He can think he is Napoleon Bonaparte for all I know, but that's not what he's being charged with.

I'm just saying that he's entitled to be secure in his hotel room without having the maid pilfer things from it and then make scurrilous accusations when she's caught red-handed.

So what?

If the prosecution shows he thinks he's entitled I think that will help the prosecution's case.

Not at all. My point is that he's a horny bastard and wanted to have sex in his hotel room. He propositioned a receptionist who was probably young enough to be his great-granddaughter first. Then, when she declined, he called up another young receptionist also to proposition her, which she also declined. His sexual frustration growing, he did what he's done on at least one other occasion that we know of in the past, and ambushed another young woman when he knew she had no way to escape.

Indeed he did. He called an escort service and asked them to send over a companion.

Imagine his surprise upon realizing that the woman in his room was not the escort he was expecting.

Simple case of mistaken identity.

Whatever, Baez!

Whatever you say, Mr. Nifong.

As I recall, Nifong became aware of exculpatory evidence and flung his poo at the court anyway. Here, what we are seeing is the flinging of a lot of poo without any evidence to support it at all, so far. Now, if evidence develops or is later revealed to the public that supports some of your zany theories, and the prosecution (or me) continue to ignore it, sure... Nifong me all you want!

He did a hell of a lot more than that. He instructed the chief of a testing laboratory to conceal evidence.

And the bad thing was, he got caught.

Maybe that was a good thing.

I have proposed several theories which are consistent with the evidence - misunderstanding about a theft; a theft; mistaken identity; an opportunistic set-up. That's four.

You have proposed one theory - he assaulted her and attempted rape. That's one.

So, out of five theories on the table, I've got 80% not guilty to your 20% guilty.

You can't argue with the numbers.

Oh, come on Res! You sound like FoxNews that there's always another side to the story. Sometimes there's just the truth. I submit the likelihood that the 4 theories you've presented are true are significantly lower than the story on which the prosecution got an indictment.

I'm definitely going to get THAT tested for DNA.

I don't know if anyone here remembers the murder case in Delaware involving our former AG who was convicted of killing an aide and dumping her body off the coast of New Jersey. I had several stories that fit all of the evidence, and to this day I can send Mrs. Ipsa into fits when I talk about "how they railroaded that fine public servant."

But, seriously, there are a lot of ways to come into contact with bodily fluids in a hotel room. Depending on further details, the DNA evidence could be something of a distraction, and it reminds me of the paroxysms in certain quarters when Nifong released that traces of semen had been found in the bathroom of a house occupied by several male college students.

Too many distractions is what killed the OJ prosecution.

Anyhoo... Since this guy is being kept under house arrest in Manhattan, I'm thinking we'll have to order that massaman curry for delivery. I'll keep you all posted.

And, Realist, if you need to pick on someone...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2036681/

A Globe correspondent's dinner with the Butcher of Srebrenica

How many of those are accompanied by a screaming rape victim?

You don't get to decide that all theories are created equal. A jury does. Some theories hold more water than others. The victim's is supported by her behavior in the aftermath of the attack, by her credibility which thus far has not been impeached (even by you), and by physical evidence. Therefore, it is far more credible than lesser theories such as the ones advanced by you, all of which rely entirely on the accusation that she is a liar. Without proving that she's a liar, your theories are dead in the water! The score is not 4 theories to 1. It's 1 fastball down the middle versus 4 wild pitches.

No, two of my theories have her being completely honest.

In the mistaken perception by DSK of a theft, she is honest. The same is true in my mistaken identity scenario.

It's not a matter of "more likely than not", btw.

I must have read too quicky. Please refresh my memory. Which theory of yours holds that she was chased throughout the suite, had her clothes torn, and was then coerced to give him a blow job against her will, with it all being a big misunderstanding that negates his intent to commit sexual assault?

I came out of the shower naked and was surprised to find a woman in my room. She was near the bed and I thought I saw her take something from my nightstand and hide it in her clothing. Shocked, I shouted "What are you doing?" She turned and was startled to see me, so we were both surprised. She started to run from the room. I grabbed her by the arm, because I thought she was trying to flee with my wallet. She tripped, and I was still holding her arm, causing her to fall to her knees. I tried to break her fall by pulling her arm up as she went down, and this swung her head into my groin area. I had been masturbating in the bathroom before I entered the bedroom, and may have still had some semen on me. The impact from her head into my groin caused me to fall as she was getting up. As I fell, I reached out, and my hand caught on her midsection, tearing her dress and pulling on her pantyhose. In my agitated state, I was exclaiming something in French which she misunderstood. She then started to run from the room and I saw my wallet was where I had left it. Realizing my mistake, I chased after her to apologize, but she got away.

I was very embarrassed by this unfortunate misunderstanding, so I left the hotel quickly, ashamed I had thought she was stealing.

----------

I was feeling lonely at the hotel and could not persuade any women to join me. So, I called an old friend in NY (as shown on the phone call log) and asked if he could arrange for a discreet meeting with a professional for some role play. I then went to take a shower. When I came out, there was a woman in my room who I assumed to have been sent by my friend. What happened next was a terrible misunderstanding based on my sincere mistake. (and friend testifies to having arranged meeting with prostitute, who can no longer be located because she apparently disappeared when she found out what happened).

Neither of those stories requires the maid to be dishonest in her perception of what happened.

Where's the part where she honestly describes giving him a blow job against her will? (You know: the most important fact.)



Again, please explain the misunderstood forced blow job that she is not lying about.

The defense lawyers have sent a letter to the judge saying that they have information that undermines the credibility of the alleged victim of DSK. They also claim the leaks to the press of information about the case will prejudice the jury pool. The DA responds asking for any such information be forwarded to them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110526/wl ... ancelawyer

This picture is hilarious.

Yes, BHO has very good intelligence.

It's not entirely clear to me the complete mechanics of that allegation from the summary of the victim's statement on the charge sheet. Having looked at the relevant criminal code, it would be inclusive of external contact between the lips and the penis, which I have accounted for in her having fallen while he is trying to restrain her for the purpose of recovering his wallet. Since their intentions and states of mind were not adequately communicated or mutually understood. He perceives accidental contact between her mouth and his penis during the encounter in which he is attempting to ascertain the location of his wallet on her person, and she perceives forced contact for the purpose of forcible oral sodomy.

In the "oops not a hooker" scenario, he had specifically requested someone to engage in that type of role play. There is the report of the NY madam who had sent him escorts in the past who reported that he engaged in rough escapades that inclined them not to meet with him again.

Two of the headline charges are for criminal attempt, in which state of mind is critical. The other charges less so. However, and maybe I need to look again, it was not clear on my reading of the charge sheet that she necessarily described "giving him a blow job" as that phrase might normally be interpreted. Both insertion and completion seem to have been assumed in commentary on the story, but can we pin down where those details came from?

Madame, I would like to be the pate' in an Obama sandwich....

Disclaimer to all of the continuing graphic nature of this discussion. There's no other way to talk about sexual assault cases.

It is a publicly known fact, reported in the media, that she accuses DSK of forcing her to perform oral sex on him to the point of ejaculation. It's also publicly known that she then spat on the carpeting where this took place. It is not physically possible for such an act to take place, followed by his ejaculating, through "her having fallen." I realize there are millions of men out there who have actually claimed to their furious girlfriends or wives that they slipped, fell, and accidentally had intercourse with some floozy at work, but I've never actually seen that argument work.



His defense for raping a woman will be that he erroneously thought she was a prostitute who kind of wanted to be raped anyway, and therefore he's not guilty? Stupidity is not a defense to a specific intent crime.



As I said above, the State has disclosed that she told the police that semen would be found on her person, and on the carpet where the forced oral sex took place. The allegations clearly include her accusation that she performed oral sex on him, to completion, against her will. We all know that this is not an instantaneous act that would take half a second, such as by an "accidental fall of her mouth atop his coincidentally erect penis." This took place after he chased her around the suite, at one point partially grabbing her and causing her clothing to be torn.

The angel on my right shoulder is saying: