On July 1, New York Times reporters Jim Dwyer and Michael Wilson wrote an article which quoted anonymous police officers to paint the alleged rape victim in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case as a money-digging liar. The most damning bit was this:
Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney’s office learned the call had been recorded and had it translated from a “unique dialect of Fulani,” a language from the woman’s native country, Guinea, according to a well-placed law enforcement official.
When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said.
I wrote a post in which I said that, although I still suspected that Dominique Strauss-Kahn had committed rape, were I on a jury “from the evidence that’s been published in the Times today, I’d have to say that there was reasonable doubt.”
Now, the alleged rape victim, Nafissatou Diallo, has come forward with her name and her side of the story. (Thanks for pointing this out to me, Maia.) And her lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, claims the Times report was inaccurate:
Thompson said he, Diallo, prosecutors and an interpreter spent hours Wednesday on another question that has arisen about her associations and conduct: her recorded conversations with a friend who is being held in an Arizona immigration detention center after pleading guilty in a marijuana case. The two spoke on the recording in Fulani, a West African language.
The tapes have not been released, and Thompson said he was allowed to hear them Wednesday but didn’t get copies of them. They contrast with a New York Times account of what Diallo had said, according to Thompson. The newspaper has reported, citing an anonymous law enforcement official, that Diallo said “words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing'” to her friend shortly after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest.
But on the tapes, her mentions of Strauss-Kahn’s resources and her knowing what to do are made at different points, and in contexts that cast them in a considerably different light, Thompson said.
In her first conversation with the man, she didn’t mention Strauss-Kahn’s wealth at all, instead telling her friend that “someone tried to rape me, and that he’s a powerful, big man,” who had tried to take her clothes off, pushed her, and ultimately made her do something against her will, Thompson said.
In a subsequent conversation, she told her friend that her attacker “is powerful and rich,” her lawyer said. But it was earlier in that conversation — and not in connection with any mention of Strauss-Kahn’s status — that she said “I know what to do” to signal that she gone to authorities, planned to hire a lawyer and would be all right, Thompson said.
It’s easy to misunderstand something heard only in translation, but as Aunt B writes, piecing a quote together from two entirely different parts of the conversation, seems like a deliberate lie.
Or it could be an honest error — that seems less likely to me, but it’s possible. You can’t underestimate the power of incompetence.
Or Mr. Thompson could be lying through his teeth. There are some very brazen liars out there, and some of them are lawyers.
My guess — and there’s no way to know — is that the “well-placed law enforcement official” lied about what was on the tape. I don’t think that an anonymous cop is as credible as someone who is willing to put his claims on the record under his own name. Consider: If the anonymous cop was telling the truth, then the tape is sure to be used by the defense at trial, and Thompson’s lie publicly revealed — which would make lying considerably less attractive for Thompson. Anonymous sources, in contrast, aren’t held accountable if they lie.
* * *
It’s interesting to contrast the two Times stories — one sourced with unnamed law enforcement people, the other containing Ms. Diallo’s lawyer’s version — to see how differently the writer, Jim Dwyer, frames each story. In the earlier story, here’s how Dwyer and his co-writer Michael Wilson reported claims from anonymous cops (attribution bolded by me):
Little by little, her credibility as a witness crumbled — she had lied about her immigration, about being gang raped in Guinea, about her experiences in her homeland and about her finances, according to two law enforcement officials. She had been linked to people suspected of crimes. She changed her account of what she did immediately after the encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Sit-downs with prosecutors became tense, even angry. Initially composed, she later collapsed in tears and got down on the floor during questioning. She became unavailable to investigators from the district attorney’s office for days at a time.
Now the phone call raised yet another problem: it seemed as if she hoped to profit from whatever occurred in Suite 2806.
Dwyer does mention that the story comes from “law enforcement officials,” and explains “Some of the events were confirmed by both law enforcement officials and the women’s lawyer; others rely solely on law enforcement officials.” But for sentence after sentence Dwyer reports anonymous accounts as if they are facts, without any reminder of where claims are coming from. The impression is given that these events are definitely true. Nor does Dwyer explain why law enforcement officials requested anonymity, point out to readers that by being anonymous the officials have shielded themselves from accountability, or state why he chose to report anonymous statements.
All of which is a reasonable way to tell a story. But contrast that to Dwyer’s story reporting on the alleged victim’s side of the story. Again, I’ve bolded Dwyer’s attributions:
According to Mr. Thompson, Ms. Diallo said during her first conversation with the man in jail that her attacker was a powerful person, but that she was now with the government, presumably a reference to protection provided by investigators.
