Friday, July 1, 2011

Accuser's Lawyer Strikes Back

Kenneth Thompson, the accuser's lawyer, is fighting back with details of alleged violence against his client.


kicksotic said...

I think he sees his chance at making a name for himself quickly disappearing. If I had staked everything on an Accuser who appears to be less than forthcoming with honest facts, I'd be angry too!

Truth of the matter is, the questions about the Accuser's veracity were brought up by the Prosecutor and not DSK or his Defense. Or even the Media. It's hardly a "smear campaign" if the information offered is coming from what is ostensibly "your side."

I see this Case being dropped with all charges dismissed during the weekend where it'll get buried in the 4th of July Festivities.

Cincinna said...

The character of the accuser may have been undermined, but her credibility as a witness, not so much.
The Forensic evidence will tell the tale: DNA- his, hers, mixed, scratches on his body, fingernail scrapings, signs of bruising, etc.
In America, even bad people, hookers, drug dealers, illegals and Muslims who drink have the right to a trial.
My guess has always been that there would be a plea bargain.
The DA cannot risk dropping the case. Does he really want NOW & the Reverend Al haunting him ? A trial would be risky for DSK.
I would advise him to plead to the lower counts, and take a plea.
All that being said, our legal system does work, and I would rather place my fate in the hands of a jury of my peers than with an agent of the State, as in France.

MYOS said...

Based on what we've read so far, the sexual assault is still alleged (and based on the details provided by the lawyer and backed up by medical evidence) but the alleged victim perjured herself and thus can't defend herself in front of a jury.
I'd say a plea bargain is on the way but DSK is now quite sure he can get exonerated since it's certain at least one person will see reasonable doubt in a drug-dealing, perjured victim; he wouldn't have much incentive in taking the plea bargain, unless it's offered before July 12 (on time for him to join the Primaire).
In C dans l'air, there were already calls for "apologies" asked from "reasonable men" to "those who confused flirting with rape" , comments equating "being a criminal" and "can't be raped", etc. Any progress we might have hoped for seemed to disappear. On air, three men, one woman (on behalf of rape victims), quite outnumbered even in speaking turns.
Thomas Legrand this morning was talking as if DSK could be freed in the afternoon... I was all like "there'll only be alleviated bail conditions this afternoon, he won't be freed then" but my comments were met with shrugs.
Interestingly, women with whom I talked seemed to have another view - that obviously in the US, it's considered more serious to lie than to rape.
Two good articles:

Mitch Guthman said...

I found this very confusing. I don't understand whether Thompson gave a press conference or was interviewed by Le Monde (or there was a press conference but they only watched and didn't ask questions).

In any case, I don’t think he really advanced his case by citing the injuries to his client’s body---which, I suggest, also highlights the problems with the timeline and the victims’ lies about what she was doing during the time between the end of the alleged rape and the time when the hotel housekeeping supervisor supposedly found her.

Perhaps, as has been suggested, the victim resumed her cleaning duties because she was in shock. But perhaps not. Isn’t it possible that she didn’t want to be “discovered” by anyone until she had put her frame-up in place? Maybe she wasn’t using that time to clean another room but instead hid herself away until she was finished manufacturing evidence by tearing her own clothing, scratching and bruising herself and so forth. (Without being crude, I would simply point out the she had a period of unobserved access to her own body, including her vagina). That’s why the discrepancies in the timeline have always been important, especially the period between the rape and the first report.

Just as an aside, there is an interesting question I wish some reporter had asked: What happened to the claim of anal rape? In the original complaint, she claimed to have been anally raped. (A charge which didn’t appear in the indictment). Did she originally report that to someone? Did the DA or NYPD just make it up? If she did report it, her claim sees to be belied by the medical reports which presumably said nothing about anal tearing.

I also wish someone (a reporter, perhaps?) had asked Thompson about his client’s GJ testimony. From the criminal compliant and the original semi-official leaks, my impression was that she said that DSK tried to pull down her underwear but was unsuccessful. So, I must question how the vaginal bruising occurred and likewise it seems clear that there was no physical evidence to corroborate her story as to the anal rape. What does she say in the GJ about her underwear and is it different from what she told the police and her supervisor? I am beginning to suspect that her story has gone through a number of critical revisions.

(Which brings up the question of the timing of any such revisions but that a subject for a different comment)

2. In fact, I am more interested in what Thompson didn’t say. We have been told via semi-official leaks from the prosecution that the police had pretty strong circumstantial evidence of a violent attack in the form of scratches on DSK which he supposedly received during the struggle and a large gash which he supposedly sustained when the victim threw him into a table; the edge of which cut him deeply and he is said to have bleed copiously onto the bed. If such physical evidence indeed exists, it would very significantly corroborate the victim’s story and make her lies far less damming. Yet, this high-priced, high-powered and, apparently, splendidly dressed lawyer does not point to this damming evidence at all. Says not a word about physical evidence which could not have been planted or manufactured by his client and which proves his case almost regardless of the victim's credibility? Why doesn't he talk about this damming evidence? Maybe because it doesn’t exist?

Here’s a very fair question for a reporter to ask the DA or even DSK’s lawyers: Does he have the scratches and the wound, as described in the newspapers, on his body? Was a bloody sheet recovered from the hotel room?

If DSK has no such injuries and no articles soaked with his blood were recovered from that room, then he isn't going to plead to anything---not even to spiting on the sidewalk.

Anonymous said...

@Mitch: the time discrepancy revealed by the keycards is only 2mn so she couldn't have faked much. As for a "grab" such as the one described, it doesn't require the pantyhose to be pulled off. Think of Don Draper in MadMen season1, assaulting a woman whom he had come to hate.
However your question is a good one. Why wasn't it mentioned nor asked by any reporter?