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

He’s still guilty of being a pompous frog.

greggriffith on June 30, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Oh Boy,sumpin…sumpin..acted stupidly with out the facts
sumpin…sumpin…
(sarc).

canopfor on June 30, 2011 at 10:24 PM

So that is why she could not have been raped? Bullshit.

Vilify the accuser.

singlemalt 18 on June 30, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Heh … would you look at that. I repeatedly stated this gal’s credibility might be in question when we found out she was residing in Harlem in an apartment for HIV positive tenants.

HondaV65 on June 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Just like Billy Jeff. If the woman is loose enough, the socialist scum bag can walk free, every time.

abobo on June 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Obama’s gonna want some of that payoff.

wheelgun on June 30, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Snip.

smellthecoffee on June 30, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Her settlement was never going to be through the courts anyway. I never thought this would see a courtroom with the people that are involved. His real problem is the women who have come out back in France I think. Back in the Presidential race, I would hope not but this is France we are talking about.

bluemarlin on June 30, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Someone call Nancy Grace…

equanimous on June 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM

She’s being raped again…

d1carter on June 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Someone call Nancy Grace…

equanimous on June 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM

She’s locked into the Casey Anthony Circus right now.

darwin-t on June 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Actually it just sounds like she has a scumbag boyfriend. I mean we’re talking a pretty crazy Xanatos Gamble to set this up otherwise.

And how about DSK being like, “I was totally not there at all.”
“We’re testing the DNA.”
“Oh THAT hotel room. Yes, I was there, but it was consensual!”

Remember, this “consensual” bit wasn’t his first defense.

apollyonbob on June 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

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

Blake on June 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

He was among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account

That sounds like they were using her bank account to launder their drug money religion of peace charities.

All this does is increase the odds that DSK got more diseases from her than he gave to her.

pedestrian on June 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I don’t know…can a prostitute be raped just b/c she is prostitute? Absolutely. This dude is creepy. He has a long history of abusing women sexually. He doesn’t understand “no”. If she has a sordid history of crying rape, like that POS that accused the Duke lacrosse players, then I would be inclined to think they wouldn’t pursue the case, but just b/c you have a drug dealer boyfriend, that doesn’t make you a chick that will give fellatio to a stranger b/c he expects it.

JAM on June 30, 2011 at 10:40 PM

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

Blake on June 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

That’s where she found the clients? DSK is going to have to admit that they agreed on a price beforehand for this line of evidence to go anywhere.

pedestrian on June 30, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Duke Lacrosse?

faraway on June 30, 2011 at 10:40 PM

…something…something…it’s the seriousness of the charge…something…something…

roy_batty on June 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM

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

Blake on June 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

To sue rich men?

faraway on June 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM

She’s locked into the Casey Anthony Circus right now.

darwin-t on June 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

My comment was an attempt at humor…

equanimous on June 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Elaborate plot hatched by Al Qaeda, financed by drugs, to bring France to its knees – perhaps as revenge for banning the burka and other ‘islamophobic’ stuff?

Buy Danish on June 30, 2011 at 10:44 PM

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

Blake on June 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

To sue rich men?

faraway on June 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM

People involved in the drug business try not to draw attention to themselves and their bank accounts.

(not that I would know but guys talk, you hear things)

darwin-t on June 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM

My comment was an attempt at humor…

equanimous on June 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Mine too.

The Casey Show has Nancy’s numbers second only to BOR.

darwin-t on June 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Surely feminists will fight for this woman.Right???????????

Southernblogger on June 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM

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

Blake on June 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Drug rings are criminal enterprises that don’t limit their activities to dealing in drugs. A secondary and quite related business to their main one is extortion. They do this through intermediaries, like this woman perhaps, who they place at high priced hotels in a variety of jobs.

The intermediary might offer sex to the target, and if she has access to his room anyway as a housekeeper, voila, the act gets filmed and the target gets a chance to “buy” the video. Or, they sell him drugs, again arranged by the intermediary, and that gets filmed as well, right there in his room.

I’m not saying that this happened in her case, but if she’s somehow on the payroll of these boys, anything’s possible.

TXUS on June 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

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?

He could have presented himself as an easy target or her alleged drug buddies knew who he was and planned this. She transferred to his floor, that was not his normal floor. Who knows, maybe it’s a set up that can be traced back to enemies in France, but these connections of hers and lies really hurt the case.

