Strauss-Kahn’s accuser: sex, lies, and audiotape
The case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) is in grave jeopardy due to huge problems with the general credibility of the alleged victim. She’s lied repeatedly—mostly about drug and immigration-related matters, but also about how soon after the alleged attack she reported it (she apparently cleaned another room and then Strauss-Kahn’s before making her allegation). In addition, she admits she had cried rape falsely in the past, lying in her application for political asylum from Guinea when she’d claimed to be the victim of a gang-rape there.
The alleged victim seems to have a boyfriend involved in the drug business, as well, and the Times article indicates there is a recorded phone call with him (post-rape-accusation) in which she discusses getting money (actually, the word the Times uses is “benefits,” but I’m assuming that means money) from pursuing the charges against Strauss-Kahn. But whether this money was supposed to be gained from a civil suit, a settlement, or selling her story (all of which are legal means, and might be reasonable to discuss even if the allegations are true) or some sort of blackmail is not specified.
Does all of this mean she couldn’t have been raped by Strauss-Kahn? Of course not. But in legal terms it does what is called impeaching the witness. In other words, these facts make her general veracity exceedingly suspect and therefore cast doubt on her allegations in this case as well. Her charges could still be true, but we are much less likely to believe them if there is no independent corroboration. This is precisely why we refer to crimes and criminals as “alleged” until we hear more (note, for example, how many times I say “alleged” and “if true” in my previous post about Strauss-Kahn, here).
However, what is not disputed is that the accuser and DSK had sexual contact, and that there is undeniable physical evidence of that. This fact, along with what was described initially as the maid’s seeming trustworthiness in the work place and lack of other problems, as well as her shaken demeanor and even some bruises, meant that prosecutors had to take the charges extremely seriously. Here’s more:
The woman was in Strauss-Kahn’s room only briefly before the alleged attack, his semen was found on her uniform, and she quickly reported the alleged assault and told a consistent story about it to investigators and prosecutors, the official said. Prosecutors have also said in court that Strauss-Kahn seemed on surveillance tapes to be in a hurry as he left the hotel, though his lawyers have said he was merely rushing to lunch.
I’m not of the school that women don’t lie about this. They do, and that’s what makes a charge of rape or other inappropriate sexual contact so hard. False accusations occur in cases of alleged incest and child abuse as well, and many tend to come down to “she-said/he-said” conundrums. It is, quite frankly, a mess, because of inherent difficulties with proof. That is why credibility is so hugely important.
My own deepest wonderment and amazement in this case has to do with the risk Strauss-Kahn took in having sex of whatever type with a woman he hardly knew. He was aware of his position; he knew himself to be exceedingly vulnerable to false charges and even to entrapment.
So why did he step right into a possible trap? This is, if nothing else, reckless and foolish behavior in terms of his own political survival. It’s also the reason people used to be more concerned with protecting their reputations (both men and women) by not putting themselves in potentially compromising positions.
Trying to determine whether a rape happened here or not is probably irrelevant at this point, because the accuser’s credibility is now so dreadful that it’s hard to see how a case could proceed against DSK. If a rape actually did occur (which as of now I must say I strongly doubt), it would be a sad thing indeed if the victim were to have screwed herself (metaphorically speaking) by her previous lies. Allahpundit wonders, and rightly so, whether prosecutors are now doubting her DSK rape story despite that initial credibility, or whether they are just thinking they may have trouble convicting with a witness so generally unreliable.
It will be fascinating to see how this develops.
[NOTE: One question I have is, if the sexual encounter and rape allegation was some sort of set-up or perhaps entrapment of Strauss-Kahn, did the accuser have prior knowledge of who he was? Did she, for example, have earlier dealings with him in this hotel? If so, will she be prosecuted?
