Strauss-Kahn’s friends to maid’s family: How much cash will it take to shut that impoverished little mouth of hers?

posted at 6:40 pm on May 24, 2011 by Allahpundit

Allegedly.

“They already talked with her family,” a French businesswoman with close ties to Strauss-Kahn and his family told The Post. “For sure, it’s going to end up on a quiet note.”…

“He’ll get out of it and will fly back to France. He won’t spend time in jail. The woman will get a lot of money,” said the source, adding that a seven-figure sum has been bandied about.

While the DA’s office has sequestered the maid — and is even monitoring her phone calls — her extended family lives in a village [in Guinea] that lacks paved roads, electricity and phone lines.

The average monthly income is $45, which is near-starvation, and some of her family members can’t even afford shoes…

The DA’s office has warned local family members not to accept calls from associates of Strauss-Kahn. Even without the maid’s testimony, however, prosecutors claim they have plenty of damning evidence to prosecute Strauss-Kahn, including her videotaped statement, grand-jury testimony, statements from fellow hotel employees and semen samples found on the hotel room carpet.

In other words, his cronies want to transform an accusation of rape into prostitution after the fact by using the victim’s own grinding poverty against her. Actually, no, even worse — essentially, they’re trying to turn a crime of alleged sexual assault into some sort of strict liability tort where your decision as to whether to injure another party depends mainly on your ability to pay the requisite damages. If you’ve got money to burn and your victim (or victims?) has a family that’s desperately in need of basic necessities, why not go ahead and, er, “seduce” her and then work out a settlement afterward? The poorer party gets some financial comfort and the richer party gets to maintain his droit de seigneur. I’m kicking myself for not guessing that this would happen in yesterday’s post, in fact. It’s the logical filthy outcome of the filthy power dynamics of this case.

But then, according to open-shirted philosophe Bernard-Henri Levy, I would say that, wouldn’t I?

I maintain that those who are surprised that one doesn’t take the side of the “poor, immigrant woman” as a matter of principle against the “rich and arrogant white man” who supposedly has raped her are reinventing a kind of class justice in reverse. It’s no longer, as before, “poor bastards, the rich are always right” but “rich bastards, the word of the poor is sacred.” This prejudice is as disgusting, no more, no less, than the precedent, and this reversal recalls—at least in France—the notorious affair of Bruay-en-Artois of the early ‘70s, when, because he was a bourgeois, a notary was decreed guilty of a crime, one which, it was later determined, once the winds of hysteria had died down and his existence was already a shambles, he had not, in reality, committed. And thinking about it makes a shiver go down one’s spine.

Really? This is just prejudice against the rich, even though (a) sources are telling the Post that DSK’s associates are throwing millions at the victim to buy her silence and (b) the goddaughter of Strauss-Kahn’s second wife has since come forward to accuse him of attempted rape too? Isn’t it strange how “reverse class justice” seems to focus specifically on this one guy?

Exit question one: Levy’s already written his “Dominique Strauss-Kahn was wrongly convicted!” column in anticipation of the trial, hasn’t he? Exit question two, for litigators specifically: How likely is a conviction if the Manhattan D.A. can’t get the victim to testify — or, worse, if the victim ends up testifying for DSK after some sort of payoff? Granted, they’ve got her original statement on video plus testimony from the hotel staff about her state of mind in the aftermath, but realistically, if she gets up on the stand and says it was consensual, there’s no way to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” right?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Take the money and testify against him anyway. Legally you cannot be faulted for testifying honestly in court.

Number 2 on May 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM

I feel for the carpet cleaners, too.

profitsbeard on May 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM

but realistically, if she gets up on the stand and says it was consensual, there’s no way to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” right?

a girl gets grabbed, raped, bleeds on a bed and then has to fight off a crazed socialist and you think they’ll be able to buy her off ??

how high is the price for a little bunga?

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 6:45 PM

I’d take the money. Buy a Smith and Wesson … .

davidk on May 24, 2011 at 6:46 PM

a girl gets grabbed, raped, bleeds on a bed and then has to fight off a crazed socialist and you think they’ll be able to buy her off ??

