Thanks to Mr. Ex-Enchilada for sharing a very interesting article in the New York Review of Books about some new discoveries in the DSK rape case in New York. The writer, Edward Jay Epstein, brings to light some interesting facts that may hint to the theory, which many in the French Left had at the time, that DSK had been framed by Sarkozy because he was surging ahead in the polls. It is fun detective reading: DSK's Blackberry (one of many), the reason why he called the Sofitel and let them know where he was, so they would return it to him, appears to have been disabled -- not just turned off -- but its GPS capabilities disabled, at 12:51 pm, about half an hour after the alleged rape occurred. DSK was not just simply concerned about his lost phone. As head of the IMF and very important VIP person, he has lots of phones. He was greatly concerned about this one phone, which he used only for IMF business, because somebody in his staff had alerted him to the possibility that it had been hacked. Hmmm...
His accusers' inconsistencies, which are the reason the prosecution dropped the case, include her lies about having visited the adjoining room after the rape, but not before it. However, the electronic key records show that she was in that room twice but did not confess to the second time, which is why the police did not search that room and treat it as a crime scene. There's more: a room service employee was also in DSK's room at a certain point around the time of the crime but he refuses to talk to anyone. The hotel refused to tell the police who was staying in that room for privacy reasons (couldn't the police get a search warrant or something? Hmmm...). Also, a long time elapsed between Diallo's alleged rape and how long she took to disclose it, but more importantly, Sofitel management placed several suspicious phone calls and took its sweet time to finally call the police (kind of understandable, if not justifiable, since they are a French chain dealing with a very important French VIP). Diallo was allegedly raped between 12:07 and 12:15 pm and ended up at the hospital about 4 pm. There's even more: the head of security operations for the Accor hotel chain, which owns Sofitel, "had worked closely in the police with Ange Mancini, who is now coordinator for intelligence for President Sarkozy", and that very day he happened to be sharing Sarko's box at a soccer match in France. Hmmm...
There is too, a bizarre little dance of celebration between two high ranking employees of the hotel after Diallo speaks to them, and many other loose ends that hint to a web of conspiracy. What is a little befuddling is that Epstein wrote that the dance lasted 3 minutes, when as you can see above, it lasts less than 15 seconds. In any case, the little dance is explainable in a different way from "Yay! Conspiracy successful -- mission accomplished!": if it is true that since his arrival to the hotel, DSK had been hounding every female employee that crossed his path, they may have harbored some antipathy to such a guest and were happy to see him nailed. Still, such victorious joyousness aprés a rape is a bit hard to fathom from usually stone faced security staff, nes't pas?
Harder to understand, in the light of these discoveries, however, is the fact that if indeed DSK committed a violent rape, why would he be calling the scene of his crime and letting Sofitel know exactly where he was so that they could bring him his phone? Even as coddled by power as he is, if he had committed a violent rape, he'd have thunk "screw the phone and the IMF, I'm outta here!" It turns out he was preoccupied by what turned out to be a prostitution ring scandal in which he is also involved as head of the IMF, among other things. This may explain why he was so hysterical about losing that phone. But if the phone was so important to him, how come he lost it? Hmmm....
I feel an irresistible urge to write the following sentence in the voice of Inspecteur Closeau: The pheune was never recovered. Hmmm...
If you think about it, would DSK even have had lunch with his daughter before leaving for the airport? We all knew this is what he did, and many of us still thought he was such an entitled bully, he was just brazen about it. He had acted with impunity before, why not this time? I must admit, knowing this string of strange facts makes him look like indeed he had nothing to hide. There is incontrovertible evidence that sex took place, (his semen mixed with her saliva on the carpet), but as far as he was concerned, it was kosher. We will never know if it was consensual or not. There is no point on taking sides. One thing is clear: he's still disgusting.
After reading Philip Gourevitch's profile of Sarko in the New Yorker, and given the nastiness and corruption of French politics, a conspiracy, although farfetched, bizarre and unseemly, is not inconceivable. Still, this does not disprove that DSK is a gros cochon. If indeed this was a conspiracy, it was brilliant: they used his Achilles heel, his uncontrollable sexual addiction, to nail him. They made him an offer he could not refuse, and he took the bait.