If she was lying, OUT of the country. Seriously, lies like this always screw the true victims.

Daemonocracy on June 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Surely feminists will fight for this woman.Right???????????

Southernblogger on June 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Oh, the IPad is ok but required cleaning after that doozie!

bluemarlin on June 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM

She wasn’t just a housekeeper in any old hotel. It’s all about access, in more senses than one.

Christien on June 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM

The Casey Show has Nancy’s numbers second only to BOR.

darwin-t on June 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

yeh, CNN is non-stop Casey at night…even on a show called “Showbiz Tonight”

equanimous on June 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

^ not her normal floor

Daemonocracy on June 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

You’ve got to move against credibility whenever you’ve got one of these bimbo eruptions.

cthulhu on June 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I say good. I don’t like *, but something about this story did not feel right from the start.

* I thought better of the comment, but it has to do with French, womens’ names, and hyphenation.

bbhack on June 30, 2011 at 11:05 PM

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.

Actually not. The first claim was “I wasn’t even in the room at that time.” THEN there was the evidence of semen, FOLLOWED by the “when I said I wasn’t there, I meant I was there having consentual sex with her. Then decided to leave the hotel room without my belongings and hop on the next plane.”

DrAllecon on June 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Duke Lacrosse?

faraway on June 30, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Based on this? I understand some skepticism, but for heaven’s sake, look at the alleged perp’s behavior. Geez.

JannyMae on June 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Best justice money can buy. Someones campaign coffers are going to gain considerable weight and all this nastiness can then be put behind us.

a capella on June 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

She’s black, so I can’t wait for the race pimps to be front and center again while Barry is golfing and the debt ceiling LOOOOOOOOOMS over our heads.

SouthernGent on June 30, 2011 at 11:29 PM

His political aspiration are still shot even if he walks free of all charges Tuesday morning. DSK was to be the next French President and as they already replaced his old job.

Resigning a job of the IMF president only happens if you know your are guilty of something. Knowing that you will be back to work as normal once the month or so vacation roughing it in the NYC jail system is over.

tjexcite on July 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM

this is why our frequent rush to judgments are a mistake all charges will be dropped….

georgealbert on July 1, 2011 at 12:19 AM

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

Criminals are stupid. That is why they are criminals. They can’t figure out how to make money legitimately.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 12:26 AM

She’s being raped again…

d1carter on June 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

So a man who is being accused of rape cannot defend himself? Don’t you think her ties to criminals is relevant?

Some people hate men so much they always believe the worst of them.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 12:27 AM

I don’t know…can a prostitute be raped just b/c she is prostitute? Absolutely. This dude is creepy. He has a long history of abusing women sexually. He doesn’t understand “no”. If she has a sordid history of crying rape, like that POS that accused the Duke lacrosse players, then I would be inclined to think they wouldn’t pursue the case, but just b/c you have a drug dealer boyfriend, that doesn’t make you a chick that will give fellatio to a stranger b/c he expects it.

JAM on June 30, 2011 at 10:40 PM

IF I remember correctly Crystal Gail Mangum did not have such a history. What stunk about that case was the circumstances the woman described were wholly unbelievable.

So does it make sense that a man who is very forward about asking women for sex and who seems to have a lot of it would bother to rape anyone? Or would you stick your genitals in the mouth of someone you were abusing? Me neither.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Based on this? I understand some skepticism, but for heaven’s sake, look at the alleged perp’s behavior. Geez.

JannyMae on June 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

He made passes at women. Some accepted, some did not. He was never accused of rape. Big difference.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Throw him in jail for the rest of his life anyway, just to be sure.

We can’t take any chances.

Kensington on July 1, 2011 at 12:41 AM

To answer your update question allah. Most drug dealers.maintain low end jobs for.income and credit.reasons. Drug money is cash that you can’t report so you can’t buy a car, house, rent an apartment. Try going to a car dealership with 30k in cash and you will walk out in cuffs. Maid jobs and low end service.industry jobs are.the.most they get common bc they get tips that they seldom report anyway.

snoopicus on July 1, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Also if you report drug money as tips and claim it, congratulations you’ve just laundered money.

snoopicus on July 1, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Why do I suspect this turnaround in the case came right after somebody in France promised Obama a few million in campaign funds? Bill Clinton reviewed the Chi-Com troops in Tiananmen Square on the ninth anniversary of the massacre for three million, after all.

Chaz on July 1, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Fake but accurate!

