Guinea Foul in Defense of the maid

Dominique Strauss Khan is a free man grace à la dexterity of a high-powered legal team or the checkered history of a hotel maid from Guinea. As the story has been told, on May 14th, a maid entered suite 2806 in the Sofitel Hotel. A sexual encounter ensued. He says it was consensual, she says it was forced.

Public sympathy seemed to be in her favour. The New York Police swiftly apprehend DSK and jailed him in Rikers Island. He resigned from his post as head of the IMF and hired the best legal team money can buy to defend his innocence. The tide changed. The media pounced on the defendant. They released pictures of her and even insinuated that she may be HIV positive. As the weeks grew, they found inconsistencies in ALL her accounts. Her bank account, her tax account and her immigration account.They uncovered that she has dealings with dodgy people who deposit thousands of dollars into her bank account. They found that she lied about being gang raped on her INS form, and that she reported a lower income on her IRS form to live in low income housing. These inconsistencies have shredded her credibility and now nobody believes her.

Dominique Strauss Khan is now the victim. His reputation has been sullied. He lost his job, and possibly a chance to become the president of France. What has been forgotten is his checkered past. In 2008, he was reprimanded by the IMF for having an affair with his junior, a Hungarian Economist called Piroska Nagy. In 2002, Tristane Banon accused DSK of sexual assault, and according to the book Sexus Politicus, DSK has a long rap sheet of women who have felt sexually harassed by him. His allies come to his defense. They are powerful men in the media and in politics and they are quick to point out that DSK is a seducer, not a rapist or a liar. The maid on the other hand, has no allies powerful, or otherwise to come to her defense. She is from a small village in Guinea called Thiakoulle. When she was still a teenager, she was made to marry her cousin and became a mother and a widow soon after. With no formal education, she moved to USA in 2002 and applied for asylum. The events of May 14th have put her under the scrutiny of the media’s microscope, and she can not stand tête à tête with the powerful DSK. Her reputation has be devastated, her immigration status is in jeopardy, her accounts frozen, her family back home besieged with interviews. She remains in hiding.

Perhaps she does not deserve my sympathy, but she has it. She did what many of us have done before: she lied on a document and it has come back to crucify her. No one knows what went on in that room but the accused and the defendant. Maybe in the days to come she will recant her story and apologize. Maybe her lawyer Kenneth Thompson will reveal the promised forensic evidence of a violent sexual assault so the world will know that she was indeed violated. But she is not talking to the public. One of the few people she has been in contact with since the incident is a jailed boyfriend. In her native Fula she explained: “Don’t worry, this guy has money, I know what i am doing.” Except that she did not. DSK is now a free man. Free to eat pasta and truffles in New York’s finest restaurants. Once again, the maid got screwed. As the french would say, Merde!

6 thoughts on “Guinea Foul in Defense of the maid

  1. feel sorry for her…man sounds like a perv with his past records, but after that sentence in fula , sounds like she tried to "have her cake and eat it too"….again typical of our brothers and sisters here and there who end up ONLY outsmarting themselves….!  _just my opinion

  2. Sounds like an equally balanced web of deciet. He has a questionable past with questionable activities, she has a questionable past too with questionable associations and activities. At the end of the day there is just as much in each of their pasts to suggest DSK did it, as there is to suggest DSK didn't and she was just trying to take advantage of him. Did he do it? I think he probably did. But I'm also a firm believer in the notion that it is better to let 100 guilty men go scot free than to let one innocent man be punished for something he didn't do. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes when the victim has a questionable past, the perpetrator goes free, Is it fair? No. But there are very good reasons why criminal cases have such a high burden of proof.

    • David if that is the case, think of the Casey Anthony trial, inspite of her lies and her questionable activities after her daughter’s death, she is a free woman. nobody wants to say it but it boils down to social ranking. In that ranking power, colour and gender has a very dominant role

  3. You are forgetting a fundamental difference between Casey Anthony and this maid, outside of their race and wealth. One was an accused and one was an accuser. You are also forgetting a fundamental similarity in their fates. Neither of them went to prison. Yes, if DSK is guilty, then the maid has been denied justice which is bad, but if DSK had been innocent, then to send him to prison would have been much worse. In both cases Casey Anthony and DSK the courts chose between two evils and chose the lesser, because in each case there were serious doubts about the guilt of the accused.
    Yes, it's terrible that the maid was slammed in the media, but there is a reason why you haven't mentioned her name in this article. It's because you did not know it at the time you wrote this article. No one outside of the court did. Until she decided to give interviews herself, her name was kept confidential. You can't really have your reputation destroyed if people don't know who you are. 
    I don't think what happened to the maid was fair at all, but you also have to remember that there were two actors here. The court system, and the media. One entity did the right thing as far as the maid and DSK were concerned. They kept her name confidential, and decided that freeing a potentially guitly man was better than imprisoning a man who might be innocent. Then there was the media: Not only did they report on the maid's reputation with a negative slant, it was probably a reporter who conned her into speaking publicly on the issue, and therefore revealing her name, which allowed newspapers to paste her picture all over their front pages. The media did what they always do in these cases they used someone to boost ratings and sell papers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>