I don’t think it was her blood. I read somewhere that when she pushed him off, he slammed into a piece of furniture and was cut. It’s his blood.

Allahpundit on May 24, 2011 at 6:46 PM

The “going rate” should interesting to all the other victims of this scumbag…

d1carter on May 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM

It seems that certain potions of the aristocracy in France still thinks that all people want is handouts. Didn’t the Socialists once argue for the dignity of the poor? I guess that doesn’t apply to them.

Dawnsblood on May 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM

a girl gets grabbed, raped, bleeds on a bed and then has to fight off a crazed socialist and you think they’ll be able to buy her off ??

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Who does he think he is, a Kennedy?

malclave on May 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM

The unbearably arrogant French apologists are right about only one thing, though their outrage is clearly selective. Perp walks GENERALLY, do create a presumption of guilt. If not with a jury, the certainly with the public.

YYZ on May 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Couldn’t she just sue for damages and get the same money, though good luck trying to collect? Also, wouldn’t these associates be open to some sort of witness tampering charge?

rw on May 24, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I suppose the prosecution could call her to the stand, get the judge to declare her a hostile witness and then cross examine her until she has a public nervous breakdown. Pretty weird for the jury, however.

Seth Halpern on May 24, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Live tornado coverage in OK….amazing

http://www.kfor.com/news/livestreaming/

rickyricardo on May 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I see a filthy rich hotel maid in the very near future and wouldn’t be surprised if a village in Guinea gets some much needed improvements to their infrastructure by the weekend. Is this a great country or what???

repvoter on May 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM

She had better be careful not to have an “accident”.

NeoKong on May 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM

a girl gets grabbed, raped, bleeds on a bed and then has to fight off a crazed socialist and you think they’ll be able to buy her off ??

how high is the price for a little bunga?

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Well socialism is rape of an entire society so I guess they think its OK.

William Amos on May 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Wouldn’t she be perjuring herself if she has already signed a statement? Hell, she can hit the money gong in a civil suit after he’s convicted. A twofer.

a capella on May 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM

I don’t think it was her blood. I read somewhere that when she pushed him off, he slammed into a piece of furniture and was cut. It’s his blood.

Allahpundit on May 24, 2011 at 6:46 PM

yeah, but one would think that, poverty or not, any sexual experience that happens to involve a laceration or hemorrhage is sufficiently disturbing to discourage either party from being convinced to be bought off, at least for a paltry 7 figures. but, that’s just me….

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM

The prosecution doesn’t need her testimony for the case to proceed. Not if there’s DNA and other evidence like we’ve been told.

Besides, she could sue him for damages, sell her story, and write a book. She can get plenty of money for her trouble without his payoffs.

amerpundit on May 24, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Who does he think he is, a Kennedy?

malclave on May 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

davidk on May 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM

BTW. Who the hell has friends like this? You butt rape some maid in NYC and then they rally to your side to protect you? what am i missing here??

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 6:59 PM

yeah, but one would think that, poverty or not, any sexual experience that happens to involve a laceration or hemorrhage is sufficiently disturbing to discourage either party from being convinced to be bought off, at least for a paltry 7 figures. but, that’s just me….

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Not an easy choice , 7 figures is a lot of money for most people.

the_nile on May 24, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Isn’t offering her or her family money in exchange for false testimony or silence witness tampering? Isn’t is another crime?

SarahW on May 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM

DSK had been paying around $1200 for his hookers – - bet he finds the future price of consensual bunga will necessarily skyrocket

/.

CaveatEmpty on May 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM

And we wonder why the UN Africa has such issues.

Your tax $ go to these monsters. Happy to fund the world order of graft and debauchery? Kick this organization into the Atlantic and tell them to start swimming.

Limerick on May 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Take the money!

The DA will go after him anyway!

John the Libertarian on May 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Hopefully they will add Witness Tampering to the list of charges.

Slowburn on May 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I agree, take the money and then testify against him anyway.

