Huh? Was he supposed to stay there until...until what exactly?

Yes, the blood on the bed, the semen on the carpet, the phone left in the hotel room, the gash on his back...all individually could be totally innocent stuff. But all put together? That's how the jury will look at it. As a mosaic, not as a "well everyone leaves hotel rooms, silly!"

But that's not what you were talking about.

he can just go bankrupt in a case of a civil suit and wouldnt owe her shit

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You just make shit up as you go along.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. blah, blah, blah, Ced. I don't have the energy for you today. Post one time something other than a negative thought anywhere on this board and I'll gladly engage you in discussion.

Ive been positive.

now, Im gonna be negative...

you stink at logical arguing

= I'm the new Buffalohed.

I would prefer that you stopped calling me crazy.

Easliy to dismiss someone by calling them 'crazy".

What the fuck is normal? Lemming material?

Maybe the things you do in my humble opinion are insane.

It is your perspective.

I guess Im gonna have to listen to some Garland Green Music for a brush up on a little soul lovin.

Not Garland Green, Garland Greene.

Give Ben a little bit of credit. Crazy chick is nothing like him.

Strauss-Kahn’s Lawyers Suggest Credibility Issues on Accuser
By JOHN ELIGON
The lawyers for Dominique Strauss-Kahn have suggested that they possess information that would undermine the credibility of the hotel housekeeper who has accused their client of sexual assault.

The suggestion was made in a letter sent by Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers to Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, that asked him to do whatever he could to stop law enforcement officials from leaking information in the case.

In the letter, which was sent on Wednesday and added to the court record, Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers, William W. Taylor III and Benjamin Brafman, said they were concerned “that our client’s right to a fair trial is being compromised by the public disclosure of prejudicial material even before these materials have been disclosed to his counsel.”

“Indeed, were we intent on improperly feeding the media frenzy, we could now release substantial information that in our view would seriously undermine the quality of this prosecution and also gravely undermine the credibility of the complainant in this case,” the lawyers wrote.

While the stated purpose of the letter was to lodge a complaint about leaks to the news media, it also served as a form of legal gamesmanship — allowing Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers to hint at damaging information about the victim without revealing it.

Indeed, Mr. Vance’s office responded with its own letter, noting that it was dismayed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers “chose to inject in the public record your claim that you possess information that might negatively impact the case and ‘gravely’ undermine the credibility of the victim.”

The letter, which was signed by Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, the chief of the hate crimes unit, who was just appointed to the case, indicated that prosecutors knew of no such information.

“If you really do possess the kind of information you suggest that you do, we trust you will forward it immediately to the district attorney’s office,” Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon wrote.

Attacking the credibility of the housekeeper may be a critical part of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s legal strategy. Although there have been leaks that there is DNA evidence tying Mr. Strauss-Kahn to a sex act, it would not indicate whether that act was forced or consensual — putting greater weight on the credibility of the woman and of Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

Both sides have begun the process of accumulating background evidence on Mr. Strauss-Kahn and the housekeeper.

Prosecutors, for example, have said they have been in contact with “more than one” woman who said that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Strauss-Kahn; at one court appearance, a prosecutor said, without elaboration, that Mr. Strauss-Kahn had “a propensity for impulsive criminal conduct.”

The defense has hired investigators from the firm Guidepost Solutions to look into the woman’s background and examine any weaknesses in her account.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Brafman also appeared to be using the letter as a way to speed up the discovery process in which the prosecution is supposed to turn over evidence to the defense.

In addition to asking Mr. Vance to do everything he can to stop the leaks, the lawyers asked that his office “promptly provide us with copies of all of the scientific reports that have been completed and have already been leaked to various media outlets.”

The defense was referring to reports that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s DNA was found on the uniform of the hotel housekeeper.

The letter also asked the prosecution to turn over all police reports and formal statements made by the accuser because her statements already had been reported by the press.

The letter said all of the leaked information was attributed to sources within the New York Police Department. But the defense lawyers said they wanted to bring the issue to Mr. Vance’s attention.

The lawyers also cited what they characterized as a “wide array of prejudicial information about Mr. Strauss-Kahn, including information which even if true, would never be admissible in any court.”

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.