As many of you may well know now, the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn appears to be collapsing, according to last evening's NYT report:
Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.
Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.
Senior prosecutors met with lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Thursday and provided details about their findings, and the parties are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges. Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.
For those of us who have supported the housekeeper since the inception of this case, this new information is heartbreaking. The new information does not necessarily mean that she was not raped, but it certainly provides reasonable doubt, so much so that the prosecution is negotiating with the defense team and that an emergency hearing has been scheduled for today.
I have seen in the two other diaries published on this subject that there is an interest in discussing it further. Frankly, I do not see the new information as vindicating Strauss-Kahn supporters; the case is not over. However, it is very troubling for our national discussion of rape accusation and the particular position of this woman within it, as an immigrant and a woman of color.
I'd like to see further discussion here, including from our own law experts who can help us better understand the complexities of the case. Please consider this a sort of open thread on the case. My own idea about the case is that she was assaulted, but that she was also cognizant of the political and financial power of the man doing the assaulting. Most troubling is the reporting that she had a conversation with a friend or lover about possible "benefits" of accusing Strauss-Kahn (from the same NYT article):
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.
That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.
A CNN report from last evening clarifies that the phone conversation took place the day before the alleged rape took place. This information alone would be enough to destroy the prosecution's case.
I'm looking forward to your comments below.