Home » The Catcher in the Sofitel

Comments

The Catcher in the Sofitel — 9 Comments

  1. expat: if so, it would not be surprising. French libel laws, especially regarding famous people, are extremely biased in favor of the plaintiffs. Here:

    Essentially, France has made it incredibly easy to win a libel suit. Nearly all you need to do is to show that you were defamed (“any allegation or imputation of an act affecting the honor or reputation of the person or body against whom it is made”). I said “nearly all” because yes, there is a defense, and that is truth.

    Well, that doesn’t sound so bad, does it? But it is bad, and this is why: the burden of proof in France falls on the defendant.

    That’s such a dry, legal phrase: “burden of proof.” But what it means in practice is that it’s up to the person who made the defamatory statement to prove to a three-judge panel (not a jury; this reflects the fact that the French have far less trust in the decisions of its ordinary citizen than the US does) that the defamatory statement was true…Check out that word, prove. It means just what it says, not “indicate he/she had reason to believe it was true” or “suggest it might be true,” or even “prove it was most likely true.”

  2. And if she knew who he was, and wanted that kind of money, then why not blackmail him instead? After all, she had the semen on the dress, and could threaten to go to authorities.

    Possibly she figured that actually going to the authorities would make any threats she might have made that much more credible. After all, even with the physical evidence the case is nowhere without her testimony. All she has to do is go a little vague up on the witness stand and even though she can be tasked with her statements to investigators and her deposition – if she made one – if she refuses to back them up there is no case.

    What I find most interesting is that our politics are starting to resemble Arthur Schnitzler’s La Ronde. Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Gore (and a massage parlor masseuse at that!), Sanford, Swartzenegger, Weiner, and the men’s room shoe-tapper whose name escapes me.

    When they published Schnitzler’s play it was assailed as pornography. Now it would just be news.

  3. Neo,

    I sure am glad we can call the jerk a jerk without fear of the French courts.

    Completely OT: A commenter at Ricochet just talked about this website. It is definitely not literary, but none the less fascinating and potentially useful if you don’t like computing things yourself. Check it out.

    http://www.wolframalpha.com/tour1.html

  4. I think it’s possible that they did talk money before and/or after.

    Maybe they agreed to an amount beforehand and then she jacked up (sorry) the price afterward. Or maybe they didn’t talk money beforehand and he lowballed (sorry again) her when the time came to pay up.

    If she was aiming for an exorbitant payoff (based on the info she had about DSK) she certainly wouldn’t say so in advance. He may have agreed to paid her with the “going rate” (or even a big “tip”) and she may have demanded a huge (blackmail level) sum in reply. I could certainly see tempers flaring on both sides at that point.

    At any rate, as the old saying goes..lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

  5. expat,

    regarding wolframalpha, how long do you suppose it will take for the leftards to render it totally useless?

  6. Jack,
    No idea. Maybe Bill Ayers will introduce a users manual urging people to challenge the data because it’s not fair.

  7. given mckinnon and such ahve changed the burden of innocence and made normal ignoring the concept of innocence until proven guilty…

    “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience,” — Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.

    from the duke kids being assumed guilty… to the duke university admin who was gay and rented out his adopted black kids (and gave advice to others to do so) for sex, but was assumed innocent. to strauss kahn…

    its the “ladies” of the view, telling a majority of what they should assume… and other left jumping on items to be the first to “qwerty” them… even if only a percentage believe and never correct the fact, that percentage has a world definition where it was fact and will act and vote accordingly. (such becomes the game once lying is allowed and not prohibited by various means we used to have but were co-opted, and then denied it)

    a VAST majority of much less notable and financially able men get to be guilty for this, or other such idiocies thanks to all kinds of stuff we never ask ourselves about…

    the whole brouhaha now will be to whip her…
    why?

    in the frenzy of the whipping persons wraith and the show, we forget that it was the entity with the whip that facilitated it all.. by trying to use (abuse) events to some end… regardless of any validity ofpoint or feature, other than appearances, which is enough for the great and powerful oz’s to convince you the prevailing talk is really about a real issue.

    anyone other than me realize that a whole lot of the writing between X and Y on this is null and void, but once injected lives on… (which is why others on the left openly refresh the ideas by saying the lie of it over again)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>