If this was the first time DSK had stayed in the hotel while she was working there, and she had no way to know in advance that his visit was planned, it’s hard to believe that she had enough information to have plotted this specifically with him in mind. However, even if she didn’t know in advance who he was, it’s possible that she had a general plan to have intercourse with some rich guy and shake him down, although it seems rather serendipitous that she caught such a big fish. But if extortion and money-making was the original idea, why go to the authorities so soon? Why not go to the guy she had intercourse with, tell him she’s got the evidence (semen-stained dress; hey, it’s been done before) and then try to blackmail him with a threat to go to the police if he doesn’t pay up?]
Ii have no sympathy for DSK and clearly do not know if he is truly guilty of rape or the object of someone who sees him as a deep pocket.
What bothers me is the seeming parallel here to the Duke University rape case. Once again, the same narrative is played out, wealthy elitist snob of a white MAN who victimizes a hardworking low income minority Woman.
Once again, the press and the chattering class has jumped on this and inferred guilt before any due process ever happened. One would think that since they were so incorrect and so inaccurate in the Duke case, that perhaps they would take their time before leveling a judgement so as not to be made fools of twice. And some wonder why the media has lost credibility with it’s audience.
BTW speaking of the chattering class, has anyone yet seen a full-page newspaper retraction or apology from the 88 Duke faculty who published the diatribe condemning the Duke University students? I didn’t think so. And some wonder why academia is seen as useless and out of touch.
I’m suspicious about this sudden doubt, given we already know that there were attempts to make this all “go away.”
Suspicions of something being shoved into a narrative are NO reason to suddenly shove it into a different one when it turns out that a refugee from a poor nation was willing to lie to try to stay in the US.
Wow! There’s a news story! Oh, wait, that’s really old news– like, DNA tests finding that most “relatives” that came here for family reunification from a bunch of poor countries had no relation to their sponsor and the programs were suspended for a few years type old.
A big difference between this and the Duke case that comes to mind is that the DNA actually supports the maid’s claim, rather than being from a bunch of totally different guys. (from memory)
Why do rich and powerful people take stupid risks? I suspect that the main reason is that all that power and privilege makes them feel like they’re the masters of the universe. So they start to feel that they’re invulnerable, and they start to develop a massive sense of entitlement. If you live like an Emperor you’ll eventually start to think like one.
This’ll be tough for the lefties. Socialist, one-worlder, dispenser of other people’s money by the boatload, nuanced and sophisticated yurp vs a woman of color, working a menial job, from one of the sainted turd world countries with dodgy paperwork.
Plus, women never lie about rape.
Man, what a conundrum.
If France hadn’t denied extradition on Polanski, this case may have played out very differently. No matter what the exact circumstances, DSK is an arrogant creep and the maid did deserve to have her allegations investigated, especially since hotel employees gave credibility to her claim. Both will get their day in court.
These are tacky times we’re living in.
Where do they get these people from?
I haven’t raped anyone, have never tried to bang a hotel maid, have no drug or immigration problems, have never asked for political asylum, don’t live in an AIDS hostel, don’t have a first class seat waiting for me on every Air France flight, never been yanked off of a flight about to depart, and never been arrested. I don’t know any terrorists, don’t count any communists among my friends and associates, never built a bomb, never been prosecuted, never been cagey about my birth certificate or academic transcripts, and never entered into any whiffy real estate deals.
I feel like such a bore. Totally left out of the social swim.
Maybe I’ll keep out a library book until it’s overdue, and tear the tag off of a mattress. Gotta start somewhere.
Occam . . .
Close cover before striking a match!
(Matches? What are those?)
Weird – how does this square with the women who came out after Strauss-Kahn was arrested and told their own stories of sexual assault, as well as his general reputation of being very forward with the female staff? What about how he behaved after the alleged assault, attempting to leave quickly by private jet?
Close cover before striking a match!
Never! I’m a rebel, and leaving the cover open is my way of hitting back at The Man!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ5QanQtCd8
We knew this was coming. We knew there was going to be an avid attack on the maid.
Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection, states “Based on this letter, it’s hard to see how the case moves much further” but the letter does not refute all the evidence. (See the video link for evidence presented by the maid’s attorney.) The letter in reference here is a mandatory letter of disclosure from the DA to the defense attorneys.
Many of the “lies” by the maid are understandable and I, for one, won’t believe anything reported by the Times until it is proved by another source.
This is power, money, and influence. Two things, set forth in the video, seem very problematic: DSK was not immediately questioned and there is a very high up (third in command or something) person in the DA’s office who is married to one of the attorneys for DSK.
As to all the handwringing over rushing to judgment: I’m not constrained by those requirements. I’m not part of the jury, or grand jury, or investigative team. Of course, one should never present something as fact which is opinion or argument, but aside from that, leave off, please, “decrying” rush to judgments. What? We can’t ever voice an opinion? I think DSK did it and the latest details don’t change my mind.
I agree that the Polanski case—and the fact that DSK was on an airplane bound for France just a couple of hours after the alleged rape—made NY police act quickly for fear he’d leave and never return. It meant that they felt that taking the time to investigate the maid’s allegations more thoroughly and wait to arrest him would risk losing him forever. A very difficult case.
Occam’s Beard:
When you start doing those evil things, women will start eying you with interest and will ask if you have any hidden “tatts”.
Neo-neocon,
I agree. I have no problem with the hasty action of the police to foil DSK’s flight from potential prosecution. My criticism is with the press, the so-called fourth estate which repeatedly showsi tself to be a yellow journalists’ dream. Theya re like vultures diving to a rotting carcass, and they have the temerity to look down their nose at the National Enquirer.
Occam’s Beard,
Nothing like living on the edge. What a rush!
Pingback:Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case Collapses
Guilty or not in this particular case DSK remains an elitist socialist scoundrel. If DSK walks he’ll be set to lead the socialist party as he will return to France a martyr. Sazkozy is the best leader France has had in the last 50 years and I for one would like to see him reelected.
“… she had no way to know in advance that his visit was planned, it’s hard to believe that she had enough information to have plotted this specifically with him in mind.”
No doubt it became obvious very quickly for both. If it’s not something like The Rape of Nanking, then it usually takes two to tango; two conniving opportunists encounter one another…
I’m wondering whether DSK might have run afoul of certain powerful people. If it was a setup, who benefits from getting him out of the way?
Consider the following:
1. The Wall Street Journal on May 18, just a couple of days after the story broke:
2. The new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, has strong ties to Chicago.
These could just be coincidences.
Rickl Says; one of the reasons I keep an eye on this blog… So the plot thickens, a whole bunch of “conniving opportunists encounter one another…”
When you start doing those evil things, women will start eying you with interest and will ask if you have any hidden “tatts”.
That’s for me to know, and them to find out. My wife permitting, of course. Which ain’t gonna happen.
Nothing like living on the edge. What a rush!
‘Cause I’m all about that. Live fast, die old, leave a wrinkled decrepit corpse. That’s my motto.
rickl,
I am aware of this info, and do wonder if this was a set up. DSK is a less than a wholesome person, but the whole affair has a Chicago thumbprint which is the equivalent of the mark of Cain.
There may be less here than meets the eye. An unappetizing case involving two unappetizing people but boy it sure sold a lot of newspapers not to mention driving some blog traffic.
At this point if there are no charges, just let it drop. There are better ways to make larger points about gender bias, class bias, rich socialists etc.
I really don’t know what to think about this alleged incident.
On one hand, we have the NY Times quickly jumping to defend the rich socialist, whereas with the Duke lacrosse case, they steadfastly defended the lying victim. It is usually a good bet that the side the NY Times supports is the actual evildoer.
On the other hand, the alleged victim is a Muslim, who are increasingly playing the victim in frivolous lawsuits in this country.
But I don’t want to get ahead of myself when dealing with the NY Times. One of the big things they cite to drag down the alleged victim is that she made false rape claims in her home country of Guinea. However, remember she’s Muslim and if she actually was raped there, and her case came before a sharia law court, she would have faced the impossible task of finding FOUR male witnesses to come forward to prove her case. When she did not, not only would she be charged with making a false rape claim, but she would like get charged with the crime of indecency and/or adultery (which wouldn’t look good in her case against Strauss-Kahn to someone ignorant of sharia).
Many years ago, I served on a Grand Jury. One case we looked at involved an accusation of rape. Personally, I found the accusation to be plausible. What surprised me was that, without exception, every single one of the female jurors believed that the accusation was false – something about the demeanor of the victim just didn’t ring true to them. Maybe the MSM should be run by women ?
Neo,
you ask why a man in DSK’s position would risk everything for sex with a maid. The answer is that getting sex for women is easy and for men its hard. If the maid made a sexual offer and the DSK was horny enough its not that unreasonable to understand the sexual encounter. Here was apparently willing woman who was offering herself to him for “benefits” and he was horny, in his lust he may have not seen the downside of his actions. In fact the attack upon her might have been the result of attempted blackmail in order to secure those “benefits”. It does not mean rape didn’t happen but it does explain how a sexual encounter may have happened and you are right that it does make any conviction of rape harder.
I’m with rickl. My first thoughts were that it’s a set up and the quick replacement from Chicago confirms it in my mind. And now that the alleged victim is a proven liar who will believe her if she tattles. It would make a great movie.
Rich, any reason to think the women were correct? Unanimity on the distaff side is suggestive, but not dispositive.
Feminine intuition can be preternaturally acute and perceptive, but can also fail dismally. (See, e.g., Ted Bundy, Barack Obama). The trick in any given instance is figuring which case obtains.
Corey: for some men it’s difficult getting sex, but not for DSK. At least, if gossip and rumor is correct, he was getting it all the time. Plus, he’s married to someone he professes to love. So he’s got extramarital sex and marital sex. I don’t buy your argument at all.
Jack: actually, I don’t have the source right now, but to the best of my recollection the Times reported that DSK’s accuser made false statements about her alleged rape in Guinea on her application for asylum to this country, not as part of some sort of legal action in Guinea. I believe she said on the application that she was gang-raped, but she told police here that that was a lie, although she continues to assert she was raped in Guinea but not in the way she said on her asylum application (perhaps she now asserts it was not a gang but a single person who raped her?)
According to the NY Post, DSK’s lawyers are now saying she is a whore. There is going to be a lot more dirt slung in this little battle. I just saw a news report about a potential comeback for him. He said he won’t comment on anything till he is back in France. His sense of entitlement is unbearable.
Neo,
I want to highlight this phrase of yours: “for some men”. Your right that for some men it may be easy but for most its not. Furthermore, even men with easy access to sex will not turn down a sure thing if the woman is hot enough and available. Furthermore, given DSK’s age it is probably not as easy as you imagine for him to acquire sex. Female companionship that enjoys being in a powerful politicians presence, yes, but sex no. If its offered by cute to hot woman men generally have sex.
Corey
Neo,
I also want to highlight your notion of love. Love does not necessarily mean easy access to sex. There are plenty of sexless marriages where either the man or the woman can profess love for their signifigant other and still deny them sex for a plethora of reason: including “not being in the mood”. Just because the man’s married does not mean his wife is meeting his needs, we assume that she is but that is not a fact.
Corey
Corey: my notion of love? Don’t think so. I’m aware that there are sexless marriages, and/or marriages where there’s a disparity in sexual drives and needs. My point is that although we know nothing about the intimate details of DSK’s marriage, he is in fact married, and to an attractive woman whom he professes to love deeply, so there is absolutely no reason to assume he’s in dire need of extramarital sex or is having difficulty finding a sexual partner. On the contrary, he seems to have quite a few available. And don’t forget this.
If sexless marriage you are in this world.
Accordiung to the feeling of apprehension will still find yourself in a lock at the agge of
thirty-five and up, reduce body fat.
Also visjt my homepage … sex videos