On Monday, after the bail hearing, he said, "She is telling the truth. She has no agenda."

How did she get a lawyer so fast? I read somewhere her brother called him after the incident happened. So he has no prior knowledge of her character or propensity for truthfulness. He has only his impressions formed after the encounter. How did she afford him? If he's working on a contingency, is it for a portion of the upcoming civil suit she intends to file? And why hire a personal injury and medical malpractice attorney, even one who is accomplished in that field? How long until Gloria Allred arrives on the scene?

The more impoverished her lawyer makes her out to be, the more some on a jury might believe she was after money -- either money offered at the time from DSK in exchange for sex, or money she expected later from a civil suit.

DSK's lawyers are not making public comments about their defense or their client. Their statement about no evidence of a forcible encounter was made to the judge at a bail hearing, not to the media.

I have no idea what happened in the hotel, and neither does anyone else except the two who were present. Between the police leaks on the investigation and the accuser's attorney promoting her version of events on every network that will have him, DSK is becoming the underdog in my view. He should get bail. He hasn't been convicted of anything, and tomorrow's grand jury indictment is nothing more than an accusation, a one sided finding of probable cause.

As I said the other day, if the court thinks regular home monitoring by telephone with an ankle bracelet isn't sufficient, it should order GSP monitoring or approve a private security firm to monitor him as was done with Bernie Madoff, Cameron Douglas and others. Even if someone tried to arrange a private jet to fly DSK off to France, he'd never make it to the plane before being caught by the GPS or his security team.