strauss-Kahn, according to law enforcement sources.
Strauss-Kahn allegedly responded: “No, baby. Don’t worry, you’re not going to lose your job..." Strauss-Kahn responded, according to investigators.
While she continued to plead with him, begging him to stop, he allegedly continued to attack her, dragging her down the hallway.
When she pushed him away and ran toward the door, she slipped on a newspaper bag on the floor and fell to her knees. That’s when Strauss-Kahn came up behind her and forced her to perform oral sex, sources said.
The maid finally escaped from her alleged attacker by pushing him into the sharp edge of an armoire in the hotel suite. Sources said the Frenchman has a gash on his back where he hit the armoire.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How so?
No...she’s not charged with a crime so no judgement is being passed.
He is being charged with a crime therefore, the term innocent until proven guilty does apply.
BTW: Looks like I was right...this is all just rumors http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.70d06a6c49b3b0a2f5170461c7277a26.341&show_article=1
Cops are now denying the DNA evidence.
looks like he may not have spread his DNA everywhere:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.70d06a6c49b3b0a2f5170461c7277a26.341&show_article=1
Cops now deny dna reports. Uh oh...why would someone lie about this?
It may not be so obvious as you think...now cops are denying dna evidence
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.70d06a6c49b3b0a2f5170461c7277a26.341&show_article=1
Uh oh...why would someone lie about this?
Looks like someone is lying about the DNA
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.70d06a6c49b3b0a2f5170461c7277a26.341&show_article=1
Hmmm...I wonder why.
First of all, on almost every True Crime thread there’s a snippy “we must wait until the trial” comment.
Bullhocky! WE ARE NOT THE JURY!
We are a bunch of Americans with a free speech right to speculate about a crime of which we are aware as much as we have a right to discuss our gardens. To say we must not expresss opinions on this matter is to effectively squelch our constitutional right of free expression, even if opinions based on rumor and hear-say.
Were we jurors then perhaps we should not discuss. I’m surprised that a Freeper, generally folks well aware of the constitution, would be making such an absurd claim. By your standards, even the newspapers shouldn’t be reported info given to them by various experts and pundits. IE...we all should shut up until this fine, fine man has his day in court. It’s not like anything WE say will decide this man’s guilt or innocense for Lord’s sake.
As for the claim that no DNA evidence has been found, according to the article it states that the “investigators”-whoever they are as it’s not the NY police, have not reported anything back about DNA.
I speculate....which I am lawfully allowed to do per my constitution...that again, there were a lot of people involved with this incident. People tend to talk, especially when they’re being quizzed by newspaper reporters and the like. Again, they have a constitutional Freedom of Speech to tell their story, what they saw, hell they can even lie about it if they want. But I think they told the big media outlets that this woman had a big spot of splooge on her shirt and that’s probably the basis of the report of DNA evidence.
Just because the “investigators” haven’t reported back the results of the DNA test doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Further, the investigators have no requirement to tell the media the results of this test and with all this publicity, they probably won’t.
Don’t go smirking that evidence doesn’t exist....it likely does.
And for sure do NOT, on the FreeRepublic forum of all places, try to take away our freedom of speech with some absurd assertion that we’ve no right to express our opinions on this very public matter....it does not reflect well on a Freeper at all.
Or at any rate, there is a RUMOR afoot that the cops are denying the DNA evidence, right?
And what does: “...she’s not charged with a crime so no judgement is being passed” mean? Of COURSE you cannot pass judgement on criminal cases at this forum, and neither can anyone else. The use of the word ‘judgement’ is NOT limited only to cases involving criminal charges, and if you didn’t already know that then YOU need to stop accusing other people on this forum of having issues with their reading comprehension abilities.
Correct. And it doesn't mean it does exist either. But let's not let that get in our way of convicting someone on rumors and inneundo.
Try to keep up and read for comprehension. Where did I ever accuse this woman of anything? I am not passing judgement on her. I’m just pointing out other plausible events that could have occurred. Other’s are reading way too much into my posts.
Huh? How could I take away your freedom on speech on FR? First of all no freedom of speech exists on FR...don't believe me? Try to say some liberal rant and insult jimrob...see how long your "freedom of speech" exists on FR. Obviously you don't understand what freedom of speech means. Hint it has to deal with government arresting you for saying things. Not private websites.
Wrong! Presumption of innocence is a legal concept, applicable in Court. Legal presumption of innocence will protect the right to a fair trial where a defendant is presumed innocent in the eyes of the Law, and must be proven guilty.
It doesn’t prevent non-jurors from discussion, or coming to their own conclusions based on reasoning and common sense.
thanks for your excellent post.
IMO there are 2 possible options for the defense:
1. Consensual which will be very difficult to prove, as they were total strangers
2. Work out plea deal if the DA is willing.
Join the Ping List! I’ll be covering the case in detail as well as the cultural context and translated French sources.
Correct and what is a fact is that we don’t know everything about this case. So a wise man would reserve judgement. Remember Gary Condit? How many of us had him convicted of the Chandra Levy murder?
Also you may have issues with libel and slander if you claim he raped her and he didn’t. Realistically not a real issue here on a forum, but can be if done outside this forum or if the person posting the comment has “clout”.
Dont you know who I am?
Are you on DSK Bimbo Patrol payroll?
You obviously know nothing about American legal protection of free speech. Don’t you support it
Libel and slander, absent malice, Are almost impossible to prove in an American court.
Do you even know the difference!
Remember gary condit? Did you have him guilty or innocent in your infinite wisdom?
The old “double-standard” at work......Only this time its the male being labeled......
Seriously, from all accounts already published S-K’s “technique” sucked ! Charitably, he was somewhat less than “urbane” in his approach to multiple female staff members in the hotel as well as on the AF flight he was removed from.....if the reports of multiple ladies are any indicator.
A viagra OD ? >PS
That statement itself is well established as 'the standard' used by perpetrators, and their attorneys push it, when they know fully well the evidence is overwhelming and difficult if not impossible to defend... other than to "blame the victim".
That is classic stuff seen and heard, time and again, by men who have a 'history' of sexual abuse. It's almost a written script...some are more familiar with than others...as I'm sure you know.
I agree with the options you stated as possible for the defense..... However as mentioned, we are also going to see a defense that is going to stretch these proceedings out to the max... included in that will be many ‘other’ stories incorporated into their defense which really will have no bearing on the case but will be argued as a means to divert attention and confuse the real issue at hand.
Guess J effin Kerry really is part French. ;’) Thanks Cincinna.
Your observations are very true. This type of perp has a classic pattern and usually follows the same MO over many years.
From what I am hearing , and reading in the French press, this is going to get quite shocking on the scope of it, the length of time, the number of women, etc. Also the level of depravity and decadence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.