Former IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) gets to walk, rape case gets dumped by Manhattan DA, victim not credible, they say. Really, what about the physical evidence? Victims torn nylons, ripped shoulder ligament, bruised vagina, defendants semen on her blouse, immediate reporting by the victim, victim appeared “very upset” and the “encounter” lasted 9 minutes. Yes, but, she lied about being gang raped on an asylum application and allegedly made a call to a convicted drug dealer and mentioned DSK had money, that’s it, victims a liar, case dismissed. Wow, what happened to letting the jury decide? Let the jury decide if the victim is a liar? Let the jury decide whether the physical evidence is lying, too? Yes, and, let the jury decide if she is a gold-digger, too, having filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant. Are DA’s now head-shy after the Casey Anthony trial acquittal? Or, is the Manhattan DA still smarting after losing the Rape Cops case?
Who decides guilt or innocence, the DA or the jury? No question, it’s in the DA’s discretion to decide which cases to prosecute but, do we want only “slam dunks” taken to trial. If so, do we say goodbye to the prosecution of rape and molest cases when the victims credibility is always challenged? Look, as a former prosecutor, I had to make those tough calls, too, but, doesn’t the physical evidence corroborate her story? Has she ever wavered on the facts regarding the “encounter”? Look, the victims credibility is always at issue, that’s defense strategy 101, so, that’s why the physical evidence is critical. Maybe, I am bias, but, doesn’t this case meet the “reasonable probability of conviction” standard to put it before a jury? Would a reasonable person believe that she wanted to have sex once she walked into his hotel room, and have sex with a total stranger, while she was on the clock, risk losing her job, jeopardize her pending asylum application to stay in the US, and risk losing her teenage daughter? Sounds reasonable to me. Not. Had the case proceeded to trial, the defendants alleged prior sexual assault with the woman reporter would likely have been admissible, so, would the victim still be a liar?
And, I leave it to you to decide whether it mattered that the defendant is DSK, a powerful man of means and maybe the next president of France.
Simply my opinion, WHAT SAY YOU?