DSK: Justice or Injustice

Like many New Yorkers I have been following the Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK), who was considered a top candidate for the French presidency, rape case with much interest, especially as the case fell apart, leading to it being dismissed due to lack of proof. The case quickly became he said/she said. Once the maid's lies to the prosecutors, grand jury and police became known, she lost all creditability leaving plenty of reasonable doubt as to DSK's guilt. End of story.

If you read the Manhattan district attorney's recommendation of dismissal, which seems to have been written as much for the media and politicians as it was for the court, prosecutors detail numerous incidents where she lied so well that they were fooled, such as the false gang rape in her native country that she apparently made up on the spot as it wasn't on her original asylum application. Under our system of laws DSK was presumed innocent and not presumed guilty. To make him continue to trial when the maid's lies had already poisoned the case was unjust to him.

Protestors demand justice for the maid but what about DSK who was presumed guilty? At the moment we have a man who can not be convicted as there is reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. While an indictment is usually a good sign that there is enough evidence to infer a crime occurred and that the defendant may have done something, it quickly became apparent that the indictment was gotten by the maid lying to the grand jury, meaning DSK should not have been indicted. Yet protestors continue to demand that DSK continue to pay legal fees and be forced to sit through a trial by an accuser who has changed her story so many times that no jury could believe her and even a half competent attorney, who hasn't thought about criminal law since law school 15 years off, could easily defend him. What about justice for him?

What is frightening is that if the maid had not started admitting to the assistant district attorneys she was lying is that a most likely innocent man could have been imprisoned based on her lies (or, contra, a guilty man is going free because her ever changing tales have made conviction impossible). Who knows what else she has been less than truthful about? Worse, she has made it that much more difficult for future rape victims of wealthy, powerful men to get justice as juries and prosecutors will always wonder if this is another DSK case.

The DNA evidence was moot as DSK admitted to a sexual encounter. As medical experts in the district attorney's (DA's) recommendation of dismissal noted, the maid's physical injuries could have been caused by rape or from something else. Heck she even changed her story about one injury, stating originally her arm was hurting her before the encounter but felt better to her arm was injured by DSK during the attack. If she had been consistent in her prior statements and not felt the need to change or make up stories, her case could have continued. Instead her own mysterious actions caused the criminal case to fail.

The other victims of this case are the attorneys. The DA's office had their reputation tarnished just because they tried to help this woman receive justice for a crime she quickly convinced them had happened and, based on the evidence presented and going on the assumption a rape victim would lie so convincingly about such. The maid's attorney, who has just been doing his job in zealously representing her, also has seen his reputation tarnished by his lying client as some will undoubtedly allege he is more interested in seeking justice for his client simply so he can receive some fee in an eventual civil case or settlement (or perhaps he truly believes her).

DSK may be a leech. He may be a creep. He may be an adulterer. Maybe he paid her for sex. Maybe she set him up for money, despite her earlier claims to the contrary, thinking he was just some rich white dude and he just thought he was getting lucky. None of that makes him guilty of rape.