http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43602102
I knew my boy would get off easy on this one, despite the amount of physical evidence that was reported on in the early runnings. Who needs to fight a case in court when you can just tank the accuser's credability? Who is ever gonna believe a lowly maid from Guinea with her hand in all sorts of shady .Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the cir stances or about herself.
Way a go, brah!
I was looking for the original thread on this. Didn't find it in a few. Oh well.
I think this is too common. Someone powerful being accused of something just because there is something to gain. I don't recall making a comment on this earlier because I was 50/50 on the notion. Probably because I have a bias against the French.
You got to be kidding me. Good for him. It ate up the airwaves for a few days. The guy quit his job. They took his passport. He was publicly humilated. Hopefully we deport this .
This doesn't mean he didn't do it. It means that they probably won't be able to prove it because of her credibility. That being said, its also pretty telling that it hasn't been outright dismissed even with her credibility being shot to . That forensic evidence they have is probably very strong.
The French position was that he had sex with her (they expect powerful men to consume women as a perk), but that he was set up by right-wingers in France.
He's wealthy, his wife is wealthy. They can hire s bag lawyers to destroy, slander the accuser/victim.
And prosecutors, not exactly apolitical animals, know how confuse and berate an accuser, esp an ignorant, uneducated manual laborer, into all kinds of inconsistencies. C'est une faite accompli.
You means there is evidence they had sex?
So what. It's still "He said - She said."
No, I mean there is evidence of a rape. Its fairly obvious there is evidence of a rape because they haven't dropped charges yet even after their witness has exploitable attached to them.
Letter from prosecutors on the accuser of Strauss-Kahn
Published Friday, Jul. 01, 2011 3:04PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Jul. 01, 2011 9:56PM EDT
The following is a letter New York prosecutors sent to defence lawyers for former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn that details inconsistencies in the story of the woman who accused Mr. Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY County of New York June 30, 2011 People v. Dominique Strauss-Kahn Indictment No. 2526/2011 Dear Mssrs. (William) Taylor and (Benjamin) Brafman:
In connection with the above-captioned case, the People disclose the following information to the defense pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 240.20 as well as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its doctrinal progeny.
In an application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal dated December 30, 2004, the complainant provided the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service with factual information about herself, her background and her experiences in her home country of Guinea. This information was in the form of a written statement attached to her application, and was submitted as a basis for her request for asylum. In her application, she certified under penalty of perjury that her written statement was true.
In substance, the complainant’s statement claimed that she and her husband had been persecuted and harassed by the dictatorial regime that was then in power in Guinea. Among other things, the complainant stated that the home she shared with her husband was destroyed by police and soldiers acting on behalf of the regime, and she and her husband were beaten by them. When her husband attempted to return to what was left of their home the next day, she stated that he was again beaten, arrested and imprisoned by police and soldiers. She stated that she also was beaten when she attempted to come to her husband’s aid. In her statement, she attributed the beatings to the couple’s opposition to the regime. She stated that during her husband’s incarceration, he was tortured, deprived of medical treatment, and eventually died as a result of his maltreatment. Following his death, according to her, she began to denounce the regime and finally fled the country in fear of her life, entering the United States in January 2004 to seek refuge (she has told prosecutors that she used a fraudulent visa). She repeated these facts orally during the course of her asylum application process.
In interviews in connection with the investigation of this case, the complainant admitted that the above factual information, which she provided in connection with her asylum application, was false. She stated that she fabricated the statement with the assistance of a male who provided her with a cassette recording of the facts contained in the statement that she eventually submitted. She memorized these facts by listening to the recording repeatedly. In several interviews with prosecutors, she reiterated these falsehoods when questioned about her history and background, and stated that she did so in order to remain consistent with the statement that she had submitted as part of her application.
Additionally, in two separate interviews with assistant district attorneys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred. Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details, and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of her asylum application process. Presently, the complainant states that she would testify that she was raped in the past in her native country but in an incident different than the one that she described during initial interviews.
