Dominique Strauss-Kahn: phone recordings 'prove' maid is not a gold-digger

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Telegraph

Dominique Strauss-Kahn: phone recordings 'prove' maid is not a gold-digger
The lawyer for a New York maid who has accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of attempted rape has claimed that a phone recording proved the woman was not a gold-digger after the ex-IMF chief's money.
7:00AM BST 28 Jul 2011

Lawyer Kenneth Thompson said he and Nafissatou Diallo spent eight hours with prosecutors from the district attorney's office listening to and translating a phone recording which had raised doubts about her credibility.

~snip~
The New York Times, in early July, quoted a law enforcement official saying that during a phone conversation with a man jailed in the United States for possessing marijuana, Ms Diallo "says words to the effect of, 'Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing.'"

Mr Thompson said both sides had reviewed the recording of the tape with an interpreter who spoke Diallo's native Guinean language of Fulani.

"We have been listening to that tape, and that tape shows that the victims never said the words" attributed to her, Mr Thompson said.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8667063/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-phone-recordings-prove-maid-is-not-a-gold-digger.html

[indurancevile]

1. how did they get recordings of her calls in the first place?

[sabrina 1]

4. She was talking to her boyfriend, or husband, that keeps

changing like everything else she has said, in Prison. He's in jail in Az. All phone calls in prison are taped.

The original story was that she was a widow. But that changed to her being divorced. Then it changed back again to her having a husband. She also had a spokesperson who was supposedly her brother, or so he said. But that changed to him being a 'friend' (a different guy from the husband/boyfriend in prison). It is still not clear who the guy who was giving out all the information to the press that we were reading about her (shy, Muslim woman, widow etc) is, brother of friend. He now says he meant 'friend' since they call everyone 'brother'.

As for this claim that SHE translated the phone call, I would not place too much faith in that. The woman has been caught lying about just everything, including the actual incident itself. Her lawyer, Thomson, has been cited in the past for ethics violations. The two other lawyers who had represented her in the beginning, quit early on. It's hard to represent a client who can't keep their story straight.

They need to get some professional translators and have two or three translations. The one the prosecutors had done said she had told this boyfriend/husband that 'there is money in this' and that 'she knew what she was doing'.

Cyrus Vance, the prosecutor never should have gone forward from the beginning with this case. He knew, we now know, that the woman had lied about several important things right from the beginning but did not reveal that for 36 days to the defense. He now has a serious problem. He and the NYPD made this into a media circus. Now, Vance has to either drop it, or lose it. If he goes ahead and loses, it will cost the city millions of dollars.

Most likely he's trying to decide what will save his career. Dropping it and admitting it never should have been filed in the first place, or going forward and losing. I think considering the waste of money so far, his best bet is to drop it. No one believes the woman anymore.

[LisaL]

Because the person she was talking to was in jail.

Those conversations are recorded, in case you didn't know.

[regnaD kciN]

2. That's a horribly-written headline...

...as it makes it sound like Strauss-Kahn is making the admission himself, instead of the claim coming from the attorney for his accuser.

Of course, with the "Daily Tory-graph," I shouldn't expect much more.

[Prometheus Bound]

3. It's time for Mr Vance to step down for incompetence.

And I sure hope she sues the New York Times. What a horrible thing to print without verifying it.

[sabrina 1]

5. She is not going to be suing the NYT unless she's crazy. She will be lucky

if she is not both sued herself, and/or prosecuted. Her lawyer, the one she has left, the others already quit, may end up being cited for unethical behavior AGAIN. He has been cited for that in the past.

There really is no case and there never was. Prosecutor Cyrus Vance should step down. He and the NYPD are a disgrace. They knew this woman was lying about just about everything, from the beginning, and yet continued to feed the media circus, mostly Murdoch's rag, the NY Post for some reason. Maybe because the NYPD Chief, Ray Kelly is a good friend of DSK's political rival, Sarkozy.

I wonder if that is the real reason why the female prosecutor who headed the sex crimes Department resigned, because of the way this was all handled?

A lot of careers on the line now, Kelly's and Vance's at least. What a mess.

As for the woman and these interviews, this makes the case even more impossible. And many legal experts believe she is making a last ditch effort to force the prosecutor to go ahead with the case regardless. But she has been fighting with the prosecutor from early on so I'm sure he's not anxious to do that now. She intends to sue DSK. However if the case is dropped, she is the one who may be sued.

[Prometheus Bound]

6. She's already filed a lawsuit against the New York Post for reporting she was a prostitute.

I haven't heard of anyone suing her.

Next to be sued, New York Times, I hope.

(Edit for spelling)

[sabrina 1]

8. I think you need to learn more about this woman. Her lawyer

may have filed a suit against the NY Post, that would not be surprising, and he may file a suit against the NY Times, that's why he's there. To make money and with the case fallen apart, he's frantic now. So yes, he probably will file as many lawsuits as he can, and the more he does, the more she appears to be just looking for money. Each suit they file, benefits the Defense. No prosecutor wants this happening as it has been the contention of the defense that all she ever wanted was money. Lying to Prosecutors is a crime. He has already made a statement regarding that. She can be prosecuted for that. She can also be deported for lying on her forms to get into the country. She is getting very bad legal advice. No wonder the other lawyers jumped ship on this early on. People wondered at the time why they quit so quickly.

[Prometheus Bound]

16. If a newspaper wrongly accused you of being a prostitute on their front page, would you sue them?

Or would you let them get away with it in case someone might think you were doing it just for the money.

You can't let people get away with that kind of vicious slander.

And what does her lying years ago on immigration forms have to do with this case?

[sabrina 1]

22. She lied to the Grand Jury. Can a prosecutor ignore that?

Actually he kept it quiet until he could not any more. As for the accusations of being a prostitute, I have no problem with anyone suing Murdoch's rag. Funny though that she raised no objections about the lies the NY Post told about the accused. Why did she lie to the prosecutors about the incident itself?

And there were ongoing lies, lies about her taxes, lies about how many children she had to lower her taxes. Last I knew, it is a crime to claim more dependents than you have. She was lying about her income to stay in the apartment she was living in. She lied about what she did after the 'incident' and significantly, before it happened, now proven by her electronic card.

And what is the truth about her marital status? The story initially was that she was a widow. That changed to her being divorced, then to the person in prison to whom she was speaking on the phone, being her boyfriend, then he was her husband. Is it so hard to state whether you are married, divorced or a widow? The widow story is apparently not true, but it did make her seem more sympathetic. But then who knows, it's hard to keep track of the different stories she tells.

The woman has told so many lies, it's almost ironic that she would be upset about others doing so. But as far as getting money from Murdoch, I have no problem with that, but filing a lawsuit and winning it are two different things.

[jberryhill]

12. Can you provide a link to the prior discipline of her lawyer?

Thank you.

[Prometheus Bound]

18. This is taking conspiracy theory to the point of absurdity. She didn't step down; she was fired!

You wrote "I wonder if that is the real reason why the female prosecutor who headed the sex crimes Department resigned, because of the way this was all handled?"

The reason she had to resign is well known.

Head of NY Sex Crimes Unit who led 'rape cop' investigation 'fired' after starring in HBO show

The head of the Manhattan district attorney's Sex Crimes Unit for almost a decade has been asked to step down after starring in a controversial HBO documentary.

Lisa Friel, who led the 'rape cops' investigation and whose team is handling the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, appeared at the centre of the television show featuring the unit's work.

The prosecutor announced she would be leaving her post after admitting that members of her team had discussed the case of former NYPD officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata on camera without handing the tapes over to the defence.

'Nobody liked that documentary,' one source inside the district attorney's office told the New York Post of 'Sex Crimes Unit', which aired on June 20.

The story of the unit made compelling television as prosecutors and investigated talked and strategised openly about actual cases.

But footage included discussion of the case of Moreno and Mata, which should have been handed over to defence lawyers under state law, even though it was not aired.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010283/Head-NY-Sex-Crimes-Unit-led-rape-cop-investigation-fired-starring-HBO-documentary.html#ixzz1TP70axtx

Lisa Friel NY Sex Crimes unit prosecutor who discussed ongoing cases such as Strauss-Kahn rape and NY Rape Cops on HBO documentary was relieved of her duties. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance fired Friel when he learned the HBO documentary footage had not been properly shared with defense attorneys.

The firing of Lisa Friel, Manhattan Sex Crimes unit, was inevitable, NY state law requires that the footage should have been shared with defence attorneys even though it was not aired. Friel and her team failed to do this.
http://solariasun.com/5082/lisa-friel-manhattan-sex-crimes/

[sabrina 1]

24. I know about that. I said I wonder if it was the 'real reason'.

she stepped down. Initial reports said she had retired. Participating in documentaries about law enforcement is not unusual. She was an expert on interviewing rape accusers. Early on, in the first days, the prosecutors knew their complaining witness was lying. Yet, they continued to vouch for her until it became impossible.