Kenosha Kid on July 1, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Looks to me like this is another Muslim shake down. And that ….ah….certain elements of law enforcement, like ICE, knew this illegal alien was not so cool the whole time.
Like the gunrunning, they got caught with their pants down.

pat on July 1, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Once you lie, you are toast in Court.

tx2654 on July 1, 2011 at 3:11 AM

“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?”

Just like billionaires keep on working, crooks keep on doing what they do.
Other points: Yes, even prostitutes can be raped, and even serial rapists can have consensual sex.

Ira on July 1, 2011 at 3:25 AM

I don’t like the headline, AP. The case is not falling apart. This is just background dirt.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Once you lie, you are toast in Court.

tx2654 on July 1, 2011 at 3:11 AM

That’s not even remotely true, esp. as there have been no lies in court yet because there’s been no court. This is not TV.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2011 at 3:34 AM

This whole thing seems fishy all the way around, on his part, on her part, and conspiracy theorists could probably come up with a plausable government role in all of this.

karenhasfreedom on July 1, 2011 at 3:56 AM

“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?”

They didn’t say she was a criminal mastermind/genius. There are plenty of dumb criminals out there. That’s how they usually get caught.

xblade on July 1, 2011 at 4:37 AM

There are thousands of women in Federal Prison serving mandatory ten year sentences for much less than this maid has done. The crooked boyfriend gets you burned every time.

Count One: Money Laundering. Thousands of dollars passing through her bank account

Count Two: Conspiracy. She was paying for the cellular phone bills of multiple known and suspected drug dealers.

Now, does this mean that she wasn’t frog-raped? Absolutely not. Does this mean that the State’s case is not as strong as it was last month? Absolutely.

BigAlSouth on July 1, 2011 at 6:07 AM

Did anyone notice that the NY Post used racial slurs like “frogs” in at least 2 articles they wrote about this story? I was shocked when I saw them setting such a bad example and giving tabloid style papers a bad name. That’s how they talk about a country that gave the USA the Statue of Liberty?!? In the comments section for their latest coverage, some French net surfers chimed about how angry they were, and who can blame them? I’m so disgusted seeing that, I think it’s time to boycott their newspaper as much as the NY Times. Certainly don’t shell out money for their tabloid atrocity.

Avi Green on July 1, 2011 at 6:48 AM

Is this what happens when the Ruling Class / Global power brokers get tired of one of their pawns?

They set them up when they won’t resign? Mubarak? Quadaffi? This Frenchie?

Just a thought.

PappyD61 on July 1, 2011 at 6:55 AM

I blame David Prosser.

Mr. D on July 1, 2011 at 7:02 AM

I’m pretty sure she sent me an email about her Christian uncle back in Guinea who left her $10MM, but she needs a US citizen with a bank account to transfer it to.

Alden Pyle on July 1, 2011 at 7:04 AM

Did anyone notice that the NY Post used racial slurs like “frogs” in at least 2 articles they wrote about this story?
Avi Green on July 1, 2011 at 6:48 AM

Putting aside for a moment whether this is disrespectful of the French, how is it a “racial” slur?

Buy Danish on July 1, 2011 at 7:16 AM

Buy Danish on July 1, 2011 at 7:16 AM

You do not consider the word a slur?

Avi Green on July 1, 2011 at 7:23 AM

I don’t like the headline, AP. The case is not falling apart. This is just background dirt.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2011 at 3:33 AM

I agree with you, alwaysfiredup, and I am surprised many are buying into the defense strategy and the subsequent media spin.

This is standard fare in defending an accused person in a rape trial – attack the credibility of the victim. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers said as much right after he was caught that their defense would focus on attacking the credibility of the victim.

Here is one such article. You can read more here.

May 27 (Bloomberg) — The hotel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the ex-International Monetary Fund managing director now charged with sexual assault and attempted rape, hired additional legal counsel in anticipation of an attack on her reputation and credibility, her lawyer said.

Attorney Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth P. Thompson, who prosecuted New York City police officers for the beating and torture of Abner Louima, have begun to work on behalf of the 32-year-old hotel maid from Guinea, according to Jeffrey Shapiro, who has been representing her.

“We anticipate the defense in this case is going to mount some sort of an assault on her,” Shapiro, a New York personal- injury lawyer, said yesterday in a phone interview. “It requires a team effort” to protect her, he said.

