Starting late on Thursday, the DSK case turned surreal.
First the NYT dropped a bombshell, reporting that the sex crime case against the former IMF chief was on the verge of collapse, as inconsistencies were appearing all over the place in the maid’s story. Key, however, was the fact that almost all of the inconsistencies seemed to be away from the actual incident itself. They were more about her background, her alleged underworld connections, and lies she made on her application for asylum in the US.
Then yesterday, after DSK saw his bail get eliminated (but not the charges dropped), the maid’s lawyer gave a stunning and graphic press conference, accusing DA Cy Vance of being afraid to take the case, while going on to list in (an extremely graphic manner) the alleged assault on his client.
So the observer was left with two different observations: 1) Her background is not helpful and makes her a horrible witness and 2) she maintains the details of the rape, and her lawyer claims that physical evidence would back her up (vaginal bruising, a torn ligament, torn stockings, etc.).
Today the NYT is back with more details filling in the first piece, and through it you can see how difficult it of a situation the prosecution would find itself if it decided to go through with the case.
Some key details:
- In a call with an acquaintance in a jail, right after the alleged incident, she made clear she knew who DSK was, and thus the opportunity to personally profit from the incident. She said something like ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’
- Originally, the maid was cooperative with investigators and attorneys, but became less so overtime, not showing up for long stretches, and also crying when her lawyer was not there (Note: We’re not sure whether that’s damning in any way).
- At another time, the woman threw herself on the floor in response to questions.
- When confronted with her (apparent) lie that the Sofitel was her only form of income (remember, prosecutors discovered evidence of large bank accounts, and multiple phones) she was stunned, ask her lawyer for direction on how to proceed, but he was also speechless (remember, in Thompson’s press conference yesterday he said that was entirely a lie).
- And most damning: Her version of events at the Sofitel changed from originally finding her supervisor right after the event to going to and finishing another room. And yet, apparently key card says the new version is a lie.
Still one big question remains: What of the vivid physical evidence claimed by the lawyer yesterday? Do the prosecutors think it’s compelling and if so, is this a manager of the central witness basically being impossible to use?