French Head of the IMF: Guilty of Attempted Rape or Innocent?

Last night I had dinner with 6 friends. Three were French. Three were British.

Conversation got round to the arrest and bail of DSK (Dominique Strauss-Kahn), the newly-resigned Head of the IMF, on bail awaiting his trial for attempted rape of a Sofitel hotel cleaner - a young woman immigrant to the USA, from Guinea.

One or two people at the dinner table said: "Oh come on - he's as guilty as hell. These rich, powerful guys think they can get away with anything - even rape."

One or two others said: "Are you kidding? The guy had everything to lose. His job, his money, his reputation, his marriage... The woman's clearly on the make. She sneakily targetted a wealthy man and then ran off crying "(nearly) rape" just to get money from talking to Oprah Winfrey or the National Enquirer. You have got to be kdding with this 'He's guilty' stuff. SHE's guilty. She's an out and out con artist."

I'd followed the story in the British, French and American press and I had absolutely no idea who was right and who was wrong in this discussion. It was clear that there are no grey areas in the DSK accusations. Either he did molest the chamber maid, or he didn't. Either it was attaempted rape, or it wasn't. Either she lied about what happened in that Softiel hotel room, or he did. There is no room for doubt or misinterpretation.

What dismayed me about my friends' views is that, actually, none of us knows for sure. There are precisely 2 people in the world who know whether the chamber maid is lying or not and they're DSK and the woman herself. No-one else knows.

It's a problem when people surmise or guess or imagine or assume what happened. If the chamber maid's telling the truth then it's terrible for her if people say "Oh come on, she's on the make. She plotted a way to make a million bucks by suing a rich guy on a false pretext."

If DSK is telling the truth, it's a nightmare for him if people say "What?! The whole world knows he's a sex fiend - obviously he tried to rape that helpless young African woman".

And that's the problem. None of us can really know what the truth is in this scenario. It's her word against his. If there's DNA evidence, showing his sperm was on her clothes or her body, it's still entirely possible that a consensual sexual act took place. It wouldn't be the first time a young woman engaged in a sexual act with a powerful man - just think Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or JFK and Marilyn Monroe.

What alarmed me about the discussion at the dinner table, about DSK and his unnamed accuser, was that intelligent, educated people were taking sides based on what they imagined to be true. Justice is not well served by popular imagination. Nor are accused men or women.

Innocent-until-proven-guilty is a hugely important principle in a democratic society, with the stress on proven. A person with nothing to lose, with everything to gain, with specific vindictive motives or plain bad intent can always accuse an innocent person of a sexual crime. We cannot have the accused convicted by a popular court which says "Oh come on, everyone knows that's what he's like." Equally, we can't dismiss the accusation by saying "You're kidding. She's just a woman out to get cash by accusing a wealthy man."

The DSK affair will be decided by examination of the evidence, if there is any. If the trial reveals that evidence is in short supply, the accused man should go free. If the trial shows there is evidence of sexual assault - of attempted rape - he should be convicted. But let's not jump the gun in either direction. One person in this case is surely lying and one is surely telling the truth. It doesn't serve justice at all if people guess which is which and get it wrong. Due process is the only way to proceed.