On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Dissenting Wren wrote:
> Seriously, this rush not only to say that the prosecution probably couldn't have won the case, but to impugn the victim, creeps me the fuck out.
Did you read any of the prosecutors' statement?
It's not impugning the victim to say that she lied extravagantly in her interviews with the DA. Aside from the gang rape - which she first claimed she put on her asylum application, which turned out not to be true - she had three completely inconsistent stories about what she did after the events (which, like I said, were probably a rape). She admitted to making false statements to a grand jury under oath.
More:
> Further, in response to routine questions from prosecutors regarding her sources of income, the complainant failed to disclose a stream of cash deposits -totaling nearly $60,000 -that were made into her checking account by other individuals in four different states. When asked about these transactions, she stated that she had allowed her fiance in Arizona 16 to use her checking account in order to make cash deposits for what, according to her, she believed to be a clothing and accessory business. At times, she said, he had asked her to withdraw cash that he had deposited and give the money to a business partner of his who was located in New York City. She claimed not to know how much money had gone through her account in this fashion. Although she denied profiting from any of these banking transactions, portions of each deposit frequently remained in her account.
>
> Additionally, as early as May 16, 2011, the complainant was asked about potential financial motivations, given that she had retained a civil attorney. She unequivocally professed to have no interest in obtaining money as a result of her involvement in the case. She maintained this position during other pre-and post-indictment interviews, emotionally claiming on one occasion that no one could ''buy'' her. But very close in time to these statements, the complainant had a recorded conversation with her incarcerated fiance, in which the potential for financial recovery in relation to the May 14, 2011 incident was mentioned. Although there is nothing wrong with seeking recovery from a defendant in a civil suit, the complainant's disavowal ofany financial interest is relevant to her credibility.
Vance and the NYPD went out on a limb with this case. The treated the hotshot DSK like a common criminal at first. They acted with incredible speed, busting him on the plane as he was about to leave. Dropping the prosecution had to be a major embarrassment to them - especially for a DA who's under pretty harsh criticism already as a major fuckup.
There was no other evidence that the sexual encounter was forced aside from her testimony. There was no trace of DSK under her fingernails. Obviously, that's not conclusive of anything, but it means there's no physical support for her story. The medical examination revealed no injuries, nor did she claim any - until a month later. She then asserted that she sustained a shoulder injury fighting DSK, but the docs said the kind of injury that she claimed would have been immediately painful. Any half-competent defense lawyer would have had a field day with the lies and inconsistencies leading to reasonable doubt, but DSK could afford several fully competent ones.
It's not "impugning the victim" to say that she's an accomplished liar. It's a proven fact.
Doug