Dominque Strauss-Kahn's Accuser: A "Working Girl"?

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:00:28 AM EST
Tags: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update (7/5): The accuser has sued the New York Post for libel over the article.

Is anyone surprised by today's New York Post article alleging that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's accuser was a "working girl"? I opined last night,

The only remaining viable theories are: (1) It was a set-up (2) He paid her for the sex or (3) She consented, thinking she was going to paid, and got angry when he didn't offer money, didn't pay enough or refused to pay. While normally, paying for sex would be a crime, in this case, just like the rape claim, if he denied it, proving it would require believing her, and that's out of the question now.

Of course, a prostitute can be sexually assaulted and no one is saying she shouldn't be believed on that ground. [More...]

It's her admitted lies involving past allegations of rape and her lie to the grand jury about what happened in this case, a lie she didn't correct until this past Tuesday, according to the New York Times, that make her unworthy of belief.

I'll bet the DA would have loved a misdemeanor plea from DSK to patronizing a prostitute. But if the only evidence of payment comes from the accuser, they aren't going to trial on that count either.

Even if he told authorities she consented and it was a paid arrangement, which is doubtful since the DA didn't include such an admission (or any admission)on its Disclosure Statement of evidence, it would only be admissible if he had been properly Mirandized -- and that's a fight I think the DA would lose.

A complete dismissal seems the only likely outcome here. The open question is whether the accuser will face charges for lying to the grand jury, prosecutors and the police.

Update: The union denies placing the accuser at Sofitel:

A spokesman for the hotel union denied it placed the victim at the Sofitel. "These allegations are absurd," spokesman Josh Gold said. "She never registered at our hiring hall. We never sent her for a single interview. We absolutely did not place her at the hotel and we do not track tips."

< Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The Other Shoe Drops | Guinea's President is Happy for Dominique Strauss-Kahn >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dominque Strauss-Kahn's Accuser: A "Working Girl"? | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This is silly (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:42:53 AM EST

so the union is pimping? This story comes from the New York Post and it claims its source is that lovely damage control agency of ex CIA that DSK hired. Sorry if I'm not going to bite off on this and take off running.

TDI's Information Hit Squad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Addison on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:10:51 PM EST

The nature of the organization is such that we'll probably never know, but I'd love to hear about what TDI's role in all this was. DSK hired them back in late May, and it seems to have paid off a month later. It'd be a great advertisement, if they advertised.

http://www.tdinternational.com/services.html

TDI is guided by two principles. The first is that all decisions should be based on the most accurate and reliable information available. The second is that TDI's role is to advise its client and stay quietly in the background unless otherwise directed. Based on an in-depth understanding of the client's objectives and needs, we acquire key information, we analyze the environment in which the client must operate, and we devise a strategy to achieve the client's objectives, be they in business, government or media.

Yes, a nameless sources on DSK's side (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Towanda on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 03:30:34 PM EST

issues innuendo to the NY Post -- a tawdry rag -- and that's all it takes for this post and the commenters here to go all gullible again.


: My reaction? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Anne on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 04:32:28 PM EST

"Piling on."

If (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by lentinel on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:00:31 PM EST

nobody minds, I think I'll withhold judgement on the accuser for a little while.

When DSK was arrested, Major Bloomberg immediately pronounced him guilty.

Maureen Dowd called him every vile name that exists.

The NYPost has now announced that the accuser is a "hooker".

The Sofitel housekeeper who claims the former IMF boss sexually assaulted her in his room was doing double duty as a prostitute, collecting cash on the side from male guests, The Post has learned.
"There is information . . . of her getting extraordinary tips, if you know what I mean. And it's not for bringing extra f--king towels," a source close to the defense investigation said yesterday.

The source for NYPost's new take on the subject: an unnamed source "close to the defense".

You know, to think of a potential president paying a hooker to do something that leaves forensic evidence behind (if you know what I mean) shortly before meeting his daughter for lunch -- well, he's not my kind of guy....

About her phone call - we are dependent on a translation from a dialect made by someone who is not identified. Having read varying translations of statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which either makes him out to be a fiend or a rational nationalist - well, I am reserving judgement.

Whatever happens - my opinion of law enforcement and of American media could not be lower.

News dump (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by PSUtah on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 05:21:57 PM EST

This negative news dump on the maid is like the negative news dump after DSK was arrested. Like the info on DSK, information like this usually comes out in drips and drops, not downpours. Somebody wants this case over with now, before too much is looked into. I originally believed that he was set up, but that the set up meant for him to safely leave the U.S. prior to the allegations coming out.(This would explain the maid's lack of urgency and the fact that the hotel didn't disclose his itinerary). Then DSK would face the Hobson's choice of either returning the the U.S. to face the set up or remain in France, a public disgrace. DSK ruined the plan by losing his phone. Also remember that right after the allegations, the maid was ready for sainthood, a devoted hard working single mother who escaped a brutal regime. Now she's the whore of babylon. You don't get things that wrong, unless that is way the script is written and your forced to improvise later because somebody went off script.

: if it was a setup (none / 0) (#13)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 12:40:26 AM EST

then it would have been one stupid setup
given the dirt that DSK's consultants have managed to dig up on the accuser, whoever supposedly arranged the setup would have done a very poor job of vetting the female protagonist

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty (5.00 / 8) (#12)
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:26:58 PM EST

... except for the accuser in this case, apparently.

Strange (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by ks on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:47:10 AM EST

I don't recall the accuser being charged with anything yet. DSK wasn't innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the public and now the accuser won't be either.


a modest proposal (none / 0) (#18)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:59:39 AM EST

let's just say the accuser is guilty of adultery

because DSK is married, you know

& let's say it's not rape unless DSK says it was rape, or unless there were 4 adult male witnesses & they all come forward & say it was rape

i mean, seriously, this doesn't have to be so complicated


Ridiculous comment (none / 0) (#19)
by sj on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 12:12:56 PM EST

let's say it's not rape unless DSK says it was rape, or unless there were 4 adult male witnesses & they all come forward & say it was rape

Her accusations were taken seriously, she was not blown off by any stretch of the imagination.

She discredited herself. Did the authorities have "help" discovering this? I expect so (I've become much more of a conspiracy theorist in these last years than I'd like). But the evidence of falsehood was there to find.

As for DSK being guilty of adultery, apparently it's a misdemeanor in NY so okay. If he's charged with it, it may change divorce proceedings in the state. Or it may change state law. Or something. It's true but who cares? The only ones who are affected are his family members. They likely care. The rest of us are just sitting in judgement.


reread, please (none / 0) (#21)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 12:29:25 PM EST

& add snark tag

the "adultery" part was not about DSK - it was, as i'm sure you know, an allusion to Sharia law, as was the rest of my comment

but the accuser certainly is being blown off now, precisely by people sitting in their pajamas, & in judgment, at their keyboards - my modest proposal was intended to streamline their weighty deliberations


As one prominent Progressive put it (none / 0) (#22)
by Rojas on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:05:06 PM EST

"When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue----if it needs lynching to protect woman's dearest possession from the ravening human beasts----then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary."

: huffing & puffing (none / 0) (#23)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:11:07 PM EST

blowing your straw man-house down

Really? (none / 0) (#24)
by ks on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:12:53 PM EST

In fact, and most importantly, the accuser is being blown off by the DA rather publically. I doubt they were sitting in their pajamas while investigating the case but you never know.


: maybe i'm wrong (none / 0) (#28)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:20:40 PM EST

but i believe the DA is continuing to investigate the charges

You're right (none / 0) (#25)
by sj on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:30:01 PM EST

I misread the "adultery" part. Thanks for the clarification.

As for the accuser being blown off, there is definitely some of that NOW. After there is ample reason for (healthy!) skepticism.

But her initial accusations were taken very seriously. As in the guy was pulled off a jet, seriously.

Your "modest proposal", however is still ridiculous. The "4 adult males" bit is still ridiculous.

Frankly, all the players in this weird little... morality play, or tableau or whatever it is, seem to me, to be more on the shady side than not.

I'm glad her accusations were taken seriously. I don't have a personal problem with him being pulled off the plane.

But what is said about everyone from John Edwards to Bill Clinton to Nixon: it's not the crime, it's the coverup.

I don't find it suspect at all that she would go to another room and clean it after an actual assault. People process things differently and trying to "find normal" is perfectly normal after being victim of a crime. That she lied about that, however, I do find suspect.

And all the lies? That she admits to? What others are there that she doesn't admit to? Anyway it increased skepticism. Just because she's a self-admitted serial liar doesn't mean she wasn't a victim of a crime. It does mean, however, that her credibility is completely shot and it is highly doubtful that a conviction can be obtained. If she was the victim of a crime, that's tragic. If she was the attempted perpetrator of one, that's justice.

