Are charges in DSK case exaggerated or is this another Tawana Brawley situation?
I'd heard some arguments already, mostly from European TV, that Dominique Strauss-Khan may not be guilty - or at least not as guilty - as the woman accusing him wants us to think. In this latest report:
Update: here's more from the NYT (via Hot Air):
Update 2: the NY Post did some very offensive coverage of this case: as you'll notice in the headlines here and here, they use "frog" which is considered a racist slur against French. On the comments for their latest article, some people from France have chimed in on how offended they are, and I have to agree. This is a perfect embarrassment when you take that particular tabloid coverage into consideration. Is that how to talk about a nation that gave the US the Statue of Liberty? The paper owes an apology for setting such a bad example.
Questions about the credibility of a hotel housekeeper who has accused former International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn of raping her are leading prosecutors to seek a substantial reduction in his bail, a person familiar with the case said Thursday.If these are trumped charges being leveled against him, then we owe an apology to DSK. I did wonder at one point if this was another case not unlike the Tawana Brawley nonsense from 1989, or even the Duke LaCrosse case which sounded fishy from the start and got the prosecutor jailed after he abused his position in the proceedings.
The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters not yet made public in court, told The Associated Press that prosecutors have raised issues about the accuser's credibility in the case against Strauss-Kahn, but would not elaborate on what those issues were.
A separate law enforcement official who is familiar with the case, but not authorized to speak about it publicly, told the AP that the issue was not necessarily about the rape accusation itself, but about troubling questions surrounding the alleged victim's background that could damage her credibility on the witness stand. The official refused to elaborate. [...]
The New York Times first reported that investigators uncovered major inconsistences in the woman's account of her background, citing two law enforcement officials. One of the officials told the Times that the woman has repeatedly lied since making the initial allegation May 14.
The discoveries include issues stemming from the asylum application of the 32-year-old woman, who is from Guinea, and possible links to criminal activities such as drug dealing and money laundering, one of the officials told the newspaper. The Times reported that senior prosecutors and Strauss-Kahn's lawyers are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges against him.
Update: here's more from the NYT (via Hot Air):
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…Good grief. She's involved with criminals? That's not very helpful to her side.
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.
Update 2: the NY Post did some very offensive coverage of this case: as you'll notice in the headlines here and here, they use "frog" which is considered a racist slur against French. On the comments for their latest article, some people from France have chimed in on how offended they are, and I have to agree. This is a perfect embarrassment when you take that particular tabloid coverage into consideration. Is that how to talk about a nation that gave the US the Statue of Liberty? The paper owes an apology for setting such a bad example.
Labels: France, United States
