<p>Reading the whole article, the Socialist party looks just terrible. The victim’s mother urged her not to speak out for fear of reprisals, and now that she is speaking out, there is talk of ousting the mother from the party for “tarnishing its image”. Is Sarkozy the real winner here?</p>
<p>The timing of that is pretty suspect tbh. Case against DSK falls apart in the US and then suddenly voila!, a 4 year old case comes through the woodwork.</p>
<p>Actually, that is not correct. The only reason DSK was arrested is because he came to the US on a personal visit and as such was not covered by diplomatic immunity. If a high ranking foreigner comes to the US on state business, he/she is covered under diplomatic immunity (in most cases) and US officials cannot arrest them. All they can do is deport them back to their home country were its up to the home country to decide whether they will pursue charges against the offender.</p>
<p>@jsanche, that’s why I included the quotes - it’s an 8-year-old case that HAS been common knowledge for at least 3 years. It’s only being prosecuted now because the victim had a feeling she might finally be heard fairly.</p>
<p>She’s doing it for the publicity. After 8 years, there’s pretty much zero chance of any actual physical evidence. So she’s basically resorting to her case being tried by the media and the court of public appeal. </p>
<p>I’d be highly surprised if a book deal for her doesn’t develop from this. It’s pretty much always about money for the people that wait years and years to report these kind of “crimes”.</p>
<p>(I think I am getting more cynical and jaded as I get older tbh)</p>
<p>Diallo originally testified that after the alleged assault in suite 2806 she fled into the hallway on the 28th floor of the Sofitel hotel. She then admitted she had lied and had in fact gone to clean another room before returning to room 2806.</p>
<p>According to Le Figaro, information gained from the electronic key cards used by hotel maids to gain access to rooms show Nafissatou Diallo entered suite 2806 at 12h06 and opened the door to the adjacent suite 2820 at 12h26. She then stayed in that room for no more than one minute before returning to suite 2806.</p>
<p>This new evidence appears to confirm the statement made by one of the hotel’s housekeepers who said she found Diallo lying prostrate in suite 2820 before taking her back to Strauss-Kahn’s suite to confront him over the assault claims.</p>
<p>NEW YORK — Prosecutors will drop all sex assault charges against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the coming weeks because of doubts about his accuser’s credibility, the New York Post reported on Tuesday.</p>
<p>“We all know this case is not sustainable,” the newspaper quoted a top investigator in the case as saying.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>The newspaper cited defense sources as describing a different scenario, whereby Strauss-Kahn engaged in consensual sex with the maid but then angered her by refusing to pay for it, prompting her accusations.</p>
<p>BC, that’s the first time I’ve seen her name used. I thought the press was wonderful to keep it out of the news. I’m surprised it’s now being used.</p>
<p>I guess we can see why the prosecution moved so quickly given the account and their belief of the accuser’s story (they didn’t have any reason to doubt here at that time). I can’t see how they would prosecute the case though. I ran through some questions that they could ask her on the stand in my mind. I read Earl Stanley Gardner books when I was very young and have always enjoyed courtroom dramas. The prosecution is still investigating her links to criminals and the sources of the financial transactions in her account but there are a number of damaging questions the defense could ask her that would make the case impossible to win.</p>
<p>The defense could use conjecture that it was sex for pay without actually admitting that it was.</p>
<p>I don’t see why Thompson is pushing so hard on this case as more criminal activity seems to be revealed as the prosecution investigates. I can only see the motive being a civil case or settlement.</p>
<p>Looks like we’ll never know what really happened. The prosecutors are right to drop the charges if they can’t prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. But it doesn’t tell us whether an assault occurred. Prostitutes and liars get raped, too. What a mess.</p>
<p>There were some additional details in an article this morning but I don’t have the link. It was in reference to a second job that she had selling internet/phone/tv services. The company acknowledged that she worked for them. The context in why this was news is that she told the prosecutors that she only had one job. I suspect that this was kind of like an “ebay job” where you buy and sell things for a profit on ebay - is it a real job? I don’t know.</p>
<p>Why do you say that, jsanche; do you have personal knowledge that the accuser is, in fact, a prostitute (the specific subject of the libel claim)? Or is it simply that you believe everything you read in the New York Post?</p>