Op-Ed on DSK by Wendy Murphy

By Wendy J. Murphy

For The Patriot Ledger

July 3, 2011

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has a big political problem: Sexual
violence is occurring at epidemic rates but the guy can't manage to do
justice for victims. He lost the "Rape Cop" case despite overwhelming
evidence of guilt, and now he stands poised to dismiss rape charges against
deposed IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) in a case he said only a
month ago was very strong and had lots of forensic evidence to corroborate
the victim's description of what happened. If this is what Vance's
constituents can expect from their elected District Attorney, the public
should consider running the guy out of town and electing someone who will
put the safety of women higher up the ladder of prosecutorial priorities.

Jurors said they voted to acquit in the "Rape Cop" case because there was no
DNA evidence. (Didn't Vance's prosecutors tell the jury the cops used
condoms?)

Any prosecutor who just lost a big case because there was NO DNA, should be
hard-pressed to criticize the evidence against DSK where there is PLENTY of
DNA. In fact, not only was DSK's semen found on the front of the victim's
shirt, there's blood evidence, too, consistent with the victim's description
of a violent struggle.

In Cyrus Vance's office, rape cases are apparently unprovable with or
without DNA.

What's that old saying? With prosecutors like that ...

I hate to rub in Vance's face that his decision to criticize the prosecution
of DSK was predictable, but in an article I wrote for Women's eNews only
days after DSK was arrested, I said the case would soon go "poof". It
wasn't that I was suspicious of the victim's credibility or thought she was
some sort of agent for DSK's political opponents (as if they wouldn't think
of a million better ways to bring the guy down), it was the wealth of the
accused, the relative poverty of the victim, and the fact that before the
ink was dry on DSK's arrest papers, people on his behalf reportedly had
already offered money to the victim's family in Africa to make the case go
away.

That a payoff was in the works so soon made the end game obvious before the
game even started. In a criminal justice system where corruption is not
tolerated, it wouldn't matter. But the American legal system has long
protected the wealthy over the poor, which is one of the reasons Kobe Bryant
walked away from his criminal rape prosecution while so many poor men of his
color sit in prison for committing less serious offenses. That's right.
Kobe Bryant, a black man, is partly responsible for why lots of black men
are behind bars. Nice.

Recent developments in DSK's case suggest the players took a page out of
Bryant's diabolical defense strategy. If the victim's reputation is
destroyed in the court of public opinion, and then she's given money as a
"settlement", nobody will care that the criminal charges go away or that a
"settlement" in a criminal case is illegal. Immoral victims who've behaved
badly don't deserve fair treatment in law and society.

The difference between the Bryant case and this one, at least so far, is
that the payoff is not yet obvious - though it's interesting that the
attorney the victim had representing her early on, a "personal injury"
lawyer, has gone silent. It's hard to get at the truth about whether a deal
is in the works when the dealmakers refuse to speak, but let's just say we
should be on the lookout for whether the victim starts driving a Bentley.
If there's a payoff in the works, she will disappear and spend her newfound
wealth in a location where nobody will notice.

Between now and then, the public will watch this case die - in two stages.

First we get the trial balloon about the case developing "weaknesses"
because of the victim's "credibility problems" - (on the eve of a three-day
weekend, no surprise). If the public's reaction is politically tolerable,
step two will be the prosecutor's motion to withdraw the charges "in the
interest of justice".

For those who care about the truth, find corruption disdainful, and who
believe that no man is above the law, the following points should be up
front and center as this facade continues to unfold:

1. The victim's credibility problems in the DSK case have been described as
so serious, prosecution may be impossible. But the victim in the "Rape Cop"
case had equal if not more serous credibility issues. Why didn't Cyrus
Vance dismiss THOSE charges before trial?

2. Cyrus Vance released to the public a detailed description of the victim's
reported lies to immigration officials where she claimed she'd been raped
and tortured in her native African country. She made those claims in support
of her request for asylum and stated she was at risk for further persecution
if she were returned to Guinea. Vance said these lies seriously undermine
the victim's credibility in the case against DSK even though lots of
immigrants lie about abuses in countries where living conditions are
inhumane not because they're pathological liars but because they're
desperate for a better life in the U.S. These lies that Vance claims
destroy the case against DSK were made eight years ago and were probably
crafted by someone other than the victim - an attorney perhaps (ironically
enough) who would have provided guidance to the victim about the things she
should say that would enhance her chances for being granted asylum. If
Vance's policy is that lying about such things almost a decade ago is a
moral failing of such magnitude it prevents his office from prosecuting the
far more serious crime of rape, let the word go out to all sex predators in
New York that they should choose immigrants as their victims and they should
commit their crimes in Cyrus Vance's jurisdiction.

As if immigrants aren't vulnerable enough.

3. No matter what the victim lied about in the past, the prosecutor found NO
reason to question the integrity of her claims as they relate directly to
the sexual assaults. To the contrary, the forensic evidence proved the
victim's essential credibility on the only facts that really matter.

4. If Cyrus Vance thinks it's appropriate to dismiss rape charges because of
a victim's prior false statements and other past "bad" behavior, he must
also consider the past "bad" behavior and lies of DSK. For example, DSK has
been repeatedly accused of sexually offensive behavior toward women and has
admitted engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with an inferior
employee. As for his past lies - just ask the people of Greece how many
lies were produced by the IMF last year about the need to prevent collective
bargaining in that country.

5. There's no dispute the incident occurred. Even the most reviled woman in
the world has a chance at justice when there's DNA proof that the incident
occurred. The problem is, there's a good chance the victim doesn't want
justice and that she'll trade even the well being of all women for a big fat
paycheck.

The real question is whether Cyrus Vance has the moral fiber and political
will to let a jury decide this case. DSK says it was consensual. The
victim, and the forensic evidence, says it was forced. A jury can figure
out what to make of the victim's lies in her immigration papers just as they
can correctly weigh the video of DSK's unusually swift flight from the hotel
after the incident - and the fact that he has an ugly history of similar
sexually offensive behavior.

If Cyrus Vance has integrity, he will stay the course. If there's money
involved, he won't. And the only thing that can force him to do the right
thing is people rising up and demanding fair treatment of a woman who may
not even want it.

It isn't the victim's personal lawsuit - it's the public's case against a
man who deserves to face the charges against him. If "we the people" do
nothing in this case, as we did during and after the Kobe Bryant debacle,
then we deserve a legal system that continues unabashedly to facilitate
rather than prevent violence against all women.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]