And by the way, every scumbag in this story has a hyphenated name. QED.

warbaby on May 24, 2011 at 7:03 PM

She can testify against him, sends his ass to jail, and then sue him for a pile of money. I guess settlement is attactive though because it might be hard to collect on a verdict against him.

BuzzCrutcher on May 24, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Money to burn? I bet that $3000 a night room was on the IMF tab. US carries about 20% of the IMF funding so $600 bucks of that overnight was your money. I have no doubt, we the US taxpayer, has spent millions on that slime-bag.

Viator on May 24, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Hopefully they will add Witness Tampering to the list of charges.

Slowburn on May 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Yeah……hope. My Ben Franklin says Holder is pulling all stops to get this put with the rest of the dust bunnies. NYC, tell Justice to pound sand.

Limerick on May 24, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Not an easy choice , 7 figures is a lot of money for most people.

the_nile on May 24, 2011 at 6:59 PM

I agree, but the courts know this stuff happens and they can prosecute someone even if someone gets bought off can’t they? I mean, if the case rested on the solitary witness testimony only, they’d be hard pressed to ever make a conviction once butt rapists saved up enough coin to payoff a gal. ? maybe?

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Well socialism is rape of an entire society so I guess they think its OK.

William Amos on May 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Not to mention France has historically raped large parts of Africa.

She can get her money anyway via a civil suit.

rbj on May 24, 2011 at 7:05 PM

I wonder how the story will turn. “Butt raping socialist tries to pay off maid with 7 figure sum now cries poverty because he’s a ‘worker of the world.’”

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Not an easy choice , 7 figures is a lot of money for most people.

[the_nile on May 24, 2011 at 6:59 PM]

I don’t know. It depends a lot on whether the woman would be successful in a personal injury claim against DSK. Odds are if it is feasible, she could get a similar amount that way, in which case why not get a great dose of justice and a hefty amount of closure.

Dusty on May 24, 2011 at 7:07 PM

The only way to stop this is to leave the U.N. Let that august body come make us follow their ‘rules’.

Limerick on May 24, 2011 at 7:07 PM

“I’d take the deal, then crawfish and shoot the Devil in the ass.”

Curly Bill Brocius

GnuBreed on May 24, 2011 at 7:07 PM

BTW, OT: flyover and don’t look country is getting hit hard by tornadoes again tonight, see drudgereport

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:07 PM

This is common in the Islamic world. So as a Muslim, she might go for it.

Paul-Cincy on May 24, 2011 at 7:07 PM

The whiny class rhetoric is getting unbearably tedious, given that there’s pretty solid evidence for rape just from what we know as laymen.

The French and Ben Stein’s harangues about the maid’s poverty is particularly ridiculous, considering that
upscale New York hotels are full of rich people serviced by poor chambermaids. Are they implying that this boiling cauldron of

Furthermore, contra Important Guy’s also oh-so-important friend Whatsisname, nobody west of Iceland has any idea who this guy is, and most of us still don’t. Thank God he goes by “DSK” or this story would already be dead. We’re ignorant Americans, remember? We could care less about these unelected postmodern aristocrats.

HitNRun on May 24, 2011 at 7:09 PM

How likely is a conviction if the Manhattan D.A. can’t get the victim to testify — or, worse, if the victim ends up testifying for DSK after some sort of payoff?

Yeah, that’s gonna happen.

The maid is deeply religious, investigators said, and immediately put her hands over her eyes so she wouldn’t see the naked Frenchman. He ran to her, began grabbing her breasts and pulling her down the hallway inside the luxury suite toward the bedroom.

While she continued to plead with him, begging him to stop, he allegedly continued to attack her, dragging her down the hallway.

When she pushed him away and ran toward the door, she slipped on a newspaper bag on the floor and fell to her knees. That’s when Strauss-Kahn came up behind her and forced her to perform oral sex, sources said.

The maid finally escaped from her alleged attacker by pushing him into the sharp edge of an armoire in the hotel suite. Sources said the Frenchman has a gash on his back where he hit the armoire.

