Monday, May 23, 2011

DSK's DNA on Dress

Reported by Le Monde. So there was sex. Even if there was consent, DSK is proven to be a monumentally reckless man. And if there wasn't consent ....

UPDATE: Or maybe it means nothing. See comment by Mitch.
FURTHER UPDATE: Scratch that. It's semen, there was ejaculation, and it was found in three places. See comments.

19 comments:

Mitch Guthman said...

I wouldn’t read quite so much into this leak. Because of the way the leak is carefully phrased (either by NBC or the leaker), one is given the very distinct impression that “genetic material” is being used here as a euphemism for semen. This is not necessarily so because “genetic material” (as a term of art) typically includes DNA from hair, saliva or skin cells, etc.

If the material isn’t semen, then the fact that his genetic material was found on her dress tells us nothing. It was his room so his genetic material is certain to be sprinkled liberally throughout. The victim was in his room at least once during that day and some of his genetic material could easily have been transferred to her dress.

Because DNA is readily transferable and can easily be picked up and transferred again and again, scientific testing can’t tell us how the DNA came to be in a specific place or when it came to be there. To kind of oversimplify, we apparently deposit our genetic material everywhere we go and it is easily picked up by others who then spread it everywhere they go. If the substance from which the DNA was recovered was DSK’s semen, yes, that’s new and significant. Anything else is not that meaningful given that we know that it was DSK’s hotel suite and also that the victim had been inside his room at least once during the day in question.

Actually, the peculiarly coy phrasing of the leak leads me to suspect that the “genetic material” found on her dress wasn’t his ejaculate. If the leaker actually had access to the reports, then he would be in a position to specify that the source of the genetic material was semen. Likewise, if it was DSK’s semen found on her dress, NBC would certainly have felt no need to speak euphemistically out of fear of offending viewers delicate sensibilities. If they had access to a leaked lab report showing that it was DSK’s semen, they would have trumpeted it. So, I say let’s take this with a grain of salt until it’s confirmed.

Arthur Goldhammer said...

Interesting, thanks Mitch.

Anonymous said...

Alan Dershowitz believes traces of DNA actually helps the prosecution's case :

Si des traces de l'ADN de Strauss-Kahn sont trouvées sur le corps de la femme de chambre, il sera difficile d'expliquer qu'il ne s'est rien passé ou que la relation était consensuelle.

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/dsk-est-un-client-difficile-a-defendre_995792.html

Philippe

Mitch Guthman said...

@ Art Goldhammer,

Sorry but I spoke too soon. My analysis was clearly wrong. NBC apparently really was using "genetic material" as a euphemism for ejaculate. I tried to update as soon as I clicked on the link from France 2 but something went wrong with Blogger.

France 2 says it was sperm on the hotel maid's dress: «Selon nos informations, un test ADN est formel: le sperme de Dominique Strauss Khan a été retrouvé sur le col du chemisier de [victim's name deleted by Mitch], 32 ans, la femme de ménage de l’hôtel Sofitel qui l’accuse de l’avoir agressé sexuellement samedi dernier» So, I think we are all in agreement that DSK has been conclusively proven to be a dog and almost certainly an unsuccessful rapist.

@ Philippe,

Thanks for the link to the excellent interview with Alan Dershowitz. I think he’s right not just about what it would mean to find DSK’s ejaculate on the maid’s person or clothing but also in his general analysis of the case. At this point, DSK only defense would seem to be some form of consent but now any form of “consent” except as part of a “set up” would be farcical. I think previously it was possible to argue the hotel maid’s account was not intuitively satisfying (“rich old man lurks naked in bathroom waiting to rape the first woman employee who enters the room during the half-hour before his rendezvous with his daughter for lunch). But, if his ejaculate has indeed been found on the maid’s dress, her story received an enormous credibility boost and his has taken an immense hit.

Really, what’s his story: “Hello! I’m a rich old man. You don’t need to make the bed because I’m about to check out but, since you are here anyway, would you mind terribly orally copulating me instead so that I will be able to sleep on the flight back to France? And could I have a couple extra mints, too?” No, the only way this works is if he had a tryst arranged with her, perhaps for money but she intended to set him up all along. But what could have gone wrong that she would eventually accuse him of having attempted to rape her (and in such an outlandish way)? If he wants to put on a defense, I think he will be forced to claim it was a set up from the beginning. A very hard row to hoe.

