Home » Articles » Developments in the DSK Case: What They Mean And What They Don’t

Developments in the DSK Case: What They Mean And What They Don’t

Review the closing arguments of the sex assault cases I prosecuted over the years and here’s the most oft-used quote you’ll find: “We don’t get our victims from Central Casting. We get them from life. Gritty, unrehearsed, unvarnished life.”

I stole this theme from the senior ACA’s in Alexandria, Virginia who trained me. Smart prosecutors have been using it for decades to remind jurors that, indeed, law reflects life and not the other way around. Victims of crime are not perfect, angelic beings whose mistake-free lives are marred by the offense like a wedding gown hit with a tumbling glass of Merlot.

Except that in sexual violence cases, it appears they have to be.

Two things noteworthy have occurred in the DSK case this week: One is the apparent fact that the victim has lied to investigators about her past, the circumstances of her life, and some details of what she did immediately after the incident.  The other is that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office did not oppose DSK’s release from house arrest. Both things signal trouble for the case, meaning whether the elements of a crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. But neither has a thing to do with whether an offense actually occurred.

Regardless, many in the media (the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker among them) are now conflating the undeniable weaknesses in the legal case and the DA’s reaction to them with the sure-fire notion that, in fact, it’s just another false allegation and we all rushed to judgment way too quickly. We must, after all, remember Duke Lacrosse.

Remember Duke Lacrosse: A rallying cry that will do more to shelter rapists for the next generation than any force on earth could hope to accomplish.

I’m not saying there isn’t a chance that the allegations are untrue. I’ve never held that opinion and wouldn’t unless I was an eye-witness to the crime itself.  I have said, and still maintain, that there is no compelling reason to disbelieve what the victim has asserted (at its core) and still asserts. This is not simply because of who I am and what I do. It’s because of what I know about the dynamics involved, DSK’s past and well established reputation, and what the victim stood to lose (and now has lost) by reporting in the first place. She’s now fully exposed and will likely endure intense legal scrutiny for the measures she took to get to this country, and then to get by while she’s been here. Such is the continuing tragedy of being poor, displaced and desperate. It doesn’t excuse wrongdoing, but it’s a cold-hearted person indeed who rejects that it at least explains it.

She memorized a cassette tape someone else gave her depicting a gang rape in order to make an application for asylum more attractive. Yes, I imagine she did. People the world over have done far worse for political sanctuary, sometimes for highly sympathetic reasons.  She lied on a tax return in order to secure a larger refund. Wrong? Yes. Common? Remarkably. Inexcusable? For a widowed single mother working as a hotel maid in one of the world’s most expensive cities?  You decide. The association she might have with drug dealers and money launderers is certainly worse, but again- what does any of it have to do with whether she was actually assaulted?

Of greater concern, of course, are the lies she apparently told about what she did immediately after the incident and before reporting it. Since those actions relate to the investigation, for some they are clear red flags signaling a false report.  Except that, in and of themselves, they’re not. Did she clean another room before reporting the assault? Probably- it’s remarkably common for victims of trauma to act in confusing, counter-intuitive ways following the event. Resuming normal, mundane activities is in fact a very common one. But since most people aren’t schooled in the neurobiology of trauma, might a person lie about her reaction, fearing it will be seen as nonsensical and thus indicative of a false complaint? Might a person panic and lie for a better impression?

Hell, yes.

Victims reporting truthful attacks lie all the time about peripheral details. They lie about what they drank, whether they invited an offender into a room, what they wore, who they left with, etc, etc, etc. They do it because they are terrified of being judged, having their complaint disregarded, appearing foolish, or just because they’d prefer to have done something different. And some valid victims are- perish the thought- people who simply often lie, for a million reasons from their circumstances to plain-old low character. It makes their cases harder to prosecute. It does not make them any less valid.

