The New York Times recounts today's meeting between prosecutors from the New York City DA's office and rape victim Nafissatou Diallo and her lawyer, Kenneth P. Thompson:
'Mr. Thompson said that he and Ms. Diallo entered a conference room where the three main prosecutors on the case, Artie McConnell, Joan Illuzzi-Orbon and Ann Prunty, sat.
According to Mr. Thompson, when he and Ms. Diallo sat down, Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon said something to the effect of: “Nafi, we’re going to dismiss the case. You have lied to us repeatedly We can’t win the case.”
Mr. Thompson said he asked Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon what she was talking about and that Ms. Diallo asked how she lied. As Ms. Diallo was trying to ask questions, Mr. Thompson said, the three prosecutors stood up and walked out of the room without answering.
“The meeting lasted no more than 30 seconds; it was probably 20 seconds,” Mr. Thompson said. “It was disrespectful, it was absolutely disrespectful. They didn’t have the common courtesy to answer one question that the victim posed.” '
And so the vile rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the rich white international business executive, gets off, and the African maid who was bruised and assaulted, gets accused of being a liar and a criminal. The American Justice system does what it does best, serving the interest of the rich, white and powerful.
Ms. Diallo was found to have severe bruising on her genitalia. Semen from her mouth, clothes, and the wall of the hotel room in which she was assaulted matched Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Numerous other women have come forward to document Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lecherous, predatory and rapine behavior: he clearly believes his power and privilege gives him the right to do to women whatever he pleases, whenever he chooses. And yet Cyrus Vance Jr., an alleged liberal from a respected political family, has chosen to let Strauss-Kahn get off scot-free, because of Diallo's alleged history of lying during the difficult process of her immigration to the United States.
Cyrus Vance Jr. is now guilty of rape along with DSK: in choosing to let drop the prosecution of a case he has said to all women that if there are any mistakes in your past, any wealthy or powerful man has the right to rape you, to damage and bruise your genitalia, to cover you with his personal filth, with total and absolute impunity from the law.
For a demoralizing exercise in the disgusting racism and misogyny in American society, read the comments on the cited New York Times story. Readers compare Ms. Diallo to Tawana Brawley, notorious nearly thirty years ago for making improbable claims of rape in a completely different case under completely different circumstances, related perhaps in the eyes of white racists for the shared color of their skin. They call for Ms. Diallo's deportation, prosecution, virtually for her very lynching. The anger against Diallo is disturbing: her vilification is near complete while a man of utterly dubious reputation goes free, back to his mansions and his millions and his wife who has learned to look the other way at his hobby of molesting women.
Despite the facts and evidence of the case, which are related to Ms. Diallo's past actions not one iota, Cyrus Vance's office have punted.
This is not only an injustice but an outrage. Cyrus Vance must be forced to resign, and a special prosecutor should not only continue the prosecution against Strauss-Kahn but investigate the DA's office for corruption.
Once again, New York's City says "fuck you" to its weakest and most vulnerable.
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/08/22/lecherwatch-11/
ReplyDeleteTwisty is always worth a read.
Surely a prostitute or a proven liar can be raped, just as a hit man can be murdered. No matter what bad acts you have committed in your life, if someone forces himself upon you against your will, you have been wronged and you deserve justice.
ReplyDeleteBut - justice in the abstract, and justice in the real world, are not necessarily the same thing. Just as with the boy who cried wolf, if a genuine crime victim can be proven to have lied in the past - especially under oath, and especially with regard to a crime similiar to the one complained of now - the victim's credibility is shot - and the likelihood of a conviction plummets. This is what a prosecutor considers in any case in which an alleged victim has credibility problems. What other evidence do I have? Is it strong enough that I can overcome the victim's credibility problems and still prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an extremely heavy burden to meet? If a prosecutor does pursue a case with a questionable complainant, and is slapped down with an acquittal as expected, does that still make him a rapist too? Or is it reasonable for a prosecutor, with limited resources, to concentrate his efforts on cases that actually present a reasonable chance of conviction?
Ms. Diallo may well be able to prove her pending civil case by a preponderance of the evidence - which is a much lower standard of proof. Time will tell. But, even if she wins her civil case, that doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecutor was wrong to not pursue the criminal case; and, if she loses her civil case, it will pretty much vindicate the prosecutor's decision.
If I were the prosecutor - and fully admitting I'm basing this on just the media reports that I've read, as I do not have direct access to the evidence itself - I'd be hesitant to pursue the case. This is just my honest assessment of what evidence I've seen, and is not influenced by my opinion of the accused as a human being, as he appears to be a pig at best. But ask yourself - is this the biggest injustice I've ever seen? Is this really worthy of my outrage? Or is this influenced by the fact that I just hate the guy in the first place?
Sure, the little guy is usually at a disadvantage in a dispute against the rich and powerful. So, what is the lesson to be learned by the little guy? If you want to have a chance against someone more powerful than you, then your life must be as close to blameless as possible. Tell the truth - not just with regard to the dispute you have with the powerful, but always. If you can be proven to have lied, especially to the government, especially under oath - and your opponent has not been proven to have lied under similar circumstances - you're probably going to lose.
Sure, the little guy is usually at a disadvantage in a dispute against the rich and powerful. So, what is the lesson to be learned by the little guy? If you want to have a chance against someone more powerful than you, then your life must be as close to blameless as possible. Tell the truth - not just with regard to the dispute you have with the powerful, but always. If you can be proven to have lied, especially to the government, especially under oath - and your opponent has not been proven to have lied under similar circumstances - you're probably going to lose.
ReplyDeleteThat seems so tragic MrBill, it reminds me of a James Baldwin novel. I think that's what has me outraged. I think it's strange that the facts of the case seem pretty straightforward but that this is all about something else. It's the predictability of Mr. Vance choosing to duck a possible high-profile loss (he's already under fire as ineffective) rather than risking the possibility of glorious, banner-waving win of justice and putting an end to DSK's reign of piggishness against women.
@Jon, thanks for the link.
I hear you, man. But this is a calculation that prosecutors make every day, in innumerable cases, all across the country. What evidence do I have? Can I prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteObviously you're very passionate about this case, and far be it from me to suggest you're wrong to feel that way. But I definitely do not want my prosecutors to feel that way. I can't tell you how many unjust convictions have resulted from a prosecutor getting a hard-on for a particular accused and in the process losing his objectivity - because then arises the temptation to cut corners, use questionable evidence, fail to disclose exculpatory evidence, ignore other suspects, and so on. In deciding whether to prosecute in the first place, and who to prosecute, I want my prosecutors to be as dispassionate as possible.
I was aware of a number of instances in which Ms. Diallo's credibility had been questioned - including lying on her asylum application, the false gang rape story, tax returns, etc. In perusing the news today, I see that the prosecutors allege that she also lied under oath to the grand jury itself, which I don't recall hearing before. I mean, come on - if you lie under oath to the very grand jury that is considering the criminal allegations that you have brought - don't be surprised if the criminal case falls apart.
I hate to even tread in the vicinity of "blaming the victim" - and certainly I don't blame Ms. Diallo for being sexually assaulted if that's what happened. But, I do blame her for torpedoing her own credibility and, ultimately, the prosecutors' case.
I'm with you 100% on this. It pisses me off big-time. This was the case that told me justice is over. We're in new territory now, and dog help you if you don't have money.
ReplyDeletethanks @ writenow. discouraging, eh?
ReplyDelete