Fish Food

Editor’s Pick
JULY 1, 2011 7:03AM

Strauss-Kahn: Released without bail, charges still pending

Rate: 27 Flag

You read it right here on May 16th: Dominique Strauss-Kahn Arrested: The Sofitel Connection


July 1st, 2011

When Dominique Strauss-Kahn, 62, was accused in a sexual assault case involving a 32 year-old chambermaid at the Hotel Sofitel in Manhattan, we pontificators, bloggers and mainstreamers alike, wrote volumes on the "meaning" of the case. How could a man in his lofty position find himself so utterly compromised in such a manner? He must be a raving, pig-faced, lunatic the way he attacked that woman. Poor woman, right? Not so fast.

Late Thursday night France 24 was reporting that the alleged victim's credibility had been called into question. According to law enforcement officials, there is unequivocal evidence of a sexual encounter, but it may have been consensual just as the accused has been saying all along. Now that would be a surprise to many, including this reporter, who had him judged, convicted, and sentenced in the court of personal opinion weeks ago.

"Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied..." (NYT)

But there's more..

Authorities have recently unearthed evidence of a possible conspiracy. Hold the friggin' phone! It seems that Ms. not-so-innocent chambermaid had not one, not two, but five separate phone numbers associated with her identity. Also, she received a series of wire transfers--tens of thousands of dollars--from an associate with known ties to drug running, money laundering and what have you.

"...According to the two 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 pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded. " (NYT)

Okay, this is getting ugly. It's all fun and games until you mess with a man's reputation and livelihood. This ordeal has cost Mr. Strauss-Kahn his career with the IMF. That's a done deal, but could he recover and run successfully for the top job in France? Stranger things have happened.

"A collapse of the case would mark a stunning turnabout for Strauss-Kahn, 62, who has long been a key player in the French Socialist Party and was expected to challenge French President Nicolas Sarkozy in next May's election. Polls suggested he would win. He resigned his IMF post after the arrest)." (LAT)

Could this be a conspiracy cooked up by the DSK team to impugn the integrity of the victim? I should note here; the woman is sticking to her story and she has yet to be formally discredited. 

At this hour, there are few sources available to plumb, but it looks as though DSK may be completely vindicated. His only crime--screwing around on his wife. What could be more mundane.

                               ************** UPDATE ****************      


                                                     The Atlantic

DSK is released on his own recognizance. The judge has vacated his house arrest order, but he must remain in the U.S. until his hearing on July 18th. Clearly Mr. Strauss-Kahn is in better spirits than the last time he entered a New York court room. He strode into the courthouse with a pep in his step and perhaps a song in his heart.

The case is still pending for now--no charges dropped as yet. What do we know for sure at this point? The maid has admitted to lying about a previous rape allegation. The other assault supposedly took place in her native Guinea, and she used this story to help bolster her case for asylum in the U.S. The distressing story she told was detailed, seemingly heartfelt, and completely fabricated.

 From The New York Times:

Letter from District Attorney to Defense in Strauss-Kahn Case



Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Mr. Coffee (spouse) was a skeptic from day one. He couldn't imagine how a man of DSK's stature could have an attack of Neanderthal and suddenly go ape-nuts on this woman the way she described. I always argued in the woman's favor. I may have to eat my hat.
At the funerals of these sorta creeps
there will be myriads of departed (grudge)
exclaiming` spirits
roaring with laughter and yelling`Schmuck!
Paranoid people all over the world wake up
pondering why the pundit announcer said`
Good morning
I also wrote something on this, and was criticized by a few people and praised by others. We can only blog about what we read from newspapers, magazines, etc. If we waited until every case was decided, it would be a boring world. If he's innocent, more power to him. I'll write one on her, but the deciding factor for me to write it was, she supposedly had a stellar reputation and he was sending thugs to threaten and bribe her family in her home country. If that's a lie, the newspapers told it. The truth will come out, it usually does, and we can't beat ourselves up over blogging about current events.
I read the conspiracy theorists right from the gate and pondered some myself...How a man living his life in a glass house of media could be so stupid was interesting...Soon the truth will come out..And it is getting uglier by the minute...
Hey Scanner--I did not mean to imply that any of us were wrong to blog about this story early on. When I said we should let the story sit a bit before proclaiming surety, I only meant, speaking for myself, that I will be more careful to use qualifiers like "may have", or" alleged incident." As the Times reported, this is a stunning turnaround no one could have anticipated based on the information we had.
Blue, on that I agree and I am guilty. I should have done the same thing. I've never been to a journalism class or even had a creative writing course, so I make a lot of mistakes most people who write a lot already know, but I'm learning. Thanks my friend~~
This is a shock to the system, although there are still a lot of improbabilities to the conspiracy theory. How would they arrange for the particular maid to tend to his room, for example.