In a May 25 letter to the Manhattan district attorney complaining about media leaks in the case, defense attorneys Benjamin Brafman and William Taylor III said that if they wanted to feed the media frenzy, they could release information that would “gravely undermine the credibility” of the woman

TheRightMan on July 1, 2011 at 7:37 AM

Avi,
“Frogs” is not a racial slur because the French are not a race. Cultural/national – yes. Racial – no.

exhelodrvr on July 1, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Vilify the accuser.

singlemalt 18

Exactly. And boy, oh BOY, doesn’t it help to have her turn out to be an immigrant with little command of English AND a piece o’ sh!t boyfriend to boot.

She’s probably terrified, poor thing and God knows what sort of pressure she’s getting from Le Grenouille’s “associates” when no one’s looking.

tree hugging sister on July 1, 2011 at 8:00 AM

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.

We need to get rid of asylum visas. Like the rest of our immigration system, the asylum application process has become rife with fraud and is being used to allow all sorts of criminals and other undesireables into the country.

AZCoyote on July 1, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Sounds like attacking the victim. No real indication that she is lying about this incident, just evidence of possible past dishonesty.

Count to 10 on July 1, 2011 at 8:59 AM

This is why I wait for challenged evidence in these types of situations. Because when it first comes out, it is he said/she said. So what if she acted the part, it is not like she does not have hundreds of examples to emulate from TV shows, to movies, and on and on, if not outright given lessons by the rabid feminist groups in our society. I am not saying she has done this, just as I am not going to say I think she was not raped. We just have no idea, the only people who do are herself and the accused.

astonerii on July 1, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Drug dealers, drug abusers, thieves and pick pockets can get raped too.

Just because she is a criminal doesn’t mean it should be legal to attack her.

Does that mean we can shoot illegals now? Rape them?

barnone on July 1, 2011 at 9:26 AM

If her boy friend was using her to launder his drug money, why isn’t the prosecutor investigating that? Seems as if the defense is throwing a lot of stuff against the wall.

Kissmygrits on July 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Drug dealers, drug abusers, thieves and pick pockets can get raped too.

Just because she is a criminal doesn’t mean it should be legal to attack her.
barnone on July 1, 2011 at 9:26 AM

You are right, they can be the victims, actually, maybe even more likely due to their lifestyle, but when they are, because of their less than honest lifestyles, the burden of proving such a charge is increased relitive to their lack of morals.

astonerii on July 1, 2011 at 9:45 AM

So a man who is being accused of rape cannot defend himself? Don’t you think her ties to criminals is relevant?

Some people hate men so much they always believe the worst of them.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 12:27 AM

I don’t hate men, I like most of them quite a bit, but I think this guy’s guilty.

mbs on July 1, 2011 at 10:22 AM

He made passes at women. Some accepted, some did not. He was never accused of rape. Big difference.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 12:37 AM

He was accused of attempted rape, by a French journalist, in 2002.

mbs on July 1, 2011 at 10:29 AM

This is the New York Slimes. Are they trying to exonerate DSK in the court of public opinion, if he can’t get off in criminal court?

Notice that the Times did not identify the “incarcerated man” who supposedly called DSK’s accuser, nor the others who supposedly made large payments to the maid. Could this story have been planted in the Times by someone pretending to be a cop, but who is really a lawyer on DSK’s defense team?

The Times and the truth, never twain shall meet.

Steve Z on July 1, 2011 at 10:33 AM

She’s probably terrified, poor thing and God knows what sort of pressure she’s getting from Le Grenouille’s “associates” when no one’s looking.

tree hugging sister on July 1, 2011 at 8:00 AM

Awww, poor, terrified money laundering liar.

So many damn feminists on the blog it makes me sick. The only defense a man has against a false accusation is the character of the accuser. If she is dating a criminal then maybe she was coached on how to fake a rape accusation. No one has any idea of what is on those tapes. I think we should all take a deep breath, get off our soap boxes, and bury the grievance mongering until we have more evidence because you know this man just might be innocent.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM

He was accused of attempted rape, by a French journalist, in 2002.

mbs on July 1, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Wrong, she accused him this year of attempted rape. She said nothing in 2002. Why wait? An accusation that is a decade old is worth nothing. That is why it is important to report rape and sexual assault immediately. Remember, it is important to be fair to both the accused and the accuser.

