Unchained Felony

The following is at the top of today's newzy cycle:

NEW YORK -- A judge has agreed to free former International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn without bail or home confinement in the sexual assault case against him.

The move Friday comes after prosecutors said an extensive background investigation of the accuser caused them to reassess the case.


The agreement OK'd by State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus in Manhattan does not give Strauss-Kahn his passport back, meaning he can't head to France anytime soon. The criminal case against him stands.


Strauss-Kahn was held without bail for nearly a week after his May arrest. He has since posted a total of $6 million in cash bail and bond and has been confined to a Manhattan town house.


He denies allegations of trying to rape a hotel housekeeper. He left the courtroom smiling, holding hands with his wife. (The Huffington Post/AP)

Oh, isn't that sweet? Wifey hand-holding and everything? And he can now stray from his $250,000 a month town house? Wow!

Maybe his wife would like to extend an invitation to Lindsay Lohan to join them for a cocktail or 10, as Lindsay sure knows how to have fun after a house arrest, doesn't she? (Linds is now out of her terrifying home confinement and is back on the LA party scene. Who knows, though. Maybe next time she's in New York she could show Kahn-Strauss, er, Con-Strauss, oh -- Strauss-Kahn, is it -- a really good time?)

Anyhow. Back to the Mr. Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free-With-Bail-Money-Returned story.

What I have been hearing about the cause of this sudden turn of events involves alleged badgering of the victim by prosecutors because she has lied in the past about other elements of her life. Not sexual assault, though. And, of course, all victims of sexual crime, particularly if they are wimmen's of colour, must have a pristine history and the halo of sainthood floating overhead so that a court case can be won.

Having access to a great stash of money = savvy lawyers = good news for a Defendant. And, of course, when said Defendant is of international fame and had planned to run for the presidency in France, prosecutors must have what we deem as an "iron-clad" case or else what an international embarrassment/incident it would be were the Plaintiff to lose!

Although it is standard legal procedure to investigate the background of anyone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault to determine how strong (or weak) a case may be prior to going to trial, one would think that enough evidence existed at the onset of this drama for New York officials to so rapidly arrest Strauss-Kahn that this new development casting clouds of Manhattan smut over the woman's head is rather odd, don't you think?

I would be less inclined to comment so quickly on the very curious action of the court were it not for the basic fact that it does not, in any possible way, benefit the victim in this saga to have reported an assault against who she knew had to be a wealthy and possibly powerful man. With a positive and lengthy work record at the hotel in which the alleged assault occurred, she had to have known that her job and general reputation would be at risk with making a police report. This is not a woman who was hoping for a private pay-off or 15 minutes of fame.

Therefore, I believe there is truth behind the claims of bias against the accuser by the prosecution because they are afraid. Of what, is the question? Yes, it is dicey to have a court case that involves a "HE said, SHE said" foundation. HE says they had "consensual" sex. She claims otherwise. HE can't say nothing happened of a sexual nature because proof of his sexual explosion was found on her clothing, among other physical signs of personal contact.

But, again, it appears that another smirking narcissist will slide away from jail-time simply because the SHE in this situation isn't perfect.

Money almost always "talks" and makes it easy for criminals to "walk."

Developing.....