Good reporting--you scooped the two newspapers I've read so far this morning!
Very interesting development, thanks for tipping us of. It was his early actions in the aftermath that made me sort of defend him...his open, vulnerable initial comment, "I don't know what happened in that hotel room this afternoon," and so quickly stepping down from his role, actual made me think he had a little bit of integrity. I think it's human for us to comment on things before we know all the facts... I'm cynical enough about both politics and the law to believe that we will never know the real truth about what happened. There will only be a generally agreed upon truth.
What an interesting set of facts that have changed the entire picture. Thanks for sharing them and pointing them out here.
I wonder how much money has been spent on this. One person has huge financial resources and the other doesn't. Hmmm
Stupid is as stupid does..
I was falsely accused and had my livelihood and reputation destroyed.I promised myself never to jump to conclusions again, but alas I do, and I was sure he was guilty.
Wow on this. Amazingly evil to destroy people's lives by lies. If she is indeed lying, I think she should be put in jail for life.
My personal beef is more with not only playing judge and jury (which is more or less expected in any casual discussion), but then using it as the basis to pontificate upon the innate slutish nature of men (a reasonable stand alone assertion), the oppression of immigrants in service jobs, the moral bankruptcy of anyone connected with the global financial system (never mind the guy is a socialist), etc.

FWIW, I don't expect anyone to come out of this looking good.

But, the fact that two people from entirely different countries, neither of whom spoke either English or the same language as a primary language, throw in sex, and the possibilities for misunderstanding are enormous.
BSB, here is the comment I just posted on a Daily Beast story about the case:

The holes in the maid's background does not mean she wasn't sexually assaulted. It means that in court, up against one of the most powerful men in the world, her credibility would be weak. From what I've read, the prosecutors are considering dropping charges not because they don't believe her story about what happened in the hotel room, but because her personal character would not stand up to cross-examination. Prosecutors hate to spend a lot of time and money pursuing a losing case.
Cranky, I wish the prosecutors in, say, the McMartin Pre-School case had gotten the memo about not spending a lot of time and money on a losing case!

The problem here is that both scenarios, IMO, are equally plausible. DSK could be a man who likes to sexually intimidate powerless women. He certainly wouldn't be the first. It is also completely believable that there are forces at work that want to destroy DSK's reputation and prevent him from continuing at the IMF and to derail his chances of becoming France's President. (And even if the prosecution declines to go forward, the damage has certainly been done.)
No man is in fact innocent. No woman is in fact innocent. When we speak of the “presumption of innocence,” we are speaking of a theoretical concept only.

The only issue is whether a jury can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime as charged in the indictment. Even if a jury were to acquit him, that does not mean he is innocent. If a jury were to convict him, that only means that they had no reasonable doubt. There is always some doubt in this world. There is a difference between a finding of legal guilt and actual guilt.

All this goes in spades when consent is the factual issue, one of the slipperiest of all factual issues in a criminal trial.