I do not know why Friel is gone. Cyrus Vance messed up this case and apparently the previous one spoken about in the documentary, re the two cops. But her appearing in the documentary was not what ruined that case, so I don't see why he would try to make it seem that way now.

She has not spoken about what went on.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. I am betting the FBI has been told to protect Strauss-Kahn and the NY prosecutors are looking

after the interests of the woman and now the two----local law enforcement and federal---are at each other's throats. The ones who would intercept a phone message and analyze it are more likely to be the feds, since they abuse anti-terrorism powers all the time in the so called "war on drugs." The FBI would have created the phony transcript to help out Strauss-Kahn, hoping that local prosecutors would not have the resources to double check their work. Just a theory.

[joshcryer]

10. The leak was intentional, it was an anonymous source, never trust those sources.

Whoever they got to translate it was bogus.

[sabrina 1]

20. Have you read the prosecutor's statements about this woman?

Have you looked at the contradictory statements made right from the beginning of this case? If anything the prosecution hid the facts of her lies for over one month from the public and the defense instead of letting it be known, as the accused was being smeared by Murdoch's rag, the NY Post, daily, that from the beginning they had problems with the woman's story.

She lied to the Grand Jury. That is a crime. She lied about the incident itself. The NYPD Chief is a close friend of DSK's political rival in France, Sarkozy. If anything the prosecution badly wanted to try this case. The fact that they were forced to reveal all the lies she told demonstrates that they had no option.

She also lied on her papers to get into the country. And somehow speaking of leaks, bloggers, supporters of Sarkozy were able to look into a crystal ball and know that DSK would be arrested the day before the arrest actually happened. Who leaked that information to France's version of Karl Rove?

The woman also lied about another rape and was coached on how to behave when telling the 'story'. She lied about her taxes. She lied about how many children she had. She lied about her income in order to get cheaper housing. We still don't know if she is a widow, divorced, or married to the guy in the Az prison she was talking to.

But most importantly she lied about the incident itself a fact proven later when her electronic card to enter the rooms she cleaned showed she did not immediately report the 'incident' as she claimed. She also lied about not knowing who DSK was until the following day. Impossible IF she was NOT lying about having been shown a photo of him by the management on the day of the incident and his photo was in the maids' area a common practice at the hotel when an important guest was there.

From the beginning, to anyone not willing to jump to conclusions, the timeline of events which was provided by the NYPD did not make sense. Those who had questions about it, eg why it took so long to call the police, or why they took so long to get to the hotel, could not get answers. This has now been explained and should have been in the beginning. The reason being that because SHE lied to the police and prosecutors about when she reported the incident, the police actually were not called until much later than initially thought and did get there not long after they were called.

She also requested DSK's room which was not her regular job that day. And she is now known to have been in the room several times before the 'incident'. What was she doing there? And, contrary to her claims that she ran out of the room and 'huddled in a closet until he left', she went to clean another room and returned to HIS room. Was she planting evidence? Who knows, but why did she lie about all of this? This destroys her initial story completely. I guess we'll hear more as the Defense also has information they have not yet revealed.

These were not leaks. This information comes directly from the prosecutors who could no longer keep it from the defense. They had a duty to reveal it, and should have revealed it much sooner.

Because the Prosecution held back what they knew about her lies, and the fact that she had been a very difficult 'witness' for them, the IMF got the Chief they wanted to deal with the Greek crisis and Sarkozy doesn't have to worry about DSK beating him in the next election as the primary date has passed. Only AFTER these two events were achieved, did the prosecution finally reveal that they probably have no case.

Knee jerk willingness to always believe accusers has put many innocent people in jail. And the lack of interest in getting answers to questions that everyone should have been asking about this case, shows a sad lack of interest in justice itself and a willingness to try people in Murdoch's media, simply because someone is rich and powerful. 'He must be guilty'!

The NY Times did a terrible job of NOT asking questions in the beginning. They simply took the word of Brown, the Police Spokesperson and close friend of Kelly, who misled them right from the start. If anyone has a case against the press, it is the Defense.

WE saw problems with the story. And now we know we were right. But why didn't the press see them? We could wonder if this whole case was about stopping DSK from meeting with Merkel which might have changed the way the IMF dealt with the Greek crisis. HE wanted to make the Banks share more of the burden. Geithner et al, did not want that and Geithner wanted DSK gone. .

[indurancevile]

11. i don't know about "the feds" in general, but the us gov't is not pro-strauss-kahn. don't want

him as leader of france & weren't that happy with his imf leadership.