I don’t hate men, I like most of them quite a bit, but I think this guy’s guilty.

mbs on July 1, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Based on what? He has no history of rape or sexual assault. Now you have an accuser who has compromised herself by her associations, her conversation with a felon, and by lying to police about this.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Drug dealers, drug abusers, thieves and pick pockets can get raped too.

Just because she is a criminal doesn’t mean it should be legal to attack her.

And rich, French, womanizing jerks can be falsely accused of rape, too.

exhelodrvr on July 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM

So it’s okay to rape people who conspire with drug dealers?

So rape can’t be prosecuted if the victim discusses suing the rapist the next day?

Looks like we get to see again how well people with great powerful can break past our justice system.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM

It’s possible but once she lied she loses credibility. A rape case is built around the plausibility of the crime taking place because only two people know for sure what happened in that room.

Feminists would have you believe that women do not lie about rape. But we have seen this happen over and over again. That is why men need to be able to question the credibility of the victim. Do you think DSK happened to pick the only woman who was a con artist, as described by NYPD, to rape. Quite a coincidence, no?

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Based on what? He has no history of rape or sexual assault. Now you have an accuser who has compromised herself by her associations, her conversation with a felon, and by lying to police about this.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Based on the woman’s reaction and report after the sex and Khan’s apparently hasty exit. If associations with felons doesn’t stop people from holding the presidency, they shouldn’t stop people from being raped legally. Now if Khan’s allies can show that she had discussed suing someone for rape before she was raped, she’s discredited. If they can show that she’s an incredible actress and serial lier, her reaction after sex loses meaning.

It’s unclear if she lied to police. Being that she had nothing to gain from it, it’s more likely that the asylum report is either incomplete or she forgot what it contained. More likely, there is massive presser to get Khan off, and this the beginning of spinning a mountains out of a mole hills.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM

It’s possible but once she lied she loses credibility.

From my post above: It’s unclear if she lied to police. Being that she had nothing to gain from it, it’s more likely that the asylum report is either incomplete or she forgot what it contained. More likely, there is massive presser to get Khan off, and this the beginning of spinning a mountains out of a mole hills.

Where did you read that she was a con-artist?

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Bill C

You are wrong. Crystal Magnum did have a history of crying rape. •Ms. Mangum reported on August 18, 1996, that she was raped by three men three years prior when she was 14 in Creedmoor, N.C. As well as a long criminal record.

The French gal that accused DSK this year said she didn’t come forward b4 b/c her mother was a big socialist party member who told her not to come forward all those years ago. It was politics for the mother.

JAM on July 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Feminists would have you believe that women do not lie about rape. BillC

What rubbish. I know women make false accusations, but this dude’s history with women is just as important as the maid’s credibility. He has a very big problem with his credibility as well.

JAM on July 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM

French ‘justice’ – married man scrooms maid, becomes president.

The French will have the last laugh. His wife is a rich fool.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Where does he go to get his reputation back?

jnelchef on July 1, 2011 at 12:09 PM

This couldn’t be an engineered scandal to put another 0 crony in power. Could it?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/29/c_13956760.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde

A former Chicago power broker who’s a labor lawyer. This stinks like rotten fish.

warbaby on July 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Th case is garbage. This chick lied probs to extort him. I am loving reading the posts of you clowns still defending this woman. Its hilarious you guys probably still think oj didn’t do it as well.

snoopicus on July 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Where did you read that she was a con-artist?

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM

She’s a con artist,” one law enforcement source said, adding that prosecutors have concluded “she cannot be put on the stand…

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM

It’s unclear if she lied to police. Being that she had nothing to gain from it, it’s more likely that the asylum report is either incomplete or she forgot what it contained. More likely, there is massive presser to get Khan off, and this the beginning of spinning a mountains out of a mole hills.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM

You have no idea what happened here. We’ve got a man who is a known womanizer and a woman who is associated with thieves so you want to jump to the most convenient explanation for her lying? What is your agenda?

You don’t know what was said on that tape. You don’t know why law enforcement is calling her a con artist. You just want that man to be guilty. This so much reminds me of the Duke fake rape case when feminists like Wendy McElroy and Lis Weihl would not tolerate the idea that a woman could lie about being raped. Snoopicus is right about it being fun watching you try and defend this case. Your misandry is showing.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

You are wrong. Crystal Magnum did have a history of crying rape. •Ms. Mangum reported on August 18, 1996, that she was raped by three men three years prior when she was 14 in Creedmoor, N.C. As well as a long criminal record.

