IMF boss is caught with his pants down (?)

[Bob]

If I should ever get into any serious trouble, I will pray that Nixon

[Guest fountainhall]

In the continuing fog of accusation and counter accusation, DSK's lawyers are now saying they are in possession of evidence "that in our view would seriously undermine the quality of this prosecution and also gravely undermine the credibility of the complainant in this case." Which, of course, is exactly what one would expect them to say at this stage.

 

In a letter to Manhattan prosecutors, Strauss-Kahn's lawyers William Taylor and Ben Brafman complained about New York police leaking information on the case to the media and asserted his right to a fair trial.

 

"Indeed, were we intent on improperly feeding the media frenzy we could now release substantial information that in our view would seriously undermine the quality of this prosecution and also gravely undermine the credibility of the complainant in this case," Taylor and Brafman wrote.

 

"We are requesting that you use whatever resources are appropriate to stop further leaking immediately," they said in the letter, dated 25 May and addressed to Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney.

 

The prosecutor, John McConnell, has said evidence against the French national is "substantial and is continuing to grow every day".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/26/dominique-strauss-kahn-rape-credibility

[Guest fountainhall]

The New York Times is today reporting that the case against DSK is on "the verge of collapsing" as major doubts have arisen about the credibility of the accuser. Even with "unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter", it turns out prosecutors - who were earlier "emphatic" about the strength of their evidence - do not believe much of what the accuser has told them "about the circumstances or about herself."

 

The revelations are a stunning change of fortune for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who was considered a strong contender for the French presidency before being accused of sexually assaulting the woman who went to clean his luxury suite at the Sofitel New York.

 

Prosecutors from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who initially were emphatic about the strength of the case and the account of the victim, plan to tell the judge on Friday that they “have problems with the case” based on what their investigators have discovered, and will disclose more of their findings to the defense. The woman still maintains that she was attacked, the officials said.

 

“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.

 

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is 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, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

 

The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one 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, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of 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.

 

. . . The revelations about the investigators’ findings are likely to buttress the view of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s supporters, who complained that the American authorities had rushed to judgment in the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/nyregion/strauss-kahn-case-seen-as-in-jeopardy.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

 

A new Court hearing has been scheduled for Friday when it is expected that DSK's bail conditions will be substantially eased.

 

I can't help but go back to my original comment. Seems like it was not far off the mark!

 

Knowing how much I like conspiracy theories, I wonder how much that maid was paid? (Only joking!)

[TotallyOz]

It seems like this case is nearing the gutter. If that is the case, and I am not sure at this point in time, I am very disappointed in NYC's District Attorney's office. Having went to law school in NYC and most of my friend still practice there and some are DA's, I honestly would have thought they would have done due diligence with this case. He is very high profile. If this does not pan out, IMHO, heads need to roll!

[Guest fountainhall]

It's clear that we will have to wait for the detailed evidence to be presented in Court. Interesting that the comments that have now appeared under the NYT article are quite mixed.

 

CJCG from Cambridge MA says:

 

"Obviously if she lied about a lot of other things about herself she won't be credible in court, but this is not the same as saying that she made up or exaggerated or solicited the encounter with DSK."

That's fair comment, but only up to the point where her alleged other activities have zero bearing on the DSK encounter. And if these activities turn out to be fact, then the possibility that she entered the suite deliberately to entrap an albeit willing DSK to have sex with her, surely becomes much more likely to be fact.

 

Publius from New York adds:

 

"If you are going to pull someone like him off a plane and perp walk him and seek to hold him without bail, you had better be damned sure of your case."

Given the Polanski history and France's persistent refusal to grant extradition requests, I can see that the NYPD were in a real bind. What makes me really angry, though, is the subject we discussed on a related thread - the "perp walk" which is standard procedure in NYC. Should the case be dropped or DSK be found innocent, the damage to this man's career is huge - partly due to those photos of him, unshaven, clearly very tired and in chains. No doubt there will be further lawsuits. I only hope that as a result of this case, the "perp walk" is prohibited throughout the entire USA.

