"Imperfect accusers common in sex assault cases"

Article here. And the race is on (not too surprisingly, found on MSN.com) to question the credibility of those questioning the credibility of the accuser in the Strauss-Khan case. Next of course is an effort to question the questioning of the questioning. Try to keep up. Only way not to get so confused in the shuffle is to stick to facts: she was lying about when and where she was after the alleged attack, and was caught discussing the ways she hoped to make money off the accusation with a boyfriend who was in jail for moving dope. And still, some doubt the doubters? This is called 'nymphotropism in action' for those looking for a phrase to describe it. Excerpt:

'NEW YORK — The rapidly dissolving case against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn faces challenges fairly common in sexual assault prosecutions, namely a less-than-perfect accuser.

So while Manhattan prosecutors face a more difficult task now that the accuser has been found to have lied on several occasions including about what happened immediately after the purported attack, it is too soon to consider the case closed.

"This would not be the first case where an important prosecution witness turned out not to be the angel or pure victim that the prosecution initially thought. Nor would it be the first case a prosecution's office took a case to trial where a witness had real credibility issues," Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman said.'