The physical evidence in the DSK case should have ensured that a trial took place. Guilt would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided by jurors — not a single Supreme Court Justice! This ruling ensured that both sides would NOT be heard by a jury.

“Justice” bought and paid for.

So the point is that an average Joe would get convicted of rape on the basis of physical evidence, regardless of whether the evidence against him, taken as a whole, led a jury to believe that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

When you say, “it is a great day for rapists,” are you saying that the evidence against DSK should be enough to convict him?

Or is the point that rich people can afford better defense lawyers than your average Joe and therefore get away with more rape?

When Nicole says she doesn’t think the case against DSK is strong and you say the point is that “in most cases, it would be enough,” is your position that the physical evidence against DSK should be enough to convict DSK as well as the average Joe, or that that the average Joe is more likely to be wrongly convicted of rape because he’s not rich?

That wasn’t really the point.

The point is — in most cases, it would be enough.

It really is awesome. 🙂

Agree on both counts.

I think the maid was going for extortion.

But…..sigh…….

I find myself taking an unpopular position in the Strauss-Kahn case.

I am not convinced that it wasn’t consensual, based on the phone call she made, and on an interview of her I saw on television recently.

The DNA is not proof of rape.

How could a jury rule against this?

Unless the “peers” consists of souless corporations, human juries need to disregard big money lawyers, and listen to the girl’s story.