DA Vance has reacted appropriately given his ethical duties and the legal realities facing him. For now at least, his office continues to prosecute its case. Unless and until something else surfaces that I don’t know about, it has good reason to do so. DSK lied also; until the wonder of DNA forced his hand, he denied sexual contact with the victim. As my friend and colleague Jaclyn Friedman points out, this is deeply disturbing since DSK’s wife apparently has no issue with her husband’s penchant for “seduction.” Given this fact and many others, I am not ready to dismiss this allegation or flagellate myself for “rushing to judgment.”

What I will do is lament the ugly confusion so many people are mired in regarding legal difficulties versus actual guilt or innocence. And I’ll lament the increasingly binary distinction we’re making with women and men who report sexual violence. They come forward and dare- and I mean “dare” in every sense of the word- to report what happened to them. They then face, at very best, two fates: They are either perfect and thus (perhaps) supported, or they are revealed to be imperfect, sometimes even deeply flawed, and thus discarded as liars. Never mind that predators sometimes target people with real or perceived imperfections exactly because it renders them even more powerless.

So the message ought to be damn clear for the next hotel maid, accountant, bus driver, surgeon, prostitute, college student, barber, cop, etc, etc, who is sexually attacked: Unless you’re perfect, don’t tell anyone.

Don’t dare.


  1. If the New York Times is correct in reporting that a recorded call shows the woman referring to Strauss-Kahn’s assets as a positive thing (as in, “don’t worry, he has lots of money”), then that seems to be the most damaging thing, and directly relevant to the proof of the case, since evidence of the assault rests largely on her testimony.

    And if that call did actually happen as it’s being portrayed, some of the other things become more relevant. If she’s convincingly lied in the past about a rape for personal gain, it’s more likely that she would do so again.

    Of course, he’s lied too. And nothing I’ve heard is at all proof that she wasn’t raped. It’s inappropriate, I think, to decide that she was lying and paint her as a false accuser. But that’s different from recognizing that it is the prosecution, and her, that must prove their cases, not the defense.

    Victims aren’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore their imperfections and take everything they say at face value.

  2. I completely agree with your analysis. What Vance & company are reacting to is the likelihood of success in their case has been reduced…but it no way means that the assault didn’t happen and that is what the general public seems unable to understand.

    We’ve come a long way from the days when DA’s would subject victims of assault to psych. assessments before they would consider filing charges… But we have further still to go.

  3. Joan M says:

    Like the article says, she may not be perfect. She may have told lies in the past, associated with those who aren’t pinnacles of society, etc. But why aren’t they looking at this man’s past as well? He has a history of sexually harassing women. He certainly got on a plane pretty quickly after the incident; looks pretty bad if you ask me. Believe me, there are men out there who think they can get away with anything if they have enough money and power (and some who think they can get away with rape and other violence toward women even if they DON’T have money and power.) Sure, pick on an immigrant hotel maid, then tell everyone she’s a hooker and doesn’t deserve to be believed. And if some rich old toad raped me, I’d rape him right back in court right where it would hurt him the most–his wallet.

  4. Hmm…

    So we should ignore the fact that the accuser called a friend and bragged of what a financial windfall this could be.

    How stupid do you think we are?

    Also, isn’t it just as likely that Strauss-Kahn lied because he didn’t feel like having his sexual activities made into public knowledge?

  5. Mia Goldman says:

    A brilliant, tempered and wise analysis. Thank you. It’s dispiriting that the law can be so unsatisfactory and lacking in subtlety — the only hope is that awareness will force it to evolve —

  6. Agreed, but says:

    I agree with you, but what if she DID lie? What if all the gosh-darn whiz-bang only-human reasons for lying applied to the alleged perpetrator, too? Yes, it is difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward. Yes, this is true. It is vital that there be a safe space made for them. But people DO lie about sexual assaults!

    In America we are innocent until proven guilty, even in rape cases. While safe space must be made for victims, what about the rights of the accused? If I were rich and powerful and I had been with a prostitute, I would not admit I had sex with her either. Does that prove I am a rapist? Or course not, in the same way that the maid’s rape tape does not make her automatically guilty of making the whole thing up. But you need to apply the same argument to both sides, don’t you?

    The thing is, I have always considered myself a feminist and felt that the rights of the victim in these cases were sacrosanct. BUT I also am not naive. People lie and cheat and steal. Women I know have BRAGGED to me about lying to get a restraining order just so they didn’t have to deal with an upset ex-boyfriend for a few weeks. I don’t say this to imply that this is the norm: it isn’t. But it happens. In my opinion, it is worth it for those who need it. But it does occasionally do harm to innocent people.

    I guess my point is that we have no idea what happened. Only the principles know. Either the defense team is trying to undermine the victims of sexual violence, or they are trying to get to the truth. Either the alleged victim is an innocent victim of rape or she is doing EVEN MORE to undermine those same victims than the defense team.

    As you say, the Duke Lacrosse case DID harm victims of sexual violence. But whose fault is that, exactly? Would you rather that the truth had never come out? Would you have them convicted to protect victims? Would it be worth it?

    Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you want, but I don’t think it’s worth it. The innocent must go free. Right?

    (also, I totally think this is a conspiracy to take down the rogue Keynesian at the IMF) 😉

  7. Kaz Waz says:

    The day-after-the-event phone conversation with the accuser’s incarcerated boyfriend was translated only recently from the native language in which they spoke. Idiomatic nuances could be misinterpreted. If I had been a crime victim, I can imagine myself saying, “He’ll pay for this,” without meaning I am eyeballing the perp’s checkbook.

  8. Mike Jarman says:

    “Remember Duke Lacrosse: A rallying cry that will do more to shelter rapists for the next generation than any force on earth could hope to accomplish.”

    So we shouldn’t remember that the police, prosecutor and media got a case SO WRONG that their collective rush to judgment got three demonstrably innocent men indicted and held under suspicion for 9 months for something that didn’t happen at all – as in, no physical contact between alleged victim and accused, let alone sexual contact? How does remembering the non-event of Duke Lacrosse shelter rapists? If they’re rapists, then they actually had physical contact with the victim!

    No, “remember Duke Lacrosse” doesn’t protect rapists, it protects all innocent people, men and women. It means police, prosecutors and the media need to accuse people of heinous crimes on more than a politically-expedient narrative.

    It also means that there is a class of ideologues, to which you belong, that will continue to prop up the most preposterous claims simply because they fit their political agendas. Look at the litany of excuses you’ve just made for a demonstrably serial liar! Just look at the list! This isn’t someone who’s “made a few mistakes in life.” This is the sole fact witness in a criminal case that has a history of not telling the truth.

    It’s a hell of a long way from “serial liars probably won’t be believed by prosecutors when they’re the sole witness/victim in a rape case” to “only perfect women can bring rape charges.”

    But then…I see elsewhere in your website that you quote, approvingly, the one-in-four statistic and that you hate the Catholic Church. So truth and you are really not even casual acquaintances, huh Roger?

  9. Mr. Jarman: So let’s assume that every complaint of sexual assault is likely or at least arguably false, and therefore must be considered with dubious scrutiny because of one miserable and highly publicized case (Duke Lacrosse). When we take that attitude, we shelter rapists by emboldening them to assume that their actual acts of violence will be either disregarded or fatally doubted because of the inevitable comparison to one, rare, highly public case. It also shelters them because actual victims (and there are millions every year), either meeting or expecting doubt, scorn and suspicion, will fail to report cases at even higher rates. That, Mike, is now the use of that horrendously handled case as a rallying cry shelters rapists.

    I agree completely that lessons from the case need to be taken forward, mostly for prosecutors. The actions of the DA in that case were reprehensible and he was properly punished. The woman who made the false claims has suffered as well and apparently continues to find herself in all manner of legal trouble. Believe me, when an actual false report is made, and of course that does sometimes happen, I am highly in favor of holding the lying complainant responsible barring some thoroughly mitigating circumstance like severe mental illness. Women and men who do lie about sexual assault are harming the cause of investigating and prosecuting valid cases immeasurably. But part of the reason that this is true is because too many people extrapolate those rare cases into some sort of supposed norm, which it most certainly is not.

    Thank you for your comment and your interest in my blog.

  10. Thank you for your comment, Agreed. Of course I’m happy that the men involved in the Duke case were exonerated. Since they were not factually guilty, they should never have been at risk of being legally guilty. Any decent prosecutor’s worst nightmare is discovering that he or she may have brought the law to bear against an innocent person or persons. However, my comment above answers your first question: The Duke Lacrosse case should define nothing beyond its own facts. It involved an unfortunately lying but mentally ill complainant who authorities later concluded might well have believed her own lies (see this article on her from Newsweek earlier this year: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/22/crystal-mangum-s-return-to-court.html.) For that reason, she wasn’t prosecuted for filing the false report.

    The case was a tragedy made worse by a rogue DA who deserved to be and was disbarred. However, when that one case becomes some sort of model for how non-stranger sexual violence usually plays out, it is the fault of those claiming it as a model, not the few flawed actors in the actual case.

  11. Thanks, Expatriate, for your comment. I’m not suggesting that the phone conversation, where apparently the wealth of the accused was discussed, should be ignored. As a commenter above notes, we’ll have to see exactly what the conversation actually entailed. But assuming it did occur as you assume (some sort of “bragging” as to how much money there was to be gained from the incident), it does not mean that it didn’t happen. The woman could easily assume from his presence at the Sofitel in that suite that he was financially secure. If she then determined that a civil suit, settlement, under-the-table payoff, etc, etc, for attacking her might also be advantageous somewhere down the road, I fail to see how it demonstrates that she lied about the attack itself. Again, such behavior on her part, assuming it’s even close what you are claiming it to be, is damaging to the ability of prosecutors to prove a legal case. The timing is unfortunate and it appears as if she’s seeking to gain monetarily from being victimized. It is not necessarily evidence that it didn’t happen.

    You’re actually very much making my point, sir: She has, perhaps, acted in a way a victim in your world should not act. Yes, she should be above thinking about money when she’s been raped, regardless of the fact that she is a single mother and hotel maid who lives in an apartment for HIV/AIDS patients. Truly, she is less than the sterling clean, unshakably virtuous figure she should be. Therefore, in your world perhaps, she does not deserve any further efforts at legal vindication.

    Regarding DSK’s desire to reveal to investigators that he had engaged the services of a prostitute, or even a tawdry appearing hook-up with a hotel maid, when faced with rape charges: He apparently has no issue with the public knowing of his sexual conquests- purportedly his wife is at least tacitly supportive of them if not more. DSK is quite aware of and appears quite comfortable with his reputation as a seducer and a womanizer. So no, I don’t think he’d be overly tempted to hide a fact like that, particularly when being investigated for rape.

  12. Agreed, AM-M. And as usual your take on this is rational and balanced. My earlier comments address some of your questions. Thanks for commenting.

  13. Thanks, Roger. Regarding this:

    “If she then determined that a civil suit, settlement, under-the-table payoff, etc, etc, for attacking her might also be advantageous somewhere down the road, I fail to see how it demonstrates that she lied about the attack itself. Again, such behavior on her part, assuming it’s even close what you are claiming it to be, is damaging to the ability of prosecutors to prove a legal case. The timing is unfortunate and it appears as if she’s seeking to gain monetarily from being victimized. It is not necessarily evidence that it didn’t happen.”

    I agree that it’s “not necessarily evidence that it didn’t happen,” but it is of course evidence bearing against the credibility of claims that it did happen. So while it doesn’t justify attacking her or claiming she made it all up, it might well justify dropping the prosecution. There are two different standards at play.

    I don’t think that conflicts with what you were saying, but I wanted to make it clear.

  14. Brendon says:

    Rog, I agree with you that complaining witnesses often get details wrong or confused — especially when subject to multiple interviews by people with little or no real training in proper forensic interviewing techniques. I also agree that a complaining witness can and sometimes will lie about certain details while still telling the truth about the core issue of consent. The problem though is that in a case that will ultimately come down to whether or not the complaining witness can be believed beyond a reasonable doubt, it can be hard to grant credibility (to that degree) to someone who has previously fabricated a rape allegation with sufficient skill to convince authorities of its credibility and who was caught on tape saying “don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.” This, of course, leaves aside all of the other issues relating to this particular complaining witness. Look, here is the reality — we have no way of knowing what went down in that room. We an accused with an apparent history of harassment and/or assault and we have a complaining witness with a history of fabrication about sexual assault (among other matters) and an apparent fiscal motive to fabricate in this specific case. From the beginning there has been a huge rush to judgement in this case coming from every angle — from rape apologists like Ben Stein to feminists and anti-rape activists. From the get go it seemed like a lot of people lost no time staking out “he did it” or “he didn’t do it” territory. In my mind, regardless of the outcome in this case, all of these folks failed to keep in mind the one great truth of criminal investigations: first reports and impressions are always, invariably, wrong. Anyone who forms an opinion based on those reports/impressions is only asking for confirmation bias and to be made to look foolish at the end of the day. Whatever the outcome in this case, I hope that eventually the truth comes out — though I highly doubt it will. In the end the most likely outcome seems to be that prosecutors will be forced to admit that they can’t prove a case beyond reasonable doubt and will have to give this one up, leaving it a foggy unclear mess that will serve primarily as a kind Rorschach test for people interested in issues relating to harassment and assault.

  15. I tend to agree with you, BK- I think the case will end up being unprovable. My point with the piece I just put together was simply that unprovable doesn’t mean false. I have not heard anyone confirm the details of the phone conversation between the complainant and the jailed friend yet- of course I’ll withhold further judgment until I do. You’re absolutely correct that credibility, particularly when it’s as crucial to a case as it is here, is paramount, and often fatal to the case when sufficiently compromised. That may be the case here- but credibility issues on the part of a victim don’t make her case any less valid (when, of course, it is valid), only harder to prove. Thanks for your comment-

  16. Yes, AM-M, that is clear and you are correct. My whole, overriding point here has been that what is unprovable is not necessarily false. Since credibility is so important to this case, compromised credibility may well kill it. If so, and the case cannot be legally proven, then DSK should be set completely free with no legal threat against him regarding these facts. Agreeing with the release of DSK from home confinement is a nod toward that ultimate circumstance, and given the strength of the case it is an appropriate one. We’ll see what happens from here-

  17. brendon says:

    I hear what you are saying Rog, but the reverse also holds: Unprovable is not necessarily true. Look, in an absolute sense you are right — a completely incredible complaining witness may, nonetheless, have truly suffered an assualt at the hands of the accused. But in the absence of good coroborating evidence, we have limited tools for assessing credibility and so have to error in favor of the accused — which really is the whole point of the “beyound a reasonabl doubt” standard. For me, my gut tells me that DSK probably “did it” and that, perhaps, his victim looked for ways to embelish her claims and to potentially exploit the situation for some kind of gain. That being said – my gut is a useless predictive insturment and the bottom line is that I don’t have sufficient facts (and I would venture to say that virtually none of the commentators opining on this issue have those facts) to really make a claim one way or another.

    I think one of the most frustrating aspects of these kinds of media circus cases is that people tend to grab onto the case (or what they think the case is) and use as some kind of symbolic totem for all similar cases — and this tends to be true across the spectrum of opinions. The reality is that each individual case is a completey unique creature — you really can make any valid predictions about indvidual cases based on generalizations or frequencys of certain triats in the larger population of cases on the same topic. The reverse is also true — general truthes & statiscal trends in a given case popultion (ie all rapes in the US) have zero predictive power in regards to any specific case.

  18. brendon says:

    err… – in that last paragraph is should read “… you really CAN’T make any valid predictions…”

    Proof reading: better done before posting than after posting.

  19. Woman says:

    I was relieved to read this. Thank you!

    Your analysis is well-rounded and grounded and really examines the tragedies in this case and its wider implications. Again, thank you. I am shocked at how quickly sooo many are eager to cast her as a liar and dismiss any possibility of an actual crime. This case is very concerning, because I feel it perpetuates the rape culture. How does this happen? How did so many close their eyes and ears to reason? No one is perfect. Really, no one is perfect. That does not mean an imperfect person can not be the victim of a heinous crime. I agree with you and believe there is a very ugly “ugly confusion so many people are mired in regarding legal difficulties versus actual guilt or innocence”, particularly in sexual assault cases. I would really like to see the matter go to court and I hope D.A. Vance will do so.

  20. Alessandra says:


    So, does her lawyer have any grounds or any chance of getting a special prosecutor appointed? What do you think of the fact that it seems that her lawyer is having a shootout with the DA? Is this common in sexual crime cases?

    It was reported that her lawyer sequestered her for 19 days from the DA. This looks quite bad to me, but then again, maybe it wasn’t simply because he wanted to hide evidence (?) from the DA.

    Another question I had was about his lawyer’s request that no one touch DSK’s phones or computer emails. I never heard any more news about if the DA actually was granted access or not.

    Just as her phone conversation may have yielded some clue (I won’t buy it until we see the full transcript), what would we find if we had access to his conversations and emails? My hunch is that we might find even more damning evidence against him than any “oh, this guy has money, I know what I’m doing.”

  21. Carol Herman says:

    Biggest take-away here is no woman will get to have a civil case! No matter what, after a rape, a woman is lucky enough to recover. And, not get spooked over having sex.

    Won’t increase the enjoyment of being raped. But who knows? It might save a woman’s life if she just lays back and thinks of England?

    I’ve also discovered if a cop comes over to you for ANY REASON … remember to say “AM I FREE TO GO?” That’s all you need. You saw nothing. You say nothing. Or you will be victimized … even if you just want to report that you saw the traffic accident!

    Why is “AM I FREE TO GO?” such a clue?

    Well, the cop can’t just approach and ask you even if you know the time of day!

    And, you’ve asked a question he MUST ANSWER! He can’t search you. He can’t throw you to the ground. And, he can’t try to find your wallet. (Such actions would lead a cop to lose his or her pension.) It’s not worth it.

    Okay. What if the cop says “NO”

    Your very next words are: “I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MY LAWYER.”

    Do you know why that works?

  22. Carol Herman says:

    You know, I was sitting in a court room, where I had been called to serve Jury Duty. It was a murder case. The defendant only spoke Spanish. And, so, for days we heard everything said out loud in the courtroom, translated in a low hum monotone. Nothing took on the flavor of what was said in English!

    Okay. An Engineering Professor from Cal State LA is called into the juror’s box. He says he doesn’t speak Spanish. And, in his classrooms he will NEVER accept a student who doesn’t understand English. He said some try to bring in translators. But he won’t accept this. He says you can’t get the emotional flavor when the translator (showing no emotions), translates for the student.

    He then added he wouldn’t know what to do with testimony that came from Spanish speaking individuals. Because the translations were faulty. By definition they are always faulty!

    The judge played with this man for at least 20 minutes. Until she finally agreed to his dismissal.

    Yes, you get to hear all sorts of stuff while you listen to people who try to wiggle out of jury duty.

    But here? I thought the Engineering Professor taught us all an important lesson. And, I never forgot it!

    Gutter journalism has destroyed this maid’s credibility.

    “Feminists” have missed the boat on protecting women in any meaningful way. You can start with Monica! Where were the feminists then?

    Why do these freaks have such sway?

    Gutter journalism. Juries do the best they can.

    This case will never be presented to a jury. And, the maid’s going to be blamed. How sad is that?

  23. Hi, Alessandra and thanks for your comment. There’s really no chance a special prosecutor would be appointed- whether or not the case goes forward is up to DA Vance, and he only answers to the citizens of his jurisdiction. The fact that there is tension between her attorney and the DA is not all that uncommon. Victims in high-profile cases sometimes seek out (or are offered) legal counsel, and sometimes those attorneys clash with the DA, who does not represent the victim, but the community. I haven’t heard about the victim’s lawyer attempting separate or ‘sequester’ her from the DA; often DA’s won’t pursue a case where a lawyer has been placed between the victim and the DA’s office. I respected victims who obtained legal counsel on their own, but I would not work “through” their lawyers. It really doesn’t work that way- a good prosecutor needs unfettered and unfiltered access to a victim in order to build a legitimate and strong case for prosecution.

    I’m also not sure what has happened with regard to DSK’s legal team and his property. If the DA and/or police have search warrants for those items, though, they can be seized.

  24. Carol Herman says:

    As soon as DSK was arrested. And, it went VIRAL. In France, Ms. Banon came out immediately saying she had been carrying around a weight since she was 21. And, her godfather was a rutting chimpanzee! She then added her mom told her to shut up.

    Whether or not Vance proceeds, here, isn’t important. He just may not get elected when he runs, again?

    You also don’t know if we’re going to get another Mario Puzo GODFATHER. Well written. But this time, instead of focused on the mafia … it focuses on GUTTER JOURNALISM.

    America’s had the GONG SHOW. We’re used to watching cases going north. And, going south.

    Heck, Americans never really stop dissecting cases that ended up without justice performed. Like SACCO & VINCETTI. Were they anarchists? Yes. But, yes, too, they were railroaded!

    Oh, yeah. And, we had our McCarthy era as well. Remember the Junior Senator from Wisconsin? He had a list! And, he commandeered TV time.

    Dean. In the Watergate Hearings. Ditto.

    So, if I had to guess Americans like resolutions. Stuff that gets endings attached to them. They’re not going to be happy, by and large, seeing the maid deported. And, the evidence from the room just disappearing. The DA is trying to say it’s about immigration. No. It is not! Then, “it is about charging rape when the man is innocent.” No. Again. This is not the case.

    And, France has just opened Ms. Banon’s case. Because they give a 10 year spread to people to file charges, and report a RAPE. Their laws are different than ours. So, too, is their language. No one will translate?

    Also. Didn’t the Catholic Church also show the world they couldn’t keep hiding their pedophilia problem?

    It seems things can be kept hidden. Until they jump into the open. It’s like letting the genie out of the bottle.

    Mario Puzo wasn’t a lawyer.

  25. Carol Herman says:

    You know, we’ve heard the police wire-tapped one of Ms. Diallo’s phone calls to her boyfriend in an Arizona jail.

    The call was in some sort of Guinean dialect. You’re told the “translator says” … And, then you’re given this “snippet.” Have you heard the actual tape?

    Will anybody?

    Gutter journalism is something Rupert Murdoch practiced SUCCESSFULLY. Today, in England, he just shuttered his “The World.” Not because it was losing money. But because Murdoch got CAUGHT!

    Murdoch not only tapped into phones illegally, his editors printed garbage … with the idea “you drop a ferret down some key person’s pants.”

    Then, when someone catches these fraudsters … Murdoch’s editor(s) would run into the printing presses, and shout: REVERSE FERRET!

    The DA, did a “REVERSE FERRET” here, for some reason.

    Political mischief? Probably up the ying-yang. Free and clear? Or like the Titanic hitting the iceberg.

    You know the Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE.

