STRAUSS-KAHN WALKS FREE, A CASE OF JUSTICE MISSED?

Admitted that the veracity for truth of the African immigrant who Monica Lewinskyed Dominique Strauss Kahn is practically none existent; but since when has that reason alone become the sole ground and only basis for discontinuing or dismissing carte-blanche an entire gamut of a criminal proceedings against an accused defendant? The prosecutor in this case should not act in a way suggestive or that could draw the inference that he was by necessary implication, doing the job of the defense for them.

It is the defense's responsibility to attack the character of the accuser and should have been the party moving to have the case dismissed based on lack of probable cause but not the prosecutor. If the accuser and principal witness for the prosecution is not a credible person, the onus lies on the defense to establish that her allegation in this case is not believable and therefore should not be believed. Nothing in law however precludes the prosecutor from bringing such a motion to dismiss at any time suo-moto in exercise of its discretionary powers of nolle prosequi. However Icheoku believes that justice would have been better served, at least on the appearance, if the prosecutor had proceeded with this case until such a time the defense moved for its dismissal; with no objection coming from the prosecutors. That way, the watching public, not versed in the intricacies, fine-lines and workings of the judicial process will be more persuaded that the case was not cavalierly dismissed just because of the caliber of person being accused and the little lass from the dark continent of Africa who is accusing him of sexual assault.

Icheoku had previously written extensively on this case and the glaring lack of credibility of the accuser, whose account of what allegedly transpired in that hotel suite was at best a concocted story of a woman of easy virtue whose "Client No. 9" did not fulfill their pre-rendering of service bargain and then decided to claim sexual violations. It was our position then and it still remains our position now that her account of what happened between DSK and her fell flat of a typical without of consent sexual assault. Our only additional comment now that the case has been dismissed is that the prosecutor should have been mindful of the old standing rule of fairness which says that "justice must not only be done but must be seen to be manifestly done by the watching public!" But in this case they have their hands on their heads with dropped jaws and mouths wide open, wondering in awe how this French rapist and sexual deviant Dominique Strauss Kahn walked free despite mountain of forensic evidence which fixed him to the alleged crime scene and the very act complained of.

Also DSK's veracity for truth which is highly suspect was not questioned but glossed over by the prosecutor. He initially denied any encounter with the "dirty-Diana" African immigrant hotel maid until his seminal fluid was extracted from the rug where the BJ service-provider had spat it out. Icheoku notes that this case was not the first time an accuser or prosecution's principal witness ever lied about an account of what allegedly happened or is someone with a chequered history of tall-tales, yet the accused was prosecuted to the fullest - only to be set free or convicted by a jury of his/her peers. The late King of Pop, Michael Jackson, was once unjustly prosecuted for child molestation despite a plethora of evidence of incredulousness of the "victim's" mother and prosecution's chief witness. The only difference this time is that the accused is a white Frenchie and was accused by a black African immigrant; so what if she was privileged of acquainting herself with DSK's highly priced white phallus?

In judicial proceedings where a hostile or incredulous witness suddenly surprises the prosecution, the natural reaction for the prosecutor is to proceed with the case as if nothing happened to jolt the trial only to rehabilitate such witness later in the course of the proceedings. Also the prosecution could have tried to separate Nafissatou Diallo's past penchant for lying from her truthfulness in the present case, emphasising that "truth can sometimes also come from imbeciles or liars."  Anyway since the case against DSK has now been summarily dismissed without any opportunity whatsoever to either establish his guilt or innocence through a trial for the crime of sexual assault charged and for which Dominique Straus Kahn lost his job at the IMF; Icheoku asks, isn't appropriate that he should get his job back or same returned back to him with full apologies tendered for embarrassing such a highly placed white Frenchman? And for Nafissatou Diallo, Icheoku says next time you do your part-time side job, servicing guests if your employers or former employers, please collect the money up front before going down on your knees to polish their knobs. Who says KING MONEY does not talk anymore and Dominique Strauss Kahn got a sack load of it and with it he purchased the finest criminal defense lawyers in New York and like the bulldogs they are, they extricated DSK from an assured prison gate.