Counterparties

By Felix Salmon
July 1, 2011
DSK: "Let it go to trial and let the jury decide who is more credible." -- NYT

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

NYT reader on DSK: “Let it go to trial and let the jury decide who is more credible.” — NYT

GDP growth in African countries, 2002-11 — Bloomberg

Jim Ledbetter hears that Fortune is putting up a paywall this year — Reuters (see also)

Comments
17 comments so far

What’s wrong with taking the DSK case to trial? If prosecutors and law enforcement officials are to be believed, a person with a sketchy background doesn’t deserve access to justice.

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

“GDP growth in African countries, 2002-11″

Total fertility rate trumps productivity gains. Who could’ve known?

Of course, Nigeria has been the most populous country in Africa since at least 1960 if not longer. But the significant difference between fertility rates means that it gets further ahead (on this metric, anyway) while the powerhouses of Africa get left behind. Going forward, things are only going to accelerate. Nigeria is at 5.3 children/woman, and the only other two somewhat-developed African economies, South Africa and Egypt, are at 2.8 and 2.9. On the other hand, it does not face any credible competition from other African developing economies. Only two countries stand any chance of overtaking Nigeria in the next 50 years terms of population – Dem Rep of Congo and Somalia – and neither one is nearly as developed economically.

Of course, if a war were to break out in Nigeria (it’s almost surprising that it hasn’t for so long), all bets are off.

Posted by Nameless | Report as abusive

If the accuser has received $100k over the past couple of years from a dope dealer, no DA is going to take this to trial just to see what 12 random New Yorkers think about her credibility.

Posted by johnhhaskell | Report as abusive

Eyeballing the Nigerian chart they went from a $60 billion economy in 2002 to $270 billion in 2011. That’s 4.5x in 9 years (check my math) 18% per annum compounded….?!
Sounds about as plausible as an email from Sani Abacha’s widow.

Posted by johnhhaskell | Report as abusive

Not that hard, actually, John. In the last 9 years, the Chinese have basically come in and developed all their oil fields, and now they are pumping out crude like mad. Nigeria is heavily oil dependent, but nine years ago their oil operations weren’t worth much. Today, they fuel the whole economy.

==RED

Posted by REDruin | Report as abusive

I’m not entirely sure I follow this. The idea coming out of New York seems to be that this woman does not have sufficient moral character to be raped. I’m not connecting the dots between how many cell phones she owns and whether or not Strauss-Kahn assaulted her.

Posted by ckbryant | Report as abusive

REDruin…

Its not that hard! Gosh its blame the scary Chinese season. Over the past 50yrs, the biggest oil producers in Nigeria are Shell/Exxon/Chevron etc. The Chinese have not had much success developing any oil fields in the country.

From the early 70′s crude has accounted for 85% to 90% of revenue. That will not change any time soon.

JH…The 2002 GDP number is likely inaccurate.

Posted by OmoNaija | Report as abusive

On DSK:

1. I lack confidence in “two well-placed law enforcement officials” when it comes to cases over a well placed political appointees.
2. a. Nothing following “Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter…” can possibly sound legitimate. b. There’s no way a 32-yr-old Guinean woman would think “any sex was consenual” between her and a 62 yr old with sex appeal approaching that of Charles Montgomery Burns.
3. There is no evidence of entrapment (how do you coerce someone to coerce someone to have sex?) Even if there were, if the victim leaves their keys in an unlocked car, stealing the car is still grand theft auto. DSK would have thought out 2.b. and suspect something was up.
4. Associations with drug dealing and money laundering, or lying on an asylum application is irrelevant. This isn’t an investigation into the housekeeper, it’s an investigation into a man with a history of sexual assault.

Posted by DarylB | Report as abusive

It may be the case that no court could prove beyond reasonable doubt that DSK raped this woman, but why on earth can anybody think that a former head-of-IMF who engages in – at best – consensual tawdry sex acts with hotel maids is fit to be President of France is beyond me.

Posted by theambler | Report as abusive

Is the act less criminal now that the defense has drummed up their own dirt? We knew that power and wealth trumps a lowly maid in the eyes of most people, but in the case of rape and the justice system, that is not supposed to matter. How is any of the info on the maid material to the case going to trial?

One question I have is, if the maid was making all kinds of lucrative money elsewhere, why was she still a maid? Why did DSK lie about having sex with her, and only change his plea to consensual sex after he lawyered up and semen was found? So she will be deported and DSK will get off regardless of what may have happened? I surely hop not… a fair trial is still in order.

Does this now negate that he is a sexual predator and well proven in the past to have been one who walks away every time because of his status … and in this case it seems, his ability to pay for the best “justice” money can buy?

@theambler, exactly right.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

“Let it go to trial and let the jury decide who is more credible”

Exactly why did you include this as link and this snippet from a NYT commentator? It is because you seriously think this is clear thinking (!), or because you want to draw attention to a truly dangerous ignorance (maybe just among NYT readers – what _are_ you saying??) as to what the standard of proof is in criminal trials?

Posted by bxg21 | Report as abusive

Speaking of Africa… it really hasn’t been exploited enough, so the hedgies are seeing what environmental, human and economic mayhem they can create… legally of course!

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the- millionaires-and-billionaires-buying-lan d-in-africa-2011-6?op=1#ixzz1Qpzs5hIS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-1 3688683

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

The NYT reader is silly. You don’t take a criminal case as a prosecutor to decide who is credible. You do it because you as a prosecutor seriously believe that you can get a beyond reasonable doubt conviction.

To take the case now would be on the edge of prosecutorial misconduct.

If anyone goes to trial now it will be accuser for giving false statements. It would be nasty of the prosecutors to run that case – but if they do she will do time. Her story to the grand jury was later changed. She admits that. That is criminal.

John

Posted by John_Hempton | Report as abusive

Also, in case you missed it, I said at an earlier date that banks were modifying loans that weren’t in default, possibly to clear up their bad chain of title and now there is proof it wasn’t just a few people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/busine ss/03loans.html?_r=1

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

hsvkitty, glad to see you are still claiming articles say things that they clearly don’t.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

Ermm, Danny Black, good to see you are still on here to act like the banker apologist that you are! I never claimed … I said ‘possibly’ for that reason. There may be many more reasons, but that one would seem to fit and you can be darned sure it isn’t because the banks feel like being generous!

Rather than simply deriding others for their comments, why are you not giving us your reasoning for defending the banks for forgiving debt of some after having ousted so many people out of their homes, rather than give them the HAMP modifications?

“big banks are going to borrowers who are not even in default and cutting their debt or easing the mortgage terms, sometimes with no questions asked.”

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/