Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    So tell me precisely what the Manhattan DA did wrong?

    So tell me precisely what the Manhattan DA did wrong?

    The New York Times and New York Magazine have the long knives out for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.

    But tell me, what precisely is it the DA’s office did wrong in the Strauss-Kahn case?

    There was a quick indictment and serious terms to home confinement based upon what at the time seemed like a credible account of a sexual assault and an accused who was a substantial flight risk.  Had the DA’s office not acted quickly, and not imposed almost draconian terms on home confinement, the DA’s office risked a Roman Polanski-like situation of a sexual assault suspect fleeing to a safe haven beyond the reach of U.S. law.

    Then the credibility of the alleged victim and her story began to fall apart, most particularly in the past two weeks. 

    So the DA’s office did the right thing in disclosing the potentially exculpatory  information to the defense, and agreeing to release on personal recognizance, as the DA evaluated whether there even remains a case to be taken forward.   Should the DA simply have ignored the new evidence, or alternatively, precipitously used the new evidence as a reason to dismiss charges?  I think not.

    William Saletan writing at, catalogs the problems with the alleged victim’s story, and concludes:

    Already, there are cries of concern that if the case disintegrates, it will destroy the credibility of rape victims or immigrants, while powerful abusers will go free. That’s the wrong conclusion. The unraveling of the Strauss-Kahn prosecution is a victory for justice, because investigators found ways to check the accuser’s credibility. Other accusers will pass such tests. This one didn’t. What the collapse of this case proves is that it’s possible to distinguish true rape accusations from false ones—and that the government, having staked its reputation on an accuser’s credibility, diligently investigated her and disclosed her lies. The system worked.

    The system doesn’t always work, particularly for those (not just the “poor” but also the middle-class) who cannot afford investigators, or in prosecutor’s offices where winning is the primary goal.

    But based upon what we know now, both the rights of an alleged crime victim and the rights of the accused were treated seriously by the state and subjected to the best evidence available at the time.  What’s wrong with that?


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    What’s wrong? The perp walk (not unique to this case).

    My crystal ball is showing me a vision of the future. I see this accuser suddenly a wealthy woman. I see the whole Union running a prostitution ring right out in the open in a luxury hotel in the nanny state capitol of the world disappearing as all a mistake, never mind. I see a serial sex offender going loose among the capitols of the world. In other words, just like Billy Jeff. Sex offenses are okay if you are a powerful leftist.

    teapartydoc | July 4, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Now I wonder: Did she do this because he walked out without paying? Surely she would not have wanted to draw attention to herself. There must have been at least some kind of sudden overwhelming compulsion to risk her status that blinded her to the consequences of going public.

    Viator | July 4, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Not So Fast on Strauss-Kahn
    By Victor Davis Hanson


    The shake down angle just isn’t playing well. I still think he’s pulling strings from the inside.


    If she’s making bank as a hooker, a shakedown gone wrong would ruin that gig; not a good risk to pull if you’ve got a high end hotel supplying johns with lots of cash. Also, 99% of the population does not know who this D-bag is, let alone a hooker and her loser convict pimp/bfriend. So this would have to be highly premeditated. If it is highly premeditated, the things that are coming out now would not play- extremely dumb mistakes for a shakedown artist to make if they’ve gone to the trouble to target their prey. Also if this a shake down from a political enemy (ie not for money for the hooker), it’s WAYYY sloppy.

    Also you can’t tell me the hotel manager wasn’t aware of the hooker angle when she came crying rape on the job.

    You keep comparing it to Duke LaX, but its a Kobe. No intercourse was ever proven at Duke. With Kobe intercourse was proven and the argument fell to consensual or not. Kobe behind the scenes paid Kate Fabre off- which is what rich people do in these circumstances—so why no michael jackson hush money to the victim?

    I don’t doubt she’s angling for money at this point- but a part time hooker who got raped, is still a rape victim, and likely a rape victim with sharper fangs than the usual girl. The question becomes whether they can prove it was a premeditated shakedown, so far I don’t see that.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend