At the outset, it is my personal belief that the prosecution is absolutely correct in their decision to drop the charges against DSK. The author is correct in stating that her credibility (or lack thereof) as a witness would make it extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove DSK's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, in fairness, the accounts that I have read indicate that her credibility issues are collateral in nature; i.e, she has been caught in several misrepresentations that are not necessarily central to the issue of what exactly happened on that particular night in that specific hotel room. Thus far, her lies, as reported, are classic "bad act" impeachment material: she lied on her tax returns, prior sexual history, immigration forms, etc. Upon cross-examination, these facts are usually and properly within the province of the jurors as triers of fact.  And, as the triers of facts, jurors may take these lies into account when considering her truthfulness on the stand as to the facts of the evening that she alleges she was assaulted. 

Point is: we don't know what happened that evening. Maybe what she claims happened is closer to the truth than not. No one, except those two in the room that day, will ever know what really happened. 

But the fact of the matter is she's a known liar - not to mention the fact that she has a separate civil lawsuit pending. This is the stuff of a defense attorney's dreams. 

Further prosecution, whether DSK did it or not, is untenable. 

This is pretty much why it doesn't pay to report a rape if you aren't a Polly Anna.  Everything you've ever done wrong will be dug up and used against you. 

Or maybe you shouldn't lie to law enforcement about past crimes and lie under oath in front of a grand jury about the circumstances of the current case. Can you explain those away ishtar? Or does your guilty until proven innocent rhetoric not allow you to?

But there is a major non-collateral credibility issue. She lied under oath in front of a Grand Jury about the facts in this specific case.

If that's true, I stand corrected. I am not 100 % clear as to what the substantiated lie was to the grand jury. In any event, that's not surprising, considering the myriad of lies she has been caught in thus far.

I still say he looks like Madeleine Albright in drag.  Great seducer, my ass

The DA, his royal highness Cyrus Vance, Jr., is victimizing the victim a second time. I doubt Cyrus Vance, Sr (RIP) would be very happy with his son. The victim deserves her day in court and if she screws it up, so be it. Now DSK is going to be free to attack another young woman and feel he can get away with it. The only good thing that will come from the case is that France will not elect him their president. I hope when the next attack happens that Cyrus Vance, Jr. will be able to sleep at night. What if this was his daughter, niece, Goddaughter who was attacked? Sad day for Justice in NYC. What happened to the man who lived in Seattle and made a difference? Time to retire and let someone else who believes in true justice to do the job. Shame on DA Vance. A very sad day for justice.

Your understanding of the justice system is pretty weak.  No victim of a crime (not even a victim that didn't consistently lie to the D.A.'s office) has a "right" to her day in court.  The only person with a right to a day in court is the accused.  They have the right to a fair trial.

What? Assuming she even was a victim of a crime (highly doubtful at this point), maybe she shouldn't have lied to investigators, lied under oath at the Grand Jury, lied about a non-existent previous rape on her immigration application, etc. The win here is for justice. People keep forgetting that it's innocent until proven guilty, regardless of the crime , the politics behind it, or the media's coverage of it.

The Duke Lacrosse team found out the hard way that some people don't believe in innocent until proven guilty when it comes to cases involving gender, race or class differences.

If there are any wins to be had here, it's definitely for rapists.  The way the DA handled this and the cop case really adds to the reluctance to report sexual assaults.  I'm pretty insistent on reporting any and all crime to the police, but even if I were a victim of sexual assualt I would think twice before contacting NYPD.

Imagine being raped in Baltimore.  The DA office there says that 30% (30 percent!) of the rape charges in the city are turning out to be made up.  That's an epidemic and no one knows why.

councilwoman letitia james and many women's rights organizations are holding a press conference/rally in support of the victim today at 5pm: http://www.facebook.com/event....

so you mean they're holding a rally for the person in this case who was seemingly held on false/trumped up charges and whose career was ruined?

At what point in the disintegration of this case do you stop referring to this woman as a "victim"?

It's feminist sexism run amok. Unless she outright admits she made it all up, she will remain a victim in their eyes.

and, even then, the argument will be that she made it up to honor the real victims.

Didn't this happen a month ago?