Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s Reputation Is Ruined By Oral Rape Allegation: Time To Name The Accuser
THE former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is no longer under house arrest in his enormous Tribeca Townhouse with all mod-cons. The courts deemed that the woman accusing him of attempted rape at Sofitel Hotel in Midtown Manhattan might not be a truthful sort.
Originally, she claimed she was assaulted in suite 2806. She then made her way to the hallway on the 28th floor. She waited for Strauss-Kahn to leave. Now she says that after the alleged attack she “proceeded to clean a nearby room and then returned to suite 2806 and began to clean that suite before she reported the incident to her supervisor“.
So. She re-entered the room without his being there after the alleged rape? And she claims that he had badly hurt her shoulder.
Her lawyer says the cleaner “is not going to remain in hiding any more“. Well, good. She said a man tried to rape her. His freedom has been curtailed. He was made to do ther perp walk. He lost his job. We heard his name in the media. He was LE PERV. Let’s hear her name. Why should his name be made public and her name protected? It’s only fair both sides get the same treatment. Right?
ABC News cited the original criminal complaint filed by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.:
It charges that he forcibly touched the housekeeper’s breasts, attempted to pull off her panty hose, twice “forcibly made contact with his penis and the informant’s mouth” and that “the defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct and anal sexual conduct with another person by forcible compulsion.”
Her lawyer Kenneth Thompson told the court:
The victim from day one has described a violent sexual assault that Dominique Strauss-Kahn committed against her. She has described that many times to the prosecutors and to me and she has never once changed a single thing about that account. The DA knows that. That was true the day it happened; it is true today.
The victim herself is the one who came forward voluntarily with the information about her asylum application. She told me she wanted to tell the DA the truth about how she came to this country.
I told the DA’s office exactly what the victim told me and the victim then met with the DA alone and described some of the tings that she had not told them.
The only defence Strauss-Kahn has was this sexual encounter was consensual. That was a lie.
He also enlarged on that oral sex:
“When the victim walked into that suite she did so for one reason and that was to clean that suite. She was told no one was inside that room. She went into thaat room believing [that] and then Strauss-Kahn came running out of one of those rooms naked towards her and he grabbed her beasts first and started to attack her. He then grabbed her vagina with so much force that he hurt her … that he bruised her vagina. When she went to the hospital later that day the nurses saw the bruises that were caused by Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s hands and the DA has those pictures …
“When Dominique Strauss-Kahn threw the victim to the floor he tore a ligament in her shoulder. She may now need surgery for the damage he caused to her shoulder …
“He also ripped her stockings and the DA knows that. When she was fighting to get away, when she was on her knees and he was sexually assaulting her, after he’d finished she got up and ran for the door and started spitting Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s semen out all over that hotel room. She spit it on the wall and the floor.”
Over at the Atlantic, Andrew Cohen looks at that earlier New York Times’s story:
“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.”
If this is true, it establishes a motive for the woman to (falsely) accuse Kahn of rape after a consensual sexual encounter. It is enough, alone, to establish reasonable doubt? Prosecutors seem to think so and they are probably right.
All lawyers make out they are right – it is their job. Armchair detectives are free to make of it what they will.
James Taranto highlights another element to the case:
According to another CBS report, the accuser “twice relayed to investigators emotional accounts of how she was gang-raped in Guinea. She later said those accounts were false and were . . . used for the asylum application process. However, she did still claim that she was a rape victim, though the details did not match her original story.”
The accused must return to court on 18 July.
Posted: 1st, July 2011 | In: Key Posts, Reviews Comments (10) | TrackBack | Permalink
