Originally Posted by Chrenetique
Do you like presumption of innocence? The man assaulted nobody, until the contrary is judicially established. Media gossips are not proofs, even if written in huge letters.
First off, if I were you (and thank the gods I'm not) I'd stop advertising you run in Strauss-Khan's social circles. They don't exactly seem to be the most savoury of characters. Anyone who calls himself a socialist and then heads an organization which exploits the poorest countries in the world has proven himself a hypocrite at best.
Second, you're confusing two issues; legal and ontological. The legal presumption of innocence has no relation what-so-ever to whether or not he actually did it. It is a material truth that he either did it or he didn't. The presumption of innocence does not change reality. It is not that he didn't do it until it's proven and then magically history changes so that he did.
There is no way for any of us to know what happened in that hotel room. There are only two people that really know. The courtroom findings will not change that. Even if DSK is not convicted, it in no way proves he's innocent. People are not proven innocent in court, they are shown to be not legally culpable of what they are accused of, i.e. not "guilty". They still may have done it, but the state could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Presumption of innocence is essentially a legal version of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. In essence, it states that for the purposes of determining legality and culpability, the government will assume that the accused did not commit the act they are accused of, so as to avail themselves of all the legal rights (and defenses) they are entitled to. It's part of the social contract by which citizens agree to abdicate their personal sovereignty to the state in exchange for protection and the requirement that the state not infringe on the rights of its citizenry without testing their case and proving their justified authority to violate citizens rights.
I'm sure we all agree that presumption of innocence is a legal good. That said, a rapist is a rapist whether he has been found legally culpable (i.e. guilty) or whether he gets away with it. You're assertion that he's "obviously not a rapist" is just as unfounded as the "vilest US media" you are railing against. At best, it's second hand anecdotal evidence from unnamed sources. The fact that these sources slept with DSK and he didn't rape them doesn't mean anything.