Icheoku says nonsensical as the issue on trial is not the accusers immigration petition status or her other domestic activities or even her alleged questionable associations with detained petty drug peddlers. No, what is at stake here is an alleged criminal rape of a hotel janitor by a powerful and influential French millionaire and former IMF president Dominique Strauss Kahn. Therefore it is very irrational and unreasonable to say because the accuser have some questionable past that her present allegation of being raped by the French man is now suspect. Icheoku asks, even if she is herself a criminal, does that now make her loose her inalienable right not to be sexually violated by anyone including Dominique? The finding of fact that she lied about details on her application for asylum in the United States of America, including her unproven allegation that she had been previously raped in her native Guinea should not be any attenuating circumstance to the present allegation of rape; admitted it might weigh much on the credibility of her testimony at trial. Borrowing the words of accuser's attorney, Icheoku reechoes that the hotel maid could have made some mistakes in her past, but that does not and should not mean that she is not a rape victim. However the lawyer seem to have added another twist to the previous account of what allegedly transpired between DSK and the hotel maid when contrary to the "polishing of the knob" which the victim earlier alleged, her lawyer now says that "Strauss-Kahn bruised her genitals". This greatly triggers her credibility question as her lawyer appears to suggests that there was indeed penetration of her vaginal walls while the victims account only alleged a forced blow job? Icheoku believes this mix-up is not similar to the understanding of what constitutes sex as President Bill Clinton once did when he said "I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky"; misunderstanding or misinterpreting sex to exclude blow job. Hopefully the mix-up would be resolved by lawyer and his client.
It is indeed regrettable that the prosecution came to this conclusion despite the facts of the matter as made available to the public - here was a DSK who initially denied that anything or contact of any nature took place until his semen was found where it was spitted on the carpet by the accuser; then he changed his story to being consensual; and now it is the prosecution that is helping DSK defend his case by stating that the accuser's veracity for truth is suspect? Icheoku says give me a break as this is yet another high-powered game being played by high-powered men with the help of very high-powered lawyers against a helpless Guinea immigrant from West Africa. Admitted that Icheoku had previously written that the accuser's story is weak and feeble at best, that it is not water-tight; our objection to the current "free on bail" status of Dominique is that such determination should not be based on the accuser's past conduct or lack of truthfulness; but on the strength of her present criminal allegation against the French Dominique Strauss Kahn. Any other explaining away or attempt to crucify the accuser because of her past conduct or penchant for untruthfulness as to deprive or deny her the right to a redress is unconscionable and smacks of great injustice.
Icheoku maintains that it is not the place of the prosecution to do the case for the defense in this matter; and instead of the prosecution conducting "an extensive background investigation of the hotel housekeeper accusing DSK of sexual assault" which "gave them pause", the prosecution should have spent its time investigating the background of the French man including his many sexual liaisons even in his native France. The very fact that the accused tried to escape justice by attempting to run away but was nabbed inside a ready to take off French plane back to Paris is by itself a weighty evidence of some wrongdoing. Also his initial flat denial of any wrongdoing including that no contact of any nature whatsoever took place between him and the hotel janitor should have been taken into account as well. Lastly the very fact that he was forced to later recant himself following the discovery of his semen, DNA evidence, should have been additional grounds to carry out "extensive background investigation" on Dominique Strauss Kahn for his untruthfulness but certainly not the other way round.
How did the prosecution suddenly switch sides and now become an advocate for the accused, literally doing their case for them and conducting "extensive background check and investigation on the accuser"; instead of naturally going after a prospective criminal rapist who violated a hotel janitor's womanhood with absolute impunity? Or was it a case of a poor black African immigrant going up against the mighty and all powerful white Frenchman Dominique Strauss Kahn that should be placed where she belonged? Icheoku reiterates that an injustice to one is an injustice to all as we are convinced that this lenient "free on bail without preconditions" is a prelude to setting DSK free. The good news however is that every person shall die someday and if the biblical tales are true, then face judgement before the On High who has no prejudices against the poor or black or immigrant; and has no regard for a person's social or financial status. On that day, Icheoku wonders what DSK will say to his maker in defense of his alleged rape of a helpless hotel janitor?
Unfortunately though, Icheoku is sometimes wont to believe the bible story as may fable, otherwise why would Catholic priests, who should know better, rape and molest alter boys fully aware that they would face judgment on account of their stewardship here on earth as Christ ambassadors? Also how about the other numerous injustices pervading the earth, being perpetrated by supposedly men and women of God and some God-full nations? But borrowing the phraseology of former American Defense minister Donald Rumsfeld, Icheoku says that there are simply so many things we don't know about the nature of man; there are things we know that we do not know - the many known unknowns of this world. Icheoku empathises with the accuser for being unnecessarily harangued in this case because of her not too stellar past as we bemoan the lopsidedness of our justice system which tends to categorise people based on their net worth, the "we and them stuff" and sometimes race; despite the fact of its alleged blindness? Or is it possible that justice sometimes peeps through its blindfold whenever it chooses or is rather convenient for it to see the parties seeking its intervention in order to make up its mind on how to strike its sword? Just asking!
If every other thing outside Dominique's bail condition are to remain as it is - his passport surrendered, his not going to leave the country and his sexual assault charges to remain; Icheoku asks, what then is the ground of removing his bail conditions? If the accuser's case is not such as would easily find the accused culpable, why only remove DSK's bail terms and not completely set him free with profuse apologies for being "wrongly" accused in the first place by a hopeless African immigrant hotel janitor? By extension of this line of thought, may be DSK should also be given back his gig at the IMF and apologized to by Madame Christine Lagarde for prematurely usurping his office just because he was wrongly accused of sexual impropriety by an ordinary African immigrant hotel maid? Based on the trajectory of the case, this is the natural thing to do except if Dominique Strauss Kahn is a victim of a global conspiracy and gang up which used a hotel maid to nail him and get rid of him both from French presidential politics as well as the IMF?
What a world we live in that is both unfair and unjust and were Dominique Strauss Kahn a poor nigger, would the prosecution have acted so swiftly to discredit his accuser and allowed such a very lenient freedom to be granted? Those poor expendables; even where they are wrongfully murdered by the law enforcement agents those agents are too often found not guilty; and you wonder if keeping the nigger's population in check is an unspoken standing rule within some law enforcement departments. Anyway pardon the side digressions as Dominique is the object here and should have remained the sole issue; but the brain often wanders about.
Posts
Christy 'Apena' Essien-Igbokwe , the wife of Jegede Shokoya of the New Masquerade and Nigeria's lady of songs is dead; she was 51years old. Although her family claimed that "brief Illness" killed her like so many Nigerians; Icheoku retorts that it was most likely AKwa Ibom voodoo and remote control that was used to arrest her. It is on record that she had fallen out with the governor of her native Akwa Ibiom State and have been having a relentless war for political turf with the governor? So who knows whether she was sacrificed to Ekpe cult or even Alusi-Okija as an offal; afterall African science is still very much alive and portent. May her soul rest in peace.
.jpg)
Lawyer for alleged victim in DSK case lashes out at DA, says victim will come forward
ReplyDeleteBy Laura Rozen | The Envoy – Fri, Jul 1, 2011
"Law & Order" could not have produced a script with more dramatic turnarounds. As former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest Friday, the woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her in a New York hotel room in May became the main focus of public scrutiny. To counter the wave of allegations now circulating around the 32-year-old immigrant maid from Guinea, her attorney has accused Manhattan prosecutors of sullying her reputation to distance themselves from the damaged case against Strauss-Kahn.
"We believe that the district attorney [Cyrus Vance] is laying the foundation to dismiss this case," charged the accuser's attorney, Kenneth Thompson, in a talk with journalists after Strauss-Kahn's bail hearing in a New York courtroom today. "Anyone can see that."
In a brief nine minute hearing today, Strauss-Kahn was granted release from house arrest without bail. But the court is retaining his passport, and the criminal case against him still stands, at least for now.
Weaknesses in the case were exposed in a stunning New York Times report Thursday night describing prosecutors' doubts about the credibility of the accuser.
Thompson acknowledged that his client had "made mistakes," but insisted that she is telling the truth about the alleged assault. In her account, she was the victim of a sexual assault in Strauss-Kahn's hotel room May 14--and Thompson insisted that prosecutors have physical evidence to support her version of events. He also accused Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance of leaking information to the New York Times to discredit his client in a bid to get the case dismissed.
Still, prosecutors had uncovered major discrepancies in several aspects of the accuser's accounts of her background and circumstances, the New York Times reported Thursday. Among them, discrepancies in her accounts of what information she had put on her U.S. asylum application, and her apparent later admission that some of the information on the application was not true.
Prosecutors also obtained a recording of a phone conversation the woman had with a man imprisoned for possession of 400 pounds of marijuana that took place within a day of the alleged assault. In the conversation, she and the man reportedly discussed the possible benefit of pursuing charges in the case against Strauss-Kahn. Prosecutors had also reportedly found that over the past two years, as much as $100,000 had been deposited into the woman's bank accounts, deposited by several individuals including the imprisoned man. The woman also apparently had several telephones, but insisted to prosecutors she had only one.
Some of their findings were contained in a letter from Vance's office to defense attorneys for Strauss-Kahn, which you can read here.
Thompson said he had not yet heard the recording of the phone call between his client and the imprisoned man. But he said prosecutors had told him the woman's account of the alleged attack in the call was consistent with what she had earlier told prosecutors and a grand jury.
ReplyDelete"The victim here made some mistakes, that doesn't mean she's not a rape victim," Thompson told journalists. "All this stuff leaked to the New York Times was designed to discredit her. ... She is determined. She is not going to remain in hiding any more. She is going to tell you what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did to her, and what prosecutors in this office did to her."
