Will the NYPD subject Nafissatou Diallo to a humiliating perp walk if she's charged for lying about rape in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case?

In answer to the question posed by the headline of this post: somehow, I most seriously doubt it. If the New York Police Department did that, NOW and the screeching banshees from the sexual grievance industry would have one of their de rigueur conniptions, and someone in law enforcement would be forced to apologize. But it looks like the case against Strauss-Kahn is collapsing under the weight of his accuser's lies. So says the New York Times, which is not in the habit of jumping the gun to vilify a rape accuser.

Here's the story, according to the New York Times: "The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May." Read the entire story here.

A highlight: "prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself." And: "the accuser has repeatedly lied" to police.

To paraphrase Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that lying about rape is going on in here!"

The Times continues: "The revelations are a stunning change of fortune for Mr. Strauss-Kahn," and "prosecutors from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., . . . initially were emphatic about the strength of the case and the account of the victim." 

The problem?  They haven't been reading this blog.

Or Ferdinand Bardamu's. Ferdinand cuts to the chase and says it more bluntly: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that it’s nearly impossible for a man to force a woman to go down on him, because she has these little things called “teeth” that she can use to bite his dick off. Unless Strauss-Kahn was holding a gun to her head, this part of the story should have been laughed to scorn."

Back on May 17, we wrote: "Without knowing with any degree of certainty a single detail about the alleged incident, aside from the fact that it is a classic 'he said/she said' rape allegation, the world has allowed an internationally prominent public servant to be destroyed by an unnamed hotel maid it knows absolutely nothing about."

And now, after they actually have investigated the claim, and the maid, the New York district attorney's office appears to have jumped the gun. "Oops!  Ha ha ha!  Looks like we destroyed this guy a little too fast.  Oh, well, that's the way it goes.  Ha ha ha."

Friends, I have said this repeatedly and I will say it again and again: we have handed anonymous women and children far, far too much power to destroy the lives and reputations of presumptively innocent men before even a scrap of evidence has been introduced to prove their guilt.

It would be incredibly amusing how often the sexual grievance industry uses liars to tout their cause if the stakes for innocent men and boys weren't so serious.

As reader Mudlark said when he sent us this story: "I hope this case is finally the one that is big enough to cause a change in how quickly the media accepts guilt."

I do, too. But little things like "facts" don't matter to people who are trying to make a larger point -- about how men mistreat women, even when they don't.