Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Riight....that is why for all these years she did not file charges claiming that no one would believe her....

But, she's also said that what went on with the NYC case, and their failure to prosecute him, made her very angry, but it also empowered her

Oh it help their credible that mom had have a past sexual relationship with DSK.

She was also afraid her career would be ruined if she filed charges before because she knew DSK's lawyers would drag her through the mud as a way of protecting his image.

But, she's also said that what went on with the NYC case, and their failure to prosecute him, made her very angry

That's the real reason you can't believe it was forcible with Diallo.

IN one of those ironies that novelists relish, the on-again-off-again rape prosecution of the former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn seems to have gravely damaged the political careers of both the prosecutor and the defendant.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who was once the likely Socialist challenger to Nicolas Sarkozy in the next French presidential election, returns home seen, in the best light, as a self-confessed cad who had sex with a hotel maid just before lunching with his daughter and flying back to his wife.

The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., appears to have severely antagonized women’s groups and many African-Americans by his unwillingness to pit the word of a poor black woman against a powerful white man, and has also raised general questions about his competence for not sussing out problems in his case earlier. (In an odd twist for the son of a former secretary of state, Mr. Vance also made diplomatic waves, by infuriating many French with his undignified treatment of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who was trotted before cameras, unshaven and handcuffed.)

The political dust will settle where it may. But as a professional matter, both as a former prosecutor and current criminal defense lawyer, I give Mr. Vance passing grades. The most dubious decision he made was to bring an indictment so quickly, rather than taking more time to investigate. But even there, New York law forced his hand somewhat. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was in jail and Mr. Vance had five days either to seek an indictment or let Mr. Strauss-Kahn go. In hindsight, Mr. Vance should have tried to work out an arrangement with defense lawyers so that he could fully examine the background of the hotel maid, Nafissatou Diallo, especially since the wealthy Mr. Strauss-Kahn was bound to hire a team of investigators to exhaustively scrutinize her life.

But beyond a mistake due in part to being cornered by the law, I think Mr. Vance performed well. The collateral damage to the career of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who resigned in disgrace from the I.M.F., was clearly unfair, but that was caused largely by his sensational arrest, which Mr. Vance had no choice about effecting. The prosecutor had received allegations, seemingly corroborated by the brief investigation at the crime scene, of a violent felony allegedly committed by a man about to fly overseas and place himself beyond the reach of any United States court. Any responsible law enforcement professional would have detained Mr. Strauss-Kahn and sought to question him and gather evidence, including DNA.

Given the attention paid to Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, Mr. Vance deserves enormous credit for pulling the plug on a highly publicized prosecution, especially since he could foresee the political damage to himself. I was one of the lawyers in a case involving two men whom prosecutors held on death row for years long after another man had confessed to the murder. That is not atypical. Prosecutorial intransigence, a galling inability to acknowledge that initial judgments were incorrect, is the hallmark of almost every wrongful conviction case I am familiar with. Mr. Vance is entitled to kudos for not turning a failing case into a travesty.

And the standard that Mr. Vance and his assistants employed in deciding to dismiss the case is noteworthy and laudable. “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt,” the prosecution wrote in its motion to dismiss, referring to Ms. Diallo, “we cannot ask a jury to do so.”

This is not the bar all prosecutors set in deciding whether or not to go forward. Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from calling a witness whose testimony they know to be false; but the rule is not the same when the testimony is possibly true but dubious. Particularly in urban criminal courts, where caseloads tend to be overwhelming and the police sometimes push cases aggressively, prosecutors are often not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of particular testimony. Frequently they leave it to jurors to determine the credibility of a particular witness. In trying to talk prosecutors out of weak cases, I have been told more than once, “I wasn’t there, man, and neither were you. Let the 12 of them figure it out.”

In practice, this means that even defendants who are probably innocent must endure the anguish of trial. I once represented a young man in a gang murder case who had been arrested and indicted along with eight other people, even though his name was never mentioned in the grand jury testimony. Although it seemed clear that the police had mistaken this young man for his brother, both the prosecutors and the judge told me to “put it on,” meaning go to trial; the client sat in court for several days, in jeopardy of a lengthy prison term, before the case against him was finally dismissed.

Given these realities, the ultimate test of equality in Mr. Vance’s office will be whether his prosecutors universally apply the demanding, but appropriate, standard they used to decide whether to proceed with the Strauss-Kahn prosecution. Let’s hope they do, in fact, require themselves to be convinced — beyond a reasonable doubt — in all of their future cases, a vast majority of which will involve defendants who don’t have the power or eminence of Mr. Strauss-Kahn

