The press conference, the latest in a series of high profile attempts to cast Diallo in the role of victim, came hot on the heels of her Newsweek and ABC interviews.
The New York Post suggested that Diallo had gone Hollywood. "She was unrecognizable," at the press conference. "Gone were the baggy, gray slacks and lime-green, shapeless blouse she wore in that ill-advised interview on ABC. Gone was the lifeless hair." (See here.)
What is this media blitz really about? As the reporter for the Post explained:
"The DA has suggested the case is in trouble. Not because of Diallo's race, but because she previously lied about being gang-raped and discussed Strauss-Kahn on the phone with a jail inmate accused of drug trafficking. And then, there's the matter of $100,000 that was reportedly funneled into her bank account by unsavory types.
"None of this, of course, has to do with whether she was sexually attacked, but it undermines her credibility and ability to testify.
"So change the subject. Make it about race. And while you're at it, buy a glamorous wardrobe and glittery lip gloss and attract an adoring fan club.
"It's one way to succeed." (See here.)
Reuters reports: ". . . some experts said her lawyers were pushing [District Attorney Cyrus] Vance not to drop the case because otherwise Diallo's supporters might not vote for him if, as expected, he seeks reelection in 2013." (See here.)
"Top defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz has called Diallo's media interviews, 'a desperate gambit to try to put pressure on the prosecution to consider not dropping the case.'" (Id.)
Diallo's lawyer threatens to file a civil suit against Strauss-Kahn. Asked when such a civil suit would be filed, he responded, "I said soon. Soon is soon." (See here.) He added: "If it wasn't for race, if it wasn't for class, do you think [Diallo] would be treated this way?" he said. (See here.)
The implication of the media blitz is that law enforcement--specifically, the people who unnecessarily photographed Mr. Strauss-Kahn naked, denied him bail, held him in solitary confinement, subjected him to a most humiliating "perp walk," and boasted to the press how he was strip-searched multiple times a day--that law enforcement, isn't taking her claim seriously. And that's not even to mention the fact that because law enforcement rushed to arrest Strauss-Kahn and to essentially declare him guilty, Strauss-Kahn was forced to step down from one of the world's most important jobs and likely has been deprived of any realistic chance to be elected president of France.
In short, the suggestion that Diallo's claim wasn't taken seriously is at odds with the facts. Prof. Alan Dershowitz summed it up: "They shouldn’t have presumed him guilty from the beginning." Feminist Naomi Wolf said: "Whatever happened in that hotel room, Strauss-Kahn’s career, and his presumption of innocence, was effectively over — before any legal process had even begun." Defense lawyer superstar Roy Black chimed in with a stinging indictment of how the presumptively innocent are deprived of critical rights in rape cases. (See here.)
Perhaps worst of all, once again, a serious charge of criminality has been reduced to crass identity politics as interest groups wishing to further a dubious race/class/gender agenda are backing Diallo even though the criminal investigation is ongoing, and not even a scrap of evidence has been admitted at trial.
It's as if Duke lacrosse never happened.
For one, Susan Brownmiller, best known for popularizing the assertion that only two percent of rape claims are false, declared: "I believe her story." Brownmiller's proof? "Rape victims remember some facts vividly," she asserted, "but often get confused about exact timelines." (See here.) That might be so, but Brownmiller doesn't bother to note that rape liars also often posit narratives that are a hodgepodge of clarity, confusion, and vagueness. See, e.g., J. Savino, B. Turvey, Rape Investigation Handbook, at 286-87 (2d ed. 2011). Brownmiller's advocacy for Diallo would be laughable in any non-politicized setting, but she's a guru of the sexual grievance movement, so her prejudgment-by-gender is afforded respect in the twisted world of rape politics.