But don't be too hard on yourself, babe. Journalism is a different world. For example, a headline using the phrase “reasonable doubt” rather than the word “innocent” is really no headline at all. And a discussion of these legal concepts in the text of a journalistic piece puts people to sleep. They will quickly change their preference of journalists.
This case is clear as mud - as usual. But don't you think that his defense team would have the capacity to construct or come up with just about anything to muddy the waters? And a little bit of mud is all they need to impugn her. On the other hand, who would want to have sex with that guy voluntarily? He's not George Clooney. He's old, unattractive and creepy. The plot thickens.
Cranky--I'm not so sure. When the woman is caught on tape discussing her financial options, within a day of her encounter with DSK. And also she's lied about rape before. I'm withholding final judgement. Perhaps it is as you say and they are only dropping the case because of the witnesses credibility. We shall see.

Brassawe--I realize 'innocent' is a loaded word. At 3:30 am it sounded great for a sensational headline. However, I only meant to say that he may be innocent of sexual assault. If indeed their encounter was purely consenual, he may be a cad who was fooling around on his wife, but he is innocent of that particular crime.
BSB, it will be interesting to see how the DNA evidence will be explained... or is that 'explained away'?
Catherine--the DNA evidence is not a problem because DSK admits to a consensual, sexual encounter. I looks like maybe, she saw an opportunity for financial gain, and others may have been involved too.
Simple. If there was consensual sex as he claims, of course there would be DNA strewn around. The DNA does not even need to be "explained away" in that case.
No, no, babe. I was not criticizing the use of the word "innocent." Rather, I was only saying that you do not need to eat your hat regardless of how this turns out. You have always written about this in the role of a journalist, not writing some law review article about it.

"He couldn't imagine how a man of DSK's stature could have an attack of Neanderthal and suddenly go ape-nuts on this woman the way she described."

A brilliant description of the of the crux of this case.

DSK -- if proven to have gone Neanderthal -- is facing what amounts to a life sentence.

It was never about whether the guy was creepy with women. Another discussion entirely.

As far as the assertion "...who would want to have sex with that guy voluntarily?" Someone looking for money.
BSB, Brassawe makes a good point. Just because a defendant is acquitted in court doesn't mean he is in fact innocent. We just had a case here in NY where two cops were accused of raping a drunken woman they had assisted home. The majority of the jurors seemed to believe that they had in fact committed a crime, but because of a lack of forensic evidence and the unreliability of the victim, they voted to acquit.

One of the problems for prosecutors in these types of cases is that, without compelling forensic evidence, it gets reduced to a he-said, she-said and the jurors may vote based on the reliability and image of the participants. Which may partly explain, without really knowing the details of the case, why William Kennedy Smith was acquitted and Mike Tyson was convicted.

I just finished a book about the Central Park jogger case from the 1980s (I hope to write about it next week). Five young men were sent to prison for several years based on dubious confessions and despite the fact that none of the DNA evidence pointed to them. Even their own lawyers seemed to believe they were guilty! It wasn't until 13 years later, when the true rapist came forward and confessed, and the DNA evidence, that we knew what really happened.
I guess to sum up my point in one sentence: We shouldn't have rushed to convict him before and we shouldn't rush to acquit him now.
Cranky--you said it, and you're absolutely right. My head is spinning right now with all this new information, but the lesson learned should be just that--suspend judgement until the case has time to...settle. I'm just surprised it took six weeks for the DA to uncover information that seems to have been available early on.
DSK released without bail.

Letter from prosecutors to the defense lawyers detailing credibility issues.

Why should we not now Rush to Judgment?

The legal case is toast.

The narrative of the case, from the US perspective, is that no one, regardless of how rich or powerful, is above the law.

However, it now seems that the 'victim' is guilty of serious crimes. But doubtful if she will be prosecuted because the narrative is unsatisfying.

I am very impressed by the behavior of the prosecution. It's comforting that DSK is being treated impartially.

