Top investigator in DSK case calls dismissal “a certainty” …
… and adds
that, as a result, we will never know what happened in that hotel room.
The story also repeats what was said yesterday, that according to both defense and prosecution sources, the maid not only was a prostitute, but continued plying her trade after the incident, when she was residing in a Brooklyn hotel where she had been put up by the D.A.’s office.
The story is from today’s New York Post:
DA set to drop charges vs. DSK
- end of initial entry -
Pop the champagne, DSK.
Prosecutors will agree to drop the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn—either on his next court date in two weeks or even sooner, according to a top investigator in the case who called the eventual dismissal “a certainty.”
“We all know this case is not sustainable,” the source told The Post exclusively yesterday.
“Her credibility is so bad now, we know we cannot sustain a case with her,” the source said, referring to the Guinean hotel maid who accused Strauss-Kahn of trying to rape her in his plush Midtown hotel suite—shocking charges that got the international banker bounced as head of the IMF and also derailed, at least for now, his bid to become president of France.
“She is not to be believed in anything that comes out of her mouth—which is a shame, because now we may never know what happened in that hotel room,” said the source, who is at the center of the investigation and would speak only on the condition of anonymity.
“Did [Strauss-Kahn] use force? Was there actually a crime? I don’t think we’ll ever know.”
Meanwhile, defense sources described a different scenario, in which DSK admittedly engaged with the maid in a consensual, sex-for-money exchange in his Sofitel suite, with no force involved—and she turned against him only when he stiffed her. [LA replies: And why, according to DSK’s own lawyers, would a wealthy man refuse to pay a prostitute whose services he had just used?]
“In the past, guests have left stuff for her,” meaning money, one source close to the defense investigation said last night. “She goes back to look for the money,” and is disappointed, the source said. Also likely irking the maid? “His dismissive nature,” said the source.
Multiple investigators for the defense and prosecution have confirmed that they believe the maid was turning tricks at the hotel, and prosecution sources have even accused her of continuing to “entertain” male visitors while in a DA safehouse.
Meanwhile yesterday, French lawyers for Strauss-Kahn promised to fight back with criminal charges of their own against a French writer who claims he tried to rape her nearly a decade ago.
Tristane Banon has accused the French banker of behaving like a “rutting chimpanzee” and allegedly yanking open her bra and attempting to get into her pants during a 2002 interview. Her lawyers said they plan to press charges against Strauss-Kahn in France today.
But the banker’s legal team in Europe says they’ll file a criminal-slander complaint if Banon makes good on her threat.
The volleys of accusations across the Atlantic come as new details emerge on the collapsing sex case in New York.
For six weeks, the maid told investigators a credible and compelling story about her travails of rape and beatings in escaping Guinea’s violent regime, and about her alleged re-victimization last month by Strauss-Kahn.
“One-hundred-percent consistent,” one top investigator called her first month-and-a-half of statements. “Rock solid,” another top investigator said.
Only eight days ago did the maid’s story fall apart, according to two top investigators on the case, and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. made what they termed the courageous decision to inform the defense and agree to release Strauss-Kahn without bail.
Officials realized that for six weeks, ever since the May 14 incident, she had bamboozled some of the best minds in the storied Manhattan DA’s Office, including a trio of seasoned top investigators with a combined 75 years in the business—Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, Ann Prunty and Chief DA Investigator Rob Mooney.
Vance “put his very best, most intelligent people on this—and eventually, we found the truth,” said one top investigator.
Defense lawyer Benjamin Brafman declined to talk about the pending dismissal, or about a meeting set for tomorrow morning between the defense team and Vance.
A reader writes:
A “top investigator” for the D.A. is quoted saying that Vance “put his very best, most intelligent people on this—and eventually, we found the truth.”
This means nothing, when the most experienced sex crimes prosecutors and investigators were removed from the case and the top powers in the DA’s office wanted a certain outcome.
It also means nothing, given that they were suckered by the complainant for weeks before they realized she was a career liar and cannot be believed about anything.
Norma B. writes:
What I do not understand is the action of the hotel. Weren’t they the ones to call the police and didn’t they vouch for the maid as a good employee that hadn’t caused any problems? I was inclined to believe her story because of their support.
From the very start, all the authorities involved in the case told us: she’s a paragon! A pious Muslim, hard-working, blah blah blah blah blah. And they told us that her story is rock solid, because from the very instant after the incident she was extremely upset and told everyone about it, which showed that it was true. But these supposed facts about her character and her behavior which the authorities told us about, which made her story sound true, were not true.
Alexis Zarkov writes:
Indeed. I expect the charges will get dismissed this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday. It has finally penetrated the thick skulls at the DA’s office that their witness is a career criminal and a serial perjurer. I now add some further speculations to my comments about this case. I think we should use her real name, Nafissatou Diallo.
1. We know Diallo lied about having only one cell phone. There’s no excuse for this lie as she doesn’t need two cell phones to protect her daughter. Almost for sure Diallo uses the second phone for her illegal activities. If she’s really a prostitute, then she certainly needs a phone to book clients. Her second phone is most likely a “burn phone.” Drug dealers use them. An episode of the HBO series The Wire detailed how criminals use such phones. A burn phone is just a prepaid cell phone that requires no contract and no name. You simply buy it anonymously at (say) a WalMart. Unless she’s really stupid, she used her burn phone to talk with her jailed boyfriend in Arizona.
So how did the police connect up the Arizona boyfriend with Diallo? They only have a female voice speaking an obscure foreign dialect, and no traceable number for the calling phone. One possible answer: someone in the DA’s office got a partial transcript of the phone conversation from someone on the defense team. Yes the defense. Almost for sure the defense lawyers brought in private investigators who put Diallo under continuous surveillance—immediately. [LA replies: they would have had to do this immediately, since the phone call took place about 28 hours after DSK’s arrest.] As part of the surveillance, they had her telephone conversations recorded. This is of course illegal, but such things are done all the time in the private arena. The police would need a warrant, and that requires probable cause which they didn’t have in the first 28 hours after the alleged rape. Now the defense has dynamite material that ends the prosecutors’ case. What’s the best way to get an early dismissal? Send some of the material to the DA (perhaps anonymously) and let him take credit for the discovery. In this way the DA can save some face, and not look the complete incompetent he really is.
There are other possible explanations. The police might have found out about the boyfriend as part of their investigation of Diallo, and asked the prison for recordings of his telephone calls. And there are still further possibilities, which I can go into if anyone is interested.
2. What happened in the hotel room between DSK and Diallo? First let’s note that DSK was paying $3,000 per day for his room. For that price he expected better room service than one gets at Motel 6. He might very have thought that his “enhanced room service” would come courtesy of the house. Then to his surprise Diallo demanded payment. He ignored her, and then a fight started. Who hit first is hard to know. We will never know and we don’t need to.
On a personal note, I think DSK is not wise to the ways of New York City—a cesspool of corruption and depravity. I was born, raised, educated, and employed in New York City. Eventually the crime and malignant socialism got to me and I left. Diallo was simply doing what many denizens of the Big Apple do—try to make a buck. She turns tricks and blackmails hotel guests. Others, like the police, take bribes (Serpico). Even judges take bribes (Nadjari Commission). A New York lawyer once told me that to get a judgeship you must make a contribution to the New York Democratic Party. One man paid the money, but died before he could assume his position. His widow wanted the money back, and sued to get it. She won. The judge in her case could hardly not believe her since he had to pay too. DA Cyrus Vance is also a man on the make. DSK was to be his “great white case.”
DSK was just expecting to get what he gets at expensive hotels all over the world. Only he almost got crushed and would have been if not for his wife’s great wealth and support.
In passing, while I have zero regard for Andrea Peyser of the New York Post, she came up with a good line about Ann Sinclair. She called her DSK’s “celebrity doormat wife.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 05, 2011 12:24 PM | Send