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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/nyregion/strauss-kahn-case-seen-as-in-jeopardy.html?_r=1&hpl

------------

The check(s) must have finally cleared.

she cant spend fame, better be be flamed and wealthy.

I wonder why he bolted to the airport in such a hurry? Didn't he even leave his phone in the room? Doesn't matter now that they have found out the truth!

And this comes to light the day that Christine Lagarde is made up to IMF chief.

Coincidence?

And what everyone says about this woman outside the court should have no bearing on the court case itself. The case will rest upon what she (and others) say in court.

And this comes to light the day that Christine Lagarde is made up to IMF chief.

Coincidence?

And what everyone says about this woman outside the court should have no bearing on the court case itself. The case will rest upon what she (and others) say in court.

Amazing a,

I did say when the story broke on a topic onTV; people in power, have powerful enemies.

I don't know that 'bolted' to the airport is the correct statement. Unless he didn't have a scheduled flight, he simply 'went' to the airport.

I don't know that 'bolted' to the airport is the correct statement. Unless he didn't have a scheduled flight, he simply 'went' to the airport.

When the story first broke I read he had a deal with the airline that he could board any flight at any time and have a seat in first class. I assume providing there was one vacant.

I don't know if he had any agreement with the airlines, but he checked out, had lunch with his daughter and went to the airport.

Ultimately, it will be up to the prosecutor and the court to decide whether they have a case.

There was never any doubt that the background of the accuser would be thoroughly investigated. Usually it is the defendant who tears her apart on the witness stand. The prosecutor generally objects to questions not directly related to the case at hand. The judge of course can overrule the objections.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops.

Not invoking diplomatic immunity was either an act of great arrogance or great courage based on innocence.

I thought it had been determined he did not have diplomatic immunity. Seems it applied to him only when he was on official business and this little sojourn was not official, but personal travel.

If, for whatever reason, his accuser could not provide coherent and compelling testimony the prosecution would have no case, unless there is DNA. Even with DNA, if the witness was not reliable, the defense could likely claim it was consensual sex and confuse the witness enough to cast reasonable doubt on her story.

He hired one of the better criminal lawyers for his defense team.

It's unclear if he had diplomatic immunity or not, but had he claimed it, there would have been a whole different dimension to the case.

He has a good attorney, but I think the prosecution has put a great deal of effort into the case as well.

He originally claimed diplomatic immunity, then he did not push it in further interviews.

______________________________________________________

DSK Claimed Diplomatic Immunity When Arrested: Documents

By Jonathan Dienst and Shimon Prokupecz | Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 | Updated 7:06 PM EDTView

When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested at John F. Kennedy airport last month on his way out of the country, police said he initially told them "I have diplomatic immunity."

When police asked him to show his papers, he answered: “It’s not in this passport, I have a second passport. Can I speak with someone from the French Consulate?”

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/DSK-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-Police-Arrest-Case-124037464.html

______________________________________________________

Following is a link to an article discussing DSK's immunity.

______________________________________________________

Could DSK claim diplomatic immunity?

Posted By Joshua Keating Monday, May 16, 2011 - 6:28 PM

The consensus answer seems to be... probably not.

For diplomats representing states, diplomatic immunity rules are pretty straighforward, though not always failsafe for the accused. A Georgian diplomat, for instance, has his diplomatic immunity waived by his home country in 1997 after killing a Maryland teen in a drunk driving accident. But things are a little more complicated for representatives of international organizations.

Over at Opinion Juris (via Atlantic Wire), Duncan Hollis writes:

Read what Mr. Hollis wrote here... http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/16/could_dsk_claim_diplomatic_immunity

Of course he would claim diplomatic immunity at his arrest. Who, who may have it, wouldn't?

It's beside the point of the prosecution and does not imply guilt in any way.

This latest development has been brought about by the prosecution's own investigations and admission that their key witness may be unreliable.

It's refreshing to see that justice is valued by the prosecution over another "win".

