Israeli President Sentenced hopefully appeal is successful

[cyppok]

An innocent man is sent to jail today, Moshe Katsav.
Moshe Katsav convicted of rape, faces long jail term
Hopefully he wins on appeal.
It is startling to see how biased the judges, the public and media attention in relation to this case. This was not a trial of peers but a complete joke. If this was a trial by jury it is very likely that he would have been found innocent of most if not all the allegations against him.

After five months of deliberations, the three-judge panel – Kara, Miriam Sokolow and Judith Shevah – found the former head of state guilty on all but one of the charges (harassing a witness).

He was convicted of two counts of rape, one count of committing an indecent act using force, one count of committing an indecent act, two counts of sexual harassment, one count of harassing a witness and one count of obstructing justice.

Before the verdict began to be read, few experts had predicted so dramatic an outcome.

Reporters at the courthouse, some who had been waiting there from six in the morning, speculated on the result, the more cynical of them wagering on a full acquittal.

Even the feminist protesters who stood outside the hall chanting: “Justice now, convict Katsav” and “The whole nation knows it, Katsav is a rapist,” said they did not expect such a complete victory.

Things looked bleak for Katsav from the start of the reading, when it immediately became clear there would be no full acquittal. Then the judge reached the rape charges, which accused Katsav of twice forcefully raping “Aleph.”

The basic tenents of common law were used as toilet paper.

Israel convicts ex-president for rape - Israel - Salon.com

"According to the indictment, Katsav forced one woman to the floor of his office at the Tourism Ministry in 1998 and raped her. Later that year, he summoned her to a Jerusalem hotel to go over paperwork and raped her on the bed in his room."

Common sense dictates that if he actually assaulted once she would not go to a hotel room to do it again. Common sense dictates that years wouldn't pass for this to play out, because at the time the guy was a minister of tourism and the reasonable assumption is he simply had an affair that was consensual. But common sense and common law are discarded.

After refuting his entire defense, attacking his legal strategy, repeatedly calling him a liar and a bully, and ruling him guilty of the rape charges, the judges went on to convict him of repeated sexual harassment while taking advantage of his position of authority, for three instances in which he hugged complainant “Heh,” who worked for him while he was president, against her will.

In the case of “Lamed,” who also worked for Katsav while he was president and who accused him of sexual harassment and committing an indecent act – when he hugged her in a sexual way and made lewd comments about her – the judges also found him guilty.

The judges rejected outright Katsav’s effort to use an “abuse of process” defense, i.e., saying there were acts in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.

“The defendant identifies abuse of process in several key locations: the hate and incitement campaign that, he claims, was launched against him by the media and branded him publicly as a rapist prior to trial; intentional leaks that came out against him from the police, the state prosecution and the attorney- general that prejudiced the public against him; media interviews by witnesses and plaintiffs; statements made by the attorney- general that doomed him prior to the submission of an indictment; and fouling of the legal waters,” read the verdict.

(from j post)
[ absolute power corrupts absolutely, judges are beyond abhorrent in this case. ]

Sometimes when the public and political expediency win at the expense of individual freedom and more importantly the truth which was dully sacrificed in this case everyone pays the price because future treatment by the government will be more biased and unfair towards all.

[bigross86]

Dude, I'm sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. We've been following his case for years, and there are very few people on the street that are sad that he got sent to jail. Most people are upset he only got 7 years.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, and when he does appeal, we can hope that one won't go through, either. This man deserves to rot for abusing his position and forcing himself upon others.

Common sense dictates that if he actually assaulted once she would not go to a hotel room to do it again. Common sense dictates that years wouldn't pass for this to play out, because at the time the guy was a minister of tourism and the reasonable assumption is he simply had an affair that was consensual. But common sense and common law are discarded.

And what about an abusive husband, with a wife that keeps coming back for more, saying "he's changed, he really loves me, it was a momentary slip"? Where's the common sense there?

Sometimes when the public and political expediency win at the expense of individual freedom and more importantly the truth which was dully sacrificed in this case everyone pays the price because future treatment by the government will be more biased and unfair towards all.

