The Catcher in the Sofitel
Of all the hard-to-believe scenarios involved in the DSK case (and that includes all of them), this one reported by the NY Post might just be the most implausible so far:
Before she ever walked into Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s dazzling suite at the Sofitel, his accuser was well aware of his VIP status — and planning to get her hands in his deep pockets, sources told The Post.
“She figured he’s a rich dude, and she would get paid,” said a source close to the defense investigation. “She was told by the crew she ran with that this was a gold mine.”
The maid, who routinely traded sex for money with male guests, parked her cleaning cart outside Suite 2806 on the morning of May 14 and keyed her way into the room — knowing what he looked like from a photo hanging in a maid closet that identified him as an important guest.
Multiple versions have emerged of what happened next, but nobody disputes that the 32-year-old maid performed oral sex on the Frenchman known as “the Great Seducer.”
Sources now tell The Post that when the two were finished, the woman demanded cash from Strauss-Kahn — but he refused to pay…
The humiliating exchange sparked the maid’s anger, prosecutors suspect.
The woman’s lawyer has charged that DSK angrily grabbed her breast and vagina, leaving her with bruises to the groin area.
So, what’s so improbable about that? It’s not that she might be a hooker, or that DSK was amenable to a quickie with her before leaving town.
But what hooker doesn’t negotiate a price before rendering services? And what would be DSK’s motive for not paying up? Unless she was asking for some exorbitant amount in payment, what would be the point of his refusal? And if she knew who he was, and wanted that kind of money, then why not blackmail him instead? After all, she had the semen on the dress, and could threaten to go to authorities. Wouldn’t blackmail be far more lucrative? But that has not been alleged so far by anyone connected with the case.
DSK is on record as having suspected earlier that he would be set up for some kind of sex scandal (specifically, a false rape accusation) in order to derail his campaign. If so, then why was he not more on the alert when this woman presented herself? And even if he succumbed to temptation despite his wariness (which he clearly did) and had Clintonian sex with “that woman,” why would he not then pony up the dough, knowing how vulnerable he was to false charges of rape? Why run the risk of angering her? And then why rough her up in the bargain?
I’m not exactly conversant with the world of prostitution in high-priced hotels (or low-priced ones, for that matter), but DSK would be. His alleged behavior makes no sense if a man is trying to protect himself, and hers also makes no sense for the woman in such a situation.
Why have I written so much about this case? I think the fascination with the story of DSK and the maid is that it contains a mystery—actually, several mysteries. It also touches on a number of ancient and modern themes: sexual relations between the high and mighty and the lowly, “he-said she said” scenarios and the near-impossibility of ever knowing the truth in such situations, hints of dark conspiracies to bring a political man to ruin, his cooperation in that possible downfall through character flaws of his own, and differences between American and European attitudes towards philandering.
These latest allegations also put me in mind of a famous scene from Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (hey, I’m a literary sort; what can I say—and the following may not be perfectly accurate, since I don’t have a copy of the book at hand). Holden wasn’t a rich French politician, but he did contract (with the elevator operator Maurice) for a prostitute’s services in the seedy hotel where he was staying in Manhattan. When the hooker—a very young woman named Sunny—arrives, Holden is flummoxed and loses all interest, although he offers to pay her the contracted-for five dollars (yes, there’s been quite a bit of inflation in the over-half-century since the novel was written). She says the fee was ten, and they have an argument, after which she goes off in a huff. Later that night, after Holden falls asleep, she and Maurice return to claim the money, and Maurice roughs Holden up a little.
One can understand Holden’s refusal to pay—he’s not rolling in dough, and in the end he didn’t even ask her to do anything sexual. But what would be DSK’s excuse?
I mentioned this on the previous post about DSK:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dsk%E2%80%99s-french-accuser-to-file-attempted-rape-complaint/
Now I just saw on Yahoo.de that he will sue her for libel.
expat: if so, it would not be surprising. French libel laws, especially regarding famous people, are extremely biased in favor of the plaintiffs. Here:
And if she knew who he was, and wanted that kind of money, then why not blackmail him instead? After all, she had the semen on the dress, and could threaten to go to authorities.
Possibly she figured that actually going to the authorities would make any threats she might have made that much more credible. After all, even with the physical evidence the case is nowhere without her testimony. All she has to do is go a little vague up on the witness stand and even though she can be tasked with her statements to investigators and her deposition – if she made one – if she refuses to back them up there is no case.
What I find most interesting is that our politics are starting to resemble Arthur Schnitzler’s La Ronde. Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Gore (and a massage parlor masseuse at that!), Sanford, Swartzenegger, Weiner, and the men’s room shoe-tapper whose name escapes me.
When they published Schnitzler’s play it was assailed as pornography. Now it would just be news.
You lit’ry types are like boxes of Cracker Jack; an allusion in every post.
Neo,
I sure am glad we can call the jerk a jerk without fear of the French courts.
Completely OT: A commenter at Ricochet just talked about this website. It is definitely not literary, but none the less fascinating and potentially useful if you don’t like computing things yourself. Check it out.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/tour1.html
I think it’s possible that they did talk money before and/or after.
Maybe they agreed to an amount beforehand and then she jacked up (sorry) the price afterward. Or maybe they didn’t talk money beforehand and he lowballed (sorry again) her when the time came to pay up.
If she was aiming for an exorbitant payoff (based on the info she had about DSK) she certainly wouldn’t say so in advance. He may have agreed to paid her with the “going rate” (or even a big “tip”) and she may have demanded a huge (blackmail level) sum in reply. I could certainly see tempers flaring on both sides at that point.
At any rate, as the old saying goes..lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
expat,
regarding wolframalpha, how long do you suppose it will take for the leftards to render it totally useless?
Jack,
No idea. Maybe Bill Ayers will introduce a users manual urging people to challenge the data because it’s not fair.
given mckinnon and such ahve changed the burden of innocence and made normal ignoring the concept of innocence until proven guilty…
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience,” — Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.
from the duke kids being assumed guilty… to the duke university admin who was gay and rented out his adopted black kids (and gave advice to others to do so) for sex, but was assumed innocent. to strauss kahn…
its the “ladies” of the view, telling a majority of what they should assume… and other left jumping on items to be the first to “qwerty” them… even if only a percentage believe and never correct the fact, that percentage has a world definition where it was fact and will act and vote accordingly. (such becomes the game once lying is allowed and not prohibited by various means we used to have but were co-opted, and then denied it)
a VAST majority of much less notable and financially able men get to be guilty for this, or other such idiocies thanks to all kinds of stuff we never ask ourselves about…
the whole brouhaha now will be to whip her…
why?
in the frenzy of the whipping persons wraith and the show, we forget that it was the entity with the whip that facilitated it all.. by trying to use (abuse) events to some end… regardless of any validity ofpoint or feature, other than appearances, which is enough for the great and powerful oz’s to convince you the prevailing talk is really about a real issue.
anyone other than me realize that a whole lot of the writing between X and Y on this is null and void, but once injected lives on… (which is why others on the left openly refresh the ideas by saying the lie of it over again)