Posted on 07/01/2011 7:02:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The WSJ has a bare-bones story out tonight about Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers making a “surprise court appearance” tomorrow to ask the judge to relax his bail conditions. There’s no clue from the piece, though, about what unusual circumstances might have led to such a surprise.
Meanwhile, over at the NYT: Surprise.
The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials…
According to the two law enforcement officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.
That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He was among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia and New York.
They also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five different companies. The woman insisted she only had a single phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.
In addition, the official said, she told investigators that part of her application for asylum included a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.
DSK’s lawyers never disputed that there was sexual contact between them; in fact, allegedly, there’s physical evidence to substantiate it. Their claim all along was that it was consensual and that the accuser had a credibility problem. And now here we are, with the parties “discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges.” The Times suggests without saying that she was trying to shake him down — which might very well have worked if not for these new details — but if, as they hint, she was making easy money as part of some drug ring, why would she risk drawing scrutiny from the police by lobbing a sensational rape accusation at a famous diplomat in line to be the next president of France? And did she simply luck out in choosing her target, or did she somehow know that Strauss-Kahn is a guy whose issues with women are so notorious back home that not only do acquaintances talk of him being “sick,” but that another woman had accused him of attempted rape four years ago?
If DSK really is innocent and this is some elaborate scam, here’s a taste of how sinisterly elaborate it really was. From a May 21 post on the Daily Beast:
The luxury-hotel maid who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Dominique Strauss-Kahn was found by a supervisor in a hallway where she hid after escaping from the former International Monetary Fund director’s room. Hotel workers described her as traumatized, having difficulty speaking, and immediately concerned about pressing charges and losing her job, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
The maid also repeatedly spit on the walls and floors of the suite in front of her hotel colleagues as she alleged that Strauss-Kahn locked her in his room and forced her into oral sex acts. That saliva is being tested for DNA markers and could become a crucial piece of evidence in the case, the sources said…
Throughout the questioning, the maid appeared traumatized, at one point going to a bathroom to try to vomit and several times spitting on the floor and walls of the suite, according to the sources.
Supposedly she became “visibly upset” upon returning to the suite, and was nauseated and trembling during questioning. That’s why the cops raced to the airport and pulled him off the plane, of course. She was that credible, even to seasoned NYPD investigators. Which makes me wonder, does the prosecution believe that she’s lying to them about the incident or do they merely believe that they won’t be able to convict him once the defense is through with her on the stand?
Exit question: DSK back in the French presidential race?
Update: An even better question from the comments:
If she was making easy money as part of a drug ring, why would she be working as a maid?
Maybe the boyfriend’s simply using her as a patsy, exploiting her bank and phone accounts to hide his “business” activities as best he can. Note too that the Times doesn’t say that she raised the subject of “possible benefits” from pursuing charges against DSK. She merely discussed it with the boyfriend; he might have brought it up, realizing that it could have meant a payday.
I didn’t say it couldn’t happen, but didn’t he say:
- I wasn’t there
- I never had sex with her
If we are saying that she is a liar due to these revelations, does not his initial claims make him a liar as well?
I’m not saying he raped her, I’m saying the fact that she may be a drug dealer doesn’t mean he didn’t rape her.
The evidence does not care if she were a drug dealer, but too many people here say “Well she’s a liar, so she lied!”
He lied too, that’s why the physical evidence is going to tell us what really happened in that room.
What about the man who said "I never had sex with her" and yet his semen was found in and on her? Is he telling the truth?
the answer to that is obvious, DSK is a privileged white male so he must be lying. minorities with drug dealing boyfriends in prison never lie./sarc
From other articles posted on FR. I’d have to go back and use the search box (LOL!) to try and find them.
RE: What about the man who said “I never had sex with her” and yet his semen was found in and on her? Is he telling the truth?
If I’m not mistaken, DSK admitted to having sex with her but says it was consensual.
Only after the DNA evidence was revealed. His first claims were he was having lunch with his daughter and wasn’t at the hotel at the time.
How is the physical evidence going to tell us whether there was consensual sex or forcible rape?
Well, there is this, I guess,-- she could probably whip the old fat's unarmed ass in a fight if she wanted to.
False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz1Qrf0mZPo
And how often do women get prosecuted for filing false reports like these?
Beware of feminists bearing statistics on false rape claims
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/12/beware-of-feminists-bearing-statistics.html
So you don’t think women make up rape claims like the gal who accused the Duke lacrosse players a few years ago?
About as much as you believe prostitutes or drug dealers never lie.
Yeah, like the Duke lacrosse case. Remember that this information about the maid came from the PROSECUTION. Why would they smear their own witness?
That is not in dispute. DSK said from the very beginning that it was consensual.
The New World Order has spoken. How else can you account for the “first set of facts” about the case being replaced with an “entirely new set of facts”? Yeh that can happen.
That sound we hear is mega-money talking.
I do not know what went on in that room. But I do know this woman needs to have her asylum app closely scrutinized. She seems to be a shady character who also made accusations about being raped in Guyana as her reason for asylum. She has been associating with drug dealers and money laundering and the prosecutor says she lied about only one cell phone number when she had five. What reason could a maid have for paying hundreds of dollars for 5 different cell phone numbers?
Do I have to go into why? Probably - as most people are innumerate.
Many accusations do not result in a prosecution - mostly ones where the accuser doesn't seem credible.
Many prosecutions do not result in a conviction - especially where the evidence doesn't seem to hold up.
And the BIGGIE as far as selection bias......
The DNA exoneration projects sought out cases where it was likely that the suspect was innocent. Of the group selected, chosen for the likelihood of being innocent(selection bias) 3/4 were guilty.
Hard to conclude from that, unless you have an agenda, that 1/4 rape accusations are false.
“DSK said from the very beginning that it was consensual”
100% incorrect. He said he was having lunch with his daughter at the time. Then that story fell through. Then she was “too ugly” to have sex with. Then it became known that they had DNA evidence. ONLY THEN was it “consensual”.
Do you think that because of the Duke Lacrosse case that it is OK to make up statistics about 50% of rape accusations being false?
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.