Exactly!! And I cannot understand his wife's reaction either. I find it hard enough to imagine women sticking around even when they do not have the financial wherewithal to live comfortably on their own. But Anne Sinclair is educated, wealthy and should be self-sufficient. She must have some serious issues herself.

I think the French people need to ask themselves why someone who behaved like this was not vetted to prevent him from attaining such a high rank in their society. And if I sound like I'm preaching to another country: let's remember that it wasn't too long ago that we Americans were exactly the same. In total fairness, look at how far John Edwards got in our "society." Granted, he's not accused of a sex crime, but he is guilty of extremely offensive sexual behavior (cheating on a wife who was suffering from cancer, while running for President), coupled with possible financial crimes to cover his behavior up. The man was picked to be our Vice President in 2004!

Bottom line: I hope good, tough questions are asked in France as to why this happened, and what lessons should be learned from it. France is a beautiful country. Je l'adore. And like us, the French are passionate about their democratic ideals, even if we each differ in our own small ways. I'm sure this painful episode will ultimately have a positive effect, when all is said and done.

Perhaps in some small measure, this event can make at least some of the younger members of French society think twice. But France has a long history of celebrating seduction and their is such a fine line between a Casanova and a boor. Perhaps while they are at it a little progress can be made in Italy, the land where no woman's rear end is safe from idiotic "macho" ass-grabbers.

The country that keeps reelecting Berlusconi? Don't hold your breath.

As long as the Catholic Church wields such huge power in Italy and as long as the Church values women so little (the last 2000 years haven't brought many changes for the female sex) I can't see any change in Italian male behaviour.

"What a nice ass!" he barked to the attendant, using the lewd French expression "Quel beau cul!" as she prepared the business-class cabin for takeoff last Saturday"

Wait, a man who spends $3.000 a night on a hotel room travels business class?

The IMF, pursuant to its mission to aid developing countries in financial distress, undoubtedly paid for that $3,000/night suite at the Sofitel. They do the same for high-level people around the world (as does the World Bank). The argument is that they are competing for talent with the big banks. It's a nice racket if you can break into it. I've seen one such contract, including the health insurance policy: it provides for two glasses of good wine each day.

The police report said that DSK was arrested in first class. That may mean that he shouted his lewd remark down the aisle into business class. Even worse if so.

An early report states that he had an existing arrangement with Air France to fly whenever he wanted, subject to availability. It claimed that arrangement was for first-class, but maybe the report was slightly off.

So?

Do you know why hotel cleaning staff wears rubber gloves?

While the other stuff seems quite strong, it amazes me no end that folks think there is some special significance to finding the DNA of a guest from a sample of clothing of someone who was cleaning that guest's room.

Do people really not understand the quantity of cells they are shedding all of the time?

Here's a question.

Go into a bedroom that was freshly occupied by a lone male. Take the sheets off of the bed.

List all of the substances from that sheet that may turn up on your clothing after you take the sheet off of the bed.

If it turns out that there was damage to her clothing and bodily evidence of a struggle contemporaneous with her report of the attack, I frankly wouldn't bother with the DNA evidence. Trace cell and DNA evidence on clothing proves that two people were in the same room. Nobody is denying that.

A good argument.

Do we know if any of the bodily evidence on her clothing specifically came from semen?

Yes, it was sperm.

Also, if he didn't think there was any evidence, why would his first claim be that the encounter was consensual?

Or as they would say on CSI "Aha, look at all the little soldiers."

The DNA was from semen in her shirt.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/05/23/2011-05-23_imf_chief_dominique_strausskahns_dna_found_on_uniform_of_hotel_maid_accusing_him.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576341780296769862.html

Wow, he's really screwed.

Well, he's played it right so far. If he'd started out by denying it, he'd have a very damning past inconsistent statement to deal with, which is the obvious answer to my question of why his first statement basically conceded that sex had occurred. Because if he had denied it outright, he'd now have no way to testify at trial. He is smart enough to know that. Of course, there's also the possibility it really was consensual. We really don't have enough to rule that out, but I'm personally not buying it. IMO he is a creepy predator and has been for some time, and it is entirely in the character of an evil organization like the IMF to have someone like him at the helm.

