Posted on 05/17/2011 8:57:47 PM PDT by rawhide
Dominique Strauss-Kahn will admit he had sexual contact with the hotel chambermaid who alleges he attacked her, but insist it was consensual, his lawyers have indicated.
The International Monetary Fund chief allegedly locked the maid in his suite at Manhattan's Sofitel on Saturday and forced her to give him oral sex. He was denied $1m bail and is being held at Rikers Island jail.
However in a hint at what may become his main line of defence, his attorney, Benjamin Brafman, said at New York criminal court: "The evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter".
It came as prosecutors, who claim a medical examination of the maid "corroborates her accounts", were alleged to have discovered blood in the hotel room.
The maid's attorney, Jeff Shapiro, strongly denied suggestions that the pair may have had consensual sex.
“There is no way in which there is any aspect of this event which could be construed consensual in any manner,” said Mr Shapiro. “This is nothing other than a physical, sexual assault by this man on this young woman."
Mr Shapiro also moved to quash suggestions that the maid may have been involved in a conspiracy.
"This is a woman with no agenda," he said, adding that she had not even known who Mr Strauss-Kahn was.
Meanwhile the brother of the woman, a 32-year-old from Guinea with a 15-year-old daughter, said she had phoned him and said "somebody did something really bad to me" after the alleged incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Is he not entitled to a defense? For now, all it seems is that this is a he-said-she-said case. The cops arrested him based solely on the testimony of the alleged victim and her ability to pick him out of a police lineup. Was a rape examination performed on the alleged victim? Was there any proof that the victim did not consent to sex?
As much as we should hate the IMF, this guy is still an accused criminal and deserves a presumption of innocence.
I’m going to reserve judgement. There’s a conservative in jail for molesting a child of an ex-girlfriend...it’s pretty clear it never happened but he’s sitting in jail waiting a fair trial.
If this guy is known to not turn a woman away it is possible political people could sabotage him by setting him up like this. He was in the middle of bailing out a bunch of bankrupt nations...so there’s probably a lot of people who would like to see him gone.
Not saying he didn’t do it and he does look guilty taking off to the airport, but if a woman was doing me a “favor” then took off running screaming rape...I’d be scared.
Rape and child molestation you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent—the perfect way to set someone up.
A new line of defense every day.
How could there be consensual sex if he wasn’t there - he was off with his daughter? And he floated the notion the maid was “too ugly to rape.”
Pepe LePew is changing his story as often as Crystal Mangum. Lock him away before he stabs somebody.
Considering the guy’s past, this is what is occurring. If he never had any sex problems in his past, then perhaps your arguments would hold water.
Does he have prior convictions of rape, or are there just other women coming out of the woodwork claiming he raped them too?
I don't buy the "oh they found blood" thing either... that can happen even with consensual sex (maybe he liked it rough?)
I still want to know what other types of evidence the police had that showed that he raped this woman. After the Duke Lacrosse case, we should all reserve judgement until the facts come out.
She said her name was Consuelo, he says it was consensual, something got lost in the translation.
Wait and see!
So you must also agree that a whore can’t be raped.
I don’t believe his past sexcapades will be allowed in court.
Once again I’m not defending him...just reserving judgement. Remember the Duke Lacross deal?
Well, if a woman that is doing you a “favor” is left bleeding, maybe you should be scared.
The blood evidence makes a pretty strong case against him.
Funny you should mention the Duke case.
In that case, the party that was lying (Crystal Mangum) told an ever changing series of stories.
In this case, Straus-Kahn has told an ever changing series of stories.
The side that is telling the truth doesn’t have to keep coming up with new versions of the truth.
Where was she bleeding from? Does it correspond to his nails or body causing the blood? Blood alone doesn’t mean much.
After the Duke Lacrosse case, we should all be careful about believing the party that keeps changing his story.
I’m not following this story that closely...I’m not aware of his multiple stories/reasons.
But if he’s smart he’d shut his mouth—guilty or not. Let his lawyer do the talking. There’s no way he is going to talk himself out of a rape charge.
I'm betting the Roman Polansky case and the fact his guy is from France means he'll never get bail.
True, but in this situation it is not the accused's changing of stories that will hang him, but rather the state's ability or inability to prove its case.
If all that is needed to lock up a man is for a woman to call 911, drop a name, and pick him out of a police lineup, then that is very, very disturbing and terrifying.
This woman is 35-years old, wears a head scarf and is Muslim. Think on it, mon ami.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been described by another of his victims (one who is French) as, ahem, a “sex-crazed chimpanzee”.
this guy is still an accused criminal .........
with a history....just sayin....
I'm past caring if life is fair to pathological tyrants.
The chamber maid did it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.