He did not invoke his diplomatic immunity. He simply stated initially that he had diplomatic immunity. When being questioned this is what he said:

DSK: "No, No, No. I’m not trying to use that. I just want to know if I need a lawyer."

Whether or not he could have successfully invoked immunity is unknown at this time, but it would have sure put a spanner in the works.

The prosecution doesn't value justice over a 'win'. The prosecution doesn't want to suffer the embarrassment of a major loss.

He did not invoke his diplomatic immunity. He simply stated initially that he had diplomatic immunity. When being questioned this is what he said:

DSK: "No, No, No. I'm not trying to use that. I just want to know if I need a lawyer."

Whether or not he could have successfully invoked immunity is unknown at this time, but it would have sure put a spanner in the works.

The prosecution doesn't value justice over a 'win'. The prosecution doesn't want to suffer the embarrassment of a major loss.

Dash my hopes that some American officials have a sense of pride and integrity!

Ah, Harcourt, what a positive thought. I am sure there are American officials who have pride and integrity, they just don't make it to the top very often.

He did not invoke his diplomatic immunity. He simply stated initially that he had diplomatic immunity. When being questioned this is what he said:

DSK: "No, No, No. I'm not trying to use that. I just want to know if I need a lawyer."

Whether or not he could have successfully invoked immunity is unknown at this time, but it would have sure put a spanner in the works.

The prosecution doesn't value justice over a 'win'. The prosecution doesn't want to suffer the embarrassment of a major loss.

Dash my hopes that some American officials have a sense of pride and integrity!

I don't understand the highlighted sentences. Surely you wouldn't want the prosecution to prosecute if they knew the man was innocent? Or if they were sure they were going to lose (which, in law, comes to the same thing)?

If DSK is brought to trial now and is acquitted by a jury he can never be tried again for that crime. Double jeopardy and all that.

If you do not bring him to trial now, and additional evidence is later found, he can be brought to trial at that time and, if convicted, be placed in jail. The appropriate statute of limitations notwithstanding.

Looks like a no brainer to me, if you have a shaky prosecution witness you drop the charges and delay the trial until your case is firmed up.

I was being sarcastic when I said they don't 'value justice over a win'. I hope they value justice, but in my experience, lawyers are quite competitive.

The biggest problem is her credibility. If she takes the stand and the defense starts tearing her story (and previous stories) apart, the jury will have reasonable doubt. This is especially true if she claims to have been gang raped as a part of her asylum application and it was not true.

The other part of her story that seems suspect is that she cleaned another room before reporting it to the management. There are a number of reasons why this could have happened, including a sense of denial, but it wouldn't help her case and it sheds doubt on her having been traumatized.

It boils down to a 'he said, she said' trial. He says consensual sex, she says rape.

As I understand matters, the cleaner (polite word 'housekeeper') has lied about things outside the actual case. She has maintained her statements concerning the case.

I have further seen reported that DSK has 'diplomatic immunity' only when travelling on official IMF business - in other words, officials are not allowed to detain him, or examine documents in his luggage, when the IMF sent him to a meeting abroad. Wouldn't apply in this case.

The Guinean cleaner could have had a less-than-savoury acquaintance or several. She lived in poverty and would probably accept help from any source, being in a foreign country, working at a lousy, poorly paid job, trying to bring up a daughter. Wouldn't you?

DNA stains have been confirmed as DSK semen in the room. His lawyers can claim consensual sex, but would this help him in the long run - screwing a black hotel maid just before he was due to fly to France and discuss his Presidential ambitions?

Whatever the outcome, this animal will now be caged.

Initially when this case broke, the thing that caught my attention was DSK not claiming diplomatic immunity. If it didn't cover him on this trip, if he was guilty, or thought he was guilty, he could have tried to invoke it. It certainly would have put the brakes on things.

It now seems to me that he had no idea that he had broken any laws.

Some serious questions as to whether or not he is the perpetrator or the victim, at least in this case.

