HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017335.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

"The alleged victim in this case says she was forced by DSK to give him oral sex. His defense counsel have argued in the press, and in their briefs and in their opining statements that the oral sex was entirely consensual.

In deciding which version is true and which false, I want you to accept the fact that the alleged victim has told many lies in the past and can't be completely trusted. In other words, if there were no other evidence or arguments beyond the uncorroborated word of the victim, there would be a reasonable doubt of DSK's guilt. But the totality of the evidence and arguments in this case establish that it is far more likely that the oral sex in this case was forced rather than consensual.

First, I want you to look at the participants. She is an attractive young woman who was wearing two pair of pantyhose and an additional undergarment. The defendant's DNA was found on the elastic of her undergarments, strongly suggesting that he was trying to pull them off.

You have seen the naked photograph taken of the defendant following his arrest, when he was examined by doctors for bruises. Look at that photograph and imagine what the alleged victim in this case saw, when DSK walked out of the shower and into the bedroom naked, as his lawyers acknowledge he did.

In order to accept the defense theory of consensual oral sex, this is what you have to believe.

The alleged victim looked at this overweight, out of shape, 6__ year old man and decided, without any words spoken, that she was so sexually attracted to him, that she simply had to give him seven minutes of oral gratification in the corner of the bedroom. What was in it for her? According to the defense theory, only the sexual pleasure of giving a short, fat, old man oral sex.

That, in essence, is the defense lawyers' version of what took place. Now, we all know that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant need not take the witness stand nor offer any proof of innocence. But in this case, the defendant, because he is a public figure, has put forward a defense—actually two defenses—though his lawyers in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. The first—that he wasn't even there at the time because he was lunching with his daughter—has been withdrawn. His current defense—his theory of innocence—is that she wanted to give him oral sex, that it was entirely consensual. If you believe that—or even if you have a reasonable believe that she might have offered him oral sex because she was so attracted to him—you should acquit. But if you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense theory of consensual oral sex is utterly implausible, then you should look at the totality of the evidence corroborating the alleged victim's account—that he forced her to give him oral sex—and decide whether it establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that her account is true.

248

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017335