Emily Yoffe at State puts her finger on precisely why I can’t believe that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is innocent of sexual assault. It seems DSK has given an interview to French TV, trying to exonerate himself but providing no real answers:
Although we only have translated summaries of the interview, Strauss-Kahn acknowledges there was a sexual encounter between the two but says no force was involved and he didn’t offer her money. … If there was no force, and no money, are we to believe it was his continental charm that caused Diallo to get on her knees and relieve a stranger?
(See the rest of Yoffe’s analysis here; also at Slate, William Saletan offers a tandem, equally skeptical analysis.)
Exactement! This was the weakest point in the prosecutors’ motion to dismiss the case – how to explain the sex if no compulsion was involved?
In that motion, the prosecutors note that the complainant, Nafissatou Diallo, lied repeatedly, thus shredding her credibility (and, I agree, almost certainly alienating every potential jury in the world). But the evidence in the case went beyond he-said/she-said. While injury evidence was inconclusive, DNA analysis indisputably shows that DSK deposited his semen in the complainant’s mouth – a point that DSK does not dispute.
And so we have to ask, what narrative could possibly explain this most unlikely mixing of fluids? What sort of unpaid, consensual encounter could take place in the span of 20 minutes or less, from first meeting to au revoir?
Here’s how the prosecutors laid out the timeline in their motion to dismiss:
The relatively brief nature of the encounter between the defendant and the complainant initially suggested that the sexual act was not likely consensual. Specifically, key card records from the hotel indicated that the complainant first entered Suite 2806 at 12:06 p·.m., and telephone records later showed that the defendant had placed a call to his daughter at 12:13 p.m. Accordingly, it appeared that whatever had occurred between the complainant and the defendant was over in approximately seven to nine minutes. But in light of the complainant’s failure to offer an accurate and consistent narrative of the immediate aftermath of the encounter, it is impossible to determine the length of the encounter itself. That the defendant placed a brief phone call at 12:13 p.m. is not dispositive of when the encounter took place, how long it lasted, or where the complainant was from 12:06 to 12:26. Any inferences that could conceivably be drawn from the timeline of the encounter are necessarily weakened by the inability to solidify the timeline itself. (pp. 23-4)
But the prosecution hasn’t actually shown that the timeline is shaky. Not at all! DSK checked out at 12:28 p.m. (p. 6). The longest time span during which he and Diallo could have occupied the same space is 20 minutes. The prosecution has established this very ably indeed. Questions about what Diallo did after 12:26 – and inconsistencies in her testimony about her immediate reaction – don’t change the fact that the sexual encounter must have occurred in 20 minutes or less. (There is some question about the accuracy of the hotel’s clock and the key-card records, but the two-minute discrepancy described in footnote 25 would suggest an even shorter timeframe.)
Given that we’re taking about a 20-minute encounter, here is what we must believe to hold DSK innocent: We must imagine that a conspiracy set Diallo on DSK to entrap him and ruin his career. Or we must believe that Diallo was a prostitute – a possibility that both she and DSK have denied. Or we must presume that Diallo initiated the encounter in an attempt to sue DSK and get rich. All three of these theories are far-fetched on the face of it. And if you think any one of them aren’t totally bird-brained – well, consider that DSK was practically heading out the door. A few minutes later, and Diallo and DSK would have never crossed paths. That’s a piss-poor way to plan a conspiracy or entrapment.
Or, of course, we may choose to believe that DSK’s charm and charisma alone will bring any woman quite literally to her knees, with no desire for reciprocity. This charm. This charisma.
(Source: The Guardian)
Okay, that’s not quite fair. There are more flattering photos of DSK. But he’s no beauty. He’s a jowly man on the cusp of old age. I’m much closer to him in age than Diallo is, and yet I can’t imagine even eating potato chips with him in bed, fully clothed.
I don’t think any belief about what happened in Suite 2806 can be held “beyond reasonable doubt,” and in any event, the case will never come before a jury. But since DSK is appealing to the jury of public opinion, it’s fair to ask: Which is more plausible? Were two strangers overwhelmed by by lust? Or did a rich and famous man opportunistically assume that room service included gratification of his every whim?
(As an aside: the motion to dismiss notes that four other stains in the hallway – not the bedroom! – were found to contain semen from men other than DSK. And here I thought bedbugs were the only reason to avoid New York hotels. I know the Sofitel caters to the privileged, but can’t they at least avoid splattering the wallpaper?)
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
Sad to say, it’s not about what’s plausible, but, rather, about what’s provable. DSK doesn’t have to say a thing about what happened, the prosecution has to prove it was not consensual once the defense makes that defense. As I’m sure you’re aware, this isn’t the first rape case — nor the last — where the prosecution is unable to get past he-said she-said regarding consensual vs. non-consensual due to lack of any other evidence regarding the nature of the sexual act. If it’s one person’s word against another person’s word without any other evidence, the concept of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” comes into play. Which is why, if you’re ever raped, raise bloody hell, do your best to claw the crap out of the rapist, and call the cops as soon as you can, ’cause that’s the only way you’re going to ever see justice done
.