Anyway, read the letter. And then if you think I'm 'rushing to judgment' explain away those facts.
Bluestocking, I read and commented about this last night on the NYTimes. My take, and i know I might be dead wrong but I feel that I'm correct is: DSK is upper class, ambitious and has a history of womanizing if not rape. If the cleaning woman has so much money what is she doing cleaning at hotels? My suspicion is that the vast differences in class, money and "reach" is why this man is going to be set free. I am not one of those woman who thinks every woman who screams rape is right. I'm not that biased towards women in these matters. but o my god didn't you just know that this guy was going to get out of it? I did. And it really bothers me. How much did he spend on investigators who found what they were looking for but that does NOT explain the sex/which likely was rape. Though just for a second as I wrote that, I felt, wait.. we do not know, maybe she was setting him up. But my instinct is that the rich powerful and those with huge connections usually get away with rape and worse things like stealing everyone else's money or raping again. But nice that a tad of ambiguity set in. I hate thinking I'm so right when who in hell knows. But I would still bet donuts that he did rape her. r
Nick--I hear you. I'm just trying to be measured given the drastic turnaround in the case, I'm still half afraid that it will take another unexpected turn. Thanks for the link. I will add it to my report.
I just read the other posters, and I'm with Cranky here.
BSB, he did have a prior reputation of being, to put it mildly, sexually aggressive. That that rep was closely held in certain circles is beside the point. But it made his alleged behavior in the hotel highly plausible.

As I see it now, it looks like a prosecutor's nightmare. They may believe he's guilty as charged but there are so many countervailing arguments that they might reckon a conviction is unlikely. I'm very curious to see what else comes to light.
Abrawang--yep, that's what sealed it for me, his prior rep as an aggressive philanderer. I still think he's a jerk, to say the least, but when you have an accuser who's done nothing but lie since the day she hit our doesn't necessarily mean she's lying here, but she's looking pretty bad right about now. I'm the last person who would want to see DSK buy his way out of this if he's guilty, but even her story of the events surrounding the case has evolved.

Wendy--you're right to remain skeptical until we know more, and certainly it would not be surprising to learn that this rich, powerful man got off simply because the victim had a checkered past. DSK has a past too. I'm rooting for justice regardless.
A stunning twist in a case that many assumed was a done deal...
BB - Thank you for writing about this in your wonderful way, and so clearly. I only heard murmurs about this because I couldn't get to the news while at work. When I did come home and check out the French news, they'd already explained what had happened, and were hypothesizing what's going to come. Thanks for giving me the background. I think that regardless of what happens, I do understand lying about rape in order to live in another country - I understand doing whatever it takes to be able to do that, and the fact that people have to lie to be able to live where they want, says a lot about our world today. On the other hand, destroying someone's life AGAIN and this time maybe not to save your own skin, is really not cool, to say the least. The hope I have is that if DSK is indeed innocent, he'll be able to come back to France, run for President and kick Sarkozy's ass and take the reins and rule well and change some of the really bad reforms we've had lately. We shall see....
One more point: the article in the Times last night was pretty devastating - unsavory connections, taped phone calls, strange money transfers, etc. I also remember, though, that a few weeks ago, the same paper had a lengthy article about the alleged victim in which reporters examined her life, interviewed her neighbors, visited her home African village, and made her sound like she was above reproach. So was that previous article total BS? And if it was, shouldn't we be wise to read everything, even when printed in the most respected paper in the world, with a grain of salt?
Cranky--Once again, your point is well taken. I'm still shocked at the fact that these revelations have takes to long to come to light. I too read some of of the previous stories which made her seem above reproach. As I said I'm rooting for justice. In any event, the DA's office is guilty of some seriously shoddy work. As for "The Grey Lady? " She has been known to get it wrong on occassion, that's for sure.

Alysa--I would love to be privvy to the scuttlebut in Paris. We watch France 24, but it's not the same as talking to real people. Surely everyone must have a strong opinion. What does your boyfriend think? Do tell.
That sucks, all around. No win for justice, if she is now going to be responsible for descrediting many others who do face assault on the job. I still hope that safety measures are put in place. Unfortunately, hers was the loudest and most serious.
As to his campaign, it may have been important to highlight that the man has a predatory nature with respect to women in his environment. While that is not illegal, like with Weiner, it speaks volumes of the person who is elected to office to look out for the best interests of the public- not just benefit from the perqs of office. Of course, we may need to ask, what is the motivation for many of these politicians but self aggrandizement and access to wealth in the name of public service? I hope, at least, his daughter will be smart enough not to introduce any of her women friends to her famous dad.
It is so sad to me
when people go this far to harm
yet it has happened to me
to a far lesser extent
but it hurts because outright lies are hard to defend
some will believe them no matter the outcome
Women who falsely claim rape
and ruin a man's life
are some of the sickest people on the planet
rated with love and a well deserved EP
Well, something happened. Something wrong and bad...and dumb on his point. Maybe it's not the something that could land him in prison, mainly because they are both adults and he has an excellent defense team...but something happened.

