I honestly cannot believe this story. I want to have cogent things to say about it, but I don’t. Some of the commenters over at Jezebel are saying that this sounds like a translation problem. But that’s not what it sounds like at all to me. It sounds like a deliberate misconstruing. To get from this:
The source claimed that prosecutors no longer considered Nafissatou Diallo a credible witness because, among other concerns, she said in a phone call to an incarcerated friend, “Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.”
Thompson says the recordings prove that in the first conversation, Diallo describes the attack and makes no mention of Strauss-Kahn’s wealth. In the second conversation she does mention that he’s “powerful and rich,” but only to convey that her attacker is influential. She says, “I know what to do” much earlier in the discussion, meaning that she’d gone to the authorities and hired a lawyer. [emphasis mine]
Isn’t just a matter of mistranslating. You’re putting words and phrases together out of order and out of sequence. It’s like looking at this post and saying I said this story was just a matter of mistranslating what the commenters over at Jezebel are saying. Yes, that uses many of the words I’ve used. But it picks and chooses them without regard for my clear meaning.
This is (hopefully) a pretty unique case in some regards. So, I understand the police and prosecutors being very cautious. But there’s “very cautious’ and then there’s “we lie about you in order to excuse our deciding to tank the case.”
Completely fucking appalling. No wonder the poor woman had to break cover to refute this shite.
And there were a whole bunch of freaks calling for an end to the practice of keeping victims’ names out of the papers the other day at the Times. I wish I would train myself to never read comments anywhere but here. And maybe at Ta-Nehisi’s place.
Pingback: Update in Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case: Anonymous Cop May Have Lied to Smear Housekeeper | Alas, a Blog