She ran into the service corridor on the floor where co-workers found her and tried to console her. She was shaking profusely and unable to even hold a cup of water, sources said.

aunursa on May 24, 2011 at 7:09 PM

they’ve got her original statement on video plus testimony from the hotel staff about her state of mind in the aftermath, but realistically, if she gets up on the stand and says it was consensual, there’s no way to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” right?

There’s also a security video of the hall way with her running out of the room distraught. Realistically, if consent can be proved by actions and circumstantial evidence, non-consent can be, too. Her prior statements, the wits as to her demeanor, the security tapes, etc., are evidence that it was not consensual.

Blake on May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

a girl gets grabbed, raped, bleeds on a bed and then has to fight off a crazed socialist and you think they’ll be able to buy her off ??

She wasn’t actually raped, she was forced to perform oral sex. Sexually assaulted would be more accurate.

Given that she reported this right away and has witnesses, I don’t think she’s lying and I doubt she would take money in exchange for silence. She has a lot of people in NYC protecting and counseling her, I don’t think this guy is going to get away with anything. I also think that there will be a civil trial and she’ll get her money then. It’s much better to see justice done AND get the money than to just get the money.

She’s lucky this happened to her in the US. In her home country or most anywhere else, as a Muslim she would have been stoned for adultery.

Common Sense on May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

She should testify against him, put him in prison, and then sue him in civil court for monetary awards. Hopefully, that is what her attorney is telling her to do.

ladyingray on May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

I agree, but the courts know this stuff happens and they can prosecute someone even if someone gets bought off can’t they? I mean, if the case rested on the solitary witness testimony only, they’d be hard pressed to ever make a conviction once butt rapists saved up enough coin to payoff a gal. ? maybe?

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:04 PM

It’s all about evidence.

the_nile on May 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Uhp, my post got shredded in cut/paste. I meant to say “Are they implying that this boiling cauldron of class resentment just happened to boil over NOW, with this supposed super-duper-famous-guy who also happens to be a serial don’t-call-it-rape-ist?”

HitNRun on May 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM

They can’t charge him with witness tampering or trying to bribe her, cause he is not the one doing it, and it’s not even being done in this country. It’s his people and the ladies relatives in Guana doing it.

Johnnyreb on May 24, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Maybe since the guy has always had a girly name (Dominique), he can only feel masculine through rape. Otherwise, maybe he’s just a frog jerk.

Special Forces Grunt on May 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM

If I represented her civil interests, I would highly recommend that she cooperate with the prosecution. If he is found guilty, he is also liable. Guilt requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Liability merely requires preponderance of the evidence. Guilt is a higher standard. So, if he is found guilty, he is also liable. Basically, if she cooperates with the DA, the government of NY will expend the resources necessary to prove her case for her. Once he is found guilty, the only remaining issue in her civil case would be her damages $$$$$ Ca-Ching!!!!!

And even if the DA somehow botches the case (seemingly unlikely) it will not bind her. She can still proceed with her civil suit such as in the OJ case. If the DA wins, she wins. If the DA loses, she still can win.

tommylotto on May 24, 2011 at 7:18 PM

She wasn’t actually raped

isn’t “rape” forced penetration? hence, being forced to perform oral sex might qualify?

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person’s consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.[1][2][3][4] The term is most often defined in criminal law.[2][4] A person who commits an act of rape is known as a rapist.

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Maybe since the guy has always had a girly name (Dominique), he can only feel masculine through rape. Otherwise, maybe he’s just a frog jerk.

Special Forces Grunt on May 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Feminine names in French always end in an “e”, so this guy has the girliest name ever.

isn’t “rape” forced penetration? hence, being forced to perform oral sex might qualify?

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Wasn’t she sodomized as well?? That surely is rape.

Illinidiva on May 24, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Wasn’t she sodomized as well?? That surely is rape.

