Inquirer Editorial: EDITORIAL It's understandable that prosecutors didn't want to try the case, but did they deny the accuser justice?

Does justice require the truth to be known before it can be sought? That question hangs over the decision by New York prosecutors to drop rape charges against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

A hotel chambermaid insisted that the 62-year-old Frenchman forced her to have oral sex, but she was caught in so many other lies that prosecutors felt she was no longer a credible witness.

"If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so," said a written statement from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. Imagine if that were the standard for defense lawyers, especially court-appointed ones - that they must absolutely believe their clients to be innocent or refuse to represent them.

Lawyers for Nafissatou Diallo, 32, said discrepancies in her accounts of the alleged attack were due to prosecutors' misinterpreting interviews in the Guinean immigrant's native language. It wasn't just her description of events in the hotel, though, that troubled prosecutors. They said her story of being gang-raped in Guinea wasn't true.

Then there was the call she made to an Arizona prison where her boyfriend was being held on immigration charges, telling him, according to a translator, "Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing."

But neither does Strauss-Kahn have such an impeccable record that lawyers couldn't attack it. In fact, the man known as DSK has also been accused by the French writer Tristane Banon of attempting to rape her eight years ago.

Forensic evidence included semen on the maid's uniform said to be from Strauss-Kahn. But his lawyers have maintained that any sex was consensual.

"Today the district attorney has told the court that it does not believe he is guilty," said William W. Taylor 3d, a lawyer for Strauss-Kahn. That's not an accurate statement, of course. The district attorney decided only that he couldn't prove his case.

Unless more is revealed in Diallo's pending civil suit, it will be up to the rest of the world to decide what they believe. In particular, that will be a task for the people of France if Strauss-Kahn decides to resurrect his quest to become their next president.

This episode may even help him, since some in France believe the rape allegation was part of a plot by his political enemies. If so, the plotters must be questioning their choice of bait.

A criminal trial might have cleared up whether Diallo was part of a conspiracy, acting out of avarice, or a victim of rape. Has she been doubly victimized by a system that favors the powerful? Or has she positioned herself for a big payday from a civil-court jury. It's hard to know since the truth hasn't been established.