Witness in the Shadows

The presumption of innocence does not mean that Strauss-Kahn is actually innocent. We only have to recognize that presumption has nothing to do with it.

A New York court has conditionally released former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. We have no further details as of yet. The prosecutors have meanwhile begun to doubt the credibility of the maid who claimed that Strauss-Kahn forced her to engage in oral sex.

To our knowledge, the prosecutor’s office has not come up with anything new concerning the incident that allegedly took place in a New York hotel suite on May 14, 2011. They are now viewing the plaintiff, however, in a different light. The woman, a citizen of Guinea, supposedly lied on her petition for asylum. In addition, over $100,000 dollars passed through her bank account in the past two years. That total includes money from a man currently serving time in prison for having 440 lbs. of marijuana in his possession. The New York hotel maid also talked to the man by telephone the day prior to the alleged incident with Strauss-Kahn to get an idea what she might get for proceeding against him. In light of these revelations the maid, who immigrated to the United States in 2002, now appears differently from the image painted of her by her colleagues and neighbors. They portrayed her as a self-sacrificing, hard-working mother.

As far as the alleged crime is concerned, it’s still one person’s word against another’s. When it comes to credibility, Strauss-Kahn has a weak hand in the game. First he claimed he did nothing at all, using the alibi of a purported lunch with his daughter at the time of the incident. Finally his attorneys, Benjamin Brafman and William Taylor, claimed there had been sex, but that it was consensual. Shortly thereafter, thanks to a DNA test, it was proven that semen stains on the maids clothing indeed came from the former head of the IMF.

Discrediting the plaintiff was the stated strategy of the defense. Now, a major portion of the job — or at least the publication of the findings — has been done by the prosecution itself, lightening the burden on the defense. If what actually happened in the hotel room can’t be definitely determined, if it can’t be determined beyond all doubt that forced sex was involved, then the prosecution’s case stands or falls on the question of credibility.

If no one believes the maid’s testimony, the charges against Strauss-Kahn must be dropped. Doubt favors the accused. That doesn’t mean she lied about what happened. Her testimony doesn’t tell what really happened in that hotel suite on May 14. It only means that what actually happened cannot be determined for sure and therefore no certain verdict can be returned.

But it also says something else, something much more important: A hotel maid with Mafia connections doesn’t stand a chance against the head of the International Monetary Fund. That may sound horrible, but is it a condemnation of our legal system? No, definitely not. No one can be convicted for a crime unless it is certain he or she committed that crime. The presumption of innocence also extends to Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

The presumption of innocence doesn’t mean he is not guilty. We just have to understand and accept that presumption has nothing to do with anything. What is important is which presumptions can be proven. If there is no proof then Dominique Strauss-Kahn deserves the same treatment as everyone else: Doubt favors the accused.

Among our neighbors in France, the calls for Strauss-Kahn to run in the presidential elections are on the increase. But does a country really want to elect a man who gets out of the shower, has quick sex with the maid, then claims he had never seen her before, only to admit after the certainty of a DNA test that there was sex but it had been consensual? Is there really no alternative among French socialist politicians to such a man?