PDA

View Full Version : DSK was framed, walks on own recognizance?



Soflasnapper
07-01-2011, 02:49 PM
Case vs. Dominique Strauss-Kahn crumbling as would-be victim gets caught in web of lies, sources say (linked at Drudge)

This is amazing, because <s>Nancy Grace</s> LWW assured us his alleged crimes were real, and the lamestream news media was covering them up. Appears his accuser was a criminal and was shaking him down, or smearing him.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime...l#ixzz1QtADTKup (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/06/30/2011-06-30_case_vs_dominique_strausskahn_crumbling_as_woul dbe_victims_credibility_is_called.html#ixzz1QtADTK up)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> French political heavyweight Dominique Strauss-Kahn will walk out of a Manhattan courthouse without bail Friday as sources say the sexual assault case against him is collapsing.

The 62-year-old Frenchman will be freed from his house arrest in a pricey lower Manhattan apartment, and his $1 million cash bail and $5 million bond returned under a deal with prosecutors, according to Bloomberg News.

The prosecution of Strauss-Kahn is in jeopardy of falling apart because the hotel maid who accused him was caught in a web of lies, sources said.

The Bronx chambermaid's credibility crumbled as investigators linked her to a network of crooks and found that she had multiple bank accounts stuffed with a total of almost $100,000 in dirty cash, sources said Thursday night.

Prosecutors now believe there was little truth in anything the native of Guinea native told them since the NYPD yanked the one-time contender for the French presidency off a plane at Kennedy Airport on May 14, the sources said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime...l#ixzz1QtANHvVI (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/06/30/2011-06-30_case_vs_dominique_strausskahn_crumbling_as_woul dbe_victims_credibility_is_called.html#ixzz1QtANHv VI)
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-01-2011, 07:22 PM
To be clear, I do not know that Nancy Grace DIDN'T give her patented and trademarked 100% guarantee guilty guilty guilty verdict as well. I suspect she did.

LWW
07-02-2011, 02:12 AM
And how does this account change whether he did or didn't commit the act?

It's been in the news for over a month that DSK's lackeys have been in Guinea negotiating a buyout of charges ... even to the point of predicting that exactly what has happened would happen

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody, The Post has learned.

The woman, who says she was sexually assaulted by the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund, has an extended family in the former French colony of Guinea in West Africa, well out of reach of the Manhattan DA's Office.
"They already talked with her family," a French businesswoman with close ties to Strauss-Kahn and his family told The Post. "For sure, it's going to end up on a quiet note."

Prosecutors in Manhattan have done their best to keep the cleaning woman out of the reach of Strauss-Kahn's supporters, but the source was already predicting success for the Parisian pol's pals.

"He'll get out of it and will fly back to France. He won't spend time in jail. The woman will get a lot of money," said the source, adding that a seven-figure sum has been bandied about.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/maid_offer_ya_can_refuse_joKw8dxbw6AkYOmJsEZiaN)

Even the reich wing VILLAGE VOICE (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/dominique_strauss_kahn_pay_off_bribe_accuser_famil y.php) reported on this ... although they also were trying to deny that it was happening.

What's funny is that yesterday I was wondering which member of the cabal would be the first to brag about another leftist scofflaw evading justice.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 02:52 AM
As the prosecutor's letter describes, this woman is now an admitted perjurer on the record in multiple respects, both in this inquiry repeatedly, and in her immigration statements.

Unfortunately for her, and her rumored chances for extortion with her shakedown team of criminals with whom she shares many bank accounts holding over six-figures, she has wholly tainted her value as a witness. There was no need to bribe her, since she impeached herself with admitted lies to officials. There is no case, except the perjury case they are considering bringing against her.

You have no answer except to say the police were bought off. Always possible of course, but did she not have these first person connections to drug dealers and receive all these wire transfers? That would be an elaborate fraud to pull off in such quick time, with backdating of these bank transfers.

The evidence is supportive of a crude sex trap intended to create extortion. You not only have no winning case to present with such a witness, but it actually makes the most sense as an analysis.

LWW
07-02-2011, 02:53 AM
I never said, nor even implied, that the police were bought off.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 05:27 PM
I never said, nor even implied, that the police were bought off.

I agree, that is true.

But if legitimate police work found all these red flags about the woman, and all her connections, admitted lies, etc., are all true as we've now been told by the police, then she is an extortion artist, an admitted perjurer, a money launderer or front for money laundering from drug dealers, etc., all of which bears badly on her sole witness role in these alleged crimes of DSK.

It creates more than a shadow of a doubt, rising to a reasonable doubt, as to her charges, and really, makes it most likely that her allegations were a frame looking for a payoff.

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never said, nor even implied, that the police were bought off.

I agree, that is true.</div></div>

Then why did you feel the need to go Alinsky and accuse me of a statement I never made?

hondo
07-02-2011, 10:40 PM
"how does this account change whether he did or didn't commit the act?

It's been in the news for over a month that DSK's lackeys have been in Guinea negotiating a buyout of charges ... even to the point of predicting that exactly what has happened would happen."


GOOD GOD! I find myself agreeing with dearless leader this time.
I don't feel so well.
Quick, sev! A shot of JWG!

LWW
07-03-2011, 03:19 AM
There is hope fpr you yet. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

hondo
07-03-2011, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is hope fpr you yet. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

I base my opinions on what I believe. Not regurgitate what RW talk show hosts pretend they believe.
You should try it.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 06:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never said, nor even implied, that the police were bought off.

I agree, that is true.</div></div>

Then why did you feel the need to go Alinsky and accuse me of a statement I never made? </div></div>

You misunderstood my construction. My claim was that was your only last recourse if you wanted to maintain your prior position, not that you'd taken that last recourse.

Something like, 'you would be forced to argue' tampering with the police to stay on your position, not that you had, or even that you WERE KEEPING YOUR POSITION. But if you did, you'd have to go to that theory.

Having skipped the Alinsky reading in school, I have never read the man's theories, and do not use his tactics knowingly. Unlike what you've admitted as to yourself.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"how does this account change whether he did or didn't commit the act?

It's been in the news for over a month that DSK's lackeys have been in Guinea negotiating a buyout of charges ... even to the point of predicting that exactly what has happened would happen."


GOOD GOD! I find myself agreeing with dearless leader this time.
I don't feel so well.
Quick, sev! A shot of JWG! </div></div>

Apparently there is physical evidence indicating these acts took place. But that isn't the question. The question is whether he forced himself on her against her will. If she'd readily agreed, as part of an extortion plan, then he committed no crime by performing those acts. Which is the theory the police appear to hold at this time.

LWW
07-04-2011, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AFP - A French woman will bring legal action this week for attempted rape against former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, her lawyer said Monday in an interview published online.

Tristane Banon, a journalist and writer, "is lodging a complaint for attempted rape against Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn", the lawyer, David Koubbi, was quoted as saying by news magazine L'Express on its website.

"I will send the complaint tomorrow, Tuesday July 5, to the prosecutor, who will receive it on Wednesday morning."

The announcement came as Strauss-Kahn gained high hopes of being cleared in another sex assault case, which saw him arrested and charged with trying to rape a New York hotel maid and cost him his job as head of the IMF.

Banon, 32, has alleged that Strauss-Kahn invited her to an apartment in 2003 promising to give her an interview, and instead pounced on her like "a rutting chimpanzee".

She made that allegation against the powerful politician in 2007 on television and in an interview with a news website, but had not so far made a formal complaint to authorities. </div></div>

OOPSY! (http://www.france24.com/en/20110704-french-writer-banon-to-file-attempted-rape-chage-against-strauss-kahn-paris-justice)

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 01:55 PM
And then the NY Post has this story:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maid 'laid' low as DA paid for digs

By BRAD HAMILTON and LARRY CELONA

Last Updated: 12:17 PM, July 3, 2011

Posted: 1:06 AM, July 3, 2011
More Print

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.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manha...I#ixzz1RAUcqNLw (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/she_laid_low_as_da_paid_for_digs_8Udq6nhQaHaC4KOOf kctpI#ixzz1RAUcqNLw)
</div></div>

Gosh, whoda thunk it? I know LWW is shocked.

LWW
07-04-2011, 02:12 PM
And now we have the far left's old stand by ... the unnamed source.

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And now we have the far left's old stand by ... the unnamed source. </div></div>

I agree this is thinly sourced. It earned a complaint on Howie's media criticism show 'Reliable Sources' on that score, and that is a justified complaint.

However, the NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is not a far left publication, and rather the opposite of that. Nor are police or prosecution officers far left.

LWW
07-05-2011, 04:20 AM
Do you honestly believe that Murdoch's ventures represent the "FAR RIGHT" as you say?

hondo
07-05-2011, 04:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly believe that Murdoch's ventures represent the "FAR RIGHT" as you say? </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Qtec
07-05-2011, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly believe that Murdoch's ventures represent the "FAR RIGHT" as you say? </div></div>

Oh yes.

Q

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly believe that Murdoch's ventures represent the "FAR RIGHT" as you say? </div></div>

Oh yes.

Q </div></div>

It's well established that you believe whatever the regime tells you that you believe.

I was asking someone else.

LWW
07-06-2011, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The hotel maid who accused former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault filed a libel lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Post and five reporters over recent articles that said she had worked as a prostitute.

The lawsuit was filed in the State Supreme Court in the Bronx, where the woman lives, and uses only her initials. According to the suit, the newspaper and its reporters <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"falsely, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for the truth stated as a fact that the Plaintiff is a 'prostitute,' 'hooker,' 'working girl' and/or 'routinely traded sex for money with male guests' of the Sofitel hotel located in Manhattan."

"All of these statements are false [and] have subjected the Plaintiff to humiliation, scorn and ridicule throughout the world,"</span> the lawsuit says.

A spokesman for the Post said, "We stand by our reporting." The Post is a division of News Corp., which also owns the The Wall Street Journal.

The Post cited "a source close to the defense investigation" in a July 2 article saying she received "extraordinary tips" and had expenses "paid for by men not related to her." The article didn't explicitly quote the source saying the woman was a prostitute, instead reporting that the newspaper "has learned" she worked as one. Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, declined to comment.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Prosecutors and police have said they investigated whether the woman engaged in prostitution while employed at the Sofitel and found no evidence of it.

A spokeswoman for the Sofitel said, "We are aware of the recent allegations made in a newspaper and have found no information to support or substantiate those claims."</span>

Investigators have said there is forensic evidence that the maid had a sexual encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn have said no money was exchanged and the encounter was consensual. Prosecutors declined to comment on the lawsuit, and the maid's lawyers haven't responded to requests for comment.

The articles in question, from July 2 through July 4, were published within days of disclosures by prosecutors that the woman, a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant, had given them and grand jurors false statements, including about her whereabouts after the alleged attack, experiences she had in her country before she came to the U.S., and other issues.

Kenneth Thompson, a lawyer for the maid, said last week that her mistakes notwithstanding, she "from day one has described that sexual assault many times," and consistently.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62 years old, who has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges in connection with her allegations, was released from house arrest Friday based on the revelations of his accuser's damaged credibility. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>OH DEAR! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304803104576427983091286992.html?m od=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth)</span>


The reality seems to be that, like most big city prosecutors, unless the prosecutor feels they have a slam dunk case they will let the perp in a high profile case walk.

Soflasnapper
07-06-2011, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly believe that Murdoch's ventures represent the "FAR RIGHT" as you say? </div></div>

Not the principled right necessarily, but the reactionary plutocratic right, sure they do.

Murdoch has been a sensationalist perhaps more than anything (think the topless women always featured on page 3 (or whatever, close to the front in any case) of one of his British tabloids).

Whatever his true stripes, he's picked up on the reactionary right as his marketing niche. His true ideology is probably money.

Soflasnapper
07-06-2011, 02:55 PM
I will now offer my retraction of the theory that this woman wasn't a victim of sexual assault.

She may well have been exactly such a victim of this man, her disquieting connections notwithstanding.

It's similar to how whatever the man is accused of doing in the past does not prove, and may not mean, he is guilty in this case.

Frankly, I will posit the possibility that authorities have indeed had their palms greased in this matter.

Even if she is a prostitute, that doesn't mean whatever happened was consensual as part of paid arrangement.

I put gamesmanship v. you ahead of loyalty to logic and the closest take on the truth that reason can bring us, which is just a little sad on my part. Don't know what came over me, but I regret it.

hondo
07-06-2011, 07:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will now offer my retraction of the theory that this woman wasn't a victim of sexual assault.

She may well have been exactly such a victim of this man, her disquieting connections notwithstanding.

It's similar to how whatever the man is accused of doing in the past does not prove, and may not mean, he is guilty in this case.

Frankly, I will posit the possibility that authorities have indeed had their palms greased in this matter.

Even if she is a prostitute, that doesn't mean whatever happened was consensual as part of paid arrangement.

I put gamesmanship v. you ahead of loyalty to logic and the closest take on the truth that reason can bring us, which is just a little sad on my part. Don't know what came over me, but I regret it. </div></div>

Good post. Honest.
Like you, I try to think about what I have said and am not afraid to change my opinion.
Ah, if only our dearless leader had the same qualities! Sigh.

LWW
07-07-2011, 02:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly believe that Murdoch's ventures represent the "FAR RIGHT" as you say? </div></div>

Not the principled right necessarily, but the reactionary plutocratic right, sure they do. </div></div>

And that belief is why you are so woefully ill informed.

The truth is that there is essentially zero far right major media.

The closest out there would be Stossel and Napolitano which are bit players on FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL.

LWW
07-07-2011, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will now offer my retraction of the theory that this woman wasn't a victim of sexual assault.

She may well have been exactly such a victim of this man, her disquieting connections notwithstanding.

It's similar to how whatever the man is accused of doing in the past does not prove, and may not mean, he is guilty in this case.

Frankly, I will posit the possibility that authorities have indeed had their palms greased in this matter.

Even if she is a prostitute, that doesn't mean whatever happened was consensual as part of paid arrangement.

I put gamesmanship v. you ahead of loyalty to logic and the closest take on the truth that reason can bring us, which is just a little sad on my part. Don't know what came over me, but I regret it. </div></div>

Good post. Honest.
Like you, I try to think about what I have said and am not afraid to change my opinion.
Ah, if only our dearless leader had the same qualities! Sigh. </div></div>

Actually:

1 - He was totally dishonest as he has been defending DSK from the start.

2 - I will admit that you are not afraid to change your mind as soon as your handlers tell you what to change your mind to.

hondo
07-07-2011, 06:22 AM
And I will admit that you won't change your mind even when it's obvious that you are wrong.
What a monumental ego for a common troll!

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 10:13 AM
Actually:

1 - He was totally dishonest as he has been defending DSK from the start.

Actually, that's not true at all.

In the beginning, my point was about the correct label to apply to these alleged sexual crimes, stating that what you called 'anal rape' and 'oral rape' are not charged as 'rape' in the penal code.

(heh, heh-- he said penal)

Because the media referred to the charges as they were (correctly) charged-- sexual assault-- you accused them of covering up the acts. That's what I argued against.

That whole discussion was entirely neutral as to the validity of the charges, and simply a discussion of semantics as to how the law concerning them was stated. Those two things were formerly charged as 'sodomy' (not 'rape'), and are now referred to as 'sexual assault,' at least in NY state.

LWW
07-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Actually ... that myth was slain long ago, yet you still cling to it.

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 07:10 PM
If I was defending anyone in that semantic discussion, it was the press's handling of reporting the charges (as they used the legal charge description, hard to argue with that, although you did, stating they only left out the sordid descriptive details to defend DSK).