“The first call that the guy in prison made to Nafi Diallo corroborates that Dominique Strauss-Kahn violently attacked her and tried to rape her,” Mr. Thompson said.
It was during the second call that the subject of money came up, the lawyer said.
“The guy in jail called back several hours later, expressing concern, ‘Are you O.K.,’ and she says she is,” Mr. Thompson said. “During the second conversation, she said, ‘People from France keep calling me and saying he’s rich and powerful.’ ”
The man then expressed concern about her, the lawyer said, asking whether she was safe.
Quite a contrast, isn’t it? It’s that way throughout the story — in literally every sentence of the lawyer’s account, Dwyer uses words or quote marks to attribute each statement. The result is to suggest that this account is a bit doubtful.
I think that’s a good way to report news — but why weren’t the two stories reported the same way?
Even the headlines (which probably weren’t written by Dwyer) display this double-standard. The earlier story’s was originally published under the headline “One Revelation After Another Undercut Accuser’s Credibility.” The new story’s headline is “Housekeeper’s Lawyer Says She Was Misquoted.”
As Jezebel says, “We don’t yet know what hand the justice system will deal Diallo. What’s clearly failed here is journalism, as practiced by a handful of prominent gentlemen.”
* * *
Ms. Diallo has chosen to appear on TV to defend her reputation, and to me seems like an excellent witness on her own behalf. (Trigger warning for non-explicit description of rape.)
In the interview, she says “I want justice. I want him to go to jail. I want him to know that there is some places you cannot use your money, you cannot use your power when you do something like this.”
In The New Yorker, Amy Davidson writes:
Strauss-Kahn’s supporters, including lawyers, investigators, and his wife, a wealthy journalist, had managed to use an alleged rape victim’s privacy, meant to protect her, as an opening for going on the offensive—to argue their case with a rhetorical mannequin that may or may not resemble her. Diallo, as Strauss-Kahn’s team is always ready to point out, has a lawyer, but she also, according to Newsweek, cannot read or write in any language. But she can narrate her story, and she can show her face. To the extent that privacy means having any control over the intimate details of one’s life, or any power to define the way one is put on display—what people call you—Diallo may have reached the point where exposure seemed like a way to gain more privacy, and not less.
Video via Akiba’s post on Racewire, which I’d highly recommend.
The “dialect of Fulani” spoken by this woman and her friend is a known (if somewhat obscure) language. If anyone on either side intends to use this “quote” in court they will be required to play the actual tape, and produce a speaker of this language to translate the woman’s comments into English. There may even be competing translators. Courts do not regard articles in the newspaper as evidence.
I for one am glad that all this is coming out, and that this woman has the courage to stand up and speak for herself.
I cannot think of any interpretation of this story, most definitely including the version put forth by Mr. Strauss-Kahn himself, which casts him in a favorable light. Taking him at his own word, here is a man in his 60’s, a wealthy and powerful man, who is running a little late, showering in his room in a foreign city, in preparation for having breakfast with his grown daughter…..and he can’t think of anything better to do at this juncture than to take a break to have “consensual” sex with an immigrant housekeeper?? Whatever is the matter with this man?
Well, no.
Which serves as as good time to remind everyone that “not guilty” and “innocent” are very very different things.
A discussion of his legal liability for rape, or of the rape case itself, revolves around the question of whether he can be proven in court, using the evidence presented therein, to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It has little to do with whether he’s an asshole, misogynist, abusive, prick. Which it seems he certainly is, whether or not he ends up getting convicted of rape for this incident in particular.
The bolded part is really important and a lot of people don’t understand how important it is. As I tell my clients: there is your truth, their truth, the “real” objective truth, and the truth that the jury believes. Only the last one matters.
-Evidence that is true, but held inadmissible (due to the laws of evidence,) doesn’t count. Those laws are general and as applied they will occasionally me wrong.
-Evidence that is true but not believed by the judge/jury doesn’t count.
-Evidence which is false and is believed by the judge/jury DOES count; they are the sole arbiters of truth and falsity. People lie all the time on the stand. Sometimes they are believed.
-Evidence which isn’t in the courtroom doesn’t count, because it’s not actually evidence at all. newspapers, news reports, your friends… unless they’re testifying at trial or presenting an affidavit, it’s irrelevant.
Then when all is said and done, there is ONLY a conviction if the government proves EACH ELEMENT of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to prove even one element of a charge, there’s no conviction on that charge.