At this point, again assuming that the prosecution can deliver on the leaked evidence, the best thing he can do is stop squandering his wife’s money and bribe one of his guards to bring him lots of sleeping pills and a nice bottle of wine because his life is pretty much over.

Cincinna said...

Past is present: possible re-enactment?

http://touch.dailymotion.com/#/video/x20hw0

Alex Price said...

The report on the Journal de 20h de France 2 (23/5/11) specifies that “du liquide séminal” was found in three locations: the carpet, the washbasin, and the maid’s shirt.

Cincinna said...

@Philippe
I believe Dershowitz meant if there was DNA on her body that would indicate she too had removed her clothes. But the DNA was found on her uniform collar, which would corroborate one of the charges. DNA can also be found in hair and skin transfer, as well as fingernail scrapings and scrapings of the reported scrapes and scratches on his torso.

Anonymous said...

Whether it is a belief or a fact, even DSK's supporters use it to state it means nothing more than "the maid was in the room", such as what a hotel manager calls "a onesome", which the maid "picked up" cleaning or by wiping her hands on her dress in disgust.

Anyway if I understand it correctly "things with DNA" were found during the rape kit which justified sending police officers to the airport. Even if no one could know whose genetic material, it was it matched the maid's story. One does not bring an important man to a police precinct under such charges without evidence and probable cause.

meshplate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
meshplate said...

Not all reports mince words about DNA evidence. Some simply state sperm. Are they jumping to conclusions? I am not sure that if it were merely a matter of finding DSK's hair (or some other uncontroversial substance) they would released a communique mentioning about DNA evidence in the same way. Not all substances can be called evidence, while sperm certainly can.

Jerry said...

Why have you deleted the article "Jewish Defense League Breaks Up Meeting in 14th Arrdt of Paris"?

Anonymous said...

Did anybody read that? What do you make of it?
DSK. C'est le New York Post qui l'affirme: des proches de DSK auraient contacté la famille de Nafissatou Diallo afin de leur proposer de l'argent pour qu'elle abandonne ses poursuites. «Ils ont déjà parlé avec sa famille. Cela va sûrement s'arranger», a indiqué au quotidien américain une femme d'affaires française, proche de l'ex-directeur du FMI. «Il va s'en sortir et retournera en France. Il n'ira pas en prison. La femme de chambre va obtenir beaucoup d'argent», a-t-elle ajouté, parlant d'une somme à sept chiffres. (20minutes.fr)

Arthur Goldhammer said...

Anonymous10:47, I read it but didn't post on it, because the NY Post is the NY Post, a highly unreliable source.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/maid_offer_ya_can_refuse_joKw8dxbw6AkYOmJsEZiaN

alas, the POST = ??? veracity

Cincinna said...

@ Anonymous and Art
Why are you posting or permitting the publication of the name of Thr alleged victim? Every other newspaper and journalist blog in the US has witheld her name. It is not prohibited by Law, but common decency and respect for victims that prevents us from revealing the name of a victim in a sex crime.

Arthur Goldhammer said...

I don't post the woman's name. If others do I can't stop them.

Cincinna said...

@Arr
She is not only the alleged victim, more importantly, she is the key witness in a major criminal case, which IMO justifies removing her name from print. Because of the sensitive nature of the case, she is under 24/7 police protection, and is believed to be in danger.
Just my 2¢

MYOS said...

Re: the NYPOST
Isn't it pointless at this point to pay her to drop her lawsuit? Indeed the lawsuit would not stop since the grandjury met and indicted DSK, which means the people will make sure a trial or a pleabargain takes place, right? Moreover, if she were to accept money, wouldn't she be liable for defamation?

As for offering money to her relatives so that they put pressure on her, or offering to change the dirt-poor (literally) village where her family lives in exchange for giving up, I find that pretty disgusting, but that's just me, obviously. I don't see why a friend of DSK's would leak such a thing unless they think it'd endear him to us or prove sth negative about the alleged victim.

MYOS said...

A well-written blog post: "jeter un homme en pature"
doesn't mean "out to pasture" but "to throw to the wolves"
http://pire-racaille.blogspot.com/2011/05/jeter-un-homme-en-pature.html