Illinidiva on May 24, 2011 at 7:24 PM

i think so. eegad

ted c on May 24, 2011 at 7:25 PM

It’s not bad enough that socialists live like kings off the backs of working men. Now we have to come up with the bribe money to keep him out of prison. It time this guy started paying his own way in life (and that goes for all the other socialists out there).

Tommy_G on May 24, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Common Sense on May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

You’re sounding a lot like the girls on the View. Are you sure that’s the kind of company you want to be keeping.

Tommy_G on May 24, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Live tornado coverage in OK….amazing

http://www.kfor.com/news/livestreaming/

rickyricardo on May 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Agreed — KFOR is doing an outstanding job of covering these storms.

NoLeftTurn on May 24, 2011 at 7:34 PM

Money to burn? I bet that $3000 a night room was on the IMF tab. US carries about 20% of the IMF funding so $600 bucks of that overnight was your money. I have no doubt, we the US taxpayer, has spent millions on that slime-bag.

Viator on May 24, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Actually he was not there on official business and used his personal credit card to pay the room bill. This is the reason he could not claim diplomatic immunity while he was here. Otherwise he could have gotten away with it.

karenhasfreedom on May 24, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Which is more? The money to drop the charges or the revenues from a book deal and made-for-TV movie? Then throw in the talk show circut and 15 minutes of fame.

DAT60A3 on May 24, 2011 at 7:35 PM

The guy is a disgusting pig but would anyone blame the woman for taking his bribe? This would take care of her family for generations.

NoLeftTurn on May 24, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Wasn’t she sodomized as well?? That surely is rape.

[Illinidiva on May 24, 2011 at 7:24 PM]

In common parlance, yes, but rape has a legal definition which is confined to sexual intercourse. In NYS, the others are defined as Criminal Sexual Acts. I don’t know if there are differences in penalties, but I doubt it.

Dusty on May 24, 2011 at 7:40 PM

To all the people saying there’s no way she’d ever take the money: read all the comments and you’ll see that other commenters are urging her to take the money and double-cross DSK by testifying against him anyway.

Some people can be corrupted, it’s human nature.

aengus on May 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Its not gonna’ happen.

New York will still prosecute even if they have to show the victim as a “hostile witness”. They will go upon the facts of the case and they will convict him.

Opposite Day on May 24, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Wasn’t she sodomized as well?? That surely is rape.

[Illinidiva on May 24, 2011 at 7:24 PM]

Two different crimes, as ted c notes.

DSK is charged with forcible sodomy and attempted rape.

Wethal on May 24, 2011 at 7:46 PM

To all the people saying there’s no way she’d ever take the money: read all the comments and you’ll see that other commenters are urging her to take the money and double-cross DSK by testifying against him anyway.

Some people can be corrupted, it’s human nature.

aengus on May 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM

I’m sure the payment, or most of it, would be paid after the charges were dismissed and he was out of the US.

Wethal on May 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Maybe it’s been said already but the maid should testify against the guy, send him to prison, then immediately file a civil lawsuit seeking damages. Maybe the guy has some assets she can get. It wouldn’t be hard at all to get a judgment, that’s for sure!

BillCarson on May 24, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Its not gonna’ happen.

New York will still prosecute even if they have to show the victim as a “hostile witness”. They will go upon the facts of the case and they will convict him.

Opposite Day on May 24, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Yeah, they can’t drop it now. They would be crucified in the media and the minority groups would riot. Even a plea bargain would be tough, although I assume that will be tried.

a capella on May 24, 2011 at 7:56 PM

If you’ve got money to burn and your victim (or victims?) has a family that’s desperately in need of basic necessities, why not go ahead and, er, “seduce” her and then work out a settlement afterward? The poorer party gets some financial comfort and the richer party gets to maintain his droit de seigneur.

Isn’t THIS the very same thing “progressives” and “socialists” would complain about if it were a “capitalist”?

If you’ve got money to burn and your victim (or victims?) has a family that’s desperately in need of basic necessities, why not go ahead and, er, “seduce” her and then work out a settlement afterward?

These “socialists” aren’t the socialists you think they are.

JeffWeimer on May 24, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Here’s where a good lawyer comes in. Keep him in the criminal dock, then sue him civilly for harm done. Cake/eat.

paul1149 on May 24, 2011 at 8:03 PM

It’s a pitiful form of justice…pit the family against each other by dangling an absurd amount of money before them and hope they claw each other to pieces lunging for it while discrediting the victim. I really hope it doesn’t turn out that way, but we’ve all seen it before.

scalleywag on May 24, 2011 at 8:16 PM

How likely is a conviction if the Manhattan D.A. can’t get the victim to testify — or, worse, if the victim ends up testifying for DSK after some sort of payoff?

I would say the odds of a conviction even if the victim refuses to cooperate are very high. Sexual assault convictions can be based on testimony alone, without any physical evidence. Here there is substantial physical evidence all of which fits with her statements. There are also several witnesses who can testify to her condition and her conduct immediately after the assault, which would also corroborate.

Perhaps most important, the prosecutor is likely to be very unwilling to drop this case, particularly if he thinks the defendant is, through agents, tampering with the witness. If he doesn’t pursue these charges, he will be subjected to massive public criticism, and any political aspirations will go out the window.

This filthy frog is going to the pen.

novaculus on May 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Elitist scum, my hope is for a nice loooong vacation for Mr. “KAHN!!!” in a cozy NY penitentiary….a nice loooong vacation with the inmates indeed.

NY Conservative on May 24, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Can’t wealthy enemies of Kahn offer to match any payment promised?

Mister Mets on May 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Isn’t offering her or her family money in exchange for false testimony or silence witness tampering? Isn’t is another crime?

SarahW on May 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM

I thought so too.

tinkerthinker on May 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM

I feel so horrible for this poor mother, I can’t even get to the point where I can ponder the legalities involved in this.
Please God just let this piece of garbage go to prison. :(

CambellBrown on May 24, 2011 at 9:07 PM


Hopefully they will add Witness Tampering to the list of charges.

Slowburn,

How? If the people that are offering money on his behalf are in France, how do you charge them over there..? They won’t be extradited, assuming that they can be identified anyway.

ujorge on May 24, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Who does he think he is, a Kennedy?

malclave on May 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM

The Kennedies generally had an additional advantage, in that there was a segment of the population slavishly devoted to the democratic party and especially to the KCF. Strauss-Kahn might only play that card with slimeballs like George Soros. The rest of America has little allegiance to Euro-socialists.

Still, a tip of the hat to NYPD. If police in Arkansas were as diligent, we might have been saved from Billy boy.

slickwillie2001 on May 24, 2011 at 9:47 PM

This guy reminds me of Teddy Kennedy. Good thing the maid didn’t get into a car with him.

mad scientist on May 24, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Allah,

On the one hand, her lack of cooperation does not automatically end the case. The prosecutors are clearly expecting a payoff and doing everything they can to get a conviction despite it. To me, this says that they will move forward, lack of her cooperation be damned, because this is a big fish and they want to bring him down, for the glory of it. Let’s face it: these prosecutors want this guy on their resume.

Reasonable doubt means whatever the jury wants it to mean. The prosecutors will call her to the stand and impeach her with her prior statements. They will tell the jury that her family was paid off for her silence, and yes, they will lots of John Edwards-esque class warfare language at trial.

And, like you, most jurors will see right through the payoff and vote to convict. However, it only takes 1 juror to say no, and then you get a hung jury. Why would that 1 juror say reasonable doubt? Maybe the juror thinks that the woman is the only one who matters, and if she would rather take the money, that should be her right. Hell, if he goes to jail and her family doesn’t get paid, she gets screwed and the DAs win. Why should a juror care about an ambitious DA’s career?

Allah, how would you vote, knowing a conviction would put an old man in jail for a while, but keep her family in a life of poverty, while an acquittal would cost him millions and ensure her family will want for nothing? Think about it, really, which is really better FOR HER?

This case is about the victim, not the “people of New York”.

kaltes on May 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Hopefully they will add Witness Tampering to the list of charges.