It isn't just gender warriors who are backing Diallo. "Khadijah Shakur, a member of the New Black Panther Party, was among the roughly two dozen supporters who joined Ms. Diallo near a small stage in the lobby, assembled behind red velvet rope. 'She is being blamed, but she is the victim,' Ms. Shakur said before the news conference." (See here.) How Ms. Shakur knows Diallo is a victim is anyone's guess.
Fortunately, their efforts have not yet attracted widespread support. "Notwithstanding Thursday's show of support, Diallo's case has not brought a groundswell of public support or led to widespread outcries about Vance's handling of the case. 'In my political travels around Manhattan, I don't hear any of the woman activists jumping up and down that much,' said Arthur Greig, a lawyer and former New York County Democratic Committee counsel. 'I haven't seen or heard any groundswell.'" (See here.)
Lost in the circus is the fact that a serious allegation about a potentially serious crime deserves to be handled in a serious manner, even if it appears that the accuser has serious credibility problems. And handling a rape claim seriously does not mean treating the accuser like a Kardashian or destroying the presumptively innocent man accused of the crime in the court of public opinion.
Posts
30 comments:
"None of this, of course, has to do with whether she was sexually attacked, but it undermines her credibility and ability to testify.
****
Well, uh... yeah, it does.
Whether or not she previously lied about being raped has a gosh awful lot to do with whether or not she was raped this time; sorry, losers.
Everybody supporting this cunt is a traitor both to men and to the truth. The "New Black Panther Party" (whoever the fuck they are) are stabbing every black man who has ever been falsely convicted of rape in the back.
The prosecution in this case is trying to get rid of this case, which is obvious now. My question is at what point does the prosecution decide to do the right thing and dismiss the case? Even worse when if ever will they decide to go after the former prostitute, they have list of charges they can use. The FR queen could be charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, welfare fraud, money laundering, prostitution, and conspiracy to commit extortion. There is a list of charges that could be brought against this woman. I know that I can’t prove it but I do think that the CIA may have a hand in all of this, after all this man was to be the next president of France.
A prostitution charge would send a message to other false accusers.
Arod: of course they won't prosecute this slimy woman. And she knows it.
She has nothing to lose and $ and attention to gain.
About the CIA: I would love to be able to dismiss that out of hand. But golly, they did bankroll Gloria Steinem, didn't they? (That's well established, not the conjecture of some conspiracy theorist.)
And the Julian Assange thing is still very, very suspicious, isn't it? So, I wouldn't say that's impossible.
But false rape accusations have become so common and are so tolerated that this one hardly surprises me. The former Vice President of the US was falsely accused of rape and the public thinks nothing of it.
I believe rape hysteria in the US is a cyclical thing.
The last big cycle of American rape hysteria culminated in the attempted lynching of nine innocent black boys on the false rape accusation of two young white women, the case is known as "The scottsborro boys". (google it)
I would like to know the roles of some of the main stream media outlets at that time, and did they participate (like they are doing now) in "INFLAMING" the public??
Did congress finally step in and tell the main stream media outlets of that era, that they could no longer profiteer from "Inflaming" the public??
The protocol perversions and semantics games of American law enforcement, that manufacture Empowerment rhetoric for the gender-feminist community, is unconstitutional.
What kind of ??black panthers?? are these guys??
Most false rape accusations are white women against black guys, so these "panther perverts" aren't really protecting their brothers, its seems their more like extortionists.
The "New Black Panthers" are basically Black Panther rip-offs who are not affiliated in any way with the original Black Panthers, who have condemned them.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled them as a hate group for their advocacy of violence against whites.
Pearce Harland claimed, in an earlier post, that the 2 women accusers are incredible (I think he meant UNcredible).
My question is --- why does Pearce believe that DSK is credible?
8:30: I have no personal opinion about DSK or the accuser. All I have to go on is what is reported. The D.A.'s about-face after crowing about DSK's guilt is a very bad sign for the prosecution, and the press has indicated that she is incredible (yes, that is the correct word). We know that some women are raped, so why do the press/law enforcement insist on backing ones they really aren't sure about? And in the process destroying presumptively innocent men?