We can't be judged on our best day nor on our worst... and no matter who we are we all find ourselves saying "Well, it wasn't like that...." to defend ourselves.
i was willing to take her word for it, barring contrary evidence. this man doesn't take 'no' for an answer, according to several women who have since spoken against him.

it could be she smelled a big payday, if she's a part time whore, and he tried to stiff her on the fee. or who knows what...

or it could be what she says it was. if ever there was a case where the elite would try to grease things over, here it is. stay tuned!
I cannot recall whether or not I commented on BSBs post on this story, but I sure as hell remember loudly contradicting my good friend scanner on his blog. It hurt me to see someone whom I respect go off half cocked as he did.

It seems to have become socially necessary for men of good will to instantly believe any accusation made by a woman of sexual misconduct by a man. I reject this philosophy. In fact I reject the whole concept that men are any more guilty of sexual misconduct than are women. I especially detest the "modern liberated" philosophy that has women "innocent until proven guilty" and men "guilty - even if innocent".

We are seeing "sexual misconduct" claimed in too many cases where we ought to be very suspicious of the motives of those who benefit by these claims. Need I mention Wiki-leaks?

It is time for "gender equality" to mean just that. It benefits our society and the people of it not one whit to exchange "privileged men" for "privileged women" whose word "cannot be questioned."

A courageous and honourable post bluestocking babe. You have, once again, earned my greatest respect with this.
Here's my update. According to the Times, she still wants her day in court. Yes, it would be great to have a socialist running the IMF but there seems to be an epidemic of men in high places blowing it over sex. Having sex with a chamber maid when you are a VIP seems bad enough. But the woman can be a nutcase and still be correct that she was raped. There was semen on her blouse. Might mean consensual; might not. My gut still says, he was arrogant enough to do it and rich enough to dig up or make up things about her past that would doom her case. As i said before, I'm not the type of woma who is so woman-identified, in fact I identify with men just as often. But whoa this "new news" was gained how? By his dream team o' course. And if she was so rich, what was she doing cleaning rooms. Hoping to trap this man in exchange for big money. Well she wants to testify and that shows courage and that she won't be getting a cent from him. I was staying at Hotel Letitia in Paris shortly after this broke. In both French and USA papers it was said:

"If this had happened at Hotel L, it would be covered up in 2 hours." I found that strange. Anyway, yes we don't know but we do have our guts and our minds to gues one way or t'other.
Wendy--actually it wasn't DSK's defense team that dug up dirt on the maid, it was the DA's office in the course of their investigation. Read the letter, linked above, from the DA to the defense. The defense may seek to exploit the woman's problems, but they did not manufacture them. Like any witness in any case, she will be judged in part by her credibility, and rightfully so.

As far as gut instincts--my gut says she was a grifter looking for monetary gain. Far from being a rich person in her own right, those payments she recieved in the days surrounding the incident may have been associated with incident. I think it's possible that she turned a consensual encounter into a payday by accusing him of rape and knowing that she would have physical evidence to bolster her claims.
He was charged with counts of criminal sexual acts in the first degree, one count of attempted rape, sexual abuse in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment, sexual abuse in the third degree and forcible touching - but not rape per se.
If the defense's allegations concerning the victim could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt she should be charged as a criminal. But that will never happen. No consquences ever for the accusing "victim."
My hat is off to you for recanting from the traditional feminist meme - very honest and refreshing.
Cranky should be on the Supreme Court - and I'm dead serious. I'm half-dead serious about disliking Strauss-Kahn because I think he's a prick who has probly raped other powerless women and gotten away with it. Al Capone went to prison for income tax evasion. If it takes some unrelated technicality to bag this prick, so be it.
Some people argue for the woman. Some people argue for the man. But I thought it's everyone's job to argue for the truth. That's the problem with people with agendas (hi Oryoki!): they don't give a flying flip about the truth, just what fits their idea of it. Disgusting.

