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

posted at 10:20 pm on June 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

The WSJ has a bare-bones story out tonight about Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers making a “surprise court appearance” tomorrow to ask the judge to relax his bail conditions. There’s no clue from the piece, though, about what unusual circumstances might have led to such a surprise.

Meanwhile, over at the NYT: Surprise.

The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials…

According to the two law enforcement 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 pursing 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 was 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, Pennsylvania, Georgia and New York.

They also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five different companies. The woman insisted she only had a single 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, the official said, she told investigators that part of her application for asylum included 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.

DSK’s lawyers never disputed that there was sexual contact between them; in fact, allegedly, there’s physical evidence to substantiate it. Their claim all along was that it was consensual and that the accuser had a credibility problem. And now here we are, with the parties “discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges.” The Times suggests without saying that she was trying to shake him down — which might very well have worked if not for these new details — but if, as they hint, she was making easy money as part of some drug ring, why would she risk drawing scrutiny from the police by lobbing a sensational rape accusation at a famous diplomat in line to be the next president of France? And did she simply luck out in choosing her target, or did she somehow know that Strauss-Kahn is a guy whose issues with women are so notorious back home that not only do acquaintances talk of him being “sick,” but that another woman had accused him of attempted rape four years ago?

If DSK really is innocent and this is some elaborate scam, here’s a taste of how sinisterly elaborate it really was. From a May 21 post on the Daily Beast:

The luxury-hotel maid who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Dominique Strauss-Kahn was found by a supervisor in a hallway where she hid after escaping from the former International Monetary Fund director’s room. Hotel workers described her as traumatized, having difficulty speaking, and immediately concerned about pressing charges and losing her job, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The maid also repeatedly spit on the walls and floors of the suite in front of her hotel colleagues as she alleged that Strauss-Kahn locked her in his room and forced her into oral sex acts. That saliva is being tested for DNA markers and could become a crucial piece of evidence in the case, the sources said…

Throughout the questioning, the maid appeared traumatized, at one point going to a bathroom to try to vomit and several times spitting on the floor and walls of the suite, according to the sources.

Supposedly she became “visibly upset” upon returning to the suite, and was nauseated and trembling during questioning. That’s why the cops raced to the airport and pulled him off the plane, of course. She was that credible, even to seasoned NYPD investigators. Which makes me wonder, does the prosecution believe that she’s lying to them about the incident or do they merely believe that they won’t be able to convict him once the defense is through with her on the stand?

Exit question: DSK back in the French presidential race?

Update: An even better question from the comments:

If she was making easy money as part of a drug ring, why would she be working as a maid?

Maybe the boyfriend’s simply using her as a patsy, exploiting her bank and phone accounts to hide his “business” activities as best he can. Note too that the Times doesn’t say that she raised the subject of “possible benefits” from pursuing charges against DSK. She merely discussed it with the boyfriend; he might have brought it up, realizing that it could have meant a payday.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

To save you the trouble, there’s not evidence of being a con-artist other than living in an AIDs project house while telling police that she doesn’t have AIDS.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 2:16 PM

She provided false/misleading testimony to a grand jury. She provided false/misleading information on her asylum papers (genital mutilation/rape). She provided false/misleading information on her tax return. That is information that prosecutors have relayed to DSKs defense team (which is correct process rather than conspiracy).

This does not mean he is innocent of rape but she does have integrity issues which is important when determining consent regardless of the physical evidence.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM

She provided false/misleading testimony to a grand jury. She provided false/misleading information on her asylum papers (genital mutilation/rape).

lexhamfox on July 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM

From what I’ve read, that’s exaggerated. There’s information she gave to police (the grand jury?) that wasn’t included on her asylum papers. Did it have to be? If it was missing, does that make it a lie? Could it be missing because someone decided it wasn’t relevant? I don’t know, but I’m withholding judgment based on anonymous sources in the NYT during a leftist smear campaign.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM

There’s information she gave to police (the grand jury?) that wasn’t included on her asylum papers. Did it have to be?

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM

No. She told the grand jury that after the attack she hid and cowered until she reported the attack. In fact, she has recanted that testimony when confronted with the fact that after the attack she went and cleaned another room before returning to the scene of the attack and started cleaning DSKs suite. The questions surrounding her asylum documents came up because there were discrepancies between the evidence provided on those papers and what was revealed during the medical exam.

It is issues like this provided by investigators to the defense and the judge which led to return of bond (a serious development) and the lifting of all restrictions apart from overseas travel. The prosecution and the court are unlikely to make such drastic alternations in the face of flimsy evidence.

Like yourself, I will defer to the evidence which will eventually be brought up in court rather than heresay but it looks bad enough that they might drop the case if the trend of duplicity continues.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Like yourself, I will defer to the evidence which will eventually be brought up in court rather than heresay but it looks bad enough that they might drop the case if the trend of duplicity continues.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Of course, this is all lies from the leftist media, who hate black womyn, looking to protect a rapist.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 5:20 PM

No. She told the grand jury that after the attack she hid and cowered until she reported the attack. In fact, she has recanted that testimony when confronted with the fact that after the attack she went and cleaned another room before returning to the scene of the attack and started cleaning DSKs suite…

lexhamfox on July 1, 2011 at 5:02 PM

If that’s an accurate characterization of testimony, not questioning your reporting but that of the the leaker, then DSK is a free man. She may have a valid reason for changing what she said, but no-one’s should believe her beyond reasonable doubt now.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM

testing 123 testing 123

Jailbreak on December 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2