Nafissatou Diallo, DSK Accuser, Was Not Scheming for His Money, Tapes Reveal

By Jen Doll Thu., Jul. 28 2011 at 11:39 AM

The media was quick to report that Nafissatou Diallo, the Sofitel maid who has alleged that Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted her in a room at the hotel, had been deemed less and less credible by prosecutors after a number of details in her account of the incident, and some untruths about her past in her native Guinea, were revealed. One of those details involved a phone call made to a friend in jail following the attack, in which, it had been reported by a source (and published in the New York Times, among other outlets), she said "Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing." Quickly, it was assumed that this was a opportunist, making up a story about a rich man in hopes of a payday. Or, by some, a hooker.

Diallo's lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, met with prosecutors for 8 hours yesterday to review tapes of her conversations, which revealed a different reality in context. Via the AP:

But on the tapes, her mentions of Strauss-Kahn's resources and her knowing what to do are made at different points, and in contexts that cast them in a considerably different light, Thompson said.
In her first conversation with the man, she didn't mention Strauss-Kahn's wealth at all, instead telling her friend that "someone tried to rape me, and that he's a powerful, big man," who had tried to take her clothes off, pushed her, and ultimately made her do something against her will, Thompson said.

In a subsequent conversation, she told her friend that her attacker "is powerful and rich," her lawyer said. But it was earlier in that conversation -- and not in connection with any mention of Strauss-Kahn's status -- that she said "I know what to do" to signal that she gone to authorities, planned to hire a lawyer and would be all right, Thompson said.

"Her primary focus was on what happened to her, how she was coping with the fact that she had almost been raped," he said.

Diallo went public with interviews in both Newsweek and ABC News earlier this week, hoping to keep prosecutors committed to the case and to "correct the misleading portrayal of her in the media."

Strauss-Kahn denies the charges, and his lawyers are calling for dismissal of the case. The next court date is scheduled for August 23, at which point prosecutors may announce whether they'll go forward or not.

Update: Diallo met with supporters today at the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, telling them that things said about her were untrue, and "Me and my family, we are going through a lot. We cry every day."

Lawyer: Strauss-Kahn maid's remarks misportrayed [WSJ]

We Recommend

MorrisWise

Women who have been victims of gang bangers eventually fall into two categories:

1: Man haters who often turn to Lesbianism or Prostitution.

2: Hotties who want to repeat the experience and will not party with only one guy.

Both are considered victims and are granted refugee status.

Jritter

Articles like this is why I don't take this tabloid seriously. Does Rupert have a hand at the Voice? Good job Jen Doll, your a great trash journalist.

MorrisWise

Diallo speaks and the world listens. Billions support this unique African woman, she has become a holy figure and her word is sacred. Expect Diallo to become the new Mother Teresa as her warm tears enter the coldest hearts.

ikenwan

This new portrayal is by her lawyer. The old one was by her prosecutors. Why should you have been more willing to accept her prosecutor's statements over her defender's? I hope unedited transcripts will be released to wash away the confusion.

Dofactsmatter

Because the prosecutor is not on her payroll. The prosecutor does not stand to get a paycheck from a civil suit. BUT mostly because the prosecutor has a legal obligation to tell the truth to the court and faces criminal penalties if he doesn't. Her lawyer faces no penalties for misleading the public. So, the financial incentives and the lack of penalties for lying are why I won't take her attorney's statement over the prosecutors.

ikenwan

"BUT mostly because the prosecutor has a legal obligation to tell the truth to the court and faces criminal penalties if he doesn't. Her lawyer faces no penalties for misleading the public."

O RLY? Pardon my irreverence, but I've seen prosecutors lie and withhold exculpatory evidence with my own eyes. They are as much beholden to the upkeep of their record as any other lawyer. Your idealism would be admirable if it wasn't harmfully unrealistic.

Dofactsmatter

This headline is appalling. You don't know what the tapes reveal. You only know what her lawyer has claimed. Truth in journalism?

Dofactsmatter

Who wrote this article? This new interpretation is per her lawyer, and no one else. Not a transcript, not the prosecutor, not the judge. Not someone under oath, not someone unbiased. How about making that explicitly clear before claiming what he said as fact? What was sworn to in a court, and sent to the judge is the letter from the prosecutor, which laid out a litany of lies she's already told during this case and directly related to this case. Including already lying under oath and to the grand jury about what she did following the alleged incident.

Rob Thorne

A big 'lie' in the letter - her movements after the incident has been proved wrong by the electronic keys,hence also no lying under oath, means looking at the DA's accuracy average odds are that her lawyer's version on the tape is also more accurate than the 'synopsis' leaked by the DA's office.