Yet his semen was found on her clothes. So she was paid $100,000 over two years prior to the incident, got a job at the hotel, managed to be the maid in his room, and let him attack her? That seems a bit of a stretch.
The money in the bank account could be entirely separate from the incident (some have suggested money-laundering) and her lying about cell phones and a previous attack makes her an unreliable witness. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t attacked. All of this is from investigators hired by the defense too. (And how did they get access to bank account information and cell phone records? Inquiring miinds want to know.)
If it was a setup, it was a very complicated one, with no attempt made to hide the money trail.
Being in the field for over a quarter century I have learned, often the hard way, that weird coincidences simply do not exist in finance. If it seems too good (or too bad) to be true, it is safe to bet that it’s not true.
So, let’s make no mistake here: there were way too many and powerful interested parties that wanted Mr. Strauss-Kahn out of the way.
It could have been a setup and the attack could have happened. The two are not mutually contradictory