Maureen Dowd's "When a Predator Collides With a Fabricator": Why Was a Polygraph Not Immediately Administered?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When a Predator Collides With a Fabricator" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03dowd.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd not surprisingly chooses to examine the Dominique Strauss-Kahn fiasco, which has destroyed whatever was left of the reputation of the Manhattan D.A.'s office. Dowd writes:

"They [the French] were right about Iraq and America’s rush to war. And they may be right about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and America’s rush to judgment.

. . . .

The upright-looking Vance is not like the scoundrel prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case. He did not ignore evidence that was contrary to the case prosecutors were trying to build. It just took several weeks, after they tried to deny DSK bail and after they indicted him, to do a thorough investigation.

. . . .

When a habitual predator faces off against a habitual liar, the liar will most likely lose, even if it is the rare case when she is telling the truth."

In the past, I worked in law enforcement, and I wonder whether it really should have taken several weeks to do a thorough preliminary investigation.

Although there is an inevitable euphoria working on high profile prosecutions, the bottom line is that this case amounted to a simple he-said, she-said story. What to do given the high stakes involved in this matter and the potential diplomatic fallout if the case should fall? Simple: Ask the alleged victim to undergo a polygraph test for purposes of establishing credibility, not for use as evidence.

I like polygraphs and have been tested several times in the past, once, for example, to obtain a job demanding a high security clearance, and once to prove that an alleged leak did not come from my department. The results are only as good as the person administering the test, but if you can get a good examiner, many of your doubts will be put to rest. Sure, there are those special individuals who can "beat" the machine, but I would bet that the complainant in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair is not one of them.

None of this has to do with taking sides or liking or not liking Dominique Strauss-Kahn. This is purely a matter of criminal justice in the U.S., which demands 99.9% certainty, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt, before convicting. I wouldn't want it any other way.

So what happened here, when, as Dowd describes it, a predator collided with a fabricator"? Unfortunately, an unwary system fell victim.