{"id":13854,"date":"2011-07-29T03:08:49","date_gmt":"2011-07-29T10:08:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13854"},"modified":"2011-07-29T12:46:25","modified_gmt":"2011-07-29T19:46:25","slug":"update-in-dominique-strauss-kahn-case-anonymous-cop-may-have-lied-to-smear-housekeeper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13854","title":{"rendered":"Update in Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case: Anonymous Cop May Have Lied to Smear Housekeeper"},"content":{"rendered":"

On July 1, New York Times<\/em> reporters Jim Dwyer <\/a>and Michael Wilson<\/a> 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:<\/p>\n

Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney\u2019s office learned the call had been recorded and had it translated from a \u201cunique dialect of Fulani,\u201d a language from the woman\u2019s native country, Guinea, according to a well-placed law enforcement official.<\/p>\n

When the conversation was translated \u2014 a job completed only this Wednesday \u2014 investigators were alarmed: \u201cShe says words to the effect of, \u2018Don\u2019t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I\u2019m doing,\u2019 \u201d the official said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I wrote a post<\/a> 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\u2019s been published in the Times today, I\u2019d have to say that there was reasonable doubt.”<\/p>\n

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<\/a>.) And her lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, claims the Times <\/em>report was inaccurate<\/a>:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 and not in connection with any mention of Strauss-Kahn’s status \u2014 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s easy to misunderstand something heard only in translation, but as Aunt B writes<\/a>, piecing a quote together from two entirely different parts of the conversation, seems like a deliberate lie.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Or Mr. Thompson could be lying through his teeth. There are some very brazen liars out there, and some of them are lawyers.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

It’s interesting to contrast the two Times <\/em>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<\/a>, here’s how Dwyer and his co-writer Michael Wilson reported claims from anonymous cops (attribution bolded by me):<\/p>\n

Little by little, her credibility as a witness crumbled \u2014 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<\/strong>. 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\u2019s office for days at a time.<\/p>\n

Now the phone call raised yet another problem: it seemed as if she hoped to profit from whatever occurred in Suite 2806. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>. Again, I’ve bolded Dwyer’s attributions:<\/p>\n

According to Mr. Thompson<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe first call that the guy in prison made to Nafi Diallo corroborates that Dominique Strauss-Kahn violently attacked her and tried to rape her,\u201d Mr. Thompson said<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

It was during the second call that the subject of money came up, the lawyer said<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe guy in jail called back several hours later, expressing concern, \u2018Are you O.K.,\u2019 and she says she is,\u201d Mr. Thompson said<\/strong>. \u201cDuring the second conversation, she said, \u2018People from France keep calling me and saying he\u2019s rich and powerful.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n

The man then expressed concern about her, the lawyer said<\/strong>, asking whether she was safe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

I think that’s a good way to report news — but why weren’t the two stories reported the same way?<\/p>\n

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\u2019s Credibility.” The new story’s headline is “Housekeeper\u2019s Lawyer Says She Was Misquoted.”<\/p>\n

As Jezebel says<\/a>, “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.”<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n