Showing posts with label DSK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DSK. Show all posts
Monday, December 26, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Diallo-Rama
So we finally get to see and hear the woman who accused DSK of attempted rape. She had the risky idea to tell her story to Good Morning America. Now everybody is saying she sounds fake. I saw the interview. Looks like it was edited by Young Frankenstein. Robin Roberts solemnly asks a question -- cut to Miss Diallo answering -- cut to images of them walking down the street -- cut to another question. Clumsy, stilted and the rhythm is off. Why couldn't it be a natural conversation where we could get a more spontaneous appearance from Diallo? I saw the TV interview with the father of that crazy Norwegian creep and the camera was set behind him, so as not to show his face, and was fixed on the reporter as she spoke with him. There were no cuts or camera moves. The compassion in her face was palpable, and his declarations, uncut and unrehearsed, felt genuine, poor man.
What I'm saying is that I would not blame Nafi Diallo exclusively for seeming histrionic and fake. This piece of garbage journalism is rehearsed and overbaked.
Still, she doesn't come across like the shy, mousy thing people expect of a rape victim. She is attractive and exuberant. She is histrionic. She cries, or pretends to, on command. Her accent is funny. She has personality. She went over the top with the bit about finding out DSK was going to be the next president of France and fearing for her life because in her country if you mess with power, you can end up dead. But I kinda like her spunk. I like that maybe DSK finally met his match. Instead of one shitty human being maybe now we have two. Bring it!
At this point she may be eyeing the book contract and the paid appearances, but she has to know that if she goes to court, as she so fervently wishes, the defense is going to destroy her. She knows what they are saying about her lies to immigration, contacts with undesirables, numerous bank accounts and all that, so if she insists on a day in court, either she is too brave, or she's nuts.
Maybe she went on TV to perversely encourage Cyrus Vance not to pursue the criminal case, so she can try to get the money from the civil case? Otherwise, I think it was a pretty bad move, unless she is one of those people whose goal in life is to be on TV. Still, as I have said before, she may be a conniving diva, but if she was attacked, a crime was committed and needs to be brought to justice. I still believe she was attacked.
Now, all those indignant people who are livid about the fact that immigrants from fucked up countries lie in order to gain political asylum in this country, do me a favor, get a life.
People want to lynch this woman because omg! she lied in her immigration application. Americans behave sometimes as if they cannot fathom that someone would lie for whatever reason. This George Washington syndrome is very annoying. People tell lies all the time. Pious lies, little white lies, necessary lies, malignant lies. Don't act as if this sullies your entire concept of humanity beyond repair.
Guess what, if you come from a hellish place and this is the way you can gain entry into the land of opportunity, you are going to lie to get in. People lie to the asylum system all the time because they are desperate to come here. It's not good that they lie, but as Suketu Mehta writes in this week's New Yorker, it's what gets them in and it's what is expected. Officials expect to hear the most truculent stories and so applicants make them up, or embellish on already horrible circumstances. Everybody knows applicants lie. Everybody knows business owners look at social security numbers that might be fake and look the other way. So stop the freaking self-righteous hypocrisy already. It's revolting.
Many immigrants abuse the asylum system. I heard of a Venezuelan gay man who claimed political persecution, even though there is no official policy of harassment against gays in that country (simply put, everyone is homophobic). As I was reading Mehta's account of the immigrants' lies about atrocities and torture, I remembered reading about the Iraqi translators who have helped American troops in that war and now that they ask for asylum for totally legitimate reasons, they are completely ignored and abandoned by the US government. These people risked their lives to collaborate with an occupying force and this is the thanks they get.
Americans will never understand what it means for someone to seek a better life in a foreign country. (Well, let me qualify that. They may start knowing what it means after August 2, when we default on our debt. But that's another story, also involving a very particular form of local stupidity).
Many Americans don't understand the risks people are willing to take, or the things they are willing to do to be able to have a decent life. They get all bent out of shape because people fake their names, their social security cards, their stories. I'm not saying it's okay, but I can understand why they do it. As long as they work hard, pay taxes and do not harm anybody, what the hell do you care?
You don't know how good you have it here. You don't know that people from other less coddled countries navigate much more treacherous realities, full of impunity, corruption, chaos, poverty, and hardship. Get a passport and travel around (all-inclusive resorts in the Caribbean don't count) so you can get a sense of the real world out there, you morally superior fucks.
What I'm saying is that I would not blame Nafi Diallo exclusively for seeming histrionic and fake. This piece of garbage journalism is rehearsed and overbaked.
Still, she doesn't come across like the shy, mousy thing people expect of a rape victim. She is attractive and exuberant. She is histrionic. She cries, or pretends to, on command. Her accent is funny. She has personality. She went over the top with the bit about finding out DSK was going to be the next president of France and fearing for her life because in her country if you mess with power, you can end up dead. But I kinda like her spunk. I like that maybe DSK finally met his match. Instead of one shitty human being maybe now we have two. Bring it!
At this point she may be eyeing the book contract and the paid appearances, but she has to know that if she goes to court, as she so fervently wishes, the defense is going to destroy her. She knows what they are saying about her lies to immigration, contacts with undesirables, numerous bank accounts and all that, so if she insists on a day in court, either she is too brave, or she's nuts.
Maybe she went on TV to perversely encourage Cyrus Vance not to pursue the criminal case, so she can try to get the money from the civil case? Otherwise, I think it was a pretty bad move, unless she is one of those people whose goal in life is to be on TV. Still, as I have said before, she may be a conniving diva, but if she was attacked, a crime was committed and needs to be brought to justice. I still believe she was attacked.
Now, all those indignant people who are livid about the fact that immigrants from fucked up countries lie in order to gain political asylum in this country, do me a favor, get a life.
People want to lynch this woman because omg! she lied in her immigration application. Americans behave sometimes as if they cannot fathom that someone would lie for whatever reason. This George Washington syndrome is very annoying. People tell lies all the time. Pious lies, little white lies, necessary lies, malignant lies. Don't act as if this sullies your entire concept of humanity beyond repair.
Guess what, if you come from a hellish place and this is the way you can gain entry into the land of opportunity, you are going to lie to get in. People lie to the asylum system all the time because they are desperate to come here. It's not good that they lie, but as Suketu Mehta writes in this week's New Yorker, it's what gets them in and it's what is expected. Officials expect to hear the most truculent stories and so applicants make them up, or embellish on already horrible circumstances. Everybody knows applicants lie. Everybody knows business owners look at social security numbers that might be fake and look the other way. So stop the freaking self-righteous hypocrisy already. It's revolting.
Many immigrants abuse the asylum system. I heard of a Venezuelan gay man who claimed political persecution, even though there is no official policy of harassment against gays in that country (simply put, everyone is homophobic). As I was reading Mehta's account of the immigrants' lies about atrocities and torture, I remembered reading about the Iraqi translators who have helped American troops in that war and now that they ask for asylum for totally legitimate reasons, they are completely ignored and abandoned by the US government. These people risked their lives to collaborate with an occupying force and this is the thanks they get.
Americans will never understand what it means for someone to seek a better life in a foreign country. (Well, let me qualify that. They may start knowing what it means after August 2, when we default on our debt. But that's another story, also involving a very particular form of local stupidity).
Many Americans don't understand the risks people are willing to take, or the things they are willing to do to be able to have a decent life. They get all bent out of shape because people fake their names, their social security cards, their stories. I'm not saying it's okay, but I can understand why they do it. As long as they work hard, pay taxes and do not harm anybody, what the hell do you care?
You don't know how good you have it here. You don't know that people from other less coddled countries navigate much more treacherous realities, full of impunity, corruption, chaos, poverty, and hardship. Get a passport and travel around (all-inclusive resorts in the Caribbean don't count) so you can get a sense of the real world out there, you morally superior fucks.
Friday, July 01, 2011
The People v. DSK
It just started getting interesting! Who knew!
The narrative of a sex-addicted, entitled, powerful white male vs. a hard-working innocent African widow is interesting enough. But the narrative of a sex-addicted, entitled, powerful white male vs. a seemingly hard-working and perhaps not so innocent African widow that seemed to ask advice about profiting from her accusation is far more interesting. It messes with our heads big time.
