[xsmommy]

well that is just asinine and it is just looking for a slight for women to take it that way. and i think you are absolutely WRONG that that is the intent of the defense in proffering this evidence. the prosecution has to prove their case (not at this stage, but ultimately) beyond a reasonable doubt. that this girlie was behaving in a way that is inconsistent with a rape victim casts doubt. that her alleged injuries (which were made much of prior to these hearings and haven't turned out to be as appalling as they were made out to be) could have resulted from prior sexual contact (and been a preexisting condition by the time she was having sex with kobe) casts doubt.

like i said, there is much haziness over whether this is the PRESS characterizing this as exculpatory. i do not believe that hsi defense team is doing that. for one thing, these people are SMART. believe it. they are successful at what they do, so i would not be so quick as to ascribe something asinine like that to them.

[VRWCmember]

like i said, there is much haziness over whether this is the PRESS characterizing this as exculpatory. i do not believe that hsi defense team is doing that.

... so i would not be so quick as to ascribe something asinine like that to them.

I simply took the report at face value when it said his attorneys said they have "compelling evidence" of his "innocence".

EAGLE, Colo. - Kobe Bryant's attorneys dropped another bombshell Wednesday, saying they have "compelling evidence" that the NBA superstar is innocent of rape and accused prosecutors of ignoring it.

If the attorneys did not characterize it that way but instead characterized it as demonstrating that the prosecution's case is too weak to reach the standard of evidence, then chalk my misunderstanding up to bad reporting. If they want to characterize this as substantial reasonable doubt, and even that it makes proof beyond a reasonable doubt completely impossible, then I have no problem with that. But to characterize it as "compelling evidence" that he did not rape her is what I find disturbing. The only way to argue that it is "compelling evidence" that he did not rape her is to argue that it is "compelling evidence" that she consented to the sexual encounter. That characterization is what I find so offensive. Fortunately for the defense, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, so the defense does not have to prove that he didn't rape her; the prosecution has to prove that he did.