Slowburn,

How? If the people that are offering money on his behalf are in France, how do you charge them over there..? They won’t be extradited, assuming that they can be identified anyway.

ujorge on May 24, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Every member of a conspiracy is equally guilty.

Slowburn on May 24, 2011 at 10:11 PM

These “socialists” aren’t the socialists you think they are.

JeffWeimer on May 24, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Vicious thugs living large, on other peoples money.

They are exactly the socialists I think they are.

Slowburn on May 24, 2011 at 10:19 PM

She should testify against him, put him in prison, and then sue him in civil court for monetary awards. Hopefully, that is what her attorney is telling her to do.

ladyingray on May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

I agree whole-heartedly, do the right thing and it will works for real justice (and for all his potential future victims) and for her as well best it can. If what appears to be the case initially turns out to be true – The guy should rot in jail .

wubu on May 24, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Granted, they’ve got her original statement on video plus testimony from the hotel staff about her state of mind in the aftermath, but realistically, if she gets up on the stand and says it was consensual, there’s no way to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” right?

What happens in that case, were I on the jury, would be that I determine that the victim has lied on one side or the other. Then it turns on the other, physical, evidence — such as the blood and the videotape.

unclesmrgol on May 24, 2011 at 10:43 PM

She should testify against him, put him in prison, and then sue him in civil court for monetary awards. Hopefully, that is what her attorney is telling her to do.

ladyingray on May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

I’d say negotiate with the guy, get his price, have him write it down on a contract, then pick up the contract and walk out. Then the negotiating price obviously becomes a fair approximation of damages — because the number was cooked up by the defendent and, for that reason, cannot be too high.

unclesmrgol on May 24, 2011 at 10:46 PM

This case is about the victim, not the “people of New York”.

kaltes on May 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

I disagree. It’s “the people” versus Kahn for a reason. This man committed a crime against all of us by violating this basic trust not to rape.

If she had been the only one, I might see your point of view. I mean, what’s it to me, if she wants to be a millionaire? She’s very poor, and her family is exponentially worse off.

But she isn’t the only one. This predator has been getting away with this for God only knows how long. If she lets him get away with it again, the blood (hopefully figuratively) is on her hands, and she would deserve whatever obstructing justice gets her.

Esthier on May 24, 2011 at 10:53 PM

tommylotto on May 24, 2011 at 7:18 PM

The amount she can get for damages are much less than what she can extract from the perp for him to be able to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail.

To me it seems reasonable to extract a few million from him with an agreement that he never enter the US again. That way he can spend the rest of his life in Europe, where apparently they are OK with this kind of thing. I just don’t know how you do that legally.

pedestrian on May 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Wrong. His action was intentional and malicious. This means if found liable, he would be exposed to not only actual damages and pain and suffering, but also punitive damages. Punitive damages take into account the defendant’s wealth and should be in an amount given the defendant’s wealth to dissuade him from ever repeating the conduct. The richer he is, the more in punitive damages should be awarded. This is easily a seven figure case.

tommylotto on May 25, 2011 at 1:39 AM

And thinking about it makes a shiver go down one’s spine.

The French have spines?

vcferlita on May 25, 2011 at 6:59 AM

Obstruction of Justice – issue arrest warrants for everyone involved. . . .

karra on May 25, 2011 at 8:25 AM

If she can…I say take the money and run.
Her family and her can live a life of luxury for the rest of her life, and she won’t be drug through the courts, defending herself against a powerful man who raped her, she will be on trial.
He is scum, and he will worm out of this and be a hero, best she makes a great life for her and her family…

right2bright on May 25, 2011 at 9:14 AM

The cynic in me is thinking that while the bribery operation is going on, someone else in the family is working on a new passport, perhaps in another name. The issue will become moot when DSK boards a plane in Montreal for Paris. Five million for freedom isn’t a bad deal if you have the money.

Special Forces Grunt on May 25, 2011 at 9:58 AM

The amount she can get for damages are much less than what she can extract from the perp for him to be able to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail.