Try putting yourself in the shoes of those involved. If you do that you realize two things: that it's none of your business and it's best to STFU.
The real problem here is that false accusations and perjury are not punished in our current legal system. We all rush to judgement, and it is wrong. In the bible, false accusation is akin to murder, and I agree. I don't necessarily agree that all in the bible must be regarded- but in this case- yes.
Certain sociopaths are willing to falsely accuse the innocent and there must be deterrants. As it is, there are none.
We'll see how this plays out, but I assure you that if he wasn't so rich and powerful- the truth would take years to come to light.
And what be the truth, oh wise and simple Ghost? Please, show us the light.
Matt--you are right to highlight his history. If indeed he has been guilty of assault in the past, it would serve justice for him to pay the penalty once and for all. OJ Simpson is in prison now for something unrelated to his earlier crimes, but justice is served nonetheless. The problem is we don't have any direct evidence of a past crime can we convict him so?

Kate O'Hehir--You make an interesting point. The media has become far to prominent in our society. Even something seemingly harmless like the "famous for being famous " phenomenon is distressing. Many of the role models our young children look up to have no real accomplishments to boast. We build people up who don't deserve it, just as we tear people down who don't deserve it. Sad state of affairs.
I agree, Babe. This is just my personal feeling. Losing his powerful job is probably punishment enuf, if only for being an arrogant prick.
Imitating Hellen Keller is wise Yonathan, unless you reallly, really want to rock and roll with Andrew Jackson. Otherwise, I saw nothin is a good law of a jungle in a mess.
"Cranky should be on the Supreme Court"

Damn straight, Matt. The first thing I'd do is poison Scalia's coffee. And since Clarence Thomas drinks out of the same cup, I'd get rid of both of them!
According to the Times article, it took a few weeks to get a translation of her taped phone call. When they got it, they knew they were in deep trouble.

This pisses me off, because I was so sure he was guilty. I hate when I jump to conclusions and find out I might have been wrong.
@Matt, only the two principles here know the truth at this point. That's the whole point, oh unelightened one!

How would anyone here feel to read ignorant-ass judgements being made on them without all the facts known? You would be LIVID, posting every fucking day. You would tell them to mind their own business and show some respect for the truth.

All the media manipulators out there count on people acting like this, jumping the gun and publicly lynching before the story fully comes out. It doesn't matter even if the initial conclusion is correct, it only matters if you wait until everything is verified.
@Harry - I'd be pissed, you'd be pissed, all us little ants would be pissed and justifiably so. Big-ass arrogant power brokers who routinely step on the little ants don't get my sympathy when caught with their pants down, no matter how those pants got pulled down. They deserve all the deflation they get. Thus spake a proletarian.
I'm always skeptical when the media makes it's verdict. I think it was a little bit of consensual, gone bad.

Stay tuned
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)
breaking news. developing. there is some information the maid may have specifically requested to work on the upscale floor. it is said that pictures of the occupants at the hotel may have been posted in the breakroom.

Maid cleaning up as 'hooker'
* Big tips for extra 'turndown service' * Prosecutors list litany of lies, scams

Read more:
vzn--funny you should mention the VIP postings in the break room. In my first story about the case, linked at the top of this post, I discussed my time as an employee at the Sofitel in DC. They would post pictures of dignitaries on the wall in the back room behind the bar, and we were required to learn the names and faces of our "distinguished" guests. I served Mr. Strauss-Kahn as well as Ms. La Garde a few times myself. When they came to town for the annual IMF meettings, they always stayed at the Sofitel.
Isn't he innocent until proved guilty even though he's a rich perv ?

