Today's piece of yellow journalism from the NY Times about "major holes in the credibility" of the woman who accused IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn or rape , a piece obviously co-ordinated with leaks to the Associated Press, is causing some stir. Over at The Awl, Choire Sicha does a good rundown of the NYT and AP leaked "major holes".
Let us sort the anonymous "law enforcement" claims about the accuser from most to least serious!
• "the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him." This is the most interesting thing, as it was recorded, and is the actual kind of thing that can be used in court.
• "the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said." These lies are not explained or listed, except for some conflicts regarding her asylum application.
• a "number" of men put something like $50,000 in her bank account each year for two years. One of them was arrested for having a lot of drugs. She said one of these men was her fiancé.
• "she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies." I think this one is an insinuation that goes unelaborated?
• She said she was raped in her asylum application but the application contains no note of that, and she said she had been genitally mutilated before she arrived in America but her "account" differs from her formal application for asylum.
Annnnnnd that's it. You know what would be useful? Evidence presented in a court of law. Oh yes! The American way, so hated by French intellectuals.
It does look like money changed hands. She has little.
I am getting quite worried about the Times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_%28term%29
No comments:
Post a Comment