CNN) -- Although I have always considered myself a feminist, I was, in the days following DSK's arrest, unable to join the sisterhood in condemning a man -- albeit of dubious moral record -- for the crime of attempted rape before he had actually been found guilty.
Having written a piece attempting to explain the French outrage at the "perp walk" and public shaming of someone theoretically innocent until proven guilty, I ducked the flak and watched the case unfold in silent bafflement that my own views could be so at variance with those of my fellow female journalists in Britain and America.
Have I gone native, I wondered? Have I been corrupted by French libertinism?
I do not think of myself as a libertine. I believe in the wisdom of monogamy for optimal happiness and I think that transparency in a relationship is a desirable goal. I do not, however, underestimate the difficulty of marriage and I refuse to judge others for a failure to live up to the above standards.
I also accept the notion that it is possible to be happy in what used to be called "an open marriage," and although that would not be my choice, I refuse to judge others if it is theirs.
Knowing, as I did, DSK's reputation as a sexual predator and philanderer, I was not drawn to the man, even before he went to America and I doubt that I would have voted for him, but I still felt queasy at the sight of those shaming placards outside the courtroom on the day of his release, or of the abusive cry of: "DSK, you're a sick bastard and your wife is even sicker."
Clearly I have little stomach for the witch-hunt because I was also shocked by a column in Britain's Daily Telegraph that attacked even DSK's long-suffering wife, Anne Sinclair for her decision to stand by her husband. Allison Pearson's tirade was entitled "When forgiveness goes a step too far."
The man-hating tirades of my female colleagues are nothing but puritanism in disguise
--Lucy Wadham
"Forgiveness is good," writes Pearson. "Even so, the nauseating sight of French heiress and journalist Anne Sinclair standing by her man, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, sets a new low. The former IMF chief may have been acquitted of attempted rape against a hotel maid, but is there anyone who can look at that swaggering silverback primate without a shudder? Ugh... Shame on his indulgent wife."
Why is it that this woman feels she has the right to condemn this couple in this way?
What is it about our culture that makes us so quick to judge, and so quick to blame? Are we all so blameless ourselves that we can be so censorious when our public figures slip from the path of moral rectitude?

I think that the answer lies in our Protestant heritage. The catholic practice of confession allowed for sin as an inevitable part of being human. In abolishing the privacy of the confessional and in making the congregation the only moral arbiter outside that of our own conscience, we paved the way for a society in which the media has replaced the congregation in an endless pursuit of moral voyeurism.
No-one in France underestimates the horror of the crime of rape. Agnes Poirier - a French journalist based in London whose thankless task it has become to explain her contrary nation to the rest of the world -- points out that "It is the shift (from ardor) towards coercion that makes the sex act a public matter. If it is between two consenting adults, it remains a private act."
She bravely goes on to suggest that cheating on your wife does not automatically make you incapable of doing your job, adding, "but I know that this argument is impossible for most Americans and British to understand."
Why impossible? Surely we can all agree that sex is a complicated business, that one man or woman's ecstasy is another's nightmare and that judging others carries the very real risk of being judged ourselves.
Surely this case proves how dangerous these trials by media are? We all thought we had the perfect victim in Nafissatou Diallo. She was poor, black and female. Dominique Strauss Kahn was rich, white and male. It was a no-brainer. And yet here we are with a woman sufficiently dishonest for the case to have been dismissed by a district attorney whose interest it was to see a prosecution.
As French writer and commentator, Elisabeth Levy points out, we do not know what happened between those two people in that hotel room. And D.A. Cyrus Vance was brave enough to admit that, even at the risk of ruining his chances of re-election.
Levy goes on to condemn the fuzzy logic that DSK must have raped Diallo because he publicly confessed to cheating on his wife. "In other words," writes Levy, "all adulterous men are rapists. I imagine, dear male readers that some of you may be starting to feel a little uneasy ..."
Levy is what I would call an old guard feminist who, like me, laments the battles that now being fought in the name of equality.
For the DSK case has uncovered the divide, not between men and women so much as between old and new feminists. Old feminists, from Genevieve Clark to Erica Jong, believed that the goal was political and sexual freedom for women, not the political and sexual subordination of men.
I cannot accept the idea that womanhood automatically implies victimhood, nor do I think that it is a desirable state of affairs when women see men as the enemy.
The man-hating tirades of my female colleagues are nothing but puritanism in disguise and I suspect that our feminist forebears would be dismayed by the climate of inquisition that seems to dominate relations between men and women today.

Sorry Firefly but there is no question that every other word out of the lady mouth is a lie of one kind or other.

The DOR report to the court should be a matter of public record however sadly I had not been able as yet to find it on the internet. Of course as soon as I can find a copy I will post it here

If so google let me down and strangely you did not post it here.

Hotel operator has no plans to fire Strauss-Kahn accuser
(AFP) – 8 hours ago

PARIS — The company that runs New York's Sofitel hotel said Monday it had "no intention" of sacking the woman who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of attempted rape after a court dismissed the charges.

Nafissatou Diallo worked as a housekeeper at the upscale New York hotel operated by French company Accor, but stopped work in May after accusing the former IMF chief of sexually assaulting her while staying at the hotel.

"We are talking to her advisers to find out what she wants to do," an Accor spokesman told AFP, adding the company had "no intention" of breaking ties with the 32-year-old.

Accor said last week Diallo was still a Sofitel employee, and hotel manager Jorge Tito has expressed "complete satisfaction with both the quality of her work and her behaviour."

Last week, a Manhattan judge dismissed the charges against Strauss-Kahn after prosecutors expressed doubts about Diallo's credibility.

Strauss-Kahn, who resigned as IMF chief after the accusations in May, still faces civil charges filed by Diallo in a New York court, and French writer Tristane Banon has since accused the former Socialist party stalwart of sexually assaulting her in a Paris flat in 2003.

Former French Socialist prime minister Michel Rocard on Monday told French Canal+ television that Strauss-Kahn has "a mental illness" the keeps him from "controlling his impulses" around women.

Rocard tipped Francois Hollande as the front-runner to lead the Socialist party in next year's election against President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Strauss-Kahn was once considered the Socialist's best hope to unseat Sarkozy, but few expect him to run following the allegations of sexual misconduct.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iZTgvGYPsZ1Ir6qxRbAlwSgDuhHg?docId=CNG.8e26328c0583614bf9770903a1e38d98.331