 

Which I think is partly what NCYBob alludes to when he adds:

"I am amazed how fast the court of public opinion has already sentenced DSK to a political death sentence before the court of law even begins."

Interesting, too - in my view, that the accuser's original lawyers, Jeffrey Shapiro and renowned civil rights lawyer, Norman Siegel, are no longer working for her. Seems like plenty of shit is going to hit quite a few fans!

[KhorTose]

He is very high profile. If this does not pan out, IMHO, heads need to roll!

 

To say the least. This is not Thailand and a person who is wronged by the system does have right to bring charges and sue the heck out of the wrongdoers. I am ashamed of NYC if the charges turn out to be garbage. What a miscarriage of justice this is beginning to appear. How could they be so careless? .

[Guest fountainhall]

Assuming this case does indeed collapse, how on earth do you make right the wrong that has been done to DSK? Money doesn't help someone who had to resign from one of the most powerful positions in the world. And he was all but a shoo-in as the socialists' candidate for President of France next year.

 

The NYT has just posted another article with news of the stunned reaction of politicans and others in France.

 

The news drew cries of vindication from his supporters in France.

 

 

[Guest fountainhall]

Interesting comment on CNBC's Squawk Box just now. Becky Quick asked a rhetorical question. What would American public reaction be if a leading Presidential contender was hauled off a US aircraft in France, paraded in front of the media in chains, accused of a similar misdemeanour, and then thrown into jail for several days?

 

Any thoughts?

[KhorTose]

Assuming this case does indeed collapse, how on earth do you make right the wrong that has been done to DSK? Money doesn't help someone who had to resign from one of the most powerful positions in the world. And he was all but a shoo-in as the socialists' candidate for President of France next year.

 

He may be able to serve in a government again, but his dream of leading the nation is dead. How do the NYPD compensate him for that?

 

I really think you underestimate the French. If he ends up beating this charge I believe he will be a shoe-in for the Presidential nomination, and probably win. The French like nothing better then showing they are more broad minded then the Americans.

 

As to your second question, "how would we feel if France did this to a presidential candidate?" We would be pissed off. So pissed off that we would probably elect him just to show our disdain for the French Justice system. I do not think this will hurt his chances to be the French President, even if he is found guilty of a misdemeanor. Big difference between rape and say misdemeanor assault.

 

Personally, I am so embarrassed that this has happened in the USA. Breaks my heart.

[Guest fountainhall]

If he ends up beating this charge I believe he will be a shoe-in for the Presidential nomination, and probably win.

A key issue is that the deadline for nominations for the Presidential election primaries is July 13. The media is saying DSK will not be released today; merely that the bail conditions will be eased. If the Manhattan DA wants to do something to ease the media and political onslaught that is already aimed at his head, he'll make sure DSK is a free man before that date.

 

It's just an extraordinary, extraordinary development considering this case was brought with such great fanfare by the Manhattan district attorney and they very loudly trumpeted the credibility of the accuser," said Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/01/new.york.strauss.kahn/index.html

[Guest fountainhall]

What an extraordinary, if not disgraceful, spectacle outside the Manhattan Court this evening Thailand time!

 

DSK had just left the Court after the judge released him from house arrest and ordered his bail returned. Then the alleged victim’s lawyer comes out and vents a long and vicious rant against the DA and his staff before the assembled media horde, accusing the DA’s office of incompetence in its handling of the case, of not wishing to prosecute because it had lost a number of recent high-profile cases, of leaking information, and of harassing and “screaming” at his client.

 

Extraordinarily, he then stated that whatever inconsistencies and omissions in other aspects of his client’s evidence, this was a vile rape and attack on his client. In other words, he conceded his client lied and hid parts of the truth that could have materially affected the case at the outset - but she was raped for God's sake!

 

As CNN reported, this lawyer is planning to start a civil case against DSK in which he will sue for zillions. So the motives for that rant are pathetically plain for all to see. But as all the legal experts have been saying this evening, this case has gone down the tubes and will be withdrawn quite soon. The alleged victim’s credibility is shot to pieces.

