On June 30, 2011 the New York Times reported that two well-placed law enforcement officials said that investigators had discovered major holes in the prosecution’s case. I suspected that someone in the Manhattan D.A.’s office was leaking information the public.  According to the sources the complaining witness had repeatedly lied to investigators and had not been truthful with other regulatory agencies. Major Holes  The following day the case was back in court. Prosecutors informed the judge of the problems they were having with the complaining witness and that they doubted her credibility. By informing the  judge the prosecutors fulfilled their legal and ethical obligations. At the same time they gave Mr. Strauss an opportunity to ask for a reduction in bail. Without objection from the prosecutors the judge released Mr. Strauss upon his own recognizance. His fortunes  had changed dramatically. No Bail

At the hearing the prosecutors hand delivered a letter to Mr. Strauss’ attorneys. The letter outlined the exculpatory evidence that prosecutors had uncovered. In the letter lead prosecutors made it clear that the complaining witness had no qualms about lying to further her own interests. The underlying message of the letter was revealing; the prosecutors could not guarantee that Ms. Diallo would not continue to lie. The letter did not state an opinion if that Ms. Diallo had broken any laws. The letter said nothing more than it  had to.

After this court hearing Ms. Diallo came out of the shadows with a roar. For the first time, the public saw the person who had accused the head of the IMF of rape. Ms. Diallo began a campaign to put forth her own agenda while discrediting the efforts of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. She gave an exclusive interview to Newsweek magazine. In a friendly interview she recounted the sexual attack but did not address her past transgressions. The interviewers did not press her on the “major holes in the case.” Newsweek ABC news was also granted an exclusive interview which aired on the network’s  programs. ABC Veteran news correspondent, Robin Roberts, who is black, conducted the  interview. She gave Ms. Diallo an opportunity to discuss the rape. Ms. Roberts  pressed Ms. Diallo about her problems with the D.A. Instead of responding that
her attorneys had instructed her not to discuss the topic, Ms. Diallo avoided  giving a meaningful response. Ms. Roberts believed that Ms. Diallo’s tears were  forced and that her answers invasive.

At part of the Diallo interview Robin Roberts also interviewed Christopher Dicky, a co-author of the Newsweek article. Mr. Dicky’s credentials as a journalist are beyond reproach; however, I believe that he must draw a clearer distinction between right and wrong. Instead; Mr. Dicky romanticized Ms. Diallo’s problems. He asks for empathy for Ms. Diallo based upon her being a black African woman, from a small village,  in a poor county. Mr. Dicky does not recognize possibility  that Ms. Diallo, an “ignorant and poor woman,” could have fabricated the attack  to wring money out of Mr. Strauss. The fact remains that Ms. Diallo is not a truthful person, regardless of her color, origin or social status.

As part of her effort to pressure the D.A. to go ahead with the prosecution, Ms. Diallo held her own press conference, which was used to advance her own agenda. She also filed a multi-million civil lawsuit against Mr. Strauss. These are unusual steps for a criminal complainant to take before the case have even been tried.