Three months ago, when the DSK rape scandal first broke, I wrote a blog in which I took the media to task for publicizing the news of the rape allegation, effectively ruining DSK’s career and reputation, before he was able to have his day in court. Two months later I experienced some vindication when it was revealed that the prosecution was beginning to have doubts about the veracity of the allegations after learning that the accuser had lied extensively about her past and about her actions immediately before and after the rape.
It turns out that the accuser, an illiterate hotel maid, had hundreds of thousands of dollars in a bank account and couldn’t explain how she got it. She also admitted to having, at least partially, fabricated a story of how she’d been gang-raped in her native Guinea in order to bolster her asylum application to get into The States. She told prosecutors multiple conflicting versions of what happened after she left the room where the alleged rape occurred. And she was caught insinuating to her incarcerated lover over the phone that she expected to make a lot of money off the case.
As William Saletan explained in a Slate article published this week, the prosecutors initially screwed up by embellishing the strength of their case to the public to the media. The most notorious of these evidentiary tidbits was the news that traces of semen found on the victim’s dress were consistent with DSK’s DNA. At the time, it wasn’t looking good for the accused. But then when the lies and inconsistencies began to surface, the DA seemed to overcompensate for their first blunder by leaking the new developments that called the accusers story into question. Perhaps they were laying the groundwork for what they knew would be the ultimate dismissal of the case. But they were also ensuring that virtually no jury would ever unanimously rule in their favour if they eventually decided to proceed with the case.
Finally, this week the DA did what most observers have been predicting for the past month. They dismissed the case, making DSK a free man (for now). Yet in spite of the overwhelming, albeit unsubstantiated, evidence of deceit on the part of the accuser, there remains a camp of ideologues who insist that the trial should proceed. The motives of these activists range from the noble to the vindictive, yet all their arguments evince a glaring lack of understanding of the purpose and protocol of the legal system.
For example, Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon.com claims that given that the uncertainty surrounding the case, the prosecutors should have taken it to trial to try to “straighten [things] out”. As though, the point of the trial is so that the state can take the opportunity to figure out exactly where they stand. And if they change their mind during the course of the witness testimony, they can simply issue a polite apology to the accused and everyone can grab a post-trial pint at the local pub. Equally stupefying is the assertion by Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.com that the move to dismiss the case was motivated solely by the prosecution’s desire to maintain a high winning percentage. According to Marcotte, “If your goal is more than simply winning cases, but reducing the rape rate, you have to prosecute in cases like this”. I’m all for reducing the number of rapes, but I don’t see why we have to use potentially-innocent men as sacrificial lambs in our efforts at social engineering.
I don’t know for certain what actually happened between DSK and his accuser. It’s difficult to conceive of a scenario that simultaneously explains all the facts, without making both parties seem like utterly implausible characters in a poorly-crafted screenplay. On one hand it’s hard to picture a thirty-year-old woman being suddenly seduced into having consensual anonymous sex with a short, overweight sexagenarian. At the same, it’s hard to imagine a short, overweight sexagenarian physically overpowering a young, apparently-robust 30-year-old woman, especially given that she never claimed he used a weapon, and, at the time of his arrest, he didn’t have a scratch on him.
The fact is that the prosecutors demonstrated that they were more than willing to believe that DSK was guilty. But when the evidence said otherwise, they adjusted their position accordingly. If the prosecutors themselves no longer believe that DSK is guilty, then what could be more unethical than asking a jury to lock up an innocent man for what would almost certainly be the rest of his life? Given their earlier missteps, this dismissal is one of the few things the prosecutors actually got right in this case. And they deserve to be commended for it.
Another problem I have with these ideological, so-called feminists is that they are under the impression that in rape cases, it's the defense's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman is lying. That's not how it's supposed to work.
there have been reports that the phone conversation in which the maid stated she'd make lots of money off of the incident wasn't accurate.
but in the end unless you have reasonable prospect for conviction the prosecutor should drop the case without it dragging on for the sake of spectacle and placating.