As I understand matters, the cleaner (polite word 'housekeeper') has lied about things outside the actual case. She has maintained her statements concerning the case.

As I understand it, she has been shown to have lied on matters concerning the case; How she had in fact cleaned DSK's room and the next room before deciding to claim rape whereas she had originally made out that she was raped and went straight to make a complaint.

There are some interesting side stories that go with this one....

Here is one that may explain his bolting & leaving his phone.....

I cannot provide a link as it comes from a paid subscription site ( I do not subscribe but had access to it through someone else) I do think it has since been published on other sites.

all else aside I do find the fact that Egyptian banker Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar who Strauss confided in was in fact arrested a few weeks after Strauss for basically the same type of crime...odd ???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/mahmoud-abdel-salam-omar-arrested_n_868886.html

That is one link but if you google Salam Omar arrested you will find many others.

It does not make a lot of sense.

It does however explain something I had considered when Ron Paul said sell some gold from Fort Knox a few weeks ago. As it was so far outside of his usual in regards to gold. At the time I did wonder if he was in fact calling their bluff & trying to get the doors open to Fort Knox for an inventory. It is fact that the gold has not had a verifiable inventory done in over 50 years

Anyway for your enjoyment here is the article/speculation

A new report prepared for Prime Minister Putin by the Federal Security Service (FSB) says that former International Monetary Fund (IMF) Chief Strauss-Kahn”>Dominique Strauss-Kahn was charged and jailed in the US for Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case”>sex crimes on May 14th after his discovery that all of the gold held in the United States Bullion Depository located at Fort Knox was ‘missing and/or unaccounted’ for.

According to this FSB secret report, Strauss-Kahn had become “increasingly concerned” earlier this month after the United States began “stalling” its pledged delivery to the IMF of 191.3 tons of gold agreed to under the Second Amendment of the Articles of Agreement signed by the Executive Board in April 1978 that were to be sold to fund what are called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as an alternative to what are called reserve currencies.

This FSB report further states that upon Strauss-Kahn raising his concerns with American government officials close to President Obama he was ‘contacted’ by ‘rogue elements’ within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who provided him ‘firm evidence’ that all of the gold reported to be held by the US ‘was gone’.

Upon Strauss-Kahn receiving the CIA evidence, this report continues, he made immediate arrangements to leave the US for Paris, but when contacted by agents working for France’s General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) that American authorities were seeking his capture he fled to New York City’s JFK airport following these agents directive not to take his cell-phone because US police could track his exact location.

Once Strauss-Kahn was safely boarded on an Air France flight to Paris, however, this FSB report says he made a ‘fatal mistake’ by calling the hotel from a phone on the plane and asking them to forwarded the cell-phone he had been told to leave behind to his French residence, after which US agents were able to track and apprehend him.

Within the past fortnight, this report continues, Strauss-Kahn reached out to his close friend and top Egyptian banker Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar to retrieve from the US the evidence given to him by the CIA. Omar, however, and exactly like Strauss-Kahn before him, was charged yesterday by the US with a sex crime against a luxury hotel maid, a charge the FSB labels as ‘beyond belief’ due to Omar being 74-years-old and a devout Muslim.

In an astounding move puzzling many in Moscow, Putin after reading this secret FSB report today ordered posted to the Kremlin’s official website a defense of Strauss-Khan becoming the first world leader to state that the former IMF chief was a victim of a US conspiracy. Putin further stated, “It’s hard for me to evaluate the hidden political motives but I cannot believe that it looks the way it was initially introduced. It doesn’t sit right in my head.”

Interesting to note about all of these events is that one of the United States top Congressman, and 2012 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul [photo bottom left] has long stated his belief that the US government has lied about its gold reserves held at Fort Knox. So concerned had Congressman Paul become about the US government and the Federal Reserve hiding the truth about American gold reserves he put forward a bill in late 2010 to force an audit of them, but which was subsequently defeated by Obama regime forces.

