The prosecution case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the leading international diplomat who has suffered a spectacular fall of grace having been accused of sexually assaulting a hotel maid, is close to collapse, according to the New York Times.
The newspaper reports that significant problems have emerged with the case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund that could see the conditions of his house arrest in New York being relaxed with immediate effect.
Based on interviews with two unnamed law enforcement officers, it says that “major holes” in the case will be admitted to a federal criminal court in Manhattan as early as Friday.
At the centre of the dramatic turn in the case, the New York Times reports, is lack of confidence on the prosecution side in the witness’s testimony about what happened to her in Strauss-Kahn’s room at the Sofitel hotel in Manhattan on May 14. She alleged that he sexually assaulted her, and on the back of her account a major case was mounted by the New York district attorney.
Lawyers in the defence team for Strauss-Kahn have suggested that they had evidence calling into question the veracity of the housekeeper’s account, but until now the nature of the doubts have not been revealed.
The sexual nature of the encounter between the French politician and the maid has never been questioned by either side. But the New York Times report now suggests that police and prosecuting lawyers have concluded that the 32-year-old Guinean immigrant has lied repeatedly about the case.
Financial benefits
The newspaper says that police tape recorded a telephone conversation between the woman and a man in prison made on the day of the alleged rape in which the woman talked about the possible financial benefits that could come to her as a result of pursuing charges against Strauss-Kahn. The investigation has also found deposits made into her bank account totalling $100 000 over the last two years some of which came from the man, a convicted drug dealer.
The startling development in the case is likely to raise numerous questions about what has happened to Strauss-Kahn and his future. He had been due to stand down from the post of managing director of the IMF, one of the most important roles in world finance, and the job has just been filled by the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde.
But he was also, until his arrest in New York, a leading contender for the French presidency. His incendiary demise left a gaping hole in domestic French politics.
The development will also play to the scepticism of the French public. When the allegations of a rape first surfaced, polls showed that 60% of French voters thought it was a political conspiracy against him.
The news comes after weeks of speculation in which some legal experts had said the woman’s case has started to look shaky in recent weeks. Her original lawyer, Jeffrey Shapiro, and renowned civil rights lawyer, Norman Siegel, are no longer working with the woman and have declined to comment about the background to the decisons.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsweek earlier this month that he believed the woman’s lawyers were working with Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers and looking to broker a deal.
Dershowitz said: “Clearly the defendant wants to avoid trial and wants to see if he can work out a deal that’s acceptable to him. And my sense is that the victim would like a big payday. Why does she want to make a deal now? Why not wait until the conviction, and then sue? [Because] the defendant doesn’t have much money. All the money is his wife’s money. And if you win a suit-let’s assume she wins a $10-million judgment against him. She’s not going to collect it. He’ll go bankrupt. Whereas if she settles the case, the wife pays up. So the difference is between getting, say, a million right now from the wife, or $10-million from the husband which the lawyer has to spend the rest of his life chasing.”
Making any such deal would threaten charges of obstruction of justice. The woman has no power to stop the criminal case being brought by New York district attorney Cyrus Vance and could be compelled to testify even if she decided no to co-operate, said Stuart Slotnick, a white collar crime expert with New York’s Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. – guardian.co.uk