re: #7 Buck

I am not going to defend Ben Stein, BUT you only think he has “a pattern of sexual assaults dating to at least 2002” because someone told you. Do you think anyone has checked to make sure it is true? They don’t have to. They just keep repeating it (like you did) with an “alleged” in front of it.

That part is really no more than gossip.

Fact is this guy was pulled off a plane. All we know is he has in the end been accused of “attempted rape”. We do not know of any evidence at all that would support it.

Yes, we want to believe the victim, but justice has to be blind, and this guy deserves that there be actual evidence before he is accused. Clearly there was zero actual investigation before he was grabbed and accused of sodomy (of all things…) in headlines all over the world.

I would prefer that the police, prosecutors, and defense lawyers are given a chance to do their jobs before the world speculates and destroys a persons reputation with what is so far no more than gossip.

—-
Please note, I am not blaming the victim, or defending a rapist. I am just trying to separate truth from fiction. So far I am not seeing others doing that.

Well, there is evidence that this is a pattern with the IMF Chief. (Time magazine article: Strauss-Kahn’s Womanizing: Why France was Silent about it. )

That alone makes it worth at least taking a look at and investigating. Is the man innocent until proven guilty? I hope so. In my book he is, but there are things that are already public knowledge that may color the view of many on just how innocent he could be…or how guilty they believe he is. Note: I find Time Magazine to be a credible piece of journalism. Except on what I have perceived as rare and brief lapses of judgment they appear to do a good job of verifying facts before posting/printing things.

I don’t see you defending the reputation of the chambermaid at all in this. Why is it that you think the accused is the only one whose reputation must be defended. I’d like to see the victim’s reputation defended more.

I wonder at what point you consider a source credible, since in all cases, it’s is as you say; “Someone telling you something” as in why people choose to believe that Strauss-Kahn has a history or pattern of sexual assaults. Are we to simply assume that no matter how much proof is shown, that the person cannot possibly have done this, even if convicted of crimes…(Not saying Strauss-Kahn has been, since to my knowledge he has not…but) because it is a matter of “someone saying so.” Are we to assume you mean that because a judge tells us that “so and so” has been convicted in the past for sexual assault, that now, because it is just “someone’s words” that the pattern which is obvious is to be rendered unusable due only to the fact that it is “someone’s words.”