This is not only a case in which we allowed ourselves to be swayed by our romantic notions of pure evil vs. pure good, strong vs. weak, white vs. black, powerful vs. powerless, man vs. woman, etc. By now we should all know that human nature is a magnificent cornucopia of complexity and base motives and we should not fall so easily for such tidy narratives. Which is to say, in so many words, "my bad".
I feel a little bad about coming down so hard on DSK, but not too much. The copiously documented fact remains that he is a serial harasser of women (not a confirmed rapist yet). Now his accuser needs to prove that he tried to rape her. The fact that she lied about her asylum application, consorts with drug dealers, and has been lying to prosecutors certainly weakens her case but does not necessarily mean that he is automatically absolved from the accusation. I assume that is why he has been released from house arrest but they have not given him his passport back.
The New York Times says that "forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn and the woman" so the question is whether she was attacked or it was consensual. I find it hard to believe that it was consensual. This woman may be a pest, and not the angelical Pollyanna she was portrayed as by the media, her lawyer and the D.A's office. The fact that she may be a liar and perhaps even a criminal does not erase an attempted rape if indeed there was one. But how are we ever going to know? She has no credibility now. Unless the forensic evidence is incontrovertible (signs of struggle, etc), he may always claim it was consensual.
There are so many questions:
Why did the D.A.'s office write to the defense with their findings of this woman's credibility issues? To beat them to the curb? Is this normal procedure?
Is it legal for them to record a conversation between her and her incarcerated friend (who happens to be a drug dealer who apparently uses her to launder money?). Can this evidence be used in court?
If they were too eager to accuse DSK, are they now not too eager to let him off?
Was there attempted rape or not? This is the question.
Everything I've read seems to point out to the fact that the woman did not know who DSK was when she accused him. Let's suppose she was attacked and then continued cleaning* and then decided to seek advice from her friend in jail and only then did she come out with the allegations. This still does not mean that there was not an attack on her, just that she was figuring out if it was profitable to her or not. This is horrible, but such is human nature.
And who knows? After his ordeal, he may be rewarded with the Presidency of France, if he decides to seek office. And she may be deported for lying on her asylum application and other documents. Tides turn, or what?
*On 9/11, after witnessing the two planes hit the towers, I went to my office and told my colleague at the time that we should get back to work. He looked at me as if I was insane. I didn't even know what I was saying, but it was like an instinct to will everything to return to normalcy. So I could believe that this may have been the case with her, or most likely she had things to weigh in her mind before crying out immediately with an accusation. Will they believe me? Should I say anything? This happens all the time... To me this is not evidence of cold calculation. The phone call to the friend may be.
The narrative of a sex-addicted, entitled, powerful white male vs. a hard-working innocent African widow is interesting enough. But the narrative of a sex-addicted, entitled, powerful white male vs. a seemingly hard-working and perhaps not so innocent African widow that seemed to ask advice about profiting from her accusation is far more interesting. It messes with our heads big time.
This is not only a case in which we allowed ourselves to be swayed by our romantic notions of pure evil vs. pure good, strong vs. weak, white vs. black, powerful vs. powerless, man vs. woman, etc. By now we should all know that human nature is a magnificent cornucopia of complexity and base motives and we should not fall so easily for such tidy narratives. Which is to say, in so many words, "my bad".
I feel a little bad about coming down so hard on DSK, but not too much. The copiously documented fact remains that he is a serial harasser of women (not a confirmed rapist yet). Now his accuser needs to prove that he tried to rape her. The fact that she lied about her asylum application, consorts with drug dealers, and has been lying to prosecutors certainly weakens her case but does not necessarily mean that he is automatically absolved from the accusation. I assume that is why he has been released from house arrest but they have not given him his passport back.
The New York Times says that "forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn and the woman" so the question is whether she was attacked or it was consensual. I find it hard to believe that it was consensual. This woman may be a pest, and not the angelical Pollyanna she was portrayed as by the media, her lawyer and the D.A's office. The fact that she may be a liar and perhaps even a criminal does not erase an attempted rape if indeed there was one. But how are we ever going to know? She has no credibility now. Unless the forensic evidence is incontrovertible (signs of struggle, etc), he may always claim it was consensual.
There are so many questions:
Why did the D.A.'s office write to the defense with their findings of this woman's credibility issues? To beat them to the curb? Is this normal procedure?
Is it legal for them to record a conversation between her and her incarcerated friend (who happens to be a drug dealer who apparently uses her to launder money?). Can this evidence be used in court?
If they were too eager to accuse DSK, are they now not too eager to let him off?
Was there attempted rape or not? This is the question.
Everything I've read seems to point out to the fact that the woman did not know who DSK was when she accused him. Let's suppose she was attacked and then continued cleaning* and then decided to seek advice from her friend in jail and only then did she come out with the allegations. This still does not mean that there was not an attack on her, just that she was figuring out if it was profitable to her or not. This is horrible, but such is human nature.
And who knows? After his ordeal, he may be rewarded with the Presidency of France, if he decides to seek office. And she may be deported for lying on her asylum application and other documents. Tides turn, or what?
*On 9/11, after witnessing the two planes hit the towers, I went to my office and told my colleague at the time that we should get back to work. He looked at me as if I was insane. I didn't even know what I was saying, but it was like an instinct to will everything to return to normalcy. So I could believe that this may have been the case with her, or most likely she had things to weigh in her mind before crying out immediately with an accusation. Will they believe me? Should I say anything? This happens all the time... To me this is not evidence of cold calculation. The phone call to the friend may be.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Dick in a Box
What is it with men in positions of power and sexual compulsion? DSK and Anthony Weiner, for instance? Is it insecurity?
I'm not comparing the two. DSK is a sexual addict and sexual harasser, an alleged rapist, an abuser of women, and Weiner is just an idiot and a blossoming cheat.
But what makes them both seem pathetic is the enormous disparity between the importance of their roles and responsibilities as public figures, and the kinds of inappropriate things they do privately. It doesn't compute. Why risk their position of power for something as pedestrian as getting a hard-on?
Regular people who cheat know the risks. They are aware of the potential destruction of their relationships and of the world of pain that cheating can cause. In the case of men with huge public responsibilities, this may also entail the destruction of their careers. Are they not aware of that? Unlike the Governator, most randy public figures cannot fall back on a Hollywood career.
I think that the disparity between their public personae and who they really believe they are is enormous, which must be the reason why they seem almost naive about the risks they take. Either they can't believe they are where they are, or they think they are untouchable and can get away with murder.
Why is it so difficult for certain men to keep it in their pants? DSK and Schwarzenegger are notorious gropers and that puts them in a category of particularly vile lowlife that is disrespectful to and contemptuous of women. This is the kind of Berlusconian machismo that claims to love women but in essence is predicated on their domination and debasement.
(By the way, click the link I provided above to Ariel Levy's The New Yorker's article about Berlusconi. Your jaw will drop. I came to the conclusion that Berlusconi could not exist in any other country but Italy. He is as much a product of that crazy tit-obsessed culture as pizza or pasta).
DSK is a case of sustained abuse of power; he harassed women in a society that allowed him to do so without consequences for years. He did it here, and he got punished (he must be glued to the TV watching the Salem Witch Trials of Weinergate and thinking if this is what happens to an amateur loser, imagine what's gonna happen to me!). He must rue the day he decided to let his dick loose in the USA, but he's so arrogant, he just pleaded not guilty.
But what the fuck was Weiner thinking, using twitter and facebook to conduct affairs? What rock has he been living under that he doesn't know to be careful? Everybody knows how volatile these things are! You send them out and have no further control over them! Their entire nature is about spreading information. Hell-o?
Weiner seems to have been getting his kicks, like an excited schoolboy, out of nothing but virtual innuendo, and although he was incredibly stupid, it is painful to see the press conference. It's not like he lied and declared war on a foreign country. I never really followed him, so I don't have a political axe to grind here. I've always found him unlikable. Do I think he should resign? No. This is what he was doing with his private life, which is not a crime and has nothing to do with his job. It just is very pathetic and rather unsavory, sending out pictures of his boners and his pecs.
