Periscope


Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Irish journalist who broke Dominque Strauss Khan revelations on maid --- Jim Dwyer of The NY Times has a reputation for just the facts
Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Irish journalist who broke Dominque Strauss Khan revelations on maid --- Jim Dwyer of The NY Times has a reputation for just the facts

Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 at 12:26 PM
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail
comment on article 31 Comments
 

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

Delighted to see that Jim Dwyer of The New York Times has broken the biggest story of the year, the true story behind the accuser of Dominique Strauss Khan.

Jim is a long time friend, a former Pulitzer Prize winner who goes where other journalists fear to go.

His piece today is a classic example of his sniffer dog ability to check the real truth out.His parents came over from Galway and Kerry respectively and Jim was actually schooled in Ireland for a time.

We texted for quite a while after the story broke and he typically put the scoop down to his 'longevity' in the business.

He now writes the About New York column for The New York Times and no one has better sources in this naked city of 16 million as he has just proven. I've worked a few stories with him over the years and he is absolutely forensic in his pursuit of the facts.

On 9/11 he co-wrote with Kevin Flynn a truly remarkable book about what actually happened called '102 minutes, which gave a gripping moment by moment blow by blow of what was happening inside the Twin Towers as the minutes ticked down after the jets crashed into them.

His Pulitzer was awarded in part because of his stories on Northern Ireland. He came over with me on that never to be forgotten period just when the IRA were calling the August 1994 ceasefire and he got the American exclusive on it.

Now he has set the world back on its heels again with the sensational revelation that the maid had likely made up a previous rape charge, had a boyfriend who was a major drug dealer and had put $100,000 in her bank account recently and that she had huge inconsistencies in her story.

Just an ordinary day's work for Jim I know, who wouldn't even go on the Today show to discuss it. Unlike the modern breed of tabloid tell all, get my face on TV, he wants the facts to speak for themselves.



print this article Print
email this articleE-mail

31 comments

Next Previous Page 2 of 3 pages
themurphia | Jul 04, 2011, 02:55 PM EDT
Oh dear...no sooner do you get rid of one accusation than another one comes out of the woodwork...only this time it is not a low paid immigrant single parent but a writer and member of one of the elite French dynastic families...what was it Oscar said again...to have one allegation of sexual assault made against you is unfortunate but to have two....Mon Dieu! bit like whackamole for DSK these days...!

Report abuse

themurphia | Jul 04, 2011, 02:04 PM EDT
The decion to prosecute is not made by the 'Accuser's Law Firm' it is made by the State...The prosecutor does not 'represent' the Accuser/prosecution witness...it merely presents the evidence once the decision to prosecute has been made...In the event that the original evidence is discredited and the case is discontinued then it is for the defendant/Accused to bring charges against the Accuser...So where you get the idea that 'he should be paid handsomely from the Accusers Law Firm's financial resources' I don't really know...So unless you know what you are talking about it is best to keep it zipped...!

Report abuse

themurphia | Jul 04, 2011, 06:20 AM EDT
You cannot prove a negative...not being able to proceed with a case does not mean the accusation is false...even liars or prostitutes can be raped...it just means the prosecution can not prove the case BRD...that is why Scotland has the 'Not Proven' verdict...there are a number of cases where women have been tried for making 'false accusations'... The reason so few cases of rape are reported let alone prosecuted is because of the obstacles you suggest...For what it's worth those are the facts NOT my opinion...!

Report abuse

Towngate | Jul 04, 2011, 05:29 AM EDT
murph...: Yove made some notably sound comments here in the past - but you seem to have a surprising 'hole in your head' about accusation/guilt and innocence. - Putting this particular case aside for a moment: - The onus is on those making the Charge to PROVE Guilt. Failure to do so may not indicate your notion of 'innocence' - but it clearly states failure to prove guilt! ~ ~ ~ ~ for what it's worth my personal view is that Accusers should stand in the same Jeopardy as The Accused. The Sentence or Penalty for the crime being pre-determined by the Court. Failure to prove a case or the discovery of a False Accusation - should result in the Accuser suffering that Penalty and the Accused being handsomely compensated from their Law Firms financial resources! That would 'tidy things up a bit', I think.

