> So no rights under the law for women with criminal boyfriends. Even
> if the evidence is squirted on your dress.
Wait a minute. The information in the NYT piece hardly proves DSK is innocent, but the potential problems go deeper than a criminal boyfriend. The piece says within a day of the incident she had a secretly recorded phone conversation with him in prison about "the benefits of pursuing the case" and that over the previous two years he and his "friends" had been making deposits into her account totaling $100,000. This information was discovered by the prosecutors (not by DSK's Pinkertons) and the piece says the prosecutors - who at first had described her as a compelling and unwavering witness - *themselves* no longer believe "anything" she says about the incident. The evidence on her dress is of a sexual encounter, but whether and how it was forced is exactly what remains to be proved. Depending on what's in the phone transcript, this could be either just a tragic red herring or a real blow to the credibility of her account.
SA