Even if that were easy to do, considering many rape victims are afraid of retaliation, or dissociate, or don’t want to hurt their rapist because he’s also a trusted and beloved friend or family member, or just don’t want to seem like a “bitch”…EVEN if all that weren’t the case and rape victims could do that, the defense would just say that it was consensual BDSM.
Good of you both to stop and comment on a post I didn’t manage to title! (Fixed now.)
Of course the reasonable doubt standard prevails in court, but that creates real conundrums for the survivors. In the DSK case, a secondary reason the prosecution dropped the case was lack of his DNA under Diallo’s fingernails. But I don’t think even that would have helped her, because the lies seemed to trump all physical evidence.
But Melissa, I’m afraid you are right about the BDSM defense (as well as about the reasons victims often don’t fight back – most of which may also apply to male victims as well). A case tried here locally relied partially on a “rough sex” defense. (That wording probably plays better with a jury than “sadomasochism” or BDSM would, with their stigma of deviance.) Some of the media coverage of DSK raised the possibility of consensual roughness too, which raises the absurd question of how the two parties could possibly negotiate the roughness as complete strangers in only 20 minutes time, start to finish.
Given the facts as we know them, I’d probably have to vote to acquit, were I on a jury for the DSK case, but given the standard of the *preponderance* of evidence – which applies not just to civil cases but I’d argue to the court of public opinion – I judge him guilty. Aquittal or dismissal in a criminal case is not the same as exoneration (which is what DSK is now trying to claim for himself). Everyone knows OJ was acquitted, but many people, myself included, still held him to be guilty. Nor does the dismissal of the DSK case mean that his complainant was necessarily lying. It just means that the case was messy enough that the prosecutors themselves didn’t believe in his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as they stated explicitly.
- she could have made the experience that blowing a wealthy guest in a hotel as a chambermaid nearly always leads to a big financial reward later – a tip, to make silence easier.
It may be even bigger than a fee set up before because it is sexier this way and less than a deal.
Also: Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac for women. A man with power and status makes up for good looks.
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac for women”
Are you a woman? I’m guessing not, but even if you are, you can hardly speak for all, or even most, women. You could just say “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac for me,” but it’s pretty damn insulting to say something like the way you phrased it.
Also, I really kinda suspect you’re a man, and would therefore have absolutely no authority to make a statement like that whatsoever.
As far as anyone can know over the Internet: Yes, Christian is evidently a man. He’s pretty committed to a standard ev psych narrative, last I knew, so I don’t expect to reach any agreement with him.
But to the issues themselves: It is true that *some* women found Henry Kissinger sexy back in the 1970s, precisely because he was powerful. I have never understood this. He was funny looking. Even before I was aware of how much blood he had on his hands, I could not fathom how anyone could find him attractive.
So no, power is not the ultimate aphrodisiac. Some women dig it. Plenty of us are indifferent.
As for DSK, he moves in such a different world from Diallo’s that I find it credible when she says she didn’t know who he was. That pretty well negates the argument that she was swept away by desire in light of his power and status. Both parties insist that money did not change hands. It’s true that lots of prostitution occurs in these fancy hotels – some rich clients expect the concierge to set them up – but there’s no evidence that this is what happened in this particular case.
“So no, power is not the ultimate aphrodisiac. Some women dig it. Plenty of us are indifferent.”
you said that he does not look good enough for quick sex, but status, money or power to affect many women as an aphrodisiac. This could be the case here.
“As for DSK, he moves in such a different world from Diallo’s that I find it credible when she says she didn’t know who he was.”
I can not imagine that she did not know how expensive the roomwas , where he lived. For this reason alone she must have been aware that he is rich and has power and status. What was the price of his hotel room the night?
“That pretty well negates the argument that she was swept away by desire in light of his power and status. Both parties insist that money did not change hands. It’s true that lots of prostitution occurs in these fancy hotels – some rich clients expect the concierge to set them up – but there’s no evidence that this is what happened in this particular case.”
If it is possible, that the fall for him because of his power and money and if it is possible, that she gave a blowjob in the hope of money, there is enough doubt.
“Are you a woman?”
It’s an exact quote from the woman who married Henry Kissinger whena reporter asked her about the differences in their heights – she was six inches taller, as I remember. And no, I hardly consider a woman who would marry Henry Kissinger to be representative of all women, if you were going to ask.
But she is representaitve of a certain decently large subset of women. look at some of the power-broker greedhead ogres who manage to get married in this owrld, all out of sight of us common herdof course.
I posted this on my radio show page, Sungold! Great post. FACTS are what is missing from this case, and thank you for reviewing them carefully.
Kissinger: it was the voice. Several women have confided this to me. All that rumbly baritone imperialism, woooo! He had them at the words “Invade Cambodia”.. I’ll tell you what, it was Gina Lollobrigida who upset me. I mean, I had a crush on her myself, then she goes out with Henry. (sobs)
The rumbly voice – oh God. She could have just hooked a vibrator to a microphone.
What convinced me that Diallo was raped was simply that she made the accusation (and I am a real believer in false accusations as tools of extortion, revenge, mischief, etc.) Not this time. She had not much to win and a lot to lose, and very little chance of being believed at all in the first place. But she went in and swore out a complaint anyway. That told me something was pushing her.
But that is not quite proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.