[harmonicon]

13. a poorly informed theory - the call was recorded because it was made in a prison - no theory needed.

[Blasphemer]

19. I don't know if it was the Feds but someone definitely leaked a false version of her conversations

The case was suddenly "falling apart", she had three conversations, one of which included her detailing the attack and it was misreported as one conversation where she was discussing extortion, and a laundry list of reasons why she was no longer reliable hit the press. Certainly, we live in a world where rape victims have to be as pure as the driven snow to get justice and anything in her past that could be construed as fraudulent would be used against her but the way things came together in a perfect storm and it all hit the press at once is quite suspicious to me.

[sabrina 1]

21. She lied to the Grand Jury. That's one major reason why

this case may be dismissed. And the prosecution hid that from the Defense for over one month. Why? Meantime, DSK was removed as IMF chief, something that pleased a lot of 'austerity/shared sacrifice' people very much and he also was prevented from entering the French primary for the presidency where he would most likely have defeated the New World Order's man in France. Sarkozy is close friends with the NYPD's chief of police, Ray Kelly.

Most of the reporting of this case, the obviously even then, flawed reporting came from the NYPost, Murdoch's paper and helped keep the story going until after it was too late to save his position as IMF chief and as a candidate for the French presidency.

[joshcryer]

9. Now is the maid owed an apology?

[jberryhill]

14. Because "Mr. Thompson said"?

Has he paid his 15k fine for suborning perjury yet?

[Prometheus Bound]

15. Look at how slimy the New York Times is.

Tape clears DSK maid over money: lawyer

<snip>

The newspaper has reported, citing an anonymous law enforcement official, that Diallo said "words to the effect of, 'Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing'" to her friend shortly after Strauss-Kahn's arrest.

But on the tapes, her mentions of Strauss-Kahn's resources and her knowing what to do are made at different points, and in contexts that cast them in a considerably different light, Thompson said.

In her first conversation with the man, she didn't mention Strauss-Kahn's wealth at all, instead telling her friend that "someone tried to rape me, and that he's a powerful, big man," who had tried to take her clothes off, pushed her, and ultimately made her do something against her will, Thompson said.

In a subsequent conversation, she told her friend that her attacker "is powerful and rich," her lawyer said.

But it was earlier in that conversation - and not in connection with any mention of Strauss-Kahn's status - that she said "I know what to do" to signal that she gone to authorities, planned to hire a lawyer and would be all right, Thompson said.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/tape-clears-dsk-maid-over-money-lawyer-20110728-1i0nz.html

[jberryhill]

17. "Thompson said".... He knows him some slime...

Be careful of the fleas, Prometheus:


http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_sanctions_law_firm_15k_for_allowing_job_bias_client_to_hide_new_emplo/

Judge Sanctions Law Firm $15K for Allowing Job Bias Client to Hide New Employment

...

A federal judge in Manhattan is requiring a law firm to pay $15,000 for allowing a client suing her employer for discrimination to hide that she had accepted a new job offer.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley said the law firm Thompson Wigdor & Gilly harmed “the judicial process itself” when its lawyers allowed the false testimony at a deposition, the New York Law Journal reports. The client was herself fined $2,500 for testifying that she didn’t hear back about a job opening, when in reality she had accepted the position about two weeks before.

Lawyer Kenneth Thompson of Thompson Wigdor told the judge in a hearing on May 20 that mistakes were made, but they weren’t intentional.

Thompson Wigdor had better results in a separate case this week, when a New York appeals court said the firm had no liability in a suit claiming it used topless photos as negotiating leverage for a sexual harassment client.
--------

[sabrina 1]

23. I was going to post a link to this information but you have

apparently found it. After the sanction by the judge, two lawyers have left the firm:

2 Lawyers, Including Former Name Partner, Leave Thompson Wigdor After Sanction

Name partner Scott B. Gilly and associate Gregory N. Filosa have left Thompson Wigdor & Gilly after the firm was sanctioned by a federal judge for allowing a client whom the two attorneys represented in an employment discrimination case to conceal she had been hired at a new company for more money.

Douglas H. Wigdor, speaking for what is now Thompson Wigdor LLP, said Gilly and Filosa left the firm May 31 and June 1, respectively.

Lawyers like this get a bad name for all lawyers.

[LanternWaste]

25. Yet the belief will be maintained...

"We have been listening to that tape, and that tape shows that the victims never said the words" attributed to her, Mr Thompson said..."

Yet the belief will be maintained; and, regardless of any discrepancies that may or may not be in her story, the damage to her credibility has already been done.