The New York Times' Broken Record: Whoops! We Rushed to Judgment, but the Charges Are Not True!

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by William L. Anderson: Nasty
Nancy Nation

 

 
 

To the surprise
of no one who has done even a smidgen of due diligence in the sexual
assault case against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique
Strauss-Kahn, the New
York Times
and other news outlets are reporting that the
whole thing is falling apart because the accuser has been spinning
more stories than did Crystal Mangum of Duke Lacrosse case fame.
His release
on his own recognizance
(after originally being held on $5 million
bond) is the last step before this case officially is trashed, I
believe.

Shortly after
Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, a forensic nurse (who is a skilled interviewer
in sexual assault accusation cases) and I were discussing the case
and as she laid out the facts, it was pretty obvious that from the
start, the police and, more important, the Manhattan district attorney’s
office, were telling Mike Nifongesque lies. Remember that he supposedly
left the hotel immediately after the attempted rape, being in such
a rush that he left his cellphone behind in an attempt to quickly
get out of the country?

It turns out
that he checked out of the hotel in an orderly fashion, went to
the airport, and then called the hotel to see if they could deliver
his cellphone to him. None of his actions seemed to be those of
a man desperately trying to leave the USA, although given the state
of “law enforcement” in this country, I can’t blame him for wanting
to get the heck out of this place.

Even those
lies from the police and prosecutors aside, it gets even better,
much better. However, we first must travel down a short memory lane,
courtesy of our friends at the Grey Lady, who always are outraged,
OUTRAGED at the mere accusation of sexual assault or sexual harassment.
As one examines various
statements coming from the DA’s office right after the arrest
,
one can see that the authorities were sticking to their story, claiming
that the "victim" provided "powerful details consisted
with violent sexual assault, and that her story was "constant
and unwavering."

Of course,
what sexual assault claim would be complete without the editorial
page angst that came from the opinion folks at the NYT? Not
surprisingly, Maureen
Dowd
, who never seems to be without a stupid and poorly-informed
opinion, wrote a blanket denunciation about French men and sexual
harassment (as seen in the link).

Just as the
NYT immediately jumped to the conclusion that Reade Seligmann,
Collin Finnerty, and David Evans had raped Crystal Mangum, writers
at the paper quickly assumed that the Strauss-Kahn accuser was telling
the unvarnished truth. The letters
that the paper saw fit to publish
were full of the rush to judgment.
This piece
by Linda Martin Alcoff
, a philosophy professor in New York,
was pretty typical of the mindset of the NYT crowd.

In other words,
it was assume guilt first and always believe the prosecutors, especially
when prosecutors are prominent Democrats like Vance who have political
ambitions. But, as in the Duke case, truth
has carved a bit of a wedge in the NYT’s narrative
.

I have no doubt
that the story that police and prosecutors fed the media — that
this large, naked man jumped from the bathroom and forced this poor,
African immigrant to give him oral sex — is utterly false. First,
keep in mind that she is from Guinea, and is a French speaker. Second,
I suspect that the encounter not only was mutual, but she planned
it in advance, and most likely with some of the people with whom
she is associated.

I smell a setup
from the beginning, one that even a semi-competent investigator
would have found. However, given that the original investigation
was done by the New York police and the DA’s office, competency
really is not in the job description; however, being able to act
in an ideological manner that fits with the mentality at the NYT
IS part of the job.

Nonetheless,
the NYT continues to protect Vance and his crew, declaring:

In recent
weeks, Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyers, Benjamin Brafman and William
W. Taylor III, have made it clear that they would make the credibility
of the woman a focus of their case. In a May 25 letter, they said
they had uncovered information that would "gravely undermine
the credibility" of the accuser.

Still,
it was the prosecutor's investigators who found the information
about the woman. (Emphasis mine)

Right. It seems
that no one at the NYT has managed to deal with what is obvious:
If government investigators had found this damning evidence on their
own, then why were Vance and company continuing to claim that the
accuser was truthful and that they had a strong case? In other words,
if their investigators found out these things, either one of two
things happened, neither of which would reflect well on NY authorities.

The first would
be that investigators told them what they had found, but Vance’s
charges continued to spout the same narrative, hoping that their
rhetoric would overcome any problems. In other words, they knew
the truth but lied.

The second
would be that the investigators withheld information and gave it
to their superiors only long after they had found out the truth,
leaving Vance and the other prosecutors in the dark. This one makes
no sense, which means that if what the NYT is saying is true,
then Vance and those prosecutors involved with the case should be
disbarred at the very least for knowingly making false statements
in a very high-profile case.

There is a
third possibility, and that is that the private investigators for
the Strauss-Kahn defense did their own work and presented the facts
to the Manhattan DA and warned them that if they did not act, the
defense would make sure that the material would be leaked in a very
unceremonious way. Any way one slices this material, however, it
is clear that Vance and his employees have a lot of explaining to
do.

Don’t
expect the mainstream media to ask those questions. Vance and the
editorial staff at the NYT are joined at the ideological
and political hip and the paper will do everything it can do to
protect him. Likewise, the fact that Strauss-Kahn over the years
has had the reputation of acting as, well, one might expect from
someone who is known to be sexually-boorish, I doubt that too many
mainstream reporters are going to invite the rage of the Maureen
Dowds.

Nonetheless,
we see yet another example of the Government-Media Alliance making
false accusations, bringing false charges, and then ending up with
egg on some collective faces. This is not the last time we will
see this sorry scenario, and I only can feel for the next person
who is caught in the crosshairs.

July
2, 2011

William
L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him
mail
], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,
and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute
. He
also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit
his blog.

The
Best of William Anderson

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • Podcasts