When directly asked by reporters if he believed there was no gold in Fort Knox or the Federal Reserve, Congressman Paul gave the incredible reply, “I think it is a possibility.”

Also interesting to note is that barely 3 days after the arrest of Strauss-Kahn, Congressman Paul made a new call for the US to sell its gold reserves by stating, “Given the high price it is now, and the tremendous debt problem we now have, by all means, sell at the peak.”

Bizarre reports emanating from the US for years, however, suggest there is no gold to sell, and as we can read as posted in 2009 on the ViewZone.Com news site:

“In October of 2009 the Chinese received a shipment of gold bars. Gold is regularly exchanges between countries to pay debts and to settle the so-called balance of trade. Most gold is exchanged and stored in vaults under the supervision of a special organization based in London, the London Bullion Market Association (or LBMA). When the shipment was received, the Chinese government asked that special tests be performed to guarantee the purity and weight of the gold bars. In this test, four small holed are drilled into the gold bars and the metal is then analyzed.

Officials were shocked to learn that the bars were fake. They contained cores of tungsten with only a outer coating of real gold. What’s more, these gold bars, containing serial numbers for tracking, originated in the US and had been stored in Fort Knox for years. There were reportedly between 5,600 to 5,700 bars, weighing 400 oz. each, in the shipment!”

To the final fate of Strauss-Kahn it is not in our knowing, but new reports coming from the United States show his determination not to go down without a fight as he has hired what is described as a ‘Strauss-Kahn-hires-crack-team-CIA-spies-private-investigators-media-advisers-long-legal-fight-ahead.html”>crack team’ of former CIA spies, private investigators and media advisers to defend him.

To the practical effects on the global economy should it be proved that the US, indeed, has been lying about its gold reserves, Russia’s Central Bank yesterday ordered the interest rate raised from 0.25 to 3.5 percent and Putin ordered the export ban on wheat and grain crops lifted by July 1st in a move designed to fill the Motherlands coffers with money that normally would have flowed to the US.

The American peoples ability to know the truth of these things, and as always, has been shouted out by their propaganda media organs leaving them in danger of not being prepared for the horrific economic collapse of their nation now believed will much sooner than later.

It does however explain something I had considered when Ron Paul said sell some gold from Fort Knox a few weeks ago. As it was so far outside of his usual in regards to gold. At the time I did wonder if he was in fact calling their bluff & trying to get the doors open to Fort Knox for an inventory. It is fact that the gold has not had a verifiable inventory done in over 50 years

Hmmm, 50 years? Maybe someone exploded an nuclear device in the fault rendering the gold untouchable?

... a charge the FSB labels as ‘beyond belief’ due to Omar being 74-years-old and a devout Muslim.

/quote]

First of all, the FSB never finds anything "beyond belief" and second, being 74 and a devout Muslim doesn't mean one can't commit "a sex crime against a luxury hotel maid". Ridiculous.

It does however explain something I had considered when Ron Paul said sell some gold from Fort Knox a few weeks ago. As it was so far outside of his usual in regards to gold. At the time I did wonder if he was in fact calling their bluff & trying to get the doors open to Fort Knox for an inventory. It is fact that the gold has not had a verifiable inventory done in over 50 years

Hmmm, 50 years? Maybe someone exploded an nuclear device in the fault rendering the gold untouchable?

... a charge the FSB labels as ‘beyond belief’ due to Omar being 74-years-old and a devout Muslim.

First of all, the FSB never finds anything "beyond belief" and second, being 74 and a devout Muslim doesn't mean one can't commit "a sex crime against a luxury hotel maid". Ridiculous.

Well yes it is odd that there is no independent audit on Fort Knox in so many decades.

And yes it is not odd nor impossible for a 74 year old to be a dirty old man of any religious background

But it does seem a bit odd that it is the one man that Strauss confided in & that one man is charged with the exact same type of crime.

Especially when you take into consideration that either one could probably easily buy a night with pretty much any woman they would want with the change in their car ashtray.