 

It was quite a riveting spectacle. By all accounts, though, a sad day for American justice.

[KhorTose]

It was quite a riveting spectacle. By all accounts, though, a sad day for American justice.

 

Yes, I watched it. The only card this ...... did not play was the race card. Agree very sad day.

[TotallyOz]

It was riveting. She talked to her druggie friend 28 hours after alleged assault and said, "Don

[Guest fountainhall]

Even before the druggie and the US$100,000 stashed away in several accounts came to light, immediately after the alleged rape what did this poor defenceless woman who had been so violently assaulted do? The DA told the world that this wholly believable victim had cowered at the end of the hallway until DSK had left and then reported the assault. Now, what do we learn? She actually cleaned another room before deciding to report it! End of case!

[Bob]

Perhaps a bit of a rush to judgment by the press and everybody else as to what really happened (not only with the alleged rape itself by how the police investigated the case, what they wrote in reports for the prosecutors, and what decisions that the prosecutors made).

 

So far, other than the public notoriety of the case (which I abhor), the only thing I know for sure is that the prosecutors did what ethical prosecutors are required to do - turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense. They did this and that's what triggered the events of the last few days. Whoever leaked that notification (a letter from the prosecutor to defense counsel - a copy of which was in the hands of some hysterical reporter) ought to be chastized.

 

I detest any lawyer who attempts to try a case in the press and that includes the victim's lawyer who gave his press conference yesterday. Even if what he said was all correct or partially correct, he was wrong in doing that.

 

Either a rape happenened here or it didn't and I hope the decision to proceed with the case is made by reasonable people without the glare or affect of the tabloid press.

[Guest fountainhall]

Either a rape happenened here or it didn't . . .

I think most people must assume that intercourse did take place, given the presence, we are told, of DNA evidence. The key surely is: was this consensual or not? From what we now know about the alleged victim's actions after the event - so, discounting the lies on the asylum application etc. - there has to be way more than a reasonable doubt.

[TotallyOz]

I think most people must assume that intercourse did take place, given the presence, we are told, of DNA evidence.

 

The presence of DNA in the room? Or, inside the lady? There is a big difference.

 

She cleaned another room and THEN entered his room again. I would discount any DNA evidence from here in that room.

[Guest fountainhall]

She cleaned another room and THEN entered his room again. I would discount any DNA evidence from here in that room.

This is another distortion by the alleged victim, as you will note from last part of the excerpts from another long and interesting background article in today's New York Times.

 

Twenty-eight hours after a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York said she was sexually assaulted by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, she spoke by phone to a boyfriend in an immigration jail in Arizona.

 

Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney’s office learned the call had been recorded and had it translated from a “unique dialect of Fulani,” a language from the woman’s native country, Guinea, according to a well-placed law enforcement official.

 

When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said.

 

It was another ground-shifting revelation in a continuing series of troubling statements, fabrications and associations that unraveled the case and upended prosecutors’ view of the woman. Once, in the hours after she said she was attacked on May 14, she’d been a “very pious, devout Muslim woman, shattered by this experience,” the official said — a seemingly ideal witness.

 

Little by little, her credibility as a witness crumbled . . . Now the phone call raised yet another problem: it seemed as if she hoped to profit from whatever occurred in Suite 2806 . . .

 

The boyfriend in the Arizona detention center . . . had been arrested while bartering counterfeit designer clothing from Manhattan’s Chinatown for marijuana in the Southwest, the well-placed law enforcement official said. Her lawyer said she did not know the man was “a drug dealer.”

 

Meanwhile, as the interviews continued, the relationship grew more strained . . . Then, for some 10 days, prosecutors were unable to get Mr. Thompson to bring her in; the lawyer said she was being treated for a shoulder injury that she suffered in the attack, an injury she had not reported earlier.

