Television Room 2806 (Netflix)

[UnofficialDevil]

Just finished watching the new documentary about Strauss-Kahn being accused of sexually assaulting a maid at the Sofitel hotel in New York back in 2011. Anybody else watched it?
What’s your view?
Is DSK guilty? Was the housekeeper lying? He was acquitted and she apparently got 1.5m in a settlement. She had lied before about being raped to get asylum into the states, and he was also accused later on with other sexual harassments charges, but was again found not guilty.
Good documentary again from Netflix.

 

[Brwned]

He wasn't found not guilty of any sexual assault. They decided not to bring him to trial for the for the Sofitel incident or the earlier incident with the French journalist. The former because there was only one witness and she was not deemed credible, the latter because the statute of limitations expired.

The court ruled in the French case that there was evidence of sexual assault but it wouldn't be elevated to rape, so too long had passed. And he wasn't charged with raping the prostitute, he was acquitted of not being a pimp. The fact he raped a prostitute was deemed immaterial. We still take the position as a society "well what did she expect?" in the case of prostitution. Maybe we need another 2 decades to reevaluate that moral notion.

He was clearly someone who recognised his power over women and abused it. Often with physical violence. Not quite Jeffrey Epstein but within the same category. The fact he's walking free and thinks that the only reason he was charged was because he's a man in the public eye is disgusting. No normal men are not allowed to do that you wanker.

It was surreal watching the French talk show with the journalist telling her story about how she's been sexually assaulted and people, particularly the rich and powerful men, have a good laugh about it round the table, verbally assaulting her with insinuations she was asking for it. At least we've moved on from that just a little bit.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

But if a trial isn't brought to court then are not guilty isn't that right? Yeah that French talk show where the blond girl was describing how she was assaulted and one of the journalists commented "love it" was surreal. I don't know though, something seems a bit off with the Hotel maid, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Brwned]

But if a trial isn't brought to court then are not guilty isn't that right? Yeah that French talk show where the blond girl was describing how she was assaulted and one of the journalists commented "love it" was surreal. I don't know though, something seems a bit off with the Hotel maid, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'd say being declared not guilty by judge or jury is notably different from not being tried. The prosecutors in that moment are not declaring he is not guilty, just that they don't have the evidence to prove him guilty. At that point he is legally assumed innocent but that is true even of someone like Ted Bundy until the court says otherwise. In the case of being a pimp he was declared not guilty, in the case of being a sexual assaulter, it was just never adjudicated.

The love it comment was bizarre! Especially how he casually brushed it off a decade later.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

I'd say being declared not guilty by judge or jury is notably different from not being tried. The prosecutors in that moment are not declaring he is not guilty, just that they don't have the evidence to prove him guilty. At that point he is legally assumed innocent but that is true even of someone like Ted Bundy until the court says otherwise. In the case of being a pimp he was declared not guilty, in the case of being a sexual assaulter, it was just never adjudicated.

The love it comment was bizarre! Especially how he casually brushed it off a decade later.

I see the difference I guess yeah. But how do we know if it wasn't consensual and the maid hadn't gone to the room with a plan to try to get money of accusing who ever was staying in that room who was obviously very wealthy as it was the presidential suite.

 

[Brwned]

I see the difference I guess yeah. But how do we know if it wasn't consensual and the maid hadn't gone to the room with a plan to try to get money of accusing who ever was staying in that room who was obviously very wealthy as it was the presidential suite.

Well yeah the doc left questions hanging about what really happened in the room. I thought they actually covered that part of things very poorly. You just had two sets of talking heads with polar opposite viewpoints. The arguments against the claim were quite scattergun. First the guards were in it, hence the chest bump. A conspiracy coming right form the top of the organisation with political ties. Then the maid was just a con artist. No link between those two things whatsoever but they happily jump from one or the other, without providing any evidence to support either. So that just leaves you to fill in the blanks with your own beliefs.

The two main reasons to believe that something non-consensual happened in that room is a) the medical evidence and b) the fact they paid out millions in the civil court case. I dunno, maybe he thought she was a prostitute playing a role, and he "consensually" sexually assaulted her like the French prostitute. His sense of morality was a bit wacky. I didn't know there was still a significant number of people that identify as a Libertine anywhere. Now it wouldn't surprise me if there's loads of them in the "members only" clubs in London.