> SA: "I have no idea what happened obviously, but since you ask for a
> credible alternative theory, I would offer you these completely
> hypothetical choices: (1) a paid encounter; (2) a paid encounter gone
> wrong; (3) a misunderstanding over the exact terms of the encounter."
>
> [WS:] Speaking of 180 U turns - I have another hypothetical
> possibility - (4) she changed her mind between May 14 i.e. until she
> appeared consistent and credible, and June 7 when she started to be
> inconsistent, thus undoing her credibility. One may wonder why -
> perhaps some smart lawyer suggested this course of action to win his
> client's dismissal in consideration of, say, a substantial to the
> complainant payment.
>
This is a wildly preposterous conjecture. There is absolutely no strategic or tactical point to having a client exposed as a liar and fraud. The idea that any remotely competent attorney would negotiate this kind of public self-immolation is absurd. No lawyer who would do such a thing would be "smart"; he or she would be criminally incompetent and dumber than a box of rocks. If Diallo had a legitimate case against DSK that would only strengthen her concurrent civil action, and
deliberately destroying her criminal case with perjured grand jury testimony and other lies and fraud is really inconceivable.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>