Friday, May 20, 2011

Oh, Mother of ...

So now it appears that François Hollande was apprised of DSK's attack on Tristane Banon and was "kind ... superb," according to her mother, but nevertheless didn't feel it was his business to "police the PS." And he says that he "jamais eu connaissance des faits de la gravité qui ont été évoqués". The syntax here is a bit twisted, but since he did know some of the facts, he appears to be saying that he was not aware of the full gravity of the situation. So why did he call Tristane Banon to comfort her? Oh, what a tangled web ...

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, Le Monde tells us that "Tristane Banon ne témoignera pas contre DSK à New York." Her lawyer explains why:

Me David Koubbi, avocat de Tristane Banon, a déclaré qu'elle refuserait de témoigner devant des enquêteurs américains. "La présomption d'innocence n'existe pas aux Etats-Unis. Ma cliente ne souhaite pas inscrire sa démarche dans ce cadre", a-t-il dit.

Another one for the sottisier. Sigh. Is it full up yet?

Mark

Arthur Goldhammer said...

That takes the cake.

MYOS said...

Hollande is a hypocrite and a coward who's trying to cover himself. I hope he'll be subpoena'ed.
What he's saying is that he knew that there was an attempted rape but he didn't realize it was really bad and anyway even if he had, he couldn't have done anything. And that man wants to be the president of a country? How could French women trust him?
I find him despicable.

In other news, Fourest, a feminist, asserts there is no presumption of innocence in the US.
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/05/20/eloge-du-consentement_1524973_3232.html

Anonymous said...

and she is correct! The media has acted as judge, jury, and executioner before any evidence has been made public. Fourest is absolutely correct!

MYOS said...

Anonymous6h12: presumption of innocence is a LEGAL concept. Any jury deciding based on what the media said, rather than on evidence, would lead to a mistrial.
AND
there is presumption of innocence: the prosecution must prove their case, not the other way around.
FInally, if what you call "no presumption of innocence" is the media trying to ascertain who's guilty, then there's no presumption of innocence in France either. The aristocrat (Xavier Dupont de Ligonès) who offed his entire family was never presented as "alleged perp", for example. And it's the same for all violent crimes that receive French media attention. In fact, I think the Outreau trial ought to cause a bit of modesty in France.

FrédéricLN said...

I can't understand why Hollande should be criticized here (and I'm no hollandiste).

Let me face it: I heard three times in my life that people I knew had been raped. In one of the cases, the person was under 18 when it happened (many years before I heard about it).

Each individual case is very different. But in all of the three cases, the victim clearly did not want to go to the police, find a claim and go to a trial (against, in each of the three cases, a person the victim knew).

So?

I agree with Hollande's press release "il y a des procédures". Not each of us is Justice, not each of us detains the Truth.

Of course Hollande, if Ms Banon called him, should be hearing, helpful, and ensure her that he could testify if she did complaint. For example. And that may be exactly what he did.

FrédéricLN said...

I jut discover Ms Banon's new interview (18th May 2011) by Agoravox : http://www.agoravox.tv/tribune-libre/article/transcription-de-l-interview-de-30270

And as she says, "dans ce genre de cas la personne qui n’a pas d’avis n’existe plus. Je n’ai pas une personne même éloignée du sujet qui m’a dit : je ne sais pas quoi te dire. C’est marrant de voir à quel point tout le monde fait pression dans un sens où dans l’autre : "Il faut absolument que tu ailles jusqu’au bout, ou, il faut tout arrêter, fais très attention"."

Uneasy situations - at least.