But Nancy Pelosi needs to start the witch hunt before the other party does and I bet Weiner will end up resigning. I hope he doesn't, just to tip the puritanical end of the scale a bit to the other side. We don't want to be a place like France, where abusers are coddled, but we also don't want to be a convent. Until DSK came along, I always thought that the French were far more mature than us when it came to sex and romance. How sophisticated it was that both Mme. Mitterrand and the lover were at the funeral, Pepe Le Pew, etc, etc. It has been disappointing to learn that French culture is nothing but yet another boys' club, with the acquiescence of les femmes, as always. But here, the sexual hysteria is even more disturbing.
Americans are a bunch of horny puritans and this is rather confusing, not to say very hard to pull off, so to speak.
I'm not comparing the two. DSK is a sexual addict and sexual harasser, an alleged rapist, an abuser of women, and Weiner is just an idiot and a blossoming cheat.
But what makes them both seem pathetic is the enormous disparity between the importance of their roles and responsibilities as public figures, and the kinds of inappropriate things they do privately. It doesn't compute. Why risk their position of power for something as pedestrian as getting a hard-on?
Regular people who cheat know the risks. They are aware of the potential destruction of their relationships and of the world of pain that cheating can cause. In the case of men with huge public responsibilities, this may also entail the destruction of their careers. Are they not aware of that? Unlike the Governator, most randy public figures cannot fall back on a Hollywood career.
I think that the disparity between their public personae and who they really believe they are is enormous, which must be the reason why they seem almost naive about the risks they take. Either they can't believe they are where they are, or they think they are untouchable and can get away with murder.
Why is it so difficult for certain men to keep it in their pants? DSK and Schwarzenegger are notorious gropers and that puts them in a category of particularly vile lowlife that is disrespectful to and contemptuous of women. This is the kind of Berlusconian machismo that claims to love women but in essence is predicated on their domination and debasement.
(By the way, click the link I provided above to Ariel Levy's The New Yorker's article about Berlusconi. Your jaw will drop. I came to the conclusion that Berlusconi could not exist in any other country but Italy. He is as much a product of that crazy tit-obsessed culture as pizza or pasta).
DSK is a case of sustained abuse of power; he harassed women in a society that allowed him to do so without consequences for years. He did it here, and he got punished (he must be glued to the TV watching the Salem Witch Trials of Weinergate and thinking if this is what happens to an amateur loser, imagine what's gonna happen to me!). He must rue the day he decided to let his dick loose in the USA, but he's so arrogant, he just pleaded not guilty.
But what the fuck was Weiner thinking, using twitter and facebook to conduct affairs? What rock has he been living under that he doesn't know to be careful? Everybody knows how volatile these things are! You send them out and have no further control over them! Their entire nature is about spreading information. Hell-o?
Weiner seems to have been getting his kicks, like an excited schoolboy, out of nothing but virtual innuendo, and although he was incredibly stupid, it is painful to see the press conference. It's not like he lied and declared war on a foreign country. I never really followed him, so I don't have a political axe to grind here. I've always found him unlikable. Do I think he should resign? No. This is what he was doing with his private life, which is not a crime and has nothing to do with his job. It just is very pathetic and rather unsavory, sending out pictures of his boners and his pecs.
But Nancy Pelosi needs to start the witch hunt before the other party does and I bet Weiner will end up resigning. I hope he doesn't, just to tip the puritanical end of the scale a bit to the other side. We don't want to be a place like France, where abusers are coddled, but we also don't want to be a convent. Until DSK came along, I always thought that the French were far more mature than us when it came to sex and romance. How sophisticated it was that both Mme. Mitterrand and the lover were at the funeral, Pepe Le Pew, etc, etc. It has been disappointing to learn that French culture is nothing but yet another boys' club, with the acquiescence of les femmes, as always. But here, the sexual hysteria is even more disturbing.
Americans are a bunch of horny puritans and this is rather confusing, not to say very hard to pull off, so to speak.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Jury Duty
Here's an interesting story that provides contrast to the case of DSK.