The French gal that accused DSK this year said she didn’t come forward b4 b/c her mother was a big socialist party member who told her not to come forward all those years ago. It was politics for the mother.

JAM on July 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I stand corrected. And thanks for proving my point. Past actions are good indicators of character which are extremely important when it comes to cases in which the only witness is the accuser.

What rubbish. I know women make false accusations, but this dude’s history with women is just as important as the maid’s credibility. He has a very big problem with his credibility as well.

JAM on July 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Which begs the question- are womanizers also rapists? I don’t know the answer to that question. Do you?

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

Th case is garbage. This chick lied probs to extort him. I am loving reading the posts of you clowns still defending this woman. Its hilarious you guys probably still think oj didn’t do it as well.

snoopicus on July 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

If you read carefully, you’ll see that nowhere in this article does it demonstrate that she lied, much less that she tried to extort Khan.

After an anal exam, someone has gone back to her asylum application and found that something she told to he police was not written up in it. That’s not necessarily a lie.

The ever defending socialists NYT claimed that she said that she, “discussed the possible benefits of pursing the charges against him” with some anonymous criminal the next day. Careful readers recognize that if true, any discussion of civil or criminal recourse would probably include a discussion of “the possible benefits of pursing the charges against him”. Now it appears that that’s the best they have for implying that she’s a lier and an extortionist. We “clowns” are politically aware enough to anticipate a well run character assassination through the usual outlets. We suspend judgment until credible evidence is presented.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM

“She’s a con artist,” one law enforcement source said, adding that prosecutors have concluded “she cannot be put on the stand…

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I saw the article after I responded to you. Now, please tell me the name of the officer who said that and exactly what information they presented to back it up?

I only read that HA except, but maybe there’s something there in the full article that supports it. Absent that, it appears that you just presented to me an anonymous opinion from a NY paper without evidence. Being that you and I both know that a well organized and financed character assassination is inevitable, you have to read more carefully than this.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I only read that HA except, but maybe there’s something there in the full article that supports it.
elfman on July 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Well then maybe you ought to read the whole thing.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM

You have no idea what happened here. We’ve got a man who is a known womanizer and a woman who is associated with thieves so you want to jump to the most convenient explanation for her lying? What is your agenda?

You don’t know what was said on that tape. You don’t know why law enforcement is calling her a con artist. You just want that man to be guilty.

IMO, you’re not thinking clearly. I have a bias, but a clear reading of the article and experience with how the NYT is complacent with Democrat promoted smears, the preponderance of the evidence in supports that a rape occurred. That’s enough for me to try to wake up those here who are falling for the Times/Khan smear machine. That’s all I’ve done.

Snoopicus is right about it being fun watching you try and defend this case. Your misandry is showing.
Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

You’re starting offend me now. Keep it up and I’ll ask for my first name and initial back :)

I missed the “thief” part. She’s “associated with” at least one drug dealer, and either her fiancé or her and her fiancé are involved with other drug dealers’ crimes. Where is her association with a thief?

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I only read that HA except, but maybe there’s something there in the full article that supports it.
elfman on July 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Well then maybe you ought to read the whole thing.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I just did. 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. So if that’s the best a Khan anal probe can come up with (after reportedly sending people to her mothers home to pay them to “make this go away”), that’s not enough to support an anonymous claim that she’s a con-artist.

And I also learned that Khan is married. So unless he has a open relationship, not uncommon in France, he’s a lier.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 2:16 PM

IMO, you’re not thinking clearly. I have a bias, but a clear reading of the article and experience with how the NYT is complacent with Democrat promoted smears, the preponderance of the evidence in supports that a rape occurred. That’s enough for me to try to wake up those here who are falling for the Times/Khan smear machine. That’s all I’ve done.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 1:59 PM

It’s more than the NYTs. A lot of newspapers, etc. are reporting this story. On top of that you have the prosecutors easing the conditions of his custody and they are talking, anonymously, about dropping the case. I think we will know a lot more about this case soon and I suspect it will be in DSKs favor. Don’t go out on a limb making excuses for this woman.

I just did. 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. So if that’s the best a Khan anal probe can come up with (after reportedly sending people to her mothers home to pay them to “make this go away”), that’s not enough to support an anonymous claim that she’s a con-artist.

