Maid discredited herself three weeks before DA revealed the problems with the case

Alexis Zarkov writes:

This story from Bloomberg News seems to offer little new information on the DSK case except for the following.

The woman [hotel chambermaid] had “cried and appeared markedly distraught” in two interviews when recounting the rape [in Guinea], according to a court filing. Then she admitted that the rape she had spoken of so emotionally had never occurred. Prosecutors said the woman’s attorney cut off questioning.

While I might have missed it, this is the first time I’ve read anything about the maid’s attorney cutting off her testimony. The article goes on to state:

Prosecutors said they were stymied in their attempts to obtain more information from the woman after Thompson, her lawyer, failed to make her available for questioning for 19 days after he cut off the June 9 interview.

As the maid is a material witness in an ongoing investigation, I’m surprised the maid’s attorney is allowed to obstruct justice. She could plead the Fifth Amendment, but the DA can get around that by granting her use immunity, and get a judge to order her to testify. Likely the DA is simply too timid to force her to cooperate. This at least partially explains why the case has stalled. The DA needs to come to a decision. Either dismiss the charges against DSK, or go forward with a trial. Of course he knows the defense has enough dirt on his witness to destroy her in court. Pity Cyrus Vance. He can’t make up his mind, but he must. Otherwise he suffers from these daily leaks to the press. They might not be true, but they are damaging to his reputation, which is already tarnished from past failures.

LA replies:

To me the significance of this information is that the maid had clearly demonstrated herself to be a major liar as well as an incooperative witness as far back as June 9, yet the prosecution did not admit the problems with her until June 30. During those three weeks, DSK was being held under house arrest for a crime which he obviously could not be convicted of since his accuser’s credibility was tattered. It seems to me DSK has grounds for a suit here, as is in other aspects of the case.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 04, 2011 11:31 AM | Send