Two New York City police officers have been acquitted of raping a drunk woman in her apartment. They brought her home, put her to bed, and then came back several times, apparently to rape her. A surveillance camera captured the two officers going back to her apartment several times after their official posted call. However, because she was so drunk, there were lapses in her memory and the jury could not find enough reasons to convict them. There was no DNA evidence. Apparently, one of the officers used a condom. They have been fired.
Ladies, when you go out and drink in NYC, do yourselves a favor and learn to hold your liquor. You have to have your wits about you.
I wonder if DSK, who has the best lawyers money can buy, and who are already saying sex was consensual (!), will be also acquitted. His case is much harder. The woman wasn't drunk, she was doing her job. Plus, he has a reputation for being a satyr. He is also powerful and white, while his accuser is an African widow with a child. DSK arrived at the Sofitel and there was no female in the staff he didn't accost. I don't know how he could possibly get out of this pickle.
The issue is whether men can still get away with this kind of thing because a woman's word has less value than theirs. Or because in rape cases, men think that women find them so irresistible that they will do anything to get into their pants. One would have thought that the police officers' case was pretty obvious, but if they say that she instigated it, and she is drunk, then that is that. In the case of DSK, the idea that this poor woman was so hot for him she desperately wanted to have his dick in her mouth as she was doing her job (or at any time) is risible, but that may be what the defense will present. I think DSK is indefensible, and he should have pleaded guilty. But he is probably so entitled and has been coddled for so long in France that it didn't even occur to him that someone would seek punishment for what he's been doing to women for so long. The only thing that occurs to me is the insanity defense (since the French notion of a political conspiracy is rather hard to prove). If I were him, I would claim sexual compulsion, satyriasis, sex addiction, that is, an illness over which I have no control, to try to get a reduced sentence. But that would mean admitting weakness, and this bastard would rather humiliate himself, his family, the French, and worst of all, his victim, in order to avoid that. What hubris.
All this is to say that I got a summons for Jury Duty a couple of months ago and I postponed it because of work reasons (dang!). I actually want to serve on a jury. I've been told that I do not know what I'm talking about, but I love this stuff.
Two New York City police officers have been acquitted of raping a drunk woman in her apartment. They brought her home, put her to bed, and then came back several times, apparently to rape her. A surveillance camera captured the two officers going back to her apartment several times after their official posted call. However, because she was so drunk, there were lapses in her memory and the jury could not find enough reasons to convict them. There was no DNA evidence. Apparently, one of the officers used a condom. They have been fired.
Ladies, when you go out and drink in NYC, do yourselves a favor and learn to hold your liquor. You have to have your wits about you.
I wonder if DSK, who has the best lawyers money can buy, and who are already saying sex was consensual (!), will be also acquitted. His case is much harder. The woman wasn't drunk, she was doing her job. Plus, he has a reputation for being a satyr. He is also powerful and white, while his accuser is an African widow with a child. DSK arrived at the Sofitel and there was no female in the staff he didn't accost. I don't know how he could possibly get out of this pickle.
The issue is whether men can still get away with this kind of thing because a woman's word has less value than theirs. Or because in rape cases, men think that women find them so irresistible that they will do anything to get into their pants. One would have thought that the police officers' case was pretty obvious, but if they say that she instigated it, and she is drunk, then that is that. In the case of DSK, the idea that this poor woman was so hot for him she desperately wanted to have his dick in her mouth as she was doing her job (or at any time) is risible, but that may be what the defense will present. I think DSK is indefensible, and he should have pleaded guilty. But he is probably so entitled and has been coddled for so long in France that it didn't even occur to him that someone would seek punishment for what he's been doing to women for so long. The only thing that occurs to me is the insanity defense (since the French notion of a political conspiracy is rather hard to prove). If I were him, I would claim sexual compulsion, satyriasis, sex addiction, that is, an illness over which I have no control, to try to get a reduced sentence. But that would mean admitting weakness, and this bastard would rather humiliate himself, his family, the French, and worst of all, his victim, in order to avoid that. What hubris.
All this is to say that I got a summons for Jury Duty a couple of months ago and I postponed it because of work reasons (dang!). I actually want to serve on a jury. I've been told that I do not know what I'm talking about, but I love this stuff.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
