ORIGINAL FRENCH ARTICLE: Procès Carlton : relaxe « pure et simple » requise pour DSK
by Marie Barbier
Translated Monday 9 March 2015, by
The prosecutor in Lille strongly took the defence of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, pursued since 2 February for aggravated procurement.
Lille (Nord), special correspondent. It is far from a surprise, but no one expected such a plea. This afternoon, during his submissions, the prosecutor in Lille, Frédéric Fèvre, strongly took the defence of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, pursued since 2 February before the criminal court for aggravated procurement. “When balancing all the elements of prosecution and defence, I consider that neither the criminal investigation, nor the hearing has permitted the establishment of proof of his culpability,” he asserted. “I request therefore his acquittal, pure and simple”.
This plea supported the position of the prosecutor, who had already called for a dismissal at the arraignment, complicating the work of the investigating judges. After two years of inquiry, they, despite everything, decided to send the ex-director of the International Monetary Fund before the court.
Here is a resume of these pleadings, which lasted less than fifteen minutes
“The presence of Dominique Strauss-Kahn has given this trial an extraordinary dimension. Without the accused, this affair would have been judged long ago amid general indifference, as cases of procurement would normally pass before the court. Despite his fame, Dominique Strauss-Kahn should be treated as a defendant like any other; there is no presumption of guilt. Your Honour, (presiding judge, Bernard Lemaire), you have said that Mr Strauss-Kahn was one of the most powerful men in the world. Must a powerful man necessarily be culpable? The definition of procurement is not extensible. If not, we would bring before the court every man who got a prostitute to get into their car. Dominique Strauss-Kahn has always said that he did not know that the women he had relations with were prostitutes. The prostitutes themselves have indicated that they hid their true status in presenting themselves as secretaries. Jade said that he could not have not known. I respect this point of view. However, those saying that he may not have have known are also plausible. In the end, this is inconsequential. It is not the knowledge of the status of a prostitute which entails procurement, but the undertaking of punishable acts. Was he the organiser of these soirées? The response is no. Did he himself pay the prostitutes? The response is no. Did he pay another for the prostitutes? The response is no.”
Frédéric Fèvreis equally claimed to be “troubled by the recurrent evocation of sexual practices” of DSK: “He is the sole accused for whom we paid such attention to detail.” Recounting the testimonies of the prostitutes before the court over violent and non-consensual sexual acts, the prosecutor recalled that “no charges had been brought for acts of rape or violence”. “Let us not confuse the debate.” “It falls to the criminal court to convict on the evidence and not on opinion”, concluded the representative for the prosecution. “Our legal system should pride itself on never condemning someone with the benefit of the doubt.”