Nafissatou Diallo
Posted on 07/03/2011 5:01:08 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Maid 'laid' low as DA paid for digs
By BRAD HAMILTON and LARRY CELONA
Last Updated: 7:16 AM, July 3, 2011
Posted: 1:06 AM, July 3, 2011
She was turning tricks on the taxpayers' dime!
The Sofitel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of a sex attack in his suite wasn't just a hotel hooker -- she continued to work as a prostitute in a Brooklyn hotel where she was stashed by prosecutors, The Post has learned.
The so-called victim, whose web of lies has crippled the Manhattan DA's case against the former International Monetary Fund boss, played host to a parade of paying male visitors in the weeks after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, a prosecution source said.
"While she was under our supervision, there were multiple 'dates' and encounters at the hotel on the DA's dime," the source said of her paid hotel room. "That's a great deal for her. She doesn't have to cover her expenses."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
What supervision? You mean DA is also running a sting operation on illegal prostitution at the side while prosecuting DSK?
Can you say “Crystal”?
Not buying it, but the paper must be saying it is legal to rape hookers in new York city. Does that include, former hookers, current hookers and future hookers. Maybe the young daughters of people working a the paper thought about hooking, can they also be raped and it be legal????
Nafissatou Diallo
It is true you can rape a hooker, but lack consent becomes much more difficult to prove when he can say that she offered sex and he had no intention to pay. If he simply refused to pay her after the deed and there was a fight over it, there is no crime. She had no right to charge for sex so it isn’t theft, and there was no rape because the sex act was consensual.
Besides, she is changing her story too much now, this case is over.
D E P O R T
Duh, professional hookers always get the money up front. Alway, always, always. This is just a simple case of the guy being guilty as hell and. His defense is to convict the victim. Have not seen one factual thing about her changing her story, but have seen a lot of third party he said, she said, they said, bs, that does not mean anything.
She’s lied on her asylum application, lied on her taxes, lied to get subsidized housing, and launders money for drug dealers.
Whether she was raped or not, she’s not a credible witness. If she had a Scots jury, the best she could hope for was “not proven.”
BTW, how does a man without a weapon force oral sex on a fit young woman who has her teeth?
well OK then. Guilt is not necessarily established.
Rape is based upon the allegation, but the physical evinced must also support the allegation. All of the bull crap about she lied here etc is not admissible without the judge allows it then it can be crossed. And as to a weapon, I can kill you in a second with a letter opener are a pair of scissors.
I dunno about any other FReepers, but I’m getting a bit uncomfortable with the narrative.
This seems so much like something James Carville would do.
Here’s some “facts” for you: they dropped his million dollar bail for a PC bond. That doesn’t happen. I understand your point, and I even agree with you. However there is PLENTY reasonable doubt here. The credibility of the witness is shot and he has the money to fight.
I know you want this guy to be guilty, but its just not going to happen. By the way, the DA’s office said she was hooking in the hotel they put her up in, the Jail has the recording of the telephone call with a drug dealer about the financial windfall. You have the same source for the parts of the story you like as you do for the parts of the story you don’t like: the news. Unless you want to tell us now that you have some personal inside knowledge.
This case is cooked man. No offense it just is.
As for professional hookers always taking their money upfront, I won’t challenged your knowledge on that one! But I will say this: as a defense attorney I would make a lot of the fact she was a hooker at all. Her motivation could easily be MONEY, not the 50-250 she might make on a trick but the millions she would make by accusing the man of rape. The fact of this case is that you have a slimebag and a hooker going at each other. Its a tie, and in a criminal proceeding that means not guilty.
If Cyrus Vance Jr. had any aspirations for higher office, they’re pretty much dashed. It’ll be interesting to see how he gets himself out of this mess.
I never said it was not lost, I believe a good deal of money has changed hands. What I was saying is this crap of trying the woman is against the law in this country. And a few people seem to think it is the correct thing to do.
You are correct. And as a former GI, it is a fact they get their money up front.
NOT GUILTY.
She lied under oath to the grand jury. She's done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.