How do you prove a negative?
How is this case much different than the Duke Lacrosse case, except we’re not supposed to like this guy?
I hate hypocrisy.
Well the Duke stripper said she was gang raped - but her blood and their semen was nowhere to be found.
The Hotel maid is slutty and stupid - but there was her blood and his semen on the sheets and the floor.
In the Duke case they said nothing sexual took place - other than the dancing she was hired to do.
In this case he was having lunch with his daughter - then they found out about the DNA - and then it was consensual.
This woman is simply too stupid and too shady for this to have been a set up. She got into the DA’s office and admitted to perjuring herself in her asylum application, about a claim of gang-rape, about her income to get subsidized housing, about her children in order to avoid taxes, etc, etc.
In other words, she sat down and admitted she had no compunction about lying in official proceedings and on official documents in order to get asylum, housing, avoid taxes, and any number of other things.
They say that rape defense has two strategies...
1) It wasn't me / nothing happened
2) it was consensual
DSK tried #1 - then reverted back to #2 when they found out about the DNA.
The lacrosse players at Duke went with #1 - and all evidence supported that - thus their exoneration.
He originally lied to the cops about where he was. His alibi fell apart within the first 24 hours. The Duke Lax kids never lied. So believing him became much more difficult. He now won’t deny that sex did occur between them, but it was consensual if it did. The Duke kids denied any sex from the start.
I have no idea what’s the story here, but a guy who lied about where he was and them says “if we did have sex it was consensual” isn’t exactly looking innocent. This case, unlike the Duke case looks like “who’s lying least.”