But that's just me. Looking through my prism. As you're looking through yours. I refuse to be "shamed" because I'm not looking through your prism.


It's not just you, SJ (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Peter G on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:12:50 PM EST

I agree with this completely:
"I'm glad her accusations were taken seriously. I don't have a personal problem with him being pulled off the plane.
* * *
I don't find it suspect at all that she would go to another room and clean it after an actual assault. People process things differently and trying to "find normal" is perfectly normal after being victim of a crime. * * *
And all the lies? That she admits to? What others are there that she doesn't admit to? Anyway it increased skepticism. Just because she's a self-admitted serial liar doesn't mean she wasn't a victim of a crime. It does mean, however, that her credibility is completely shot and it is highly doubtful that a conviction can be obtained. If she was the victim of a crime, that's tragic. If she was the attempted perpetrator of one, that's justice."

I do quibble with this: "That she lied about [what she did right afterwards], however, I do find suspect." As I wrote the other day, if she told the police a version of what happened that she thought they would be more likely to believe or sympathize with, that works against her credibility, but it may be entirely explainable in terms of her prior experience with government officials, particularly as an immigrant refugee from a repressive regime. I also note that the key witness's being a serial liar apparently only requires dismissal of a rape case. Drug cases, just to take the most obvious example, are prosecuted successfully before juries on the lightly corroborated word of serial liars in criminal courts every day of the week. Organized crime cases, too, for that matter.


i've seen this double standard justified (none / 0) (#29)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:25:27 PM EST

by the following logic: that people quite often voluntarily participate in sexual intercourse, but people don't voluntarily participate in witness-free back-alley muggings and robberies, for example, which tend not be treated as "he said/she said" cases, unlike rape in so many instances

of course that logic tends to fall apart when you try extending it to other activities in which people quite often voluntarily participate, such as drug use and organized crime


One does not have to search too (none / 0) (#32)
by Rojas on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 03:27:18 PM EST

hard to find a damn shocking sampling of rape convictions based on someones "lightly corroborated word". Try innocenceproject.org and search on rape for a keyword.

I'm more inclined to think the double standard rests more on the fact that the accused is wealthy, connected, with geopolitical ramifications.

Of course I'm also inclined to believe that the prosecution wouldn't have bothered with extensive vetting the case (which led to the discovery) had the defendant been of a financial situation in which they couldn't go one to one with the state.


The rape cases chronicled by the Innocence Project (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Peter G on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 03:53:20 PM EST

tend to be cases where there is no doubt that a rape occurred (most often a rape-murder, in Innocence Project cases), but the wrong person was identified as the perpetrator. The Innocence Project mostly does cases of people who can be cleared by DNA testing -- which is not likely to be a "he said/she said" case. Typical among the Innocence Project cases are my client, Nick Yarris, exonerated by DNA evidence of a horrific rape-kidnap-murder after nearly 22 years on death row. Of course, as a result of his wrongful prosecution, the true rapist/killer was never apprehended.


It appears hey have removed (none / 0) (#37)
by Rojas on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:57:47 PM EST

the ability to sort by "Contributing causes" from their reported data set. When I searched a few weeks ago the majority of the cases listed "eyewitness misidentification" as the contributing cause. Thus the "little corroboration" statement.

As to the tendency of the cases to be rape/murder, I noted that was correct for about 1 in 15 of those that I clicked on randomly after first searching for "rape".


Perhaps you are refereing to the death row cases (none / 0) (#39)
by Rojas on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 10:09:26 AM EST

Of the first 250 exonerations

84% were convicted of sexual assault,
and 29% were convicted of murder (16% were convicted
of both sexual assault and murder).

76% were convicted based at least in part on eyewitness misidentification...

an initial review of 29 rape convictions with untested DNA from the files of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science found two false convictions, or 7%.

Yes, I was. Thank you (none / 0) (#40)
by Peter G on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 11:11:29 AM EST

for correcting me, Rojas. Nevertheless, I don't understand misidentification cases to be what people are usually referring to when they say "he says/she says." The latter, as I understand it, refers to an accusation of rape where the defendant says, "Yes, she and I had sex, but the choice was mutual and the act was consensual." Misidentification, on the other hand, generally refers to cases of "stranger rape," where the complainant picks the accused out of a photo array or a lineup, because she does not know, by name or other personal identification, who it was that had sex with her (and against her will).


