http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25533
 |
|
|
Global Research, July 7, 2011
|
|
|
While the media has gone to arms length to obfuscate the matter, there is mounting evidence that Dominique Strauss Kahnwas framed.
|
|
According to media reports, the 32-year-old Guinean Sofitel housemaid received the modest sum of 100,000 dollars paid into her bank account. The New York Times acknowledges the payment but fails to analyze the source of these payments. In an utterly confused statement, the NYT suggests that the money was deposited in the housemaid’s account by her Guinean boy friend who is serving time in a high security prison:
According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.
That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.
The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends. (NYT, July 1, 2011, emphasis added)
The bank records of the housemaid, not to mention the record of her telephone calls, are known to police investigators, yet both the media and the prosecutors have failed to reveal the identity of the persons who instigated these money transfers.
The reports suggest that they may be “drug related”, thereby casually dismissing the likelihood that the money could have been part of the framing of DSK. The reports also mention that the money deposits were made “over the last two years”, thereby conveying the impression that they bear no relationship to the DSK affair.
The exact timing of these money transfers including the identity of senders are known to police investigators. Why has this information not been released?
If the 100,000 dollars had indeed been deposited into her bank account in the course of the last two years, why on earth would she be working as a housemaid?
Regime change at the IMF
Why was the substance of the housemaid’s false accusations not released at an earlier stage? Who was protecting her?
Why did the media wait to reveal information which confirms DSK’s innocence.
This information was known to the prosecutors at an early stage of the investigation, yet it was only released after the appointment of France’s Finance Minister Christine Lagarde as Managing Director of the IMF.
Lagarde’s candidacy was confirmed and accepted on June 26th. Her mandate was confirmed on June 28th following a decision of the IMF’s 24 member executive board.
Lagarde is an appointee of Wall Street and the US banking establishment. Her candidacy had been approved by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the 28th of June:
“I am pleased to announce our decision to support Christine Lagarde to head the IMF,” Geithner said in a statement hours before the 24-member IMF executive board was expected to select her as its managing director.
Careful timing. In a bitter irony, the report from the prosecutor proving DSK’s innocence was released on the day following the IMF’s executive board decision instating Lagarde as Managing Director of IMF for a five year term.
The frame-up has visibly succeeded. Who instructed prosecutors not to release this information until after the appointment of Lagarde as IMF Chief?
If this information had been revealed a few days earlier, Lagarde’s candidacy as IMF chief might have been questioned.
Regime change at the IMF has been speedily implemented, not to mention the implications of the DSK affair in relation to the French presidential elections.
Christine Lagarde commenced her five year term as IMF Managing Director on July 5th at the height of Greece’s debt crisis.
Sofar, the likely hypothesis of a frame-up directed against DSK is not being touched upon by the mainstream media.
Related articles
- Who’s the real victim in Dominique Strauss-Kahn case? It’s all about perception – latimes.com (policyabcs.wordpress.com)
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn Took A Mystery Woman To His Room At 1:20 AM Before The Alleged Attack (businessinsider.com)
- For Strauss-Kahn Accuser, Suing Could Be An Avenue (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- France riveted by Strauss-Kahn developments (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Who Is Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s ‘Mystery Woman’? [Mysteries] (gawker.com)
- Strauss-Kahn Prosecutors: The Investigation Continues (israelnationalnews.com)
- Strauss-Kahn To Face New Sex Charges In France (npr.org)
- Bernard-Henri Lévy explains why you’re wrong about Dominique Strauss-Kahn. (slate.com)
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn ‘seen with mystery woman night before alleged attack’ (telegraph.co.uk)
- Paris Prosecutors Probe Strauss-Kahn Accusation (foxnews.com)
Revolutionising Awareness 