I have not written anything before this about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case but I just have to note some irony here:
It seems that it is all about credibility and perhaps a little bit about the power of the wealthy.
There may or may not have been a rush to judgment about Strauss-Kahn as to whether he actually assaulted the hotel maid in New York City this past May or whether it was somewhat consensual or maybe whether anything happened at all.
Whatever, he was hauled away in cuffs and made to do the perp walk in front of the cameras. He lost his post as head of the International Monetary Fund, as well as hopes for becoming the next president of France, something polls indicated he just might be.
But you see, he has a history, as reported by many women, to include reporters who tried to interview him, of bad behavior towards women. So with that in mind, people were pre-disposed to think the worst, that and the fact that when anyone is arrested everyone just assumes he (or she) must be guilty, otherwise why would the authorities make the arrest? Some would prefer that arrests not be made public for the mere fact people sometimes are mistakenly or falsely accused. But in societies that have no freedom police often arrest people and whisk them way never to be heard from again. Making all arrests public knowledge is supposed to combat that. And if authorities know arrests are reported and that they must have some reason, unjust detainments are more unlikely (although not impossible).
Then there was the poor hotel maid, a poor woman from Africa. Just trying to make a living doing dirty work, it was reported. Now authorities think she consorted with or was in with the drug trade and there is evidence she asked how she could profit from her little affair with Strauss-Kahn. She still may have been attacked, but there goes her credibility.
Strauss-Kahn has been released from his bail but is not yet off the hook, although there is speculation from those in the know on such things that he may well beat the rap. No doubt his wealth and power is part of the reason he has apparently lucked out or has been vindicated. A man with lesser resources might have a harder time beating a sexual assault charge, whether it was justified or not, both because authorities have more respect for the well connected and the wealthy can hire attorneys and investigators on their behalf.
Some had speculated that Strauss-Kahn’s political enemies might have been behind this. It has been reported that he may retain power in the French Socialist Party, but his hopes to win the presidency of France, that seemed so likely, do not now.
The credibility thing worked in this case almost equally between poor and rich — almost.
understandably, people tend not to trust those whose own actions seem to not merit trust in them.
On a TV news report, I heard a French woman say that even though Strauss-Kahn may be not guilty of sexual assault there will always be that question and that you don’t want someone obsessed with sex to be president (JFK? Bill Clinton?).
And what is it about these prominent French men having such un-French names. I mean while Dominique is certainly French — what about Strauss-Kahn? And the current French president — Sarkozy (a Hungarian name)?