To me it seems reasonable to extract a few million from him with an agreement that he never enter the US again. That way he can spend the rest of his life in Europe, where apparently they are OK with this kind of thing. I just don’t know how you do that legally.

pedestrian on May 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM

If DSK manages to buy his “innocence” he could be President of France by this time next year, and more dangerous than ever. “Do you know who I am?”, he told her as he raped her!

If the victim is tempted by money offered to her dirt-poor family in Africa, the prosecutors need to remind her that she could easily lift her family out of poverty by suing him for “pain and suffering” and writing a tell-all book, while saving other women in the path of this predator.

O.J. Strauss-Kahn needs to be frog-marched ’till he croaks!

Steve Z on May 25, 2011 at 10:12 AM

I maintain that those who are surprised that one doesn’t take the side of the “poor, immigrant woman” as a matter of principle against the “rich and arrogant white man” who supposedly has raped her are reinventing a kind of class justice in reverse. It’s no longer, as before, “poor bastards, the rich are always right” but “rich bastards, the word of the poor is sacred.” This prejudice is as disgusting, no more, no less, than the precedent

If DSK had left the maid alone that day, he could have freely flown to France, and no one would have prosecuted him for being an “arrogant rich bastard”. But DSK tried to justify himself with his “Do you know who I am?”, assuming that wealth and power gave him the “right” to rape, which no man has.

If Bernard Henri-Levy wants an example of the “poor” wanting revenge against the rich, there were the three Duke lacrosse players accused of rape of a black woman, but later acquitted when evidence was lacking, and the “victim” was found to be passed-out drunk and one of the alleged “rapists” was elsewhere at the time of the “crime”. But the Duke lacrosse players and their families never offered money to the “victim” to buy her silence–they defended themselves in court.

Let justice be done to Strauss-Kahn, regardless of money.

Steve Z on May 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Ann C. sums it up best…
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=424

Oh and btw, Strauss Kahn was also a blogger at Huffpo.

MechEng5by5 on May 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM

“How much cash will it take to shut that impoverished little mouth of hers?”

This is what I was afraid of. Money talks and everybody walks.

And, if that doesn’t work, with the kind of money DHK and his family has, they can find juror addresses and arrange nice fat bribes to at least one of them.

DHK’s third line of defense (other than the “it was consensual” BS ) is through diplomatic immunity channels and a friendly face in the White House.

MaiDee on May 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

We see this with rich US politicians and business critters, too. We’re not immune.

We should be.
{^_^}

herself on May 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I do find it interesting, and slightly offensive to my Libertarian leanings that she’s in “protective custody”. But I assume that the authorities foresaw this possibility and acted to forestall it.

Regardless, it’s a little known secret that she can’t stop the prosecution. The offense was “against the state” and only the state can drop the charges. Even it she refuses to testify her prior statement are admissible or if she changes her testimony if it can be proved that she took some money she can be impeached.

Color me slightly naive but I think she’s going to go through with this. I’m sure she already has a lawyer who’s lining up book deal, appearances on TV, etc. No matter the outcome she will eventually benefit from a horrific crime that was visited upon her, I hope that will be some solace

E9RET on May 25, 2011 at 2:26 PM

To all of you saying testify and then sue him:

(1) How will you serve him? He is a foreigner. He has no business in the US anymore now that he won’t be running the IMF. Actually getting him served might be possible, but would be very difficult.

(2) Even if you served him and fought his lawyers through trial and won, how would you actually collect? Polanski got hit with a big civil judgment something like over 15 years ago and never paid a dime on it. How much have the Goldmans gotten out of OJ Simpson? And he is an American! This guy might be rich, but he is a foreigner and his assets would be safely out of reach.

For those of you saying “Take the money, then stab him in the back” surely you don’t think the many highly intelligent people working for this man would be that stupid? I’m sure whatever arrangement was made for the payoff, the money would only come either after his criminal case was over, or in installments over time, which he could shut off if there was any betrayal.

Not only would he pay much more money, but in addition, she will actually get it if it is given voluntarily.

kaltes on May 25, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2