8:30: It has been firmly established that she has lied about being raped, and it even on tape discussing with a prison inmate how she intends to milk DSK for tons of money. What more evidence do we need?
Besides, why on earth would we start with the assumption that he did anything beyond being a male slut? That makes no sense.
Also: why wouldn't he be credible? She has made many wildly inconsistent statements to police, and is a proven criminal (prostitute, probable involvement in drugs, etc).
Ordinarily, when Person #1 confronts Person #2 in court, the person who has told fewer lies and has less of a criminal history is considered more credible.
Why would it be any different just because this is a rape accusation? A rape accusation isn't inherently more credible than any other claim just because it's a rape accusation, is it?
Here's what I find most objectionable: before anything was known about either one, I heard a lot of people assume his guilt and her innocence. The only thing we knew about them was that he's a powerful male, and she's a female who worked as a maid in a ritzy hotel. Prejudgment by gender in place of fairness and objectivity.
I try to be objective. I've represented women who've been abused by partners and even a woman who was wrongly accused of a sex act. My favorite client is a self-professed lesbian. I try my best to see all sides of the issue. This I know: rape is not rampant, neither are false rape claims, but there is too much of both, and injustice deserves to be battled regardless of the victim's gender. Can we please leave politics out of these issues and work together for justice?
Archivist said...
8:30: I have no personal opinion about DSK or the accuser. All I have to go on is what is reported. The D.A.'s about-face after crowing about DSK's guilt is a very bad sign for the prosecution, and the press has indicated that she is incredible (yes, that is the correct word). We know that some women are raped, so why do the press/law enforcement insist on backing ones they really aren't sure about? And in the process destroying presumptively innocent men?
Jul 29, 2011 9:41:00 PM
I want to say follow the money but I think this goes farther up and involves more than money. Step away from the forest and look at each tree. Isn't there a woman being considered for IMF Chief?
As I've said before, a false accusation of a serious crime is a potent weapon , and are often unprovable (except the "valued" testimony/word(s) of the accuser.
If this woman is lying, which I believe she is, it doesn't matter if she had millions of people backing her up, she is a liar and should be dealt with accordingly.
someone should put together a comprehensive time line of the media circus.
I believe the first faulty and inflammatory misinformation that was published was that she was a pious muslim women, who would never so much as cross the road if the light says not to.
This first misinformation is much different than the "prostitute who phones her boyfriend in prison to tell him "she's hit the pay-load".
*why do the press/law enforcement insist on backing ones they really aren't sure about? And in the process destroying presumptively innocent men?*
---------------
A presumptively innocent man is responsible for the Duggard tragedy. Should the press have stayed out of it until after the guilty verdict?
They sell more papers that way.
11:43: The Duggard case involved a situation where it was readily apparent very early on that a terrible crime had taken place, unlike this case. In this case, even before police knew a crime had occurred, they pretty much declared a specific man guilty of it. Whether we should have anonymity in all cases is something I can't answer, but in this case, it's fairly clear that not even an arrest should have occurred yet, much less a public crucifixion.
""A presumptively innocent man is responsible for the Duggard tragedy. Should the press have stayed out of it until after the guilty verdict?""
A registered sex offender with a kidnap victim living in his home is not presumptively innocent - not after he waltzs in with the victim and confesses all to his probation officer.
Falsely accused black men suffered horribly at the hands of white men. Let's face it - lying white ladies didn't lay a glove on them.
Cases of black women falsely accusing white men are extremely rare, and I don't know of a single case where a posse of black men lynched,wrongly convicted,murdered or tortured a falsely accused white man at the whim of a black woman's "honor".
Until that "Score" is settled, don't look to black men for support against false accusations.
It IS too bad when Al Sharpton and Jessee jackson are reduced to defending Tawana Brawley, Crystal Mangum or Nafissatou Diallo - - -but the very fact that we KNOW the names of each of these black women who falsely accused white men is the telling factor.
