Saturday, July 2, 2011

Yet Another Revelation

The Sofitel maid was reportedly a prostitute on the side. I had heard this rumor yesterday from another source but was waiting for published confirmation. That it comes from The Post is unfortunate, but my private sources tell me that more respectable papers were also close to breaking this story. Of course, prostitutes can be raped, but this story, if true, is yet another reason why this case will end soon.


thisnameisinuse said...

Unlike lying about being gang-raped, or her conversation with the prisoner I don't think this is important.

Being a prostitute shouldn't matter, except that it conflicts with the story we were being told, and even then you could argue that the story was told because she or her team believed a prostitute wouldn't receive justice.

Mitch Guthman said...

@ thisnameisinuse,

I cannot agree. Her being a prostitute would matter tremendously. If she is indeed a prostitute then DSK’s version of events makes considerably more sense overall then if we were speaking of the pious, hardworking immigrant maid beatified in the original NY Times piece. For DSK to have persuaded or even induced such a woman in the few minutes available to him seemed absurd and so his claim that his semen was deposited in a consensual encounter and that the hotel maid setting him was therefore also absurd.

If, however, she really was a prostitute then DSK’s story fits the available facts as well or better then does the victim’s story that DSK simply ran out of the bathroom naked and jumped on her.

If the Post story is accurate, DSK could reasonably have expected to be sexually serviced by this woman essentially “on demand” and in time for him to leave for the lunch with his daughter. He didn’t have to seduce, intimidate or even negotiate with her for sex. He just had to pay her, enjoy her services and then they would both get dressed and leave. That story makes perfect sense and fits both our intuitive sense of what must have taken place in order for DSK's version of events to be true and similarly makes more plausible the next step in DSK’s argument, to wit, that she set him up for some kind of extortion.

So, it makes a huge difference if she’s actually a prostitute. Not merely for issues of credibility but, more importantly, because DSK’s story can make sense only if she is a prostitute. Think of her being a prostitute as a necessary but not sufficient fact in order for DSK to be not guilty.

Lapinot said...

Ah, okay, I'd read a different story. That'll teach me not to click on the link.

IF the NY Post story is true (and from the little I know of the NY Post that's a fairly large 'if'), I see how it could be important in piecing the story together without being morally judgmental.

thisnameisinuse said...

Ugh, that was me. I'm sharing a computer and didn't sign out and in.

meshplate said...

Reading that Post story, it's based on a claim, which provides no supporting details, of one unnamed source. However, as Art says, prostitutes also can raped. There is alleged testimony of other New York prostitutes who claim that DSK was rough, too rough for them to want to have anything to do with him a second time.

Parting idea: the collapse of the credibility of the witness comes from the press and the DA'a office who had previously idealized her as a pious hard working down trodden single mother. That wasn't how she portrayed herself. The primary deception was the false image the DA painted; he was just caught out by the messiness of reality.

What if the DA's office had portrayed her as a prostitute roughed up and then raped by DSK? Would she have had to be killed for us to even consider that perhaps a crime might have taken place?

Anonymous said...

The official said "something to the effect..." which means she didn't say "I know what I'm doing".
Big difference.
Now, prostitution? - indeed very damaging because if DSK had used his services, then he could have assumed she was fair game when she entered the room. But this portrayal is nothing like what we read a couple weeks ago and the charge is a traditional one for women who bring forth charges of rape.
HOW can the NYT journalists, 4 of them if I recall properly, have covered the subject as thoroughly as it seemed they did (they even went to Guinea), have heard nothing, suspected nothing? Either she was a very able split personality case, a very able impersonator, or neither. It really seems that she was living a double life and thus she could really be part of a bigger scheme - conspiracy theorists will have a field day.