No, the real travesty of justice here would be if Katzav was let free. The truth was not sacrificed here. For those of us that followed the case on a day to day basis, the prosecution built a very strong case against the man. There is no reasonable doubt here as far as I'm concerned. He deserves to rot

[dave lukins]

We've been following his case for years

BR. I haven't read the case yet, but, if it was so clear cut why has it taken years?

[NeilE]

Very odd that he rejected a plea bargain that would have resulted in him not serving any jail time. Under the plea bargain he would only have been charged with committing a lewd act using duress. Pride must have come before logic.

[bigross86]

A few reasons: Courts were backed up, more victims came out after the first one complained, the police and prosecutors wanted an airtight case, and as was mentioned, originally there was thought of a plea bargain that was turned down.

In an ironic twist, his original sentencing date was meant to be March 8, International Woman's Day

[cyppok]

Dude, I'm sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. We've been following his case for years, and there are very few people on the street that are sad that he got sent to jail. Most people are upset he only got 7 years.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, and when he does appeal, we can hope that one won't go through, either. This man deserves to rot for abusing his position and forcing himself upon others.



And what about an abusive husband, with a wife that keeps coming back for more, saying "he's changed, he really loves me, it was a momentary slip"? Where's the common sense there?



No, the real travesty of justice here would be if Katzav was let free. The truth was not sacrificed here. For those of us that followed the case on a day to day basis, the prosecution built a very strong case against the man. There is no reasonable doubt here as far as I'm concerned. He deserves to rot

When the judges mock the defendant and abuse their legal position to satisfy the hunger of popular opinion, mob rule and sacrifice of individual freedom ensue.

You are basically saying that if this woman had an affair because the guy was aggressive (yet she agreed to for certain when she went to the hotel) it is ok to justify it as abuse of power in order for her to save face, he has to go to jail. Consenting adults means you cannot later retract a yes and make it into a no and if you said no but went along with it and eventually agreed doesn't make it a crime simply because one party wishes to remove consent POST-FACTO.

NO matter how aggressive or lewdly he is portrayed when words against words equate no reasonable doubt with a clear and common sense scenario presented it is a joke of a trial. I do not care if 9 out of 10 people think he did what he did, what matters is was it consensual or not if it was it wasn't rape and he should be free to go. This is even worse than the Assange trial where the condom broke here we know she went to the hotel willingly.

What your basically saying for hugging someone 3 times and a complement or two and an affair someone should go to jail for 7 years because the girl had a change of heart and the public thinks it was unfair. At most this is sexual harassment. This is not justice this is bulls**t.

[tankie]

Hopefully he can spend the time of day telling stories with Berlusconi

[Bigfella]

When the judges mock the defendant and abuse their legal position to satisfy the hunger of popular opinion, mob rule and sacrifice of individual freedom ensue.

You are basically saying that if this woman had an affair because the guy was aggressive (yet she agreed to for certain when she went to the hotel) it is ok to justify it as abuse of power in order for her to save face, he has to go to jail. Consenting adults means you cannot later retract a yes and make it into a no and if you said no but went along with it and eventually agreed doesn't make it a crime simply because one party wishes to remove consent POST-FACTO.

NO matter how aggressive or lewdly he is portrayed when words against words equate no reasonable doubt with a clear and common sense scenario presented it is a joke of a trial. I do not care if 9 out of 10 people think he did what he did, what matters is was it consensual or not if it was it wasn't rape and he should be free to go. This is even worse than the Assange trial where the condom broke here we know she went to the hotel willingly.

What your basically saying for hugging someone 3 times and a complement or two and an affair someone should go to jail for 7 years because the girl had a change of heart and the public thinks it was unfair. At most this is sexual harassment. This is not justice this is bulls**t.

I'm going to be restrained here because if I address you in the manner you clearly deserve I will get banned. You aren't worth that. Since you have obvious comprehension troubles I'll spell it out:

HE.RAPED.A.WOMAN.

HE.SEXUALLY.ASSAULTED.WOMEN.

HE.WAS.FOUND.GUILTY.

Nothing you have said even comes close to bringing this into question.

Now, go away.