So imagine that the elements of rape are (a) sexual interaction; (c) with another; (d) intentionally against their will.
If the defendant can convince the jury of reasonable doubt on ANY of those then the charge is gone. And remember the distinction between how feminists and judges define rape:
FEMINIST: (a) sex; (b) with someone; (c) without their knowing, competent, and explicit consent.
LEGAL SYSTEM: (a) sex; (b) with someone; (c) intentionally against their will.
There’s a big space between “not guilty” and “innocent.” There’s the same space between “not intentionally against someone’s will” and “having knowing, competent, and explicit consent.”
G&W, I think you misunderstood the comment you were responding to.
Susan didn’t say anything at all about if DSK should be found guilty or not guilty, and I don’t think her comment was about the legal questions at all.
And it’s not true that “the truth the jury believes” is the only truth that matters. It’s the only truth that matters for the very narrow question of if DSK is convicted or not; there is more to this incident than that narrow question, however, and what Susan was discussing falls outside that narrow question. (If I’ve interpreted her correctly.)
Finally, if you’re going to cite a legal definition of rape, you should look up the law, rather than just saying what you “imagine” the legal definition of rape is. The relevant New York law, Article 130, defines rape differently than you do: “A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person… By forcible compulsion.”
The stuff about “intentionally against their will” simply isn’t part of the definition of rape in New York. (Contrast that to Article 130’s definition of forcible touching, in which intentions are part of the definition.)
And that’s for good reason: If A rapes B because “A” honestly believes “no” means “yes,” should that mean that A isn’t legally accountable for his actions?
You’re right, Amp, I wasn’t attempting to address the legal question of the criminal guilt (or lack thereof) of M. Strauss-Kahn. That question will be decided in a court of law, according to the standards of the laws of New York (if the matter is not pleaded out ahead of time).
However, that said, I am delighted to notice that this incident has not been without adverse consequences for M. S-K. He lost his job as head of the IMF, and he is no longer, I understand, a leading contender for the position of President of France. It is somewhat reassuring to me that the people who are looking for responsible men and women to hold important jobs in this world seem to agree with my evaluation. Even taking him at his own word, he’s a jerk.
Whether he can or will be convicted in a criminal court is an entirely different question, as G&W points out.
I didn’t see G&W’s comment as a response so much as a continuation, and he or she brings up good points, I think. I’m now in my 3rd year of law school, and the law…well, it’s its own beast.
My nitpick – all crimes have an element of mens rea, or mental element of the crime on the part of the accused. So intent will be a part of what the prosecutor has to prove, as G&W said. In NY state law , it seems to be very narrowly defined as “by forcible compulsion”:
So he’s going to be found not guilty of first-degree rape if the prosecutor can’t prove that he used force or that she felt she would be injured/killed/kidnapped immediately if she didn’t comply. That’s all the law is looking for; it’s not first-degree rape if the jury doesn’t believe that happened. I don’t know what he’s been charged with, if it’s first-degree rape or not, but that’s a hard standard of proof.
Common sense and the law rarely intersect. In our casebook we had a case where a woman was “lightly choked”, had the guy block the door, and where she said no several times, but because the jury didn’t buy that it wasn’t consensual because she didn’t continue fighting him, he was found not guilty.
*notes that according to §130, a married woman in NY can’t be raped by her husband…grr*
All this doesn’t matter. There won’t be a trial anyway, her
Lawyer is already preparing a civil suit. He wouldn’t be
Doing that if he hasn’t got strong indications the charges will
be dropped.
With any luck she will atleast get some money out of
it.
Well, I’m not sure “kidnapped” in the law necessarily involves being transported anywhere.
I thought marital rape was added to the law under Pataki? When I was a 1L the part about marriage as a defense had an indication that it was about to be eliminated.
Can we get some members of the NY bar in here to clarify this? If this is true, New York is seriously behind the times.
Upon rereading the statute in question, it defines female as being unmarried to the actor, but the statute itself no longer seems to be confined to females so…perhaps I was mistaken? It happens; hence the student part of all that.
It would be nice to know what’s happening from someone more familiar with New York law.
Look, here’s the deal, and my original point.
Let us suppose the DSK is telling the unalloyed truth. He’s showering, and the housekeeper comes in and propositions him. She’s hot for his bod, that’s her story. She corners him, if you like.
He’s the head of the most important monetary institution on the planet. Furthermore, he’d like to be President of France. He’s in a foreign country, subject thereby to laws that he doesn’t know about and cannot possibly understand.
