Dominique Strauss Kahn: Doubts on maid's credibility

[Rosamund1980]

It's looking like DSK will get off, as doubt is placed on the maid. Why do these stories repeat themselves?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13986970

I am amazed that anyone can think the role of the media is unimportant in this, or fail to appreciate the role they are playing.

Leningrad - he hasn't changed the story he told in court under oath. That will prove to be an important difference.

I agree, he may well have attacked her but unfortunately she is no longer a reliable witness. Despite his history of harassing women I don't think most juries would convict based on the testimony of a proven liar. Plus I have read in The Times that she was asking for advice about how much money she could make from pursuing the claims.

Surely neither of their history should be used?

Can't they just prosecute on the evidence?

She lied under oath, she has only herself to blame. He hasn't lied. stupid to say he will get off, innocent until proven guilty.

Yes liars can be/are victims. But why would a jury believe a liar when it is his word against hers? Unless the prosecution can prove he's lied too she comes off worst.

LeninGrad - legally, he has no "history": Banon did not press charges in 2002.

I'm glad there are at least two other posters on this thread who appreciate the role of the media in this! Especially in forming the narrative round it.

flagging: can you find that article and gist it to us (The Times, unless you mean NY Times) is behind a pay wall - I haven't seen this (or similar) and won't be able to get to it as I don't subscribe to the paper.

If he were demonstrated to have committed perjury before the Grand Jury, then it would be.

Remember - it's the prosecution who had to disclose this information. And her lawyer (who had extensive airtime yesterday) did not dispute the information disclosed.

I think his changing story was well known to both sides and extensively reported in the media (not sure how disclosure procedures would work for that, it would depend on what time in the early stages he said what - but he was consistent by the time it hit the courtroom, so there isn't a question of perjury).

With apologies to those who think the role of the media is unimportant, I thought others on this thread might like to see This CBS article "Seismic changes" which is typical of narrative around this, and which may prove opinion forming (not just on this case, but also for wider perceptions).

This is another interesting article, specifically about the "PR battle" in this case.

I was watching all of this live on US TV yesterday and the maid's lawyer basically came out of the court and gave a very graphic summary on live TV of the forensic evidence. I'm pretty sure no lawyer in the UK would have done that on live TV before the case had been heard.

the US justice system is different to the UK but to my eyes it was almost if the trial was being held on the steps of the court in front of TV cameras with lawyers and spokesmen for all sides stating their position.

One summary I read put the state of the evidence very simply 'its a mess'.

MoreBeta: I agree: I think what her lawyer put into the public domain yesterday was concerning.