But why accuse a john if ya want to keep raking in the bucks?
Defense attorneys and unnamed sources?
Maybe she raked in bucks by accusing him.
“
Ever since the news first broke on Sunday, May 15, the notion that it was all a setup meant to bring down Strauss-Kahn has spread like wildfire, especially on the Internet. The world of imagination being boundless, each theory brought forward seems more surprising than the other: they point to the CIA or rivals inside the IMF, to big American banks or financial interests threatened by Strauss-Kahn’s push for more regulation, to murky schemes by some “black Cabinet” working for Nicolas Sarkozy at the Élysée Palace or even to Socialist Party rivals only too eager to get rid of a dangerous candidate ahead of the 2012 presidential elections. “
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072758,00.html
That’s the big question.
It was ruled years ago that it is possible for a prostitute to be raped. Also, I believe Dominique was known for his fondness for rough sex (IIRC, some madams would not send hookers to him, and one of the women he assaulted in France - who never pressed charges - described him as being “like a rutting chimp”) so the whole matter of consent may not have occurred to him or even mattered to him.
I certainly can’t see any reason for her to ruin the good thing she had going by turning on a john. She could have extorted money from him based on the incident, of course, but the involvement of the police and the criminal case made that impossible.
agreed.
and people forget, that aside from him having a history of attacking women, that initially, he lied repeatedly. he claimed he didn’t even have sex with her.
(and that he had already “checked-out” and was having lunch with his daughter, and that he tried to flee the country, and reports that people tried to bribe her relatives in Africa.)
he’s not stupid. if she was a hooker doing extortion, that is exactly what he would have claimed initially, instead of that he didn’t even have sex with her.