Prosecutors have serious concerns about the credibility of the 32-year-old maid who accused Mr Strauss-Kahn of attempting to rape her, according to several reports.
They believe she has lied about their encounter, has links to a drug dealer and received strange payments into her bank account, according to The New York Times.
The woman's account of why she received asylum in the US, and even her claim to own only one mobile phone, have also been called into serious doubt, the report said.
Citing unnamed law-enforcement sources, the newspaper reported that New York prosecutors had admitted to Mr Strauss-Kahn's lawyers that there were serious problems with their case.
CNN, citing an unnamed "official close to Mr Strauss-Kahn's defence team", also said there were "serious issues regarding the credibility" of the maid.
Mr Strauss-Kahn, 62, is due in court at 11.30 (16.30 BST) on Friday, where he is expected to have the strict conditions of his $1 million (£620,000) bail relaxed. He is under house arrest and armed guard, and must wear an electronic tag.
But the newspaper said that the flaws in the prosecution were so great that he could soon also have all eight criminal charges against him - including attempted rape and criminal sexual acts - dismissed. » | Jon Swaine, New York | Friday, July 01, 2011
My comment:
When this story broke, almost everyone on the The Daily Telegraph forums were ready to indict this poor man for a 'crime' they were convinced he had committed. Not I. I hate to say I told you so, because it sounds so smug. But I truly did. And if this newspaper hadn't taken down the comments to that particular article, you could find it here.
But they have, so I can't. So here is the comment (one of many, actually), where I stated that we shouldn't rush to judgement:
Whilst this man has got a reputation of being a womanizer, and whilst his sexual appetite may be as large as his intellectual appetite, there are certain aspects of this story which simply do not ring true. As I have already stated in an earlier comment, where is this woman getting the money from to pay for a high-flying New York lawyer? But there are many other inconsistencies, too. At first they said she was a devout Muslim, but photos of her show that she wears short-sleeve dresses, she doesn't cover her hair, and lives in a home for HIV sufferers. That simply doesn't add up. These are not the hallmarks of a devout Muslimah.I'm glad to see that my words have been vindicated. – © Mark
In addition, it was first stated that she knew exactly who DSK was. Now they are trying to say that she didn't have a clue who he was. By all accounts, he was a regular guest at the Sofitel in Manhattan. How come she didn't know? She had been working there for several years. News of celebrities and famous people travels like wildfire through the corridors of the hotel staff. It is simply difficult to swallow this supposed ignorance. In fact, front desk would in all probability have informed her to be extra careful when making up DSK's room. That's how it works in exclusive hotels, and more especially for regular customers.
Whilst so many people commenting on newspapers are only too ready to convict DSK even before his trial, I prefer to keep an open mind. Being a womanizer and paying for prostitutes – all of which is certainly nothing to be proud of – in and of itself does not make him guilty in this particular case.
I can't help but have a nagging doubt in my mind that he has been set up for the purposes of notoriety and fortune. We all know how Americans love a great story, and we all know how fabulously wealthy people can become when they have a humdinger of a story to sell to the media. And this story is one big humdinger. Whatever the facts of the story, it is to be hoped that the truth will come out in the court. But one thing is for sure: This young chambermaid will not have to clean rooms in any hotel for much longer. I hope her wheelbarrow is large enough to carry the pots of gold which will soon be coming her way.
This comment also appears here