Who is she exactly, this housekeeper? He has no way of knowing. Is she an agent of his political enemies? What foreign laws can she possibly bring to bear against him? Will she sue him in civil court? Does he have the wit to understand that he is not in France, and that the American legal system is not the one he is familiar with? His daughter is waiting downstairs in the restaurant. Isn’t she going to become curious if he is unduly delayed?
He’s not 17 years old, driven by his hormones. He’s in his 60’s. Does he think at all about the possible consequences of his actions? Is he able to think even??
I don’t know whether he raped her or not. That will be settled, if at all, in a court of law. But I daily thank whatever deities there may be that this man is no longer in charge of such vast sums of money, nor of the economic fate of so many people.
Taking him entirely at his word. Assuming he’s telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We have a word for it, we English speakers.
Stupid.
@Susan,
If we run with DSK’s version of events and assume it was a setup, I’d have real reservations with aiding this form of political assassination. You seem glad his professional life was ruined for:
Consensual sex with a stranger.
Consensual sex in the morning.
Consensual sex outside of his schedule.
Consensual sex before consulting his lawyer.
Consensual sex before me meets his daughter.
Assuming he’s in an open marriage, none of these are morally questionable. I agree we should value impulse control but is the solution to play along with his underhanded enemies and slut shame him out of office?
Like Amp said, this whole case is full of suck.
Solo, are you defending the guy? I can’t tell. Whatever.
The reality is, this is a wicked and conspiratorial world, this real world of ours. One would hope that the head of the IMF were well aware of this fact, and would not voluntarily stand in the middle of the freeway and assume that he wouldn’t be run down. (That’s what he’s hired for. To deal with reality. Yes??)
Perhaps in an ideal world such a person would not be run down. But anyone who expects to function in the real world (we hope for this capability, at a minimum, in the head of the IMF, yes?) should not be the victim of such illusions. Perhaps in an ideal world someone in an “open marriage” (notice that we have not heard from his wife…is this an “open marriage”? who knows?) who has random sex in a foreign country with a total stranger should be perfectly safe.
Perhaps in a perfect world if I jump off the Empire State Building no bad thing should happen.
But.
DSK was not installed to run the IMF in such a world, but in the real world the rest of us live in. A world with conspiratorial adversaries, foreign jurisdictions, unfamiliar legal structures and predatory media. You know. The “real” world.
Please to understand that I’m not talking morals. I’m talking prudence. Perhaps, in an ideal world, I should be able to stand in the middle of the Hollywood Freeway during rush hour in perfect safety. But we don’t live in that world, and if I presume to behave that way one must…..wonder….about how smart I am.
I could not agree more.
(All this is assuming, charitably I think, that DSK is telling the unvarnished truth and that his accuser is lying through her teeth.)
Am I glad that his professional life was ruined when we found out he was such an airhead? Yeh, I’m glad. I don’t want someone this dumb in charge of that much money, so shoot me.
You know, I don’t think we live in a world where many complex sex-sting set-ups of hugely powerful men happen; or at least, if they happen, they happen quite rarely.
I do think we live in a world in which powerful men frequently don’t act prudently when it comes to sex.
In other words, we’re not living in the world of James Bond. We’re living in the world of Anthony Weiner.
And someone who isn’t very smart or prudent when it comes to sex, can still be a very able chief executive apart from that. Think Bill Clinton.
* * *
I think the simplest and most likely thing is that Strauss-Kahn raped her. If I’m right about that, I think he belongs in jail, not because I think a rapist couldn’t also be a good executive, but because rapists belong in jail.
But of course, that’s just my opinion. I don’t want him sent to jail on my say-so; I want him to get a fair trial.
I have to disagree here.
Maybe it’s a male/female thing.
Someone in a position of power, like DSK, has got to have a lot of impulse control to do his job well. Bill Clinton, the same. We’re not talking short of crime: we’re talking good sense.
I’m in my 60’s myself. The biological urges really do die down with age. Someone who doesn’t have his “urges” under control in his 60’s has a real problem. I’m worried about putting someone like that in control of world forces, and of world finances.
But then again, I’m a girl. Perhaps – I will take advice here – being male is different. But personally, I do not want to trust the fruits of my own labor – that’s what money is – to someone who is as far off the tracks as DSK seems, by his own account, to be.
Can I have Amp on my jury on Monday? Please?
“Please to understand that I’m not talking morals. I’m talking prudence.”
