It sounds like all charges will be dropped in the rape case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, due to a history of lies and false statements on the part of his accuser, a maid at the 4-star hotel where DSK was staying, who said that he physically attacked her and forced her to give him a blowjob as he fondled and groped her while she tried to fight him off of her.
What do you think actually happened in that hotel room?
Did DSK actually sexually attack the maid in a frenzy of Gallic degenerate passion?
Was it really consensual sex (paid for or otherwise) that then turned into an extortion attempt by the maid when she realized how wealthy he was?
Finally, how will Strauss-Kahn celebrate his new freedom?
Foie Gras and Dom Perignon?
A big snifter of Cognac?
Renting a room at the St. Louis Airport Sheraton and seeing what the maid-staff is doing after their shift gets over for the night?
As was expected, all charges have been officially dropped, and judging by the news reports, the NYC authorities don’t think she was actually raped or attacked at all, and whatever sexual contact may have taken place was consensual, possibly even initiated by the alleged “victim”.
Apparently, being caught in multiple lies about multiple subjects over a period of several years isn’t a great way to establish credibility when it’s needed the most.
I guess “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” isn’t widely known in Guinea…
The saddest thing of all is that if I had to guess, she probably WAS attacked, coerced or at least aggressively propositioned by Strauss-Kahn, (seemingly another rich old lecher who is not above using physical intimidation to secure his nightly piece of ass) but then she unwisely decided to attempt to parlay her violation into a jackpot payday, and was caught talking about it on tape.
She will be lucky if this doesn’t end up getting her a one-way ticket back to Africa, instead of the giant settlement that she was counting on.
We can’t be sure what actually happened, but I’d say “he aggressively propositioned her” is probably more likely than forcible rape. The lies she told before about being raped weren’t malicious in my understanding. She told them in order to expedite acceptance of her political refugee status. DSK is certainly a dog, though.
That is true, but she also lied on income tax forms, on various welfare applications and even denied knowing a convicted felon right up until the moment that the authorities played a tape of her talking to him on the phone.
If the woman is not a habitual liar, she does a mean impersonation of one.
I really wonder if this whole thing ends in a deportation hearing for her, as a lot of people apparently feel that she has been gaming the USCIS (formerly the “INS”) and/or the NYC housing authorities, while other prospective immigrants (who haven’t been caught swearing to false statements under oath) are still waiting for a chance to live in the USA.
Still, DSK has probably been getting away with sexually violent or aggressive behavior for years, and it’s sad that he has never been held to account for his actions. Seemingly, his reputation as a gifted amateur Rape Artiste was well known in France, long before he checked into the NYC Sofitel back in May.
We probably will never know what happened. I tend to believe it was a paid sex transaction gone bad. He didn’t pay enough. Maybe he was a bit rough. The lady was pissed off and saw a chance at getting millions of bucks out of a old rich guy.
The best thing that comes from this is the public disgrace of a very crude and boorish man that could have been the next leader of France.
He’s already been punished a lot. A week in Rikers Island (one of the most notorious hell holes still operating as a jail), almost a million spent on court ordered house rent & special security while he was under house arrest, millions more in lawyers fees. Plus the public humiliation.
I’d say the man will be keeping his zipper closed in the future.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Strauss-Kahn probably did commit a crime. But the prosecutor realized that Strauss-Kahn would have a top-notch defense team, the victim would make a poor witness, and there was virtually no chance of a conviction. So the only thing that was coming out of this case was bad publicity.
I wonder if the lawyer will bail out of the civil case?? He probably took the case with his fee as part of any court award.
The lady is so badly discredited that I see little chance she’ll win. No win means no fee for the lawyer.
It’ll be interesting to see if he jumps ship.
I’d say the defence’s smear campaign worked very well. They dug out everything they could to ruin her credibility. That’s their job and they did it well. That does not mean she was lying about the rape.
Her story of the rape itself has been absolutely consistent. There was one inconsistency in the events following the rape, but I would put that down to shock after the rape.
Her remarks to her friend in jail were taken out of context and mistranslated. When viewed in context they were more: “I know he has a lot of money but I’m going to fight him anyway” than “I know he has a lot of money, that’s why I’m fighting him”.
He’s a nasty piece of work who’s got away with this in the past. On balance, and even though she lied in immigration, I’m going to side with her.
Thankfully she’s pursuing a civil case where the standard of proof is lower and she doesn’t have to rely on prosecutors. He’s also facing legal problems for trying to rape a journalist in France in 2003 (or 2002).
Amen to this; I would bet that he has successfully assaulted many different women over the years (prostitutes, subordinates, the occasional escargot or baguette delivery girl) and used his substantial wealth to buy their silence…
The only thing that I’m wondering – even though a French woman stepped forward with similar accusations – what would one find out about Mr. Creepy if a simple background check has been performed on him the same way “jackals” did on her.
Having read the Motion to Dismiss, I’m really not sure. Her account of an assault is really graphic and disturbing. On the other hand, the prosecutor says she told a really emotionally affecting story about being gang-raped in Guinea, and seemed completely credible and sympathetic . . . and then admitted she made it all up. Which is one of the reasons they’re dropping the case.
One thing is very clear - this woman is a habitual liar. A habitual liar under oath, in fact. And she lied about the facts of this case, under oath, to the grand jury. It’s certainly possible that she was sexually assaulted, but because of her own actions in this case and others, they would never be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I haven’t read any of the actual court documents, but wasn’t there conclusive evidence of sexual contact (semen, I suppose?) between the two?
If I had to guess, he confronted her in his room and then made it clear what he wanted, and so she went along with it out of fear and/or out of expectation or promise of monetary compensation when he was finished.
At some point, she threatened him with going public or calling the cops and he (a guy not used to not getting exactly what he wanted) told her to fuck off.
The physical evidence (vaginal bruising, etc.) say it was rape. There’s an excellent story on Slate by William Saletan that explains there was a lot of inconsistency in translations of the victim’s native language. It sure looks to me like had the perp been your average joe, the case would’ve been prosecuted.
Regarding vaginal bruising, the DA’s motion states that there was “redness” in Diallo’s vaginal area, that was consistent with many benign causes, and a medical expert retained later said there was a low likelihood that it was a bruise or an injury sustained during sex.
The other physical evidence is consistent with either consensual sex or sexual assault - his semen on her clothes, his skin cells on the waist of her pantyhose, and so forth. I don’t think anyone is arguing they didn’t have sexual contact. The question is whether there was force and whether there was consent. Unfortunately that issue relies almost entirely on her testimony.
DSK is a nasty piece of work. The accuser is no saint. The evidence really is insufficient and relys mostly on the complainants testimony; which the prosecutors felt was unreliable. That means usually they are worried about what would happen to her in cross. A good cross can destroy a case and if she was so unreliable and unpersuasive then the prosecutors did the right thing and indeed their duty in dropping the case.
I actually think based on nothing but conjecture that this was a case of consent followed by cold feet. I think she consented originally, then changed her mind during the encounter. Still would be technically rape but do not envy the prosecutor who has to prove it.
WTF are you talking about? DSK’s sex drive was known to the French during the 2000s, not before. And he was never ever known as a rapist, even an alleged one. You’re totally pulling things out of your ass.
Were you two taking a nap during his arrest and the weeks that followed?Every bit of shit that could be thrown at him were unearthed during those days. The “smear campaign” against her was the backlash of that.
This is what I find strange, if they had scientific proof that forceful sex happened, they didnt really need to rely on her testimony (and so didnt her to be an above reproach witness), and so could have kept on prosecuting. .