A few weeks ago Newsweek‘s piece on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape case offered a welcome break from some of the sloppy, offensive coverage of the case we’ve seen elsewhere in the media. The magazine even cast doubt on some of the reporting coming from the New York Times.
This week, though, is another matter. John Solomon has a piece outlining the Strauss-Kahn defense, and he includes this:
Now sources familiar with Strauss-Kahn’s case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, say the defense could speculate that the encounter went bad when housekeeper Nafissatou Diallo discovered she would not receive any money after oral sex with the powerful Frenchman. Strauss-Kahn’s team may also try to portray Diallo, 32, as an “earner” who tried to pick up cash and gifts to supplement her $40,000 housekeeper’s salary, creating a financial motive to interpret some of the evidence in a new light.
So “sources familiar” with Strauss-Kahn’s case–anonymous, of course–think that his lawyers “could speculate” that Diallo thought she was trading sex for money. Does Newsweek generally allow reporters to grant sources anonymity to float nasty rumors about things other people might say?
I was wondering if anything written about this case could be more offensive than Stuart Taylor’s vile screed about the need to drop the charges against Strauss-Kahn because some rape cases have fallen apart (“Some seem to unlearn the lessons of such cases every time a poor (or not so poor) woman of color accuses a rich (or not so rich) white male of doing something horrible,” he explained).
As we pointed out a few weeks ago, defense attorneys leaking information to discredit an accuser in a case like this is a fairly common practice. One would hope journalists would know better than to print them.
Oh, well, crist. The ONLY thing Strauss-Kahn’s defense can say is that it was consensual sex that went bad because he refused to pay. The idea that the maid would voluntarily for the joy of it suck SK’s dick is not going to fly. The idea that the pervert offered her money won’t fly either because, well, that’s a crime and doesn’t explain her filing charges against him. So other than admitting he forced the maid to suck his dick because he was a rich, powerful, horny client of the hotel and she was nothing but powerless, illiterate immigrant afraid of losing her job, SK HAS to say she did it expecting money and got pissed when he stiffed her (not a pun).
Thanks for following up in this story. The racism evident in the responses to this case is just appalling. And we seem to have regressed forty years at least: “She didn’t defend herself! She could have bitten his dick off! It’s not rape if she didn’t fight for her life!” Plus, we all know black hotel maids are prostitutes anyway.
Also, the idea seems to be that women just willy-nilly accuse men of rape all the time. No biggie. There’s big money in it! It’s easy. See how much she wants him punished?! She’s obviously in it for the money, unlike, say a white man who sues a drunk driver for damages when he gets run over. That’s just justice.
What I want to find out is whether the animal is going to take the stand in his own defense. I think not. And unless Vance really blows this, I think SK is going to jail, where he ought to be.
I’m not for either “team” here and frankly I’m sick of the spin from both sides. Maybe the guy’s a pervert and maybe she’s an opportunistic vamp. I have to point out that both parties are capable of either of these. The idea that they are both mutually lying won’t fly, of course, but I’ve yet to be convinced of innocence from either party. I do resent the notion that by virtue of the accusation and him being a man means he’s a violent pervert. I also resent the rumor mill alleging she’s a manipulating tramp.
What happened to letting the courts decide? I wasn’t there. I’m betting no one commenting was even in the immediate vicinity.
We need to grow up and hopefully let calmer, less biased heads prevail.
Mother always said: “nothing good can come of a relationship when two people have not been properly introduced”.
The day the news broke, I posted to a forum that her story did not make sense. That she probably agreed to oral sex and then flipped when he wanted more.
Damn, I’m good!
Hi there, Moshe Says. You probably like violent, oral sex performed by a relatively powerless woman.
Moshe,
perhaps you’ve been watching too much porn. The typical male fantasy; I have 15 rooms to clean and an hour ride home on the subway (probably standing most of the way) but hey I feel like giving this troll a blow job. Yummy.
Just not possible.
No one has mentioned the fact that woman are coming out of the woodwork with similar stories against this creep on different continents for many years.Now the question is will his attorney’s be able to keep testimony out?And believe me that is the game here.Then make it a he said she said.I speak just a little french.Anybody know how to say sicko-dirtbag-rapist-low life scum in French?
His ass sitting in a New York prison will be something to behold.
This is a PR-based, not fact-based case. Anne Sinclair’s fortune
(she is a millionairesse) is paying a fortune to several high-profile PR firms
To make sure she is not embarrassed by her husband’s crime.
A rascist, sexist, paid media machine is cranking out versions of
What happened in that room at the Sofitel. Why is Ms. Diallo labeled a liar
over inconsistencies in her asylum application and DSK not
When he claimed to be having lunch with his daughter at thd time of the rape.
Only when his semen betrayed him did he change the story, claiming it was consensual.
Followers of this story should remember that what they read is only the version they are being given.
Truth may lie elsewhere.
Alexandra leaf; Thank You for putting it so succinctly and clearly…It does seem the Media is Once-Again’ Re-Victimizing the Victim and Condemning Her and Not the Perpetrator…Could One surmise
that Anne Sinclaire is an ‘Enabler’ – Not to mention ‘In Deep Denial’ of what a ‘Sham’ of a marriage Her’s truly is …Given that it is not the First-Time such ‘Aspersions’ have been cast on this alliance of her’s and Dominique. It is not so much that People ‘Can’t Believe’ a man of his position would or could ‘Do Such a Thing’ – It’s that People Don’t ‘WANT To’ – for whatever rea-
sons, be it their own Guilt – Perhaps they see a Mirrored Glimpse of their own lives…
If the whole thing were not so ‘Pathetic’ – One would almost feel a Strange Twinge of ‘Pity’-for Anne and DSK—NOT ME!
Often times those who are raped are themselves people with some weakness that makes them bad witnesses on the stand.Expect that here,These perps seek people like that out.Like wolves looking for the weak.This gives them better deniability in the case of exposure.The case may be over,but expect a good expose at some point that will tell the tale of this mans predator history.And by all accounts it is out there.