Thompson also asked why, in the aftermath of the accusation, the police and DA's office failed to even try to question Strauss-Kahn about what had happened in the hotel room during the five hours they held him in custody before he asked for an attorney. New York police authorities had arrested the former IMF head as he was sitting on an Air France flight awaiting takeoff at JFK Airport on May 14.
"Why wasn't DSK questioned before he asked to speak to his lawyer?" Thompson said he asked Vance. "Cy Vance had no answer. That does not make sense."
Separately, reports this week noted that Lisa Friel, the head of the Manhattan DA office sex crimes division had resigned.
Vance, speaking to reporters after Friday's court hearing, said his office was not yet dropping the case.
"Our prosecutors from the Manhattan D.A.'s office will continue their investigation into these alleged crimes and will do so until we have uncovered all relevant facts," Vance said outside New York State Supreme Court.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for July 18th
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ReplyDeleteCOUNTY OF NEW YORK ONE HOGAN PLACE New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 335-9000 CYRUS R. VANCE, JR.
DIsTRIcT ArT0RNEY
June 30, 2011
William W. Iaylor, 111, 1 sg. Zuckermati Spaeder Ii P 1540 Broadway, Suite 1604 New York, N.Y. 10036 Benjamin Bra fman, I sq. Brafman & Associates, P.C. 767 Third Avenue New \ork, N.Y. 10017 People v. Dominkjuc Strauss--Kahn Indictment No. 2526/2011
1)car Messrs. Taylor and Brafman: In connection with the above_captioned case, the People disclose the following information to the defense pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 240.20 as well as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its doctrinal progeny.
In an application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal dated I)eccmber 30, 2004, the complainant provided the United States 1)epartinent of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service with factual information about herself, her background and her experiences in her home country of Guinea. This information was in the form of a written statement attached to her application, and was submitted as a basis for her request for asylum. In her application, she certified under penalty of perjury that her written statement was true. In substance, the complainant's statement claimed that she and her husband had been persecuted and harassed by the dictatorial regime that was then in P in Guinea. "' 0 Among other things, the complainant stated that the home that she shared with her husband was destroyed by police and soldiers acting on behalf of the regime, and that she and her husband were beaten by them. When her husband attempted to return to what was left of their home the next day, she stated that he was again beaten, arrested and imprisoned by police and soldiers. She stated that she also was beaten when she attempted to come to her
husband's aid. In her statement, she attributed the beatings to the couple's opposition to the regime. She stated that during her husband's incarceration, lie was tortured, deprived of medical treatment and eventually died as a result of his maltreatment . I oIlowing his death, according to her, she began to denounce the regime and finally fled the country in fear of her life, entering the United States in Januat-y 2004 to seek refuge (she has told prosecutors that she used a fraudulent visa). She repeated these facts orally during the course of her asylum application process. In interviews in connection with the investigation of this case, the complainant admitted that the above factual information, which she provided in connection with her asylum application, was false. She stated that she fabricated the statem ent with the assistance of a male who provided her with a cassette recording of the facts contained in the statement that she eventually submitted. She memorized these facts by listenin g to the recording repeatedly. In several interviews with prosecutors, she reiterated these falsehoods when questioned about her history and background, and stated that she did so in order to remain consistent with the statement that she had submitted as part of her application. Additionally, in two separate interviews with assistant district attorne ys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. 1)uring both of these intervi ews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred. Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details, and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of her asylum application process. Presently, the complainant states that she would testify that she was raped in the past in her native country but in an incident different than the one that she described during initial interviews. In the weeks following the incident charged in the indictment, the complainant told detectives and assistant district attorneys on numerous occasions that, after being sexually assaulted by the defendant on May 14, 2011 in Suite 2806, she fled to an area of the main hallway of the hotel's 28" floor and waited there until she observ ed the defendant leave Suite 2806 and the 28" floor by entering an elevator. It was after this observation that she reported the incident to her supervisor, who arrived on the 28" floor a short time later. In the interim betxveen the incident and her supervisor's arrival, she claimed to have remained in the same area of the main hallway on the 28" floor to which she had initially fled. The complainant testified to this version of events when questioned in the Grand jury about her actions following the incident in Suite 2806. The complainant has since admitted that this account was false and that after the incident in Suite 2806, she procee ded to clean a nearby room and then returned to Suite 2806 and began to clean that suite before she reported the incident to her supervisor. Additionally, the complainant has stated that for the past two tax years, she declared a friend's child in addition to her own as a dependent on her tax returns for the purpose of increasing her tax refund beyond that to which she was entitled . She also admitted to misrepresenting her income in order to maintain her present housin g.
ReplyDeleteI inally, during the course of this investigation, the complainant was untruthful with assistant district attorneys about a val-iety of additional topics concerning her history, background, present circumstances and personal relationships. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
oyul1uzzi-Othon A,istant I)istrict Attorney 21 2335-9926
A%2
Jhn (Artie) McConnell Assistant District Attorney
212-335-9926
Cc:
The I lonorable Michael j. Obus
Supreme Court, New York County