: My point was that people are being (none / 0) (#41)
by Rojas on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 02:05:49 PM EST

convicted of rape and sexual assault based on someone's "lightly corroborated word". The evidence being the number of those found to be factually innocent who were convicted based on eyewitness testimony.
As to what "misidentification" generally refers to as it relates to the innocence project data base I wouldn't offer an opinion one way or another.
I would note that I reviewed a few (~20) of the case summaries in which misidentification was listed and one involved a neighbor and another a cousin.
Do those making rape allegations face a greater or lessor credibility gap than those who who make a compliant of assault, battery or terroristic threats when no other witnesses were present?
Are those "she says/she says." or "he says/he says." cases evaluated on the same criteria? Is an arrest and indictment more or less likely to be made based solely on the word of the complainant?
Will the complainant's past history and present conditions be weighed against the potential defendant?

Okay, what you say makes sense (none / 0) (#38)
by sj on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 07:03:39 PM EST

if she told the police a version of what happened that she thought they would be more likely to believe or sympathize with, that works against her credibility, but it may be entirely explainable in terms of her prior experience with government officials

I can see that. Thanks for the additional insight.


excuse me? (none / 0) (#27)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:18:03 PM EST

"shaming" you?

???


Obviously I have no way of knowing (none / 0) (#1)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:06:34 AM EST

or even learning the true underlying facts but the story about Union Local 6 being used to run prostitutes is a helluva twist.

That a recent immigrant was catapulted over the heads of many more senior union members to service some of the most expensive hotel suites in New York City, where union members would expect and fight for the best tips, tells us that somebody influenced her placement.

As always, follow the money.

Except (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:49:27 AM EST

the hotel has said she had been cleaning the suite floor because the regular maid was out on leave and when she asked to be allowed to take her place, they gave it to her because of her good work record. She had been at the hotel three years. According to some sources, she'd been assigned to that floor for a month.

Employees at the Sofitel have told authorities the woman began working on the 28th floor about a month before the incident, when her colleague went on leave, one source told The Beast on Friday. The switch was routine under union seniority rules, and the hotel has found no evidence that she had ever cleaned a room where Strauss-Kahn had stayed at the hotel previously, the source said.

: Well, any room at a Sofitel is probably (none / 0) (#6)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 01:39:52 PM EST

pretty good room to be cleaning compared to a lot of other chains. I was looking at booking a Sofitel Room in Philly in the spring and the cheapest standard room they had was going for over $400 per night. Didn't do it - out of budget - but the point is that the clientele at a Sofitel is generally going to be pretty high end on any floor. I think that the relevant quote was from another article where they said that new union members don't usually score the gigs at a place like a Sofitel - they start over at motels near JFK.
When the story first came out - not even thinking about the union angle at all - it caught my attention that an immigrant from a place like Guinea only in the country for a few years had gotten a job at such a high end hotel in NYC. I thought, "She must have had some connections to get that job. Lucky her."

At this point, the indictment (none / 0) (#7)
by KeysDan on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 02:00:46 PM EST

and charges of attempted rape and sexual assault have not been dismissed, although the information in the letter of the prosecution provides a better defense of DSK than that made available by his own defense team. That is not to say that the defense team does not have its own armamentarium to further shake the accuser's credibility generally, as well as the specific story of what may have occurred at the Sofitel between 12:06 p and 12:26 p.

Certainly, every bit of the accuser's story will be checked including her "good work record" as reported by her supervisors, the happenstance of being assigned to the 28th floor, and the "leave" of the regular maid. Even a slight shading of the facts, including reasons for entering room 2820 three times that morning and re-entering after the alleged attack or any feedback from previous hotel guests would be devastating to the prosecution. We may not know if or feel that DSK is innocent, but we can, with a degree of certainty, predict that he would be found not guilty at trial. However, it is unlikely to get that far unless, a new shoe drops, and this time, on DSK. That's a bet I would not take, but one bet I will take is that the Sofitel has checked its civil liability insurance file.

i'd disagree. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:27:04 AM EST

the items listed in VA Vance's letter have nothing to do with the allegations at hand. it's like saying: "well, 5 years ago, the victim lied on a rental application, so therefore, that i killed him is questionable." well, um, no, not really, since A has -0- relation to B. that the smoking gun was found in your hand, and the lethal bullet can be traced directly back to the smoking gun in your hand is much more relevant.

if only angels could be victims of crimes, it would cut down on DA Vance's (or any prosecutor, not to single out Vance unfairly) workload, i'll grant you. in real life, that isn't how it works.


