By allowing them to be treated just like everyone else, perhaps society will come to accept that rape is an expression of violence, it is not really about the sex.

i am curious too, as to what possible difference you think the difference in their ages makes in all this? that her being so much younger than he (and apparently taller as well), she should have been easily able to fight him off, making (somehow) the claim of rape less supportable (in your mind, anyway)?

i do now know why he so readily agreed to DNA testing though, due to his attorney's implying they did have sex, it's simply a matter of whether or not it was agreeable among the parties.

of course, since both the DA & the NYPD "powers that be" aren't stupid people, i must also (reasonably, i think) assume they must feel that they possess compelling evidence of a crime, to arrest this guy, given the high potential for adverse blowback, if they're wrong.

Did she live there ilegally?

Is it inconceivable that she might have figured out a way to make a little extra cash from the occupants of the big suites?

They were the temporary victim of a violent crime, just like the person who got mugged.

Sure - because everyone knows that mugging victims are thought of as "asking for it".

Protecting the names of those who claim to have been raped is not meant to encourage false accusations, but to encourage the pursuit of justice against those responsible for real crimes; the feeding frenzy that attaches to these high-profile cases would not just go to a new, manic level if the alleged victims' names were made public, but would drive those with legitimate claims deeper underground and allow those responsible the freedom to perpetrate them against others.

Sex sells, violence sells, celebrity sells - which is why the media can spend unbelievable amounts of air time on cases like this, and little to no time on things that actually affect millions and millions of people in their day-to-day lives.  Imagine if they had devoted this much energy to uncovering the web of powerful people responsible for sending the economy into a tailspin.  Imagine if they devoted even a tenth of the time they are spending on Strauss-Kahn on mortgage servicer abuses, to the failure of HAMP, to the lender-servicer connections.  We should be discussing whether the war in Libya is legal, whether we should extend the Patriot Act for another four years.  We should be looking at surveillance programs and data mining.  We should be educating the people on the debt and the deficit, not repeating talking points verbatim that only advance the agenda of the rich and powerful.

And the suffering never ends--even decades later.

The case for a flight risk made sense in the context of the complaint, but, not equally so, in the context of a consensual encounter or other defense argument--the ticket for the Air France flight was bought at least a week in advance and he boarded in a timely manner in  accord with rules for international flight.  Similarly, the prompt reporting to police is a strong argument in the context of the complaint, but becomes weakened if a different motivation is the reality.

She's living with her 15 year old daughter, struggling to make ends meet. Is it inconceivable that she might have figured out a way to make a little extra cash from the occupants of the big suites?

Yikes.

I agree that, until there is more mutually agreed upon detail vis-a-vis DSK's movements and demeanor after the alleged rape, there's a lot of room for hesitancy in judging this case as an observer. While "presumption of innocence" is a requirement of the legal system and not of everyday citizens with opinions, there's enough murkiness here that people should steer clear of hard-and-fast judgments.

But if Jeralyn is upset about rampant speculation about DSK's guilt, the solution to that is not to speculate about the alleged rape victim. Isn't that somewhat obvious? Totally undermines her credibility on the overall point she is trying to make.

Anyway, since she brought up a specific "theory": where's the money for this woman? Extortion's profitability ends when you go to the police, unless you're theorizing that this woman is media savvy and has visions of magazine covers and ABC News cash-for-interviews and the like? Would anyone think that was worth it? And she's staying as hidden as possible, not capitalizing on it. So that theory seems equally as unlikely as some of the anti-DSK theories.

We need to have the identity of the accuser publicized so her reliability and credibility can be evaluated, just as the IMF chief's past and reputation are being evaluated. It's nonsense that we shield accuser's (note that I say Accuser and not Victim) identity in the US but not the accused's identity when a sex crime is involved. It is important to suppress the knee-jerk reflex to refer to an accuser as a "Victim". We don't know who the "Victim" is in this case, nor do we know who the "Victim" is in any such case without the facts and evidence being sorted out in court. It may be that the "accused" is the "victim". Having said that, why are we shielding the identity of the "accuser" and not the accused? Information regarding the credibility of the accuser is also relevant. I believe being accused of rape these days is far more "humiliating" and "shameful" than accusing someone of rape, which makes someone an instant "victim-hero". In the famous Duke false gang-rape accusation case, it turned out the accuser, whose name is Crystal Gail Magnum, had previously made false gang-rape allegations against police officers, which were thoroughly investigated and found to be false. This information was relevant and only came to light because of the intense media scrutiny of the case. In an ordinary rape accusation case, information like this would likely never come to light, because we "perp walk" the one who has has a finger pointed at them, and shield the identity of the accuser, so we're starting out with a very unfair playing field as the case is investigated and facts are looked into.

Let's quit shielding the identity of accusers in cases of sexual abuse accusations. Or, if we feel that it is necessary to do this, then we need to shield both the accused and the accuser's identities, and keep the playing field even.