Considering both sides

From early in the DSK story, I did not have or push any single view of the case, but considered various possible angles. For example, in a May 24 entry, a commenter wrote:

I find it simply mind-boggling the number of people who can not or will not consider that this entire story actually might be exactly as we are told it is: a man used to power decides to have his way with a woman he’s quite confident won’t make an issue of it, because none ever have before.

It is a very simple explanation, very consistent both with human nature in general and the nature of the man in particular, and it fits the facts.

To which I replied:

Yes, it’s entirely possible that the maid’s entire accusation is true.

I said something similar a week ago by way of explaining DSK’s possible motivations:

But here’s another way of looking at it. DSK according to all accounts is accustomed to getting his way with women, including by forcing himself on them. As a person gives himself more and more over to sin, the sin takes him over and he progressively loses any control over himself. Thus DSK’s mad criminal attack on the maid.

At the same time, however, I also believe it’s possible that the feminist-dominated police and prosecutors have jumped to conclusions based on automatically believing what a female complainant tells them.

[end of May 24 comment]

- end of initial entry -

Corey N., the commenter to whom I was replying in the May 24 exchange, writes:

Knowing what we do now, I still would have drawn the conclusions I did at the time.

It’s simply astounding that the woman could have done what she did and thought she would get away with it.

LA replies:

Yes. How did she imagine that all her lies would not eventually be uncovered?

Alexis Zarkov writes:

Mr. Auster asks, “How did [the maid] imagine that all her lies would not eventually be uncovered?” Simple. She lied on her asylum application and got away with it. She then proceeded with a string of lies to get cheap housing, a reduction on her income tax, and whatever other scams she’s involved in, and got away with those too. She had continuous reinforcement to lie, and no moral qualms. Indeed I think many Third World immigrants have nothing but contempt for our laws and customs. However with DSK she failed to appreciate that her lies affected a specific person who had a lot at stake. And the means to protect himself. All her other lies had a diffuse set of victims. The bureaucrats who accepted her falsehoods have nothing at stake as they are spending other people’s money. Moreover I suspect the prosecutor told her that likely she would not have to testify because he believed DSK would accept a plea bargain to a lessor charge. That was his plan. He thought he would get a cheap victory. Cyrus Vance Jr., a WASP with no street smarts, is ultimately responsible for this whole fiasco.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 02, 2011 12:01 PM | Send