Oh c'mon now... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by ks on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:43:56 AM EST

It's not about "angels being victims of crimes". That's a dubious meme in this instance.

If you want to overlook lying about a gang rape as part of the asylum application, that's somewhat reasonable.

If you want to overlook that she apparently was parking money for some suspect characters for whatever reasons, that's fine.

If you want to overlook, that a day after the incident she is on tape apparently talking to someone about working the money angle of the incident, that's questionable.

If you want to overlook that the DA has admitted that she lied to the Grand Jury about the incident in this case and has changed a relevant detail about what supposedly happened, that's kind of absurd.

Taken together, the relevant and not so relevant, the accuser's credibility is shot and the DA's case is toast.


Not material? (none / 0) (#20)
by Rojas on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 12:25:11 PM EST

The fact that the state's witness has made, for personal gain, a false allegation of rape in the past?
The fact that the state's witness claimed and testified to the GJ to have left the alleged crime scene only to return later in the presence of a witness, subsequently changes the story to say she revisited the alleged crime scene with no witness present?
And while you may believe tax fraud and defrauding the NY Housing Authority for personal gain as relevant, if they come up in the course of an investigation its material under Brady and it's progeny.


: Agreed. (none / 0) (#36)
by KeysDan on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 05:03:06 PM EST

The exculpatory evidence required to be provided under Brady, by the prosecution to the defense, seems at odds with a position that "...DA Vance's letter has nothing to do with allegations at hand." The general idea that a past lie would counterpoise a "smoking gun" is neither analogous nor persuasive. Apparently, the thinking of the judge who altered the the bail conditions was moving along those lines as well.

I've pretty much stayed away from (none / 0) (#30)
by Anne on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 03:10:16 PM EST

the whole thing, mainly because, for the life of me, I don't understand why or how people can form such definite opinions based on information that has been, for the most part, selectively leaked.

I don't know what to believe. If the accuser was raped, there ought to be some penalty for that. If she wasn't, if it was just a complete fabrication, there ought to be some consequences for that.

She has a history, or so we're told, and so does DSK; hers should not mean that she must be lying about this, and his should not mean that he isn't telling the truth. He's got money and power, and is using it to good effect - what I would expect from someone in his position, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. Women have been smeared and had their lives dragged through the mud for generations for accusing someone of rape - so this is nothing new. Men have been the unwitting victims of opportunistic women since time began, so if that's what's going on here, again - nothing new.

I don't know what it must be like to want out of a repressive country with a terrible human rights record, and be willing to say anything to start new. I don't know what it's like to be willing to sell myself in order to get what I want - but money is a powerful thing if you've never had it and all of a sudden, very rich men are offering it to you.

I don't know what it's like to be so powerful that I can be both predator and prey, being able to force my attentions on the one hand, and be the object of attention on the other - but it's easier to be the predator when your prey is so much less powerful that your chances of getting away with it are pretty good.

Truth be told, neither of these people got where they are today because they were without flaws; I don't know what happened, I don't know what motivated any of it - whatever it was - and it seems the height of something to think I can know or even guess.

The whole think just irks me, so I'll be staying out of these threads.

for a minute (none / 0) (#31)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 03:19:11 PM EST

i thought you were talking about DSK, perp-walked & house-arrested & wanting to go home to France & turning his consultants loose on the accuser's paper trail!

I don't know what it must be like to want out of a repressive country with a terrible human rights record, and be willing to say anything to start new.

Hardy har har (none / 0) (#34)
by ks on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 04:45:46 PM EST

I guess snark will do when all else fails. All of this "both sides have history" stuff is odd. What part of the "DA admitted that the accuser lied to the Grand Jury" is hard to understand?


: actually, that was not snark (none / 0) (#35)
by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 05:00:31 PM EST

i found the rush to judgment against DSK horrifying, as apparently you also did
that was wrong because it was against the presumption of innocence
it's also true that the accuser's lying to the grand jury does not mean she wasn't raped, only that it will probably be impossible now for a jury to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt
i think we agree more than we disagree