A couple of nitpicky things:

(and I have to qualify this by saying that my field is over in the materials half of the scientific world, not the life sciences half)

As far as I know, there is no difference forensically between sperm and semen. Semen usually contains sperm cells, and these are usually the main source of DNA used to identify the source of the semen. But even in a male that has had a vasectomy, there are other cells present (epithelial cells, for example) in semen that can provide DNA. I think the use of the two terms here has more to do with cultural influences in reporting style (UK versus US) than any technical difference.

Also, as far as I know, DNA is DNA. It's genetic "code" contained in the nuclei of cells, and it's the same regardless of which type of cell it comes from. By saying something like "seminal DNA" there's an implication that the DNA has somehow identified both the material itself - semen - as well as it's source. It can't. The material itself needs to be identified through other means, after which the DNA can help identify who it came from.

Actually, any DNA in semen which was from sperm would be different than that in normal cells, because sperm cells are produced through meiosis rather than mitosis, and only contain half the DNA a non-germ cell would have.

So, his story so far is that, on a day he was checking out of his hotel to fly to Paris, a hotel maid from Guinea came into his room around 12:00, agreed to have sex with him (oral sex, in fact), and then ran hysterically from the room into the arms of a coworker to whom she said she'd been raped. One minute she's giving him oral sex, the next minute she's pretending to cry hysterically and accusing him of rape to everyone around her. According to him.

Meanwhile, while she's faking her accusations of rape, Mr. 62-Year Old Sexyman went and had lunch, then remembered that he'd left his cellphone at the hotel, and then boarded his plane thinking everything was cool, because he'd just had consensual sex with a hotel maid the way he probably does all the time!

If it was a prostitute or stripper who claimed he'd raped her, he'd be in better shape. A hotel maid from Guinea at 12:00pm while she's working is a stretch from the get-go. He chose his victim very poorly indeed.

He probably just arrogantly assumed he'd get away with it. After all, he probably has before.

Of course, every cell in our bodies contains DNA. Except the source of the DNA is very important in a sexual assault case. If the DNA on her shirt came from skin cells transferred because he touched her or she changed sheets he'd slept on or towels he'd used, it is far less damning than the DNA coming from semen. The stories say it was semen, if you need more detail on how they knew it was semen, you'll probably have to call the paper to ask how that was determined.

Bingo. This was a pretty defiant, brazen attack. He had the comfort level to perpetrate it exactly because he's gotten away with it before.

Doh!!

Thanks for pointing that out

Yeah... because it is IMPOSSIBLE for sheets and towels in a hotel room occupied by a man to have semen on them. What do you think men DO alone in hotel rooms? Heck, they even give you free "hand lotion" in most of them.

It's really simple.

"I was staying at the hotel by myself and had masturbated in the bed. As I was getting ready to leave, I went to the shower. When I came out of the shower, there was a strange woman in the bedroom. She was standing by the bedside table where I thought I had left my wallet. Thinking this woman had stolen my wallet, I grabbed her arm and demanded she return it to me. I was quite surprised and I did so in French, and of course she didn't understand me. I now understand that she was as surprised as I was and didn't understand why I had grabbed her arm. Anyway, she broke free, and fell onto the bed. When I saw that my wallet was on the dressing table, I realized she was the maid and I tried to help her up, but she thought I had other intentions. I then chased after her to apologize, but she was just in too much of a panic."

There you have it. Semen on the clothes from the sheets, a physical encounter, and a chase.

Again, in isolation from other facts, the presence of semen on something that would come into contact with a hotel maid is no great shakes. Hotel maids get semen on their clothing from changing sheets every day in just about any hotel.

Again, why do you think maids wear gloves and, generally, aprons? Hotel rooms are freaking biohazard zones.

And, by the way, in French the phrase "Give me back my wallet" sounds just like "I want a blowjob".

Well, the two cops were each convicted on three counts of misconduct, and their jobs have been immediately terminated as a consequence. They could go to jail for up to a year on each count, although I doubt that sentence will be imposed. And there was very little evidence: no residual DNA and no immediate follow-up with law enforcement. The only evidence that I see that a rape occurred is the recorded conversation in which an officer told the victim that he had worn a condom, and that does not necessarily constitute an admission of rape. That jury would probably convict DSK.

Yes, but then why did the defense start off with "I wasn't there," and then moved on to "It may have been consensual?"