Hardened investigators wept at maid’s made-up life story

Rhona N. writes:

I read in the New York Times that the investigators from three separate agencies were “crying” when they listened to the maid’s story:

[Former chief sex crimes prosecutor Linda] Fairstein added that the fabrications in the housekeeper’s past were an issue, but that she made things worse by clinging to them for so long. Perhaps most damaging, Ms. Fairstein said, was the housekeeper’s changing her account of what occurred in the moments after her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn. She initially told detectives that she had waited in a common hall on the 28th floor of the Sofitel until Mr. Strauss-Kahn left, but she later said she had left to clean a nearby room before reaching out for a supervisor.

“I am told she is the most convincing reporter that most people have ever interviewed,” Ms. Fairstein said. [Emphasis added.] “I am told that experienced, senior people cried when she told her life story, in each of the agencies.”

Crying? These are experienced investigators. Surely they have heard worse incidents of rape. How about the rape of a child or the rape and severe beating of a victim? Or a gang rape? Surely these are worse examples.

Experienced professionals cry? They shouldn’t be in this business.

They must be as dispassionate as possible so as to get to the truth.

It would be the equivalent of an experienced doctor crying every time he gave a cancer diagnosis. Does that make sense?

LA replies:

The fact that they were crying shows that they had lost their professionalism, including professional objectivity, and were in a mental state where they would believe the maid’s massive lies.

The crying is emblematical of the condition of the white West. Basically, since the 1960s, the white West has been “crying” for nonwhites, losing not only its objectivity and sense of justice, but even its normal survival instincts, because of its tendency to get bent out of shape by the narrative of nonwhite victimhood and the resulting belief in white guilt.

LA continues:

I think that Fairstein’s point about the crying is that the maid is an extraordinarily skillful liar. But this also is emblematical of the condition of the white West. The better nonwhites and liberal whites get at yanking the emotional chains of whites, the readier whites are to sell out their race and their civilization for the sake of nonwhites.

LA continues:

The below exchange, from another entry today, is relevant to what I just said.

Norma B. writes:

What I do not understand is the action of the hotel. Weren’t they the ones to call the police and didn’t they vouch for the maid as a good employee that hadn’t caused any problems? I was inclined to believe her story because of their support.

LA replies:

From the very start, everyone told us, she’s a paragon! And her story is rock solid, because from the very instant after the incident she was extremely upset and told everyone about it, which showed that it was true. But the supposed facts about her character and her behavior which we were told, which made her story sound true, were not true.

LA writes:

How many incidents like this must there be before whites wake up and stop letting themselves be fooled? Tawana Brawley, who for two years in the late 1980s tore up New York State with her totally made-up story that white prosecutor Steve Pagones and other white men had kidnapped, raped, and tortured her. Crystal Mangum, the drug-taking prostitute who for one year tore up the country and the lives of innocent Duke University students with the false story that they had raped her. And now the lilly maid of Sofitel, Nafissatou Diallo, who not only massively lied to prosecutors about every aspect of her life, but got into this country and accessed its abundant compassion by means of massive, wicked lies. What kind of person makes up a story that she was gang raped?

When are whites going to start seeing a pattern here? How many whites are even capable of thinking about Brawley, Mangum, and Nafissatou as examples of the same phenomenon?

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

I suspect that “the maid’s tragic life story was so convincing that we cried” is something the DA’s office is making up after the fact in order to excuse their incompetent handling of the case. Nobody cried, but now they have to represent her as the most convincing con artist ever in order not to look like complete fools.

What they’ll never admit is that they wanted to be fooled, because this seemed like a District Attorney’s dream case. Powerful, suit-wearing white man rapes powerless, immigrant minority female—it’s like an episode of Law & Order come to life!

Richard S. writes:

Our best and brightest fall all over themselves to show love for blacks. I don’t get it. Are their experiences of contact with blacks diametrically opposed to mine and millions of other average Joes? I can’t believe that. Do they fail to draw conclusions from the thousand instances of rudeness and hostility and physical assault that constitute the black gift to whites, inescapable in every urban setting? I can’t believe that either. Are they in terror and is their embrace of blacks, who systematically terrorize them, the Stockholm syndrome writ large? Yes. That I believe.

LA replies:

But remember that many blacks are nice people and are functional. All whites have experience with decent blacks, and those are the blacks that whites are thinking of when the block out their own knowledge of the troublesome blacks.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 05, 2011 02:06 PM | Send