[Officer of Engineers]

An innocent man is sent to jail today, Moshe Katsav.
Moshe Katsav convicted of rape, faces long jail term
Hopefully he wins on appeal.
It is startling to see how biased the judges, the public and media attention in relation to this case. This was not a trial of peers but a complete joke. If this was a trial by jury it is very likely that he would have been found innocent of most if not all the allegations against him.



The basic tenents of common law were used as toilet paper.

Israel convicts ex-president for rape - Israel - Salon.com


Common sense dictates that if he actually assaulted once she would not go to a hotel room to do it again. Common sense dictates that years wouldn't pass for this to play out, because at the time the guy was a minister of tourism and the reasonable assumption is he simply had an affair that was consensual. But common sense and common law are discarded.

(from j post)
[ absolute power corrupts absolutely, judges are beyond abhorrent in this case. ]

Sometimes when the public and political expediency win at the expense of individual freedom and more importantly the truth which was dully sacrificed in this case everyone pays the price because future treatment by the government will be more biased and unfair towards all.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have NOT BROUGHT forth evidence that the judges were biased. You've shown that they were disgusted with the evidence and the flimsy excuse offerred by the defendent was NOT even worth considering.

As to your post about common sense.

Common sense HAS NEVER BEEN USED TO OVERRULED EVIDENCE.

Please explain the evidence in your context.

[cyppok]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have NOT BROUGHT forth evidence that the judges were biased. You've shown that they were disgusted with the evidence and the flimsy excuse offerred by the defendent was NOT even worth considering.

As to your post about common sense.

Common sense HAS NEVER BEEN USED TO OVERRULED EVIDENCE.

Please explain the evidence in your context.

If a judge is ridiculing the defendant and shows any bias in relation to where he/she stands and disregards merit of legal arguments and common sense they are biased. The allegation is that he raped her twice first in the office and a few months later they met up in a hotel room. (your kidding me right? they say he "lured" her to the hotel room)


If he promised to leave his wife if she sleep with him and then he didn't that is not rape... Whatever lie he used to get into her pants and she felt betrayed and wants to have "justice" it is not rape.

When the evidence is he said she said, and when behavior shows one thing and the stories are different, when the accused lies and changes the story to conform to the expectations of the public, it would make common sense that if the judges held no bias they would rule not guilty on the matter.

[bigross86]

I honestly do not understand where you are coming from. Why in the world would the judges be biased against this man? He has enough friends in high places that making an enemy out of him because they feel like it is stupid, especially when you consider that a three judge panel unanimously found him guilty. Up to 10 years ago, politicians were going free left and right after the courts were letting them go on the flimsiest of excuses. Now Israel has shown once again to herself and to the world that we are a true democracy and a true free state. No one is above the law, and if you do the crime, you do the time.

Consider this: It's not only the judges that were convinced. In August of 2010 the court records were released to the public. Over 70% of the public believed him to be guilty after reading through the court records and transcripts.

The fact of the matter here, is that you're in the minority here, which I've no doubt you've noticed by yourself already. As has also been pointed out to you, the onus and burden of proof are on you to prove a conspiracy in the courts and police to not only indict Israel's president, but to unanimously find him guilty as well. I'm actually quite eager to hear what you have to say, and why you could possibly think not only that the man is guilty, but also your proof of said conspiracy.

Please, the floor is all yours. Let's hear you logically, factually and rationally lay out your case. Foundations, logic chains, your conclusions (pretty obvious) and how you came to your conclusions. Hit me with your best shot

[cyppok]

Its not about public opinion, its not about if you like the guy or not, it is only about if the evidence supports the charges. IT DOES NOT. Its a joke to say he raped someone twice and one of those times was when she agreed to meet up in a hotel room. The judges were biased based on their outbursts and pandering to the public.

This is very similar to defending someone who is hated by 99% of the population but that someone did not commit a crime as defined by the law. Forcing that person to suffer reduces the hurdle of truth for every other person in the nation because it reduces the necessity for fairness and equal protection under the law to whether public opinion is against you and how biased the judges are in your favor.

Israel in this one instance has shown that the public opinion forced the law to bend to its will where it clearly seems the person had MORE THAN REASONABLE DOUBT to not be guilty of what the person is accused off.

[Bigfella]

Its not about public opinion, its not about if you like the guy or not, it is only about if the evidence supports the charges. IT DOES NOT. Its a joke to say he raped someone twice and one of those times was when she agreed to meet up in a hotel room. The judges were biased based on their outbursts and pandering to the public.

This is very similar to defending someone who is hated by 99% of the population but that someone did not commit a crime as defined by the law. Forcing that person to suffer reduces the hurdle of truth for every other person in the nation because it reduces the necessity for fairness and equal protection under the law to whether public opinion is against you and how biased the judges are in your favor.

Israel in this one instance has shown that the public opinion forced the law to bend to its will where it clearly seems the person had MORE THAN REASONABLE DOUBT to not be guilty of what the person is accused off.

So that is your best shot? Because she met him in his hotel room he definately didn't rape her either time. Because she doesn't behave in the way that you have decided is appropriate for a rape victim then she must be lying. Brilliant. If that was the best his defence could do then it is no wonder the judges were so insulted by the quality of the defence. I'm insulted that you are repeatedly posting it here, anf this is just a hobby for me.

And the other charges - made up too I assume. Just more women keen to be publically humiliated by speaking up in a case they know will be widely publicized. Coz women love that - having complete strangers accusing them of being liars & slvts.

Here's a hint, don't take up law.

[bigross86]

Its not about public opinion, its not about if you like the guy or not, it is only about if the evidence supports the charges. IT DOES NOT. Its a joke to say he raped someone twice and one of those times was when she agreed to meet up in a hotel room. The judges were biased based on their outbursts and pandering to the public.

This is very similar to defending someone who is hated by 99% of the population but that someone did not commit a crime as defined by the law. Forcing that person to suffer reduces the hurdle of truth for every other person in the nation because it reduces the necessity for fairness and equal protection under the law to whether public opinion is against you and how biased the judges are in your favor.

Israel in this one instance has shown that the public opinion forced the law to bend to its will where it clearly seems the person had MORE THAN REASONABLE DOUBT to not be guilty of what the person is accused off.

Then let's forget public opinion. Lay out your case, at the moment you have too many holes.

Since when does going to a hotel room voluntarily mean that you are giving consent to sex, especially when you are going for something work related? Rape victims can never be grouped together, they all react differently. If she was scared she would lose her job (a reasonable fear, seeing as how he was her boss), she wouldn't necessarily complain about the rape. Regardless of what you might think about the judges, he's already guilty, even by your admission, of at least one rape...

Let's move on: Since we've already agreed that he committed at least one rape, where does public opinion fit into this, especially when the court records were released after the trial was over? Throw in the fact that the trial was held behind closed doors (as is standard with most rape cases), and a media ban was thrown on the trial. When/where did the judges pander to the public?

Apparently the judges were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges are chosen because they have the ability to be impartial and look at things objectively, regardless of public opinion. Granted, no one is perfect, but for a three judge panel to have been so underestimated and misunderstood, there needs to be some serious holes in the system.

So far your attempt at building a case has way too many holes in it. Care to keep trying?

[cyppok]

Then let's forget public opinion. Lay out your case, at the moment you have too many holes.

Since when does going to a hotel room voluntarily mean that you are giving consent to sex, especially when you are going for something work related?

Your basically saying a that he raped her once and then invited her to a hotel room sometime later and she agreed to go to a secluded place with someone who allegedly attacked her prior to be raped again? a few months later...
[its obvious this was an affair and she got angry after the fact, are people really that naive that they went to the hotel after they had sex (or he raped her as it is alleged) before?]

Then "aggressive hugging" and two or three comments both of which can be interpreted in any number of ways are cause for additional time?...

that's it its the story on the face of it. Dont get angry or defensive assume he is some manager in a McDonalds and him and a waitress had an affair at most he is guilty of sexual harassment abusing his position, it is far more likely the action was consensual at the time and was based on both parties participating in it willingly. Remorse after the fact does not make something a crime.

(and I do not agree with you on the rape not once or twice. If she went with him the second time it makes it invalid that the first time was forced either.)