This sounds like the kind of thing someone might say when trying to argue that women who dress slutty kinda sorta deserve to be raped.
@Susan:
To clarify #11, I’m not saying he is innocent(My first reaction was that he was guilty) but if he were shown to be, then he would have paid a very high price and deserves sympathy, not mockery. I’m not arguing for him to be treated with kid gloves during the investigation.
IMO this line of reasoning makes it too easy to end up at “He/she should have kept reality in mind and not been alone with a child/let him drive her home?”.
More on topic, this whole episode has shown the press in very poor light. Everything from the maid’s scandalous conversation to the DSK’s panicked dash to France on a flight booked many days in advance has turned out to be suspect. We all say that these things will not matter in court, but if they don’t, then why do legal teams waste time interacting with the press. There must be some benefit they see in it, and if there is, then the law has a compelling reason to regulate what is or isn’t published.
When you hold an important, world-class job – or maybe even just a very important not-world-class job – the world expects more of you than they do of your ordinary person, and quite properly so, I’d argue. If you are President of the United States, Head of the International Monetary Fund, senior partner in an important law firm, head of the medical school at an important institution, you will be very well compensated, and because you are, in fact, in control of the results of the hard work of a number of other people, you will be held to higher standards of behavior than your regular auto mechanic, say.
And quite properly so, I would argue.
I would argue that Bill Clinton’s sexual aberrations hurt the effectiveness of his second term as President, and that if that is true, that this is appropriate. DSK was thrown out of his job as head of the IMF, again, I would argue, appropriately.
This isn’t about morals, this is about what one commenter above called impulse control. When you are in a position like the ones I have named, you have access to assets, money in fact, which is not yours, but which you could very well appropriate improperly to your own use. If you have poor impulse control, people quite properly wonder whether you belong in a position of such trust. I would argue that you do not.
Did DSK rape Ms. Diallo, or did he sort of coerce her, or was the whole thing her idea? These questions may perhaps be sorted out in a court of law.
Taking him entirely at his own word, did he show poor impulse control? You bettcha. My opinion.
Hayley @6: What are you talking about? A civil case would be MORE likely to turn out well if DSK were convicted of rape.
Solo @17: This isn’t about ‘slut-shaming’. The question isn’t whether DSK sleeps around (his wife brags about it), but whether he is assaulting women.
@mythago:
I was objecting to Susan’s position that DSK deserved to lose his job even if this were all a setup. The assertion was that even if it were consensual, he didn’t consider how it could expose him to blackmail or political assassination(If a woman wants sex with a successful man she’s obviously digging for something right?), proving he was an idiot and didn’t deserve to be in charge a hotdog stand much less the IMF or France.
Telling someone they should vet the people they sleep with or risk being mocked when blackmailed is pretty close to slut shaming.
Of course this is operating with DSK’s version of events. If he’s assaulting women, and it is very possible he is, he should be locked away for everyone’s sake.
Solo @20: Sorry, it is slut-shaming or it’s merely “pretty close”? Because I don’t see that telling people to think before they fuck is “slut-shaming”. You can be the world’s biggest slut and still pause before hitting on a domestic worker who is trying to do their job.
As for why legal teams interact with the press, they’re trying to reach potential jurors.
Pingback: Reasonably Angry Links 31 July 2011 | Reasonably Angry
Thinking of Solo’s argument, consider a hypothetical successful international businessman. Let’s imagine he is cheerfully eager for extra-marital sex with people he’s just met, and he also has marginally-decent self control and that he is at least a little concerned about sexual consent.
While this hypothetical man is showering and dressing to go out and meet people for lunch, the maid in an expensive hotel propositions him. This hypothetical maid tells him how handsome and charming he is, how sexy he looks with his shirt off. He thinks she is inviting him to have sex with her. (Is that what you think happened, Solo? No need to imagine an implausible James-Bondish conspiracy…some men will want to accept just because they’re excited by the idea of a strange young woman wanting them.)
A hypothetical man with minimal ethics and self control would respond to that kind of invitation (if he found it tempting) by asking her to come back when she finished her work shift. I have a strong suspicion this sort of thing happens reasonably often–without prosecution or scandal. A rich man’s sex life is often accepted even if it’s not admirable. But DSK, by his own account, didn’t act like this hypothetical traveler.
@Adrian:
Based on what we know, the most plausible scenario is that DSK raped the maid. I have never stated otherwise. Read #4 and #10 for where Susan and I begin to disagree.