 

The final meeting occurred on Tuesday in the seventh-floor offices of the district attorney at 1 Hogan Place. It began at 11 a.m. and lasted five or six hours, except for a short lunch break, around an oval table in a conference room in the offices of the Public Integrity Unit.

 

It was devastating. In recent weeks, investigators collected bank records showing deposits of thousands of dollars in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania to an account in her name. The woman had repeatedly said that the Sofitel was her only source of income. Now, investigators confronted her with the bank records.

 

The woman, silent, turned to Mr. Thompson, seemingly pleading for direction on how to respond. He seemed startled.

 

“He was speechless,” the well-placed official said.

 

The district attorney’s office said the woman had lied about her income to maintain her public housing, and had claimed a friend’s child as her own dependant to increase her tax refund.

 

At the same meeting, the woman gave a new version of what she had done immediately after the encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn. In testimony before the grand jury in May, she said she had fled Suite 2806 to an area in the main hallway and waited until she saw Mr. Strauss-Kahn leave in an elevator. She has said that her supervisor arrived a short time later, and that she told her supervisor what had happened.

 

On Tuesday, the well-placed official said, she told investigators new details, stating, “I forgot to tell you this.”

 

In fact, she said, she left Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s room and entered another room — her lawyer said it was Suite 2820 — and cleaned it, and then returned to Suite 2806 and cleaned it until her supervisor arrived.

 

“She did not know what to do,” her lawyer said. “She did not want to lose her job. She knew that her supervisor was going to be coming upstairs momentarily. So, she went into another room.”

 

And yet, even this version was not corroborated by card-key data obtained by investigators on Friday, which indicated that the housekeeper went to the other room only after she had finished Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/nyregion/one-revelation-after-another-undercut-strauss-kahn-accusers-credibility.html

 

Whoever leaked that notification (a letter from the prosecutor to defense counsel - a copy of which was in the hands of some hysterical reporter) ought to be chastized.

When the leaks become this sort of gushing river, is it not a sign of rats deserting a rapidly sinking ship???

[Bob]

From what we now know about the alleged victim's actions after the event - so, discounting the lies on the asylum application etc. - there has to be way more than a reasonable doubt.

 

I would agree with you if decisions like this were made by people like us reading incomplete and biased news reports. Thankfully, however, such decisions aren't made that way.

[KhorTose]

More from the NY Times. This time about the nature and character of the DA's Office.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/nyregion/collapsing-strauss-kahn-case-adds-to-doubts-on-manhattan-prosecutor.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[Guest fountainhall]

I would agree with you if decisions like this were made by people like us reading incomplete and biased news reports. Thankfully, however, such decisions aren't made that way.

I agree. But, to misquote the 17th century phrase, it takes 12 good persons and true to weigh up the evidence and come to a verdict.

 

Let me first quote from one reader's comments following the NYT article in my last post -

 

From NatialieRosen, Boston July 1st

 

Our Founders prescient innocent until proven guilty is there for a reason. Time and time again, especially in our media frenzied world, prosecutors perp walk a defendant in front of the cameras and automatically a person is guilty before proven so. I am ashamed to say I often draw conclusions before a trial even occurs.

 

The accused has the right to face his accusers and to be presented with the evidence the state has against him. Who can question the sagacity of that construct? It is brilliant.

 

It does not matter or at least it SHOULD not matter what the background of a defendant (or a witness for the prosecution) is. What matters is whether that crime at that time was committed or not.

Given the actions of the prosecutors and given the resultant media food fest - starting off with the disgraceful perp walk and the tale about being the accused being "pulled off a plane whilst attempting to flee the country", where on earth on the East Coast of the USA do you find 12 good persons who have neither seen, read nor heard of any detail of this case? How can the Court possibly find a truly unbiased jury?

 

The second quote from this morning's Observer in the UK relates to both sides of this case and is one with which I am sure you will agree -

 

In the UK, much of this information would be deemed sub judice and not offered up for public consumption for fear of damaging the chances of a fair trial. In the US, the scales of justice do not seem so well protected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/03/observer-editorial-strauss-kahn-justice

[Bob]

.....where on earth on the East Coast of the USA do you find 12 good persons who have neither seen, read nor heard of any detail of this case? How can the Court possibly find a truly unbiased jury?

