From Criminal to Civil Suit
Justice Michael Obus has ruled. There will be no trial for Dominique Strauss-Kahn to face of sexual assault. Case dismissed. Free to leave. Constraints and restraints released. Back to France it is. And a still-bright future for the brilliant politician-economist. He may no longer be chief of the International Monetary Fund, but he's been there, done that. He's never been French president, however, so there's that milestone to be tucked into.And it does appear that he will return home to France in triumph. The French are, after all, cosmopolitan, casual about casual flings. Relations between the sexes, and spontaneous spurts of sexual energy are rewarded and celebrated in France, not condemned. The French are not straitlaced, they are unbound, culturally free from prejudices against sex freely offered, freely given.
Except, of course, for the disgruntled French women for whom Strauss-Kahn's advances were nasty experiences. Who describe him as a grubby, grabby-handed menace to women.
But the charges of rape brought by the Manhattan hotel maid, dismissed. Nafissatou Diallo's lawyer is truly incensed at the insult of justice denied his client. "The Manhattan district attorney, Cyris Vance, has denied the right of a woman to get justice in a rape case. He has not only turned his back on this victim, but he has also turned his back on the forensic, medical and other physical evidence in this case."
Alas, the forensic, medical and other evidence in the case doesn't trump other evidence that outlines Ms. Diallo's propensity to embroider reality to suit her purposes. Her entry to the U.S. as a refugee was enabled by her story of gang rape, which evidently never did occur. And the forensic, medical and other evidence to which her lawyer referred might readily be construed otherwise.
As, for example, the results of a consensual sexual tryst; brief and opportune. Opportune for Ms. Diallo whose conversation with an incarcerated boyfriend laid out her plans for a potential windfall, because of her having asserted "words to the effect [that] this guy has a lot of money. I know what I am doing."
Hence a separate civil suit, which is still on, despite the dismissal of a criminal suit.
Perhaps. Someone is lying. Or perhaps simply embellishing the truth to suit their public persona. Neither is an innocent babe in the woods. One is morally blemished, the other both morally and criminally so, but the devil's keeping the details close to his vest.
"The nature and number of the complainant's falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant. If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so."Completely reasonable.
Labels: Human Fallibility, Security, Sexism, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, August 23, 2011
<< Home