Okay, well, this is getting harder and harder to reconcile. There’s this:
When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said.
There’s the fact that her original lawyers quit after the meeting where the prosecutors from the DA’s office were yelling at her so loudly her daughter was reduced to tears in the next room.
There’s the rumor (from the not-always-reliable-but-usually-first-on-the-scandal-scene NY Post) that she asked to be switched to DSK’s floor.
And maybe her behavior after the DSK incident (crying, trembling, etc.) was just some good acting:
Additionally, in two separate interviews with assistant district attorneys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred. Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details, and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of her asylum application process.
I have a friend who lives in France, who’s been having a hard time with her friends, and even with her French husband, all of whom have been insisting from the beginning DSK was set up. My post yesterday helped, she said.
What to believe now?
Well, the set-up conspiracy theory from the French point of view, that Sarkozy was behind it, is just too complicated to pull off. If he did, he deserves another term.
But was he set up by her? Until the translated telephone call (which a good conspiracy theorist on the other side could argue was mistranslated, but that’s too complicated too, it seems to me), I believed she was a good Muslim girl with a bad boyfriend.
There’s one detail from this sordid story that has never made sense to me until I read this:
Kristin Davis said she provided young women for the IMF chief in 2006, as he ran for the French Socialists’ presidential nomination, and that one complained about his “aggressive” behaviour.
“He was a client of my agency,” she told The Daily Telegraph. “When men abuse women I’m no longer going to protect their identities”.
Kristin Davis, you may remember, is the so-called “Manhattan Madam” who provided prostitutes for Elliot Spitzer.
What I could never reconcile is the way DSK emerged from the bathroom, naked, and proceeded to have his way with the hotel maid. Yes, he was a lech – but not a sudden rapist.
So here’s what I believe now, much to my chagrin: they’re both guilty. He ordered a prostitute, she arrived, he emerged, he got too rough, she protested, and he forced her. She wasn’t acting, she was traumatized. She accused him. Maybe, in the phone call, her boyfriend was saying she shouldn’t have done it, and she was reassuring him.
But I’m not giving up my powerful men meme, because here’s my forecast. He’ll become President of France, but she’ll be deported – back to the place she lied to escape from.