As I said...odd & for your entertainment.

I do not think anything would surprise most here in the USA at this point. I also think we will all be in for a few rude awakenings this August

As I understand matters, the cleaner (polite word 'housekeeper') has lied about things outside the actual case. She has maintained her statements concerning the case.

As I understand it, she has been shown to have lied on matters concerning the case; How she had in fact cleaned DSK's room and the next room before deciding to claim rape whereas she had originally made out that she was raped and went straight to make a complaint.

We don't know anything about this cleaner, except she's Guinean and has a daughter. I don't know if it is common practice for guests to have sex - consensual or otherwise - with luxury hotel cleaning staff. Personally I doubt it. So she may have been in shock for a time and, as happens with shock victims, she carried on working for a while, while the facts of the assault sank in. Then she ran back to the scene of the crime and tried to erase evidence, thinking this may erase the event.

When she calmed down a little she realised that the event had happened and she reported it.

When the police interviewed her, her memories were not coherent and probably she confused them (the police) as well. How good is her language?

To my mind a lot of money has been circulating over the past few days and political pressure from high places. I wonder why all reports seem to be turning against the poor woman now? Surely there are some journalists who would take the opposite tack, just to support the underdog?

As I understand matters, the cleaner (polite word 'housekeeper') has lied about things outside the actual case. She has maintained her statements concerning the case.

As I understand it, she has been shown to have lied on matters concerning the case; How she had in fact cleaned DSK's room and the next room before deciding to claim rape whereas she had originally made out that she was raped and went straight to make a complaint.

We don't know anything about this cleaner, except she's Guinean and has a daughter. I don't know if it is common practice for guests to have sex - consensual or otherwise - with luxury hotel cleaning staff. Personally I doubt it. So she may have been in shock for a time and, as happens with shock victims, she carried on working for a while, while the facts of the assault sank in. Then she ran back to the scene of the crime and tried to erase evidence, thinking this may erase the event.

When she calmed down a little she realised that the event had happened and she reported it.

When the police interviewed her, her memories were not coherent and probably she confused them (the police) as well. How good is her language?

To my mind a lot of money has been circulating over the past few days and political pressure from high places. I wonder why all reports seem to be turning against the poor woman now? Surely there are some journalists who would take the opposite tack, just to support the underdog?

Possible. Plausible......however, to give a more-likely-to-be-true suggestion to your query, I think that most professional journalists, although always on the look-out for a scoop or new angle, would hesitate to draw such a long bow as your powerful and lengthy arms seem capable of doing.

Possible. Plausible......however, to give a more-likely-to-be-true suggestion to your query, I think that most professional journalists, although always on the look-out for a scoop or new angle, would hesitate to draw such a long bow as your powerful and lengthy arms seem capable of doing.

Yes, the knuckles do drag along the floor, especially after spending the weekends swinging from the trees.

But I still maintain that a good prosecutor could get good mileage out of this case. Don't want him for President of La Republique. Don't want the poison dwarf either - probably wind up with Marine Le Pen. That'll cause all sorts of ructions.

The lady has a serious credibility problem and the problem is pervasive. She has lied about sexual activity, including a previous rape. She has lied about her finances. She's lied about how many children she has. She's lied on her asylum application, which is a legal document for which she may face perjury charges. It's difficult to know from her past if she even knows the truth.

There are people who specialize in helping sexual assault victims. I am sure they went through her story with the greatest of sympathy possible. If they gave up on her claim and the prosecutor gave up on her claim, then I have to believe there isn't much of a claim.

A huge waste of money to prosecute a case if a jury is most likely to acquit the accused.

Surely there are some journalists who would take the opposite tack, just to support the underdog?

In this case the underdog was always Srauss

Do lies about previous issues not related to the case even matter? I can't remember another case where they tried to establish that the person was a habitual liar and it actually worked.If that were the case then 99.9% of the crooks would bypass court and go straight to jail.