 

Believe it or not, the court won't have a problem in finding a decent and apparently unbiased jury. The modern voir dire process tends to produce a fair panel and I suspect they won't have any problem this time (presuming it gets that far).

 

On the negative side of that equation, probably 30-40% of the initial jury panel won't in fact know much at all about the case (i.e., probably the same percentage that won't be able to name who the current Vice President happens to be....).

[KhorTose]

On the negative side of that equation, probably 30-40% of the initial jury panel won't in fact know much at all about the case (i.e., probably the same percentage that won't be able to name who the current Vice President happens to be....).

 

Well Dan Quayle is a hard name to remember.

[Guest fountainhall]

Khortose is clearly setting himself up to be a juror in this case. Great! Then he can post all the inside details

 

By the way, Dan who???

[Guest fountainhall]

Inevitably, the scandal mags are now having a field day with the DSK case. Equally inevitably, the almost certain possibility of the hotel maid facing two legal hurdles is now front and centre – perjury before a Grand Jury and deportation. The issue of how she came to have so much money in various accounts is also up for discussion. This from that impeccable source The New York Post –

 

She was turning tricks on the taxpayers' dime!

 

The Sofitel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of a sex attack in his suite wasn't just a hotel hooker -- she continued to work as a prostitute in a Brooklyn hotel where she was stashed by prosecutors, The Post has learned.

 

The so-called victim, whose web of lies has crippled the Manhattan DA's case against the former International Monetary Fund boss, played host to a parade of paying male visitors in the weeks after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, a prosecution source said.

 

"While she was under our supervision, there were multiple 'dates' and encounters at the hotel on the DA's dime," the source said of her paid hotel room. "That's a great deal for her. She doesn't have to cover her expenses."

 

. . . The woman has a regular fleet of gentlemen callers who range from wealthy clients she met at the Sofitel to counterfeit-merchandise hawkers and livery-cab drivers, said sources close to the defense investigation . . .

 

"I can't say with 100 percent certainty that it's not true," a senior prosecutor said about whether the woman was turning tricks while at the hotel.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/she_laid_low_as_da_paid_for_digs_8Udq6nhQaHaC4KOOfkctpI

 

QuIte why anyone would turn tricks whilst awaiting the outcome of such a high profile case and its potential monetary windfall beats me, though.

 

This from today’s Daily Telegraph in the UK –

 

Professor Kevin Johnson, the dean of the University of California's law school and an expert in immigration law, said: "The department of homeland security could try to reopen her asylum case on the basis that she appears to have lied in her application, and ultimately say that she should be removed from the country. This is an extraordinary case ... I can imagine the department going after her". . .

 

"These cases are not always pursued, but here you have an apparent admission by someone that she lied on the application - so as a prosecutor you have a strong case" said Prof Cruz. "That may make it more likely that they will try to remove her" . . .

 

Under New York state law, testifying falsely in a way that is material to the case being considered is perjury in the first degree, a class D felony punishable with up to seven years in prison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8614282/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-accuser-could-face-perjury-charges.html

 

As has been admitted, when she entered the USA she presented a very convincing case for asylum, yet she repeatedly lied to the officials after having memorised a tape recording of what she should say. That being the case, one reason for her "utterly convincing and unshakeable" story told to the investigators in her early questioning in the DSK case could surely also have been the result of coaching in advance of the event. It's surely more than a possibility!

 

My understanding of traumatic events such as forced rape are that victims will often be disorientated, vulnerable, angry, unbelieving etc. and that the detail of what happened does not at first emerge as a full-blown minute-by-minute account. The very credibility she showed might surely be a pointer to some advance rehearsal - and not specifically for this case, I hasten to add, but for use at an appropriate time. But I speculate, again - no doubt to Bob's utter dismay!