Wednesday, July 6, 2011

DSK: Does the Time Line Make Sense?

Not according to this reconstruction.


brent said...

Armchair detective Epstein uses precise notation but actually indulges in a number of assumptions. What is surely true from the recorded times is that SOMETHING happened in rm 2806, a sex act as we seem to know from DNA tests, and happened very quickly,in no more than 15 or 16 minutes, by the end of which the maid was gone and DSK was dressed and in the elevator. So was that hurried encounter a rape, a paid sex act, or a remarkably rapid instance of lust at first sight? All three are equally improbable, one of them actually happened, and Epstein's 'analysis' brings us no closer to the truth-hélas.

Anonymous said...

I don't get Epstein's timeline.
NINE minutes to get dressed? Seriously?

Cincinna said...

Epstein is a notorious aging kook conspiracy theorist/apologist who spent his life proposing ridiculous timelines fot the JFK assassination.

Epstein does not have access to forensic evidence or computer/electronic evidence. He does not have access to NYPD documents, hotel records, testimony, etc. He is basing his "theory" on articles that have appeared in the press, available to all.

DSK's attorneys met with DA prosecutors today. Expecting to walk out with a dismissal, they left empty- handed, saying only the discussions were " productive".
The DA has a lot more evidence than has been leaked to the press or the press has fabricated pit of whole cloth.

Mitch Guthman said...

I don’t think questions about the timeline particularly advance our understanding of the case because DSK isn’t claiming an alibi and has (through his lawyers) acknowledged having a sexual encounter with this lady in that place at approximately the time alleged.

Slight discrepancies in the timeline might chip away at the edges of the chambermaid’s credibility, as do her many acknowledged deceits and criminal associates. However, at this point, her credibility is beyond suspect and her story that this elderly man decided to rape a hotel chambermaid half his age and twice his size and weight when he knew that he needed to check out of the hotel in less than 30 minutes seems absurd on its face. Similarly, and speaking as a man, the idea that DSK would voluntarily put his penis into this woman’s mouth when they both knew that he was without a weapon seems, well, questionable. The prosecution is floundering on the problems with this basic narrative--a few minutes unaccounted for either way won't help or hurt anybody if the basic theory of the case doesn't hold water.

On the other hand, whatever the truth is, it seems pretty clear to me that DSK isn't telling it. Did this lecherous old man really try to seduce a chambermaid who had entered his room simply to clean it and then move on to the many other rooms to be cleaned by her that day---knowing that he had less than 30 minutes to persuade this total stranger to service him sexually? And, according to Epstein’s reconstruction, DSK had “less than six minutes for him to pull her into the suite bedroom, lock the door, overpower her, and force her to commit fellatio, if the encounter took place as his accuser has alleged”. And, he apparently does claim to have seduced her during that roughly six minutes because his lawyers are adamant that no money changed hands or was promised. Apparently, he claims to have actually seduced her during the between 6 minutes and 15 minutes available to him for that purpose (including whatever sex acts were performed). How absurd! Surely seduction is more time-consuming than rape? Is his claim of seducing her in between 6 and 15 minutes really something that makes any more sense than the chambermaid’s story? No, not at all.

Now, I would say that among his other many bad qualities is that DSK is probably inclined to be an opportunistic rapist who probably would have tried to rape this woman (or any reasonably desirable woman unlucky enough or foolish enough to be alone with him) had the opportunity for safely doing so presented itself. Based on my and Epstein’s analysis of the time line, however, I don’t believe that he had sufficient time available to him such that he would have contemplated raping the hotel chambermaid under those circumstances. And, of course, the burden of proof is on the government.

Regrettably, I believe this is the best possible defense of DSK. Formerly the front-runner for the presidency of France

bernard said...

interesting use of the word "kook" adjoining Epstein. One hopes it is not in its other meaning, otherwise its user sure qualifies for a free life-time membership of hezbollah.

In other news, France used to have a prez whose nickname was "three minutes including shower".

Cincinna said...

Kook = crackpot, nut, flake. In English, kook has only one meaning.
What other meaning are you talking about? What could it possibly have to do with Middle East terrorists?

Cincinna said...

Trois minutes, douche comprise
Everyone knows it is Chirac. Even Google!

Yes, the French are very different from you and me.

Google "trios minutes douche" and up comes:
Trois minutes, douche comprise
Le Tout Chirac: A life at the top: From John Lichfield in yesterday's Independent, a brilliantly succinct A-to-Z summary of Chirac's political career. Truly an essential read.

Choice excerpts:
In the 1980s, M. Laumond says, the procession of women into M. Chirac's office was so constant that women staffers would joke: "Chirac? Three minutes. Shower included."

MYOS said...

@Mitch: I don't understand "twice his size and weight". Shouldn't it be "(him being)twice her size and weight"?
DSK looks pretty, hm, hefty-paunched, I'd wager he is 200 pounds and the woman surely isn't 400 pounds, although we don't have a picture. :)

You're right, though, it doesn't make sense.

I'm wondering how well this woman speaks English and if some of the problems in our understanding may come from her level of language. Unless they're speaking in her native language, of course- is she speaking through a certified translator of some kind or in English? Do we know?
Also, we don't have DSK's version, except that he went from "diplomatic immunity" to "nothing happened" to "consensual sex".

Cincinna said...

Your point is well taken about DSK's lawyers changing defense.
I might add this: in American jurisprudence, the entire burden of proof is on the Prosecution. Defense does not have to even present a case. If they present a defense as you presented "I have Diplomatic Immunity, nothing happened, but if it did, it was consensual" is a nonsense, desperate defense.
As to the language problem- any witness, even if their English is good would be well advised by good attorney to
exercise their right, and request a translator. The accuser speaks an obscure dialect of Fulani, and has been quoted as saying the translator got it wrong- wasn't from her tribe.
The case still rests on the physical evidence, and IMO it must be strong to bring the charges.
We don't really know what the DA knows, we can only speculate. I hope it does go before a Jury so the truth will out.

Mitch Guthman said...


Point taken! I must confess, I was maybe somewhat over-exuberant regarding my descriptions of the principals because they were based on a written description which does not seem to have been entirely accurate. From her photograph and description on the Paris Match website, the accuser seems to be quite tall, a bit thin, but not at all frail. In fact, she’s seems to be pretty fit. I’m not really sure how DSK was supposed to have overpowered her. Perhaps it was more the shock of the initial physical attack which took her aback and then she was able to fight him off once she recovered her senses.

The main French publications for information about her seem to be Paris Match and Le Figaro. There seems to be much more information (including photographs) on the websites of some francophone African publications but I don’t know anything about them or how reputable they are. There are lots of photos on line (some appearing to be from French television or magazines) but, again, they don't all seem to be of the same woman and I don't know their provenance.

I couldn't find anything on-line about her level of proficiency in English. She is described in several places as speaking either very good French or else as perfectly bilingual in an African language and French, with French being considered her "first" language. But there is no official statement about this and we know from past experience that persons have falsely represented themselves as having either information about her or a relationship with her, so everything about her languages should be suspect until she actually testifies or commits an act of insanity such as holding the press conference which her idiot lawyer has been threatening.

I couldn’t find anything about how the police and prosecutors (or her lawyer, the idiot with the nice suit) communicate with her. It's an interesting question.

As to your last point: I agree with you that we really don’t know anything except for the various self-serving leaks to journalists. Which leaks or may not have any basis in fact. For example, we don’t actually know that DSK has admitted that there was any sexual contact or that he ever saw this maid at all. We also don’t actually know what, if anything, was found on her clothing or the carpet in terms of ejaculate. At most, we know what’s in the charging documents and the Brady letter from the prosecutors to DSK’s lawyers. That, at least, represents an official statement about what the prosecutors have learned about the accuser and her past. Beyond that, I agree, we really know nothing. We will learn more if the case proceeds and motions are filed (with accompanying affidavits, etc) but I personally doubt it will get that far. I think they will quietly dismiss sometime before the next court date.