And I also learned that Khan is married. So unless he has a open relationship, not uncommon in France, he’s a lier.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 2:16 PM

What about the 100k passing through her checking account. Then there is the several phones she is paying for totaling hundreds of dollars per month. I am not saying she isn’t a dupe but everything is pointing to a woman with very shady connections. Again, I think you want this man to be guilty so you are doing everything to excuse her behavior but in a rape case the accuser better be honest because her only evidence is her word.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM

It’s more than the NYTs. A lot of newspapers, etc. are reporting this story.

This is standard operating procedure in media. Stories broken in the NYT are repeated, often within minutes, across all other media.

What about the 100k passing through her checking account. Then there is the several phones she is paying for totaling hundreds of dollars per month.

I covered that with, “She’s “associated with” at least one drug dealer, and either her fiancé or her and her fiancé are involved with other drug dealers’ crimes.” I thought that you would understand. That’s laundering for drug dealer behavior.

Again, I think you want this man to be guilty so you are doing everything to excuse her behavior but in a rape case the accuser better be honest because her only evidence is her word.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM

First, her only evidence isn’t her word. It’s the bruises and scratches, DNA, her behavior and his behavior. Second, you misread repeatedly and badly, don’t apparently don’t read what you reference, read the NYT without skepticism, don’t understand the media and then accuse me of the most bazaar nonsense even after I post the evidence and clear reasoning behind it. I can’t take you seriously, at least not on this thread. I’m not going to continue this conversation.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM

This is standard operating procedure in media. Stories broken in the NYT are repeated, often within minutes, across all other media.

I covered that with, “She’s “associated with” at least one drug dealer, and either her fiancé or her and her fiancé are involved with other drug dealers’ crimes.” I thought that you would understand. That’s laundering for drug dealer behavior.

First, her only evidence isn’t her word. It’s the bruises and scratches, DNA, her behavior and his behavior. Second, you misread repeatedly and badly, don’t apparently don’t read what you reference, read the NYT without skepticism, don’t understand the media and then accuse me of the most bazaar nonsense even after I post the evidence and clear reasoning behind it. I can’t take you seriously, at least not on this thread. I’m not going to continue this conversation.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Are you suggesting the Wall Street journal is using the NYTs as a source? A lot of non-leftist media sources are reporting the same story. It is paranoia to think they are all in on some conspiracy to protect DSK.

Leaving out exactly what she is accused of doing is a whitewash. Being associated could mean she knows them. Allowing your accounts to be used by them makes you an accomplice.

It is a little early to say that there is nothing to this case, I’ll grant that, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest she is not the most reliable person. So why not give DSK a break and let’s keep our minds open to the idea that she could have fabricated the story. I am guessing that is what the prosecutors are doing and that is why they are considering dropping the charges.

Yes, even con-women can be raped. But I wouldn’t put a man in jail based on her testimony, overacting, and shaky evidence. And I can’t get over one fact, he is accused of putting his penis in her mouth. One bite and his womanizing days are over. No man would do that.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM

This is standard operating procedure in media. Stories broken in the NYT are repeated, often within minutes, across all other media.

I covered that with, “She’s “associated with” at least one drug dealer, and either her fiancé or her and her fiancé are involved with other drug dealers’ crimes.” I thought that you would understand. That’s laundering for drug dealer behavior.

First, her only evidence isn’t her word. It’s the bruises and scratches, DNA, her behavior and his behavior. Second, you misread repeatedly and badly, don’t apparently don’t read what you reference, read the NYT without skepticism, don’t understand the media and then accuse me of the most bazaar nonsense even after I post the evidence and clear reasoning behind it. I can’t take you seriously, at least not on this thread. I’m not going to continue this conversation.

elfman on July 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Are you suggesting the Wall Street journal is using the NYTs as a source? A lot of non-leftist media sources are reporting the same story. It is paranoia to think they are all in on some conspiracy to protect DSK.

Leaving out exactly what she is accused of doing is a whitewash. Being associated could mean she knows them. Allowing your accounts to be used by them makes you an accomplice.

It is a little early to say that there is nothing to this case, I’ll grant that, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest she is not the most reliable person. So why not give DSK a break and let’s keep our minds open to the idea that she could have fabricated the story. I am guessing that is what the prosecutors are doing and that is why they are considering dropping the charges.

Yes, even con-women can be raped. But I wouldn’t put a man in jail based on her testimony, overacting, and shaky evidence. And I can’t get over one fact, he is accused of putting his p**** in her mouth. One bite and his womanizing days are over. No man would do that.

Bill C on July 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2