One of the fundamental flaws of the victims rights advocates is that they anoint the victim first and worry about whether there was a crime later, if at all. After all, victims deserve our sympathy and, more importantly, must be protected from the harsh scrutiny that comes with a legal system that tests their claims before hanging the bad guy.
And then there’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn, vilified for his sexual assault against a hotel maid and, due to his prominence and French accent, released only under the most arduous bail conditions. But for his extreme wealth, he wouldn’t have been freed at all. Then again, but for his high-profile, no one would have looked twice at his case.
When it first broke, the story had an odor, as it seemed to change from minute to minute, and his conduct that day didn’t match the allegations. It appears that the parties will be back in court today to clean up the mess. From the New York Times :
The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials.
Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.
Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.
Notice the language? No longer is the maid the victim, but now the “accuser.” Jim Dwyer’s article turns a corner that few want to admit exists, that there is no victim, but only an accuser, until a case is tried and a defendant convicted.
At the outset, the prosecution was thrilled to tell the media that its case was compelling, overwhelming. They nailed a big fish, and they were only too happy to let everyone know. But then they investigated. That’s how cases are worked, bust first, smear second, investigate if and when you get a chance.
Much of the discussion about DSK centered on whether he would plea or go to trial, as a tactical matter. Few considered the possibility that there was no crime. After all, the prosecution said there was and they would never lie. And no one, but no one, questioned whether the victim of a terrible sex attack might not have been a victim at all, but just an accuser. A false accuser.
Given DSK’s prominence, resources and lawyers, the prosecution knew that it faced a fight. The post arrest investigation wasn’t meant to ascertain whether the crime truly occurred, or whether their witness was really a victim, but to nail down the evidence and make sure they beat DSK into submission.
As it turned out, the investigation meant to assure a win turned out the other way, showing their victim to be a liar. Had it been someone substantially less prominent, there would have been minimal investigation, if any at all. They just would have put the maid on a pedestal and presented her in court as a paragon of virtue. And that’s what the jury would have seen.
The defense, from the start, said they would destroy the maid’s credibility, and they were fortunate to have the wherewithal to mount an investigation of their own to do so. Whether they had the good is unknown, and likely will never be known. But the reality is that few defendants have the ability of a DSK to do the legwork to show that the victim is just an accuser.
So few defendants will enjoy the benefit of DSK’s wealth and prominence, and few will have the prosecution do the legwork necessary to show that their victim is a liar, whether the defense has the capacity to do so or not. And the sympathetic victim won’t be outed as the false accuser, the liar. The jury will believe the victim because victims never lie, and they must be protected from our harsh scrutiny.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If it really falls apart, Vance seems professional enough to offer an apology. The New York Post will likely ignore its own blindness in the matter and move on to blaming the DA.
It speaks well of Cy to have come forward with the Brady rather than try to hide it long enough to push for a plea, or push the investigation in a different direction to try to overcome it. It will be interesting to see if he offers an apology. He should.
As for the Post, it’s the Post. It can never disappoint.
In an assault case of mine I call the accuser as “the putative victim.” Because the collisions between his accuser’s grand jury and trial testimony and between both testimonies (under oath that we know) and the medical evidence are very impressive. If I can be objective.
When the “victim” has their own lawyer, who is happy to appear on tv as much as the defense lawyers and prosecutors, something ain’t right.
Well, on the bright side thanks to this “incident” and Assemblyman Rory Lancman we may soon have some wonderful new laws in place (can never have enough of those) and maids throughout NY now have panic buttons to wear at work. Happy days!
In my own case I have always referred to the men who accused me as my false accusers. The prosecutor once referred to the “victims” as his clients in one of the many pre-trial hearings, which was really quite telling. I was falsely accused and wrongly convicted and served 3 years in the state prison on an eight year sentence. I am now out on parole and started a blog last November. My habeas attorney advised me to go ahead and “blog away” telling my side, as I was never allowed to tell what happened during the trial. I was constantly interrupted because of a Motion in Limine that was put in to place by the prosecutor 10 days before the trial. The wealthy men who falsely accused me were known liars and as the attorney for the insurance company (civil case that paralleled my criminal case) said they were clearly lieing and “bottom-feeders”…depositions were loaded with verifiable lies and inconsistencies.
The Motion of Limine said we could not bring up “any past bad acts of”(my false accusors)during the trial. Which of course included the false accusations and the motive for falsely accusing me. I did not find out about this Motion until I came out of prison and continued my search as to what happened in that court room. My public defender never told me of the Motion so everytime I tried to talk on the stand I was interrupted by the prosecutor and everybody ran up and had sidebars with the judge, thus causing me to (1) not be able to tell what actually happened and (2) to look like an idiot to the jury as I tried to say things that were unacceptable (unbeknownst to me!)….
The public defender was not willing to do any investigating, so my husband and I did it ourselves and gave him a ton of information that could have been used in my defense. In one hearing the public defender asked the judge to take him off my case as he did not have time enough for it. She denied his request. I also requested he be taken off and listed several reasons and was completely ignored.
In one of the pre-trial hearings I requested the FBI do the forensics on a contrived confession and the computer records and the prosecutor answered “No, my clie….victims are not under investigation.”
Your statement “the jury will believe the victim because victims never lie, and they must be protected from our harsh scrutiny” is so true and interesting enough the prosecutors are still protecting my false accusers, as I was just been made to take my blog down….that takes the reader step by step through my case. I am sure this is not over, what extent will the prosecutors go to, to keep the truth covered up? I do wonder.
Thanks a lot for this excellent post.
It’s quite fun to see how french media followed the american ones on language (after a few hours, seems they needed a bit of time to repack themselves). No more “victim” here, they switched to “plaintiff”. I guess “accuser” will be the next step.
Auld Lang Syne, to French (and other) journalists “the Post” meant Washington.
Just got go ahead to bring my blog back up, but not allowed to talk about prosecutors or public defender – so pretty much takes out everything related to my case. Freedom of speech quite limited. Protect the accusers…no matter the facts.