Over 200 men have been exonerated by DNA testing - the huge, vast majority of them black men wrongly accused by white women.
Not a single one of them was a white man incarcerated for decades by a black woman's lies or misidentification.
Until some of that business gets cleared up and wrongs righted - I wouldn't look to the brothers for FRA support.
Until some of that business gets cleared up and wrongs righted - I wouldn't look to the brothers for FRA support.
***
Well, the obvious problem with that position is that the mess will never be cleared up until white and black men start cooperating.
And really, as you just pointed out -- black men are more in need of assistance than whites. So making this a race issue just makes life worse for both innocent white and black men, and those who depend on them.
Here is Time Magazine's Jessica Stern, enabling obvious false accuser Diallo -- using one of my favorite feminist arguments: "I really was raped, so you have to believe that she was, too!"
Feminist bullshit stinks like no other.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2085469,00.html
Contrary to what people think, the NY cops do a thorough job. When this all began they collected all of the data on this female. They collected all of the electronic and computer data about when a door was opened from the key cards, the videos etc and put it all togethewr and her story just didn't add up. They checked her background including the lies she told about being raped to mget asylum, the money in her bank account (how did that money get there when she was collecting benefits?) Her conversation with an inmate in prison for fraud and I can assure you that in NYC and with their resources they had someone who understood the dialect perfectly. The DA knows he has to drop the case. The accuser's lawyer is making her do all of this in hopes of winning some civil case before the typical gulible jury or pressuring Strauss for some $$$ settlement to go away.
The feminazis have already won this. By making being a serial false accuser socially acceptable, they have set men back another fifty years.
The media should be tearing this liar apart: instead, they are enabling her abuse to continue.
The bigger question is, why does the FCC allow main stream American media outlets profiteer off "inflaming" the public??
And has congress ever had to step in to challenge Main stream American media's attempts to "Inflame the public" in the past??
I beleive they had to step in during the case of the "scottsborro boys" (google it), because main stream media was "inflaming" the public against some innocent boys.
I don't think the FCC can do anything about it; free speech, and all.
And yes, the First Amendment is sacred; but what these maggots are doing to this innocent man is inexcusable.
Back to Diallo, and the seemingly inexplicable wave of feminist support for her lies: this lawsuit is going nowhere but down, down, down. Surely the feminists know that.
So why would they support such an obvious liar, when keeping her name in the papers only contributes to more skepticism for rape claimants (some of them legitimate)?
It makes no sense at all, unless one of two things is true:
1/ feminists are just batshit stupid or crazy, and can't grasp that this case is harmful to their own interests, or
2/ feminists really don't give a rat's ass about helping rape victims, and prefer to use this as a way of demeaning men, and of making false rape accusations (slightly more) socially acceptable.
Personally, I tend to believe the latter: they really just want a chance to rape innocent men, even AT THE EXPENSE OF real rape victims.
Gender feminists as a united whole gain Empowerment by fostering a culture of false rape accusations that American law enforcement perversions are using semantics games to classify as "unfounded".
These protocol perversions and semantics games that American law enforcement are now engaged in to manufacture Empowerment rhetoric for gender-feminists is unconstitutional.
And yes, the First Amendment is sacred; but what these maggots are doing to this innocent man is inexcusable.
That's not true and the 1st amendment only guarantees that the government can't infringe upon free speech, with a few exceptions. The press has been sued sucessfully by a number of people for libel and defamation eg. Carol Burnett vs. National Enquirer.
The problem in the US is that to sue sucessfully you also have to show malicious intent. This is not true in England where you only have to show that the story was false and you were harmed by it.
The bigger question is, why does the FCC allow main stream American media outlets profiteer off "inflaming" the public??
/////////////////////////////////
The main street media is the problem, they receive millions of dollars from the pentagon and other government sources.
Post a Comment