Hang on. I'm rich just not a perv. And I'm only guilty of pathos, pun, parody and sarcasm. Hmmmm?
Creekend--you mean not all rich guys are pervs? I'm shocked! I was one of those who judged prematurely. I wrote this follow-up report in hopes of getting it right this time. We shall see.
wowsy f-ing dowsy, gal.

it is indeed an archetpally iinteresting case, but
like casey at bat, mz anthony whom the jury deliberates upon,
it is all hollywood and w.f.a.g. unless we vampires ,the good ones,
like bones' guy, david, aka angel,
is on the case.

oops i briefed the f-ing feds earlier. i have cloud clout
being the whitest guy in america
wasp to the bone,
german scot english
and did i mention my ancestor roger,ha,
conant founded salem?

argh aunt ruth, eleanor's mean ol sis,
wrote a book on the guy.

my scot grandpappy ah
john yule came to usa in um 1903 otr 4

and immortalized the sob in stone.
he made gravestones.

mom, queen bee eleanor, had picnicks in the grave yahd,
as we bluebloods off-ten say.

under the graveyard's owner, uh, uncle jimmy ha.

ah i miss mom.
thank god she dead in the dirt, burnt to hell & back

love ya mum
I don't know all of the details of the case (really only two people do), but to me this seems to be the way it goes: powerful man attacks woman, prosecution attacks woman's credibility, powerful man goes free. I hope to God she made it up, as the girl in the Duke lacrosse rape case a few years back. It seems to take a lot for a woman to come forward against someone in his position - and it isn't too far a stretch to believe that a man of such a high position would abuse that power or let it go to his head, or that it would result in sexual depravity (I'm thinking of some Catholic priests here). Weren't there other women who came forward? I'd love for an innocent man to be vindicated, but it seems that the justice system is more apt to protect a wealthy man than a victimized woman. I'd hate for her to be smeared, him to go free, only to feel more acutely that he cannot be touched by the law. God help the next chambermaid.
JF writes above-- " I hope to God she made it up, as the girl in the Duke lacrosse rape case a few years back."
you hope she made it up??? why??? what the heck are you talking about???
" I'd hate for her to be smeared, him to go free, only to feel more acutely that he cannot be touched by the law. God help the next chambermaid."
you start out with the premise that its all a lie, and then end with the conclusion, "god help the next chambermaid"? yeah, I guess so. god help her to change the linens. she will need all the help she can get.
Serial liar,drug peddler,money launderer. Are we free to rape someone with those credentials? NOOOOOO!

If forensic and other evidence proves rape, not just her word, then he has to face the consequences.
Salmandar--As far as I know, there is no forensic evidence to prove rape, only sexual contact. So that would mean, all we have is her word, and since she has lied about elements of the case...her credibility is rightfully called into question.
it looks like the Maid Is Wearing No Clothes, so to speak.
she's also the Maid Who Cried "Wolf".
vzn - I stand by that. Here's what I mean - if she didn't make it up, then she has not only been assaulted, but also publicly judged and smeared. Doubly victimized. If she did make it up, then she deserves to have been caught and to be prosecuted by both the legal system and the public. Therefore, I hope she did and justice will be served. This is my twisted logic.
Oh, sorry - here's the rest of my thought: If DS-K did in fact rape this woman and goes free, he will feel even more untouchable. Wo would dare come forward again? Thus making the world a scarier place for chambermaids in hotels he visits.
Jaime--I too worry about how this will effect future victims. Rape is under reported as it is. If the accuser is villifed in the media, more woman will skip the ordeal and just deal, especially those with credibility issues. That means more rapists will go unpunished and free to rape again.
Blue, this is in reponse to one of your comments below addressed to me, which is not why I'm answering it. I have since this post learned that the woman was randomly assigned rooms and had no idea of whose she was gong to clean. That tiny piece of info, if correct, makes me feel that she couldn't have been ready fora sting if she had no clue who the guy or the room belonged to.

Then there is the little detail of him running off with toothpaste on his mouth. I dunno, it's the little things that make me still believe he's guilty not that I know, just my best guess.