Report abuse

themurphia | Jul 03, 2011, 03:44 PM EDT
The decision whether or not to prosecute is based on the available evidence not what 'feminists' might think... it's a little more objective that that....the Grand Jury indicted DSK ergo they were persuaded that there was sufficient evidence to found a reasonable prospect of conviction...The only avenue to the defendant therefore was to undermine the principal witness for the Prosecution....If the NYT is to be believed DSK got his big old wad out hired a 'private Dick' and dug the dirt on the 'maid'...the pooper scooper's information was then promptly fed to the meeja... allegedly...So now...as always in sex cases it is now about HER not about HIM...HER credibility is in issue...DSK returns to court to have his bail restrictions lifted...So much for 'justice'...He who pays the piper calls the tune...As I said elsewhere the fact that the Prosecution cannot prove guilt to the required standard does not prove innocence...merely that they cannot prove guilt...I rest my case...

Report abuse

Porickseantuny | Jul 03, 2011, 03:14 PM EDT
Given the information they had and the fact that SDK was about to high tail it to France where he would have been insulated from trial the police had no choice. If the accuser had been legitimate they would have been hounded by feminists for ignoring the claim of rape. The wicked flee and the righteous stand bold as lion. In today's world any claim by a woman results in a rush to judgment.

Report abuse

themurphia | Jul 03, 2011, 01:54 PM EDT
Just because the Prosecution can't prove the case to the required standard doesn't prove innocence just means they can't prove guilt...!

Report abuse

IronMountainMovies | Jul 03, 2011, 09:54 AM EDT
It's a real pity that no one else in either the European or US media, had the wit to examine this story more closely. It is also a real shame and an appalling indictment of western media standards that someone like Jim Dwyer stands out from the pack for doing what any decent journalist should have done, asked the right questions and checked out the facts behind the story. This in no way takes from Mr Dwyer's excellent work but does raise questions about his colleagues on both side of the Atlantic who appear more and more as well paid mouthpieces, rather than investigative journalists.

Report abuse

themurphia | Jul 03, 2011, 04:40 AM EDT
'When money talks...everything else walks'...or as Mr Zimmerframe put it...'Money doesn't talk...it swears'...!so suck on that biatch...!

Report abuse

Pittsburghkid | Jul 03, 2011, 12:45 AM EDT
Strauss-Kahn paid for investigator to uncover dirt on the maid. These investigator gave the N.Y. Times the story. Of course the N.Y. Times is going to take credit, because The Times is an overrated rag.

Report abuse

CroughPatrick | Jul 02, 2011, 10:04 AM EDT
Dwyer did not sniff out the story. It was hand fed to him. The investigators at the DA's office found all the lies of the accuser and they gave him the scoop. I like Dwyer. He does not write fiction like Jimmy Breslin, but please he did not investigate the woman. Dwyer was not the predicator of the story, it was the DA who chose him and the NY Times to print the story. If he went on TV, he would honestly have to say all he did was he answered the phone this week and on the other end someone completely credible, who he can't reveal, gave him all the information.

Report abuse

NYCsheridan | Jul 02, 2011, 09:46 AM EDT
oops, sorry, I'm writing about the wrong journalist. :P

Report abuse

NYCsheridan | Jul 02, 2011, 09:43 AM EDT
"His piece today is a classic example of his sniffer dog ability to check the real truth out." Yes, that sniffer dog ability. Pity the snifffer dog didn't sniff the disturbing background of the maid rather than just focusing on the sensationalism of the story. Hindsight is a BITCH, eh? This is not "journalism" and Dwyer looks like a complete fool now, eh?

Report abuse

themurphia | Jul 02, 2011, 07:40 AM EDT
Sexual assault is NOT seduction...!

Report abuse

Towngate | Jul 02, 2011, 03:30 AM EDT
Looks like the case against DSK is about to collapse and he will stand for President of France after all. It would be great to see him put the despotic Sarkosy in his place - if the plucky heroic little Muammar Ghaddafi doesn't get to him first for leading the cowardly attacks on his people and attempting to destroy their beautiful country!

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 3 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account

or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail