It’s close to over, as prosecutors have moved to dismiss the indictment finding the alleged victim to be truth-challenged:
When they moved Monday to drop the biggest case on their docket, the woman was portrayed as its fatal weakness. She “has not been truthful on matters great and small” and has an ability to present “fiction as fact with complete conviction,” and medical and DNA evidence is “simply inconclusive” as proof of a forced sexual encounter, they wrote.
“Our grave concerns about (her) reliability make it impossible to resolve the question of what exactly happened” between the hotel maid and the former International Monetary Fund leader, they wrote.
As further reported in The NY Post:
“In virtually every substantive interview with prosecutors, despite entreaties to simply be truthful, she has not been truthful, on matters great and small, many pertaining to her background and some relating to the circumstances of the incident itself,” prosecutors say in the damning document….
“After an extensive investigation, it is clear that proof of two critical elements — force and lack of consent — would rest solely on the testimony of the complaining witness at trial,” prosecutors wrote in asking for dismissal. “Indeed, the case rises and falls on her testimony.”
But, the filing concludes, “because we cannot credit the complainant’s testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”
The Manhattan DA is coming under fire from the alleged victim’s attorney and some other groups looking to stir up trouble, but he made the right decision.
As pointed out in one of my prior posts, a criminal trial should not be a crap shoot where the prosecution throws evidence into the courtroom and waits to see where and how it lands. If the prosecution did not believe in the case, it would have been improper for them to stand in front of a jury and claim otherwise.
We’ll never know what actually happened. But it is the right result for the criminal justice system.
Updates: The Judge in the case has rejected a request by the alleged victim for appointment of a special prosecutor.
And, the charges now have been dismissed with a big “but” attached to it:
A judge formally ordered the dismissal of all criminal charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn on Tuesday, but he said his order would be stayed until an appellate court decides whether a special prosecutor should be appointed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This was all a set-up from beginning to end. Obama wanted his buddy in that job to do his will and so it was done. Just another part of the world he is planning on taking over. The UN had better watch out because he will be coming for them eventually. OTOH, they probably wouldn’t put up much of a fight since they are just as crooked as he is. He would fit right in comfortably.
I disagree with you on this one.
Next question: will the US deport the “alleged victim”?
By all accounts, Mr. Strauss-Kahn is a pretty unsavory character, and one is tempted to think even if he didn’t commit this crime, he is guilty of some other crime some other time. Though it happens sometimes in our justice system, it is wrong to prosecute someone for a crime he may not have committed because you think he is guilty of some other crime.
Though there is no way at this point to know what happened, it appears plausible that this was set up by someone who had it in for Mr. Stauss-Kahn. I don’t appreciate someone using the District Attorney’s office to carry out a private vendetta. If someone did set up Mr. Strauss-Kahn, I hope they are found and prosecuted for the time, resources and money the New York district attorney’s office was forced to waste on this matter.
Call me naive but in this one I’m going with the DA’s version and not seeing a grand conspiracy behind every shrub. Conspirators – if they existed – would not have chosen that weak a victim, and to me that shoots any contrary theory smack dab in the butt. I believe it is what it is. A case that could have been made IF the victim had been truthful. For whatever reason, probably self-preservation, she thought she couldn’t when it came to some aspects of her life and she learned – too late – the penalty for telling ‘white lies’ in a criminal case.