|Oooopsie we make booboo.|
It is a good reminder never ever to take the word of the prosecution in any matter. Always wait until further evidence comes out. If the reports are correct (another big if) it looks as though the alleged victim may have a few problems with honesty. That doesn't make her allegations untrue, but it does mean that the case is much less than the slam dunk it originally appeared to be a first blush.
At this point then one is back to arguing about the weight of the evidence. In other words, why would she lie about this when she has an asylum request pending? Why would he actually try to rape her when he has access to so many without forcing anyone?
Although, if the prosecution actually does go through this and either dismiss or amend to a misdemeanor, it says a lot about what they think of the strength of their case.
Other stuff being why is the head of the sex crimes unit "retiring" right now and why is this coming out right after his replacement was appointed head of the IMF? Inquiring minds want to know.
A P.S. NOT AN UPDATE: I'd forgotten that the guy was staying in a hotel room that cost $3,000.00 a night. That was one of the reasons that I was so wishing that he was guilty. I figured he should be guilty.
REAL UPDATE: Although this is another point of view, which perhaps I should have considered a little before posting above. Apparently, the victim's attorneys still insist that the forensic evidence is consistent with rape and not consensual sex. But, as you say Cujo, it will be pretty difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.