The D.C. Madam Case, All Sordid Out

By Dana Milbank Washington Post
Friday, April 11, 2008; A03

Yesterday, it was the turn of a young naval officer to take the stand; the case will almost certainly end her career. The prosecutor, Daniel Butler, had the woman spell her name slowly and clearly, then had her talk about when she was “aggressive” with a client, when she was “more submissive,” when she had a difficult client (“he tried to remove the condom”) and how often she got “intimate.”

“What do you mean by ‘intimate’? ”

The soon-to-be-former naval officer looked at him in disbelief. “Touching, caressing,” she explained.

“What happened” after that? he demanded.

“Sex.”

“What type of sex?”

“Sometimes it was oral sex; usually it was normal.”

“Normal?” Butler persisted.

“I’m not sure what you’re getting at,” the stricken witness pleaded.

“What’s normal sex?” Butler again demanded.

Judge James Robertson intervened. “He wants to know if you mean intercourse.”

Butler pressed on with more humiliating questions until the judge cut him off. “That’s enough,” Robertson said. Minutes later, the dazed woman was helped out of the room.

From the audience, it appears that prosecutors have presented a solid case that the alleged Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, did indeed run a prostitution ring. A better question, however, is why they bothered. Prosecutors say the prostitution ring generated all of $2 million over 13 years — small potatoes for a federal racketeering and money-laundering case that could ruin the lives of 132 women.

It’s a question that evidently has occurred to the judge. Yesterday, prosecutors unpacked eight binders full of money-order receipts that reveal the identity of most, if not all, of the Madam’s escorts. “You want to make public the names of all the employees?” Robertson asked prosecutor Catherine Connelly. “Is there no limit to the collateral damage?”

Evidently not. Connelly said the names had to be released. “Unfortunately.”

This women has been put on leave by the Navy. Let’s see who else will lose their jobs and lives as pittance for working as escorts in the past.

2 Responses

  1. That’s right….ruin the lives and careers of the women, while the clients, like David Vitter, get off scott free. How lovely our political system is…and how wonderful it must be to further humiliate these women for merely having sex with the powerful.

    Pardon me while I throw the fuck up now.

    Anthony

  2. Why not release all the names of their clients too? If prostitution is a crime, then it’s one that requires two people. If one is a criminal and has no rights, the other person involved should not be treated any differently.

    There are guesses that Vitter will take the Fifth if he is brought to the stand. Earlier this year, he was subpeonaed and the judge did not require him to appear in court since it could possibley “embarrass” him.

    XX

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: