You Can't Be Raped If You're A Bad Girl, But You Can Walk If You're Rich

By Steve Hynd

Today's piece of yellow journalism from the NY Times about "major holes in the credibility" of the woman who accused IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn or rape , a piece obviously co-ordinated with leaks to the Associated Press, is causing some stir. Over at The Awl, Choire Sicha does a good rundown of the NYT and AP leaked "major holes".

Let us sort the anonymous "law enforcement" claims about the accuser from most to least serious!

� "the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him." This is the most interesting thing, as it was recorded, and is the actual kind of thing that can be used in court.

� "the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said." These lies are not explained or listed, except for some conflicts regarding her asylum application.

� a "number" of men put something like $50,000 in her bank account each year for two years. One of them was arrested for having a lot of drugs. She said one of these men was her fianc�/p>

� "she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies." I think this one is an insinuation that goes unelaborated?

� She said she was raped in her asylum application but the application contains no note of that, and she said she had been genitally mutilated before she arrived in America but her "account" differs from her formal application for asylum.

Annnnnnd that's it. You know what would be useful? Evidence presented in a court of law. Oh yes! The American way, so hated by French intellectuals.

As plenty of people are saying today, that the woman may have lied on a number of matters does not mean she may have lied on sexual assault. Moreover,there's no indication in the NYT story that Strauss-Kahn is also not a credible witness, one who initially denied being anywhere near the place at the time, then said he was having lunch with his daughter and finally sorta-kinda admitting that there was sexual contact after all. That is, his defense lawyers are not now contesting the results of the rape kit which found his DNA in bodily fluids on the woman's body.

Strauss-Khan has been accused of sexual assault by others, most notably by French writer Tristane Banon but also by "Manhattan Madame" Kristin Davis, who provided prostitutes for Elliot Spitzer, and has named Strauss-Kahn as a client  saying that he was "aggresive", "rough and angry" with the $600-an-hour girls she sent him. Today in the Guardian, they noted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz' observation to Newsweek that "All the money is his wife's money" - that is, the wealthy finiancier has deliberately sheltered his wealth from civil lawsuits alleging crimes of this nature. His lawyer is Benjamin Brafman, who has made a lucrative career out of defending the predations of the rich and famous by casting doubt on witness testimony and the judicious use of planted leaks to the press - then cutting plea deals if that didn't work.

Some observations of this kind from the NYT would have been useful information for its readers, but no. Instead we get, as Andrew Cohen notes:

The New York Times' story Thursday night -- which posits the notion that the prosecution's case against the former chief of the International Monetary Fund chief is "on the verge of collapse" -- is a devastating bit of business. Even if portions of it are inaccurate -- and I am not claiming that they are -- the piece virtually guarantees that prosecutors would lose the case if they were to proceed to trial. This is so because the alleged victim's credibility now is forever shattered -- for her, there's no going back from this in the court of public opinion, which will make up the jury pool, which ultimately would make up the deliberating panel. Such is the power of the press! And such is the burden of proof in a criminal case.

 That the leaks seem to have come from prosecutors or law enforcement officials rather than Strauss-Kahn's defense team mean little to me - DSK and his backers have deep pockets and a lot of influence. At this rarified level of politics and international finance, the connections are downright incestuous (as illustrated by the bio of the alleged victim's lawyer). The prosecutors office may have found this evidence that harms the credibility of DSK's accuser, but were they led to it? And what business do they then have leaking the details to the press and utterly spoiling the jury pool?

I continue to believe that Strauss-Kahn is probably guilty - and that there's no inconsistency in a democracy between the legal presumption of innocence and my having a personal opinion about guilt or innocence.

Update: Strauss-Kahn has been released without bail.

At a hearing to seek changes to his bail conditions, prosecutors said the credibility of the woman at the center of the case had been thrown into question.

As a result, the court agreed to let Strauss-Kahn be freed and his bail and bond returned. He agreed to return to court as needed, including for a July 18 hearing.

"I understand that the circumstances of this case have changed substantially and I agree the risk that he would not be here has receded quite a bit. I release Mr. Strauss-Kahn at his own recognizance," Justice Michael Obus told the court.

Privilege literally means "private law".