In the weeks following the incident charged in the indictment, the complainant told detectives and assistant district attorneys on numerous occasions that, after being sexually assaulted by the defendant on May 14, 2011 in Suite 2806, she fled to an area of the main hallway of the hotel’s 28th floor and waited there until she observed the defendant leave Suite 2806 and the 28th floor by entering an elevator. It was after this observation that she reported the incident to her supervisor, who arrived on the 28th floor a short time later. In the interim between the incident and her supervisor’s arrival, she claimed to have remained in the same area of the main hallway on the 28th floor to which she had initially fled. The complainant testified to this version of events when questioned in the Grand Jury about her actions following the incident in Suite 2806, she proceeded to clean a nearby room and then returned to Suite 2806 and began to clean that suite before she reported the incident to her supervisor.
Additionally, the complainant has stated that for the past two tax years, she declared a friend’s child in addition to her own as a dependent on her tax returns for the purpose of increasing her tax refund beyond that to which she was en led. She also admitted to misrepresenting her income in order to maintain her present housing.
Finally, during the course of this investigation, the complainant was untruthful with assistant district attorneys about a variety of additional topics concerning her history, background, present cir stances and personal relationships.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Joan Illuzzi-Orbon Assistant District Attorney John (Artie) McConnell Assistant District Attorney (Reporting by Paula Rogo)
========================
There are serious credibility issues with this woman. I doubt anyone is going to believe there was a rape. She needs to be deported.
the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred
WTF? This needs to be deported.
One of the most powerful men in the world getting out of a rape charge due to the lack of 'credibility' from the victim. Did anyone not see this coming?
She never had a chance.
But, would there have even been a rape charge if he hadn't been one of the most powerful men in the world? Seems to me this woman had an agenda, and made false allegations to further that agenda.
Jesus Christ man. Did you not just read she LIED about rape before. WTF is wrong with you. Are you jealous the guy has money or something cuz this has zero case, none, nada, no witnesses, no evidence. The only thing this had was her mouth and now she has been busted for crying rape, again. No way this cat raped that . NO WAY.
Liars get raped, as much as that seems to surprise people. But yeah, no way a jury convicts if it's her on the stand and all that comes out.
...
Hmmm, let's see - she lied about being raped on her asylum application, she lied about her income to keep her current housing, and she admitted she claimed someone else's child on her tax return so she could get a bigger refund. This most recent rape allegation is full of holes - but I'm supposed to feel sorry for her and take her side? I'm taking the side of the person who seems to be a victim in all this - and that's Mr. Strauss-Kahn.big surprise from crookshanks, taking the side of the more powerful person and demanding that the maid be deported
Did Mr Strauss-Kahn never lied before this case either? I find that hard to believe.
She could be a two faced liar with an agenda. But if you're going to debate her credibility, the least you can do is debate it about facts in this case. She said one thing and did another, etc etc etc.
please fill the rest us in on your findings.
Yeah, the forum Right Wingers defending the leader of the Socialist party of France. Man, that contortion must hurt.
Are you saying it's wrong to defend someone's integrity when you believe them, just because you disagree with their politics?Yeah, the forum Right Wingers defending the leader of the Socialist party of France. Man, that contortion must hurt.
If so, you lib s are really ed up!
yeah but it's against a black, female, immigrant....so it's okay. Her three strikes cancel out his two.Yeah, the forum Right Wingers defending the leader of the Socialist party of France. Man, that contortion must hurt.
Do you have a transcript or a video of what happened in that hotel room?
Why a skeptic such as yourself would believe somebody without such evidence?
Her story isn't good enough evidence either. Her integrity is shown to be worse than his. It isn't uncommon to find methods to slander political opponents either, which she could be a part of.
And yes. He could be guilty. I just find it very unlikely.
I forget, Do you believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty?
What was the forensic evidence? A hair she picked up while cleaning his room?
"The woman's lawyer says the authorities have sufficient physical evidence to proceed with the case, including proof that she was assaulted, and Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, confirmed that the investigation would continue until "all relevant facts" had been uncovered.
Lawyer Ken Thompson said on Friday that the authorities had photographs of bruises sustained by his client, as well as other physical evidence supporting her claims."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...pted-rape-case
===
we'll see if this evidence is ever officially published, or whether DSK "settles" the case into sealing the do ents.
The FRENCH AND SOCIALIST head of the IMF ing (raping?) the hotel staff is OK with "Christians" here, with right-wingers, with chauvinsts, as long as the victim is black and non-American.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