    I’m just willing to stay tuned.

    It’s been a long time since I’ve believed anything I’ve read in the papers. And, I also take what lawyers say with a grain of salt.

  26. Carol Herman says:

    Also unproven is the allegation the maid did this for the benefits she’d get from a civil suit.

    This charge hasn’t been proven.

    Yes, in some cases when women charge RAPE in a criminal context, they want to win a civil suit.

    What if that’s not the case, here?

    What if the maid was really terrified of losing her job? And, also of being vulnerable to the media who would not given her any peace?

    How did the cops set her up? She was put into a hotel we are now told catered to prostitutes. And, she became one of them.

    When does the fish start to stink from the head, down?

  27. Thanks, Pleazzer, for your comment. I assume your opinion there is based on the fact that she lied on her first visa. I can understand your feelings if so. But I’d still want to know more about why she lied and what she faced before coming here.

  28. mmlilting says:

    Are you people serious? Those drunken sot, steroid-stuffed, VIOLENT, rabidly racist, neighborhood-terrorizing, mickey-mixing RAPIST LaCrosse Demons sexually assaulted that stripper as sure as you’re born!! She NEVER recanted because it really HAPPENED! And which poster is it who bizarrely asserted they allegedly “never touched her” when the DNA of 3 of those men were under her fingernails!!? Money just flowed from New York to North Carolina. And those “boys” lied about everything on the phone when requesting the strippers from whether or not they requested a “black” stripper to how many athletes would be at the “party” to which KIND of athletes the strippers would be performing for! You people and this society are CRAZY, but then you ARE the descendants of the people who told evil LIES on 15 year-old SALLY Hemings for TW0- HUNDRED YEARS since 40 year-old sexually-harassing ( of white women,too)WIDOWER Thomas Jefferson was allegedly too “pure” to stain himself with her! Shaking my head. No wonder women are buying guns in DROVES! I fear for my country!

  29. Thanks, MM, for joining the conversation. I’m not sure about assertions you’re making- I have never heard that any DNA tied the players to the complainant in that case. I agree with you that many of the players involved (tangentially or otherwise) acted despicably that night, making racist, sexist and downright violent comments. But I do not believe, based on what I know, that they were guilty of a sexual crime against her.

    I don’t know what to tell you about denials that Jefferson was involved with Sally Hemmings. I agree 100% that the denials were wrong and hideously racially motivated. I personally met descendents of Ms. Hemmings and Mr Jefferson, actually, at Monticello a few years ago. They were engaging, gracious and interesting people who didn’t seem bitter at all, although I wouldn’t have blamed them if they had been. And thankfully, the curators at Monticello were extremely gracious to them, treating them equally as the other Jefferson descendents, whom I also met that evening. I guess we can thank God for DNA so that there is no longer a question.

  30. Kathryn Grace Jordan says:

    Refreshing to hear a man who does not see female crime victims as whores and liars.
    Victims of rape do not have to be perfect to deserve their right to Due Process under the law. LaCrosse men were guilty. They just had a better lawyer.

    Vance needs to stop holding this immigrant woman to impossible standards.

  31. Thank you, Ms. Jordan, for your comment, and for joining the conversation. Actually, I do think the lacrosse players (assuming you’re referring to the Duke Lacrosse case) were not guilty of any sexual crimes against the complainant in that case. They did apparently make some reprehensible comments between themselves and possibly to her and others. They are most certainly not, in my view, the angelic victims they are portraying themselves to be. But it appears well-settled that they are not guilty of rape in that circumstance. The complainant in that case is apparently severely mentally ill- so much so that the state declined to prosecute her for filing a false report regarding the rape, which is a very serious crime itself.

    As for DA Vance and the complainant in the DSK case, I agree that she should not be held to impossible standards. It appears to me that Vance is doing what he must do legally and ethically so far. I also hope that he does not give up on the case. Again, thanks for dropping by.

Comments are closed.