NYT bombshell: Strauss-Kahn assault case falling apart over questions about accuser’s credibility

Hotair ^ | 07/01/2011 | Allahpundit

[kabar]

Do you have the court documents or transcripts. I think not.

[livius]

He denied it at first, then said “maybe it happened,” then said it was consensual.

As I said above, if she had wanted to extort money from him, she would never have gotten into a situation where the police were called. If it was consensual, it was still unsavory, and all she would have had to do was to call him and threaten to reveal it if he didn’t pay up.

She wouldn’t have gone through an elaborate set-up that was sure to get the police involved. Remember, this is the guy who was described by another woman he attacked as being “like a rutting chimpanzee.” His behavior as she described it sounds pretty typical for him.

[allmendream]

So you are saying that his lawyers did NOT argue in court that he had an alibi? Wow, that entire “lunch with his daughter” thing must have come out of NOWHERE then!

His lawyers saying in Court (as was reported) that he was not there is entirely inconsistent with your INCORRECT WRONG AND ABSOLUTELY FALSE statement that his story “from the very beginning” was that it was consensual.

Why lie about it?

[kabar]

So you are saying that his lawyers did NOT argue in court that he had an alibi? Wow, that entire “lunch with his daughter” thing must have come out of NOWHERE then!

Those are press reports based on what? Grand jury hearings are confidential. The defense has yet to present its case in court.

I used the press reports you have been using. This from the NYT

“It is a mess, a mess on both sides,” one official said.

According to the two 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 pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

Indeed, Mr. Strauss-Kahn could be released on his own recognizance, and freed from house arrest, reflecting the likelihood that the serious charges against him will not be sustained. The district attorney’s office may try to require Mr. Strauss-Kahn to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but his lawyers are likely to contest such a move."

[allmendream]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/19/nyregion/20110519-Strauss-Kahn-Bail-Application.html?ref=dominiquestrausskahn

Here is the bail application his lawyers filed.

In it they say their client was not on the scene at the time of the assault - but at a previously scheduled lunch with his daughter - characterized as an “ironclad” alibi - and 100% not consistent with the LIE that ‘he said from the very beginning that it was consensual’.

See Page 6 point #21. This was their alibi defense - that the accusation didn't fit the timeline - entirely inconsistent with “it was consensual”.

So why lie about it, repeatedly, on different threads?