Replies

The defense has characterized this as "proof of his innocence" which I would expect any woman to find offensive and insulting. It would seem to suggest that if a woman had consensual sex with one or two other partners within a day or two of the alleged rape, then the sex with the alleged rapist must also be consensual.

So hypothetically this morning you get it on with the hubby before you leave for work; then on your lunch hour you sneak out for a quickie with your boyfriend; then tonight you stop for drinks with some big-time famous athlete and he gets more amorous than you like. Even though you say stop, and insist you don't want to do the nasty with him, he can force you into it and it can't possibly be rape because the presence of semen from other sources in your panties is overwhelming proof of his innocence? Sorry, but the characterization by the defense team of this "bombshell" is dishonest.

Ummmm...that misstates the facts. The Panties she wore to the Hospital THE NEXT DAY, have the would seem to suggest that if a woman had consensual sex with one or two other partners within a day or two of the alleged rape, then the sex with the alleged rapist must also be consensual.

We are talking about Sex, Immediately AFTER the alleged rape

Blood from the Alleged tearing, and an Unknown third parties DNA in the Panties she wore to the hospital the next day.

No Blood in the Panties worn immediately after the alleged incident.

No one is saying she was definitively NOT Raped.Only Her God and Kobe know for sure.But there is more than Reasonable Doubt in this case.

Plus the fact that in order to reach your conclusion, you must ignore the fact that the Prosecution said, the Tearing, and Bleeding is the PROOF of the Rape.

If that is so, then she HAD to be "Raped" by the guy AFTER Kobe according to the prosecutors characterization of the evidence.

Sorry, but the characterization by the defense team of this "bombshell" is dishonest.

The real dishonesty here was the misrepresentation of the evidence by the prosecution.

WaPo... excerpted.

Winters also testified that a trained sexual assault nurse who examined the woman the day after the incident found blood in her underwear and vaginal injuries "not consistent with consensual sex."

Finally, Mackey got around to the nurse's report, which said the vaginal injuries were not consistent with consensual sex. It was at that point that she began to suggest the woman had been with other recent partners -- until she was cut off in mid-sentence by the prosecutors' objections

I would expect any woman to find offensive and insulting

for one thing, i resent women being lumped in together and expected to react in a monolithic fashion. SG, WHyisa and i, for starters, disagree fairly vehemently about this case. there is no reason, just because we are all women, that we should have the same reaction to it.

secondly, i have no idea if it is the press or the defense, characterizing this evidence as exculpatory. i have been at work and tied up with a brief all day and have only haphazardly been able to follow the thread. what it DOES indicate is a sloppy case put together by the prosecutor. if the girlie had sex immediately prior to or after this supposed event, then the prosecutor should KNOW about it and be prepared to counter it. again, this is NOT about her prior sexual history, this goes to the issue, raised by the prosecution, of her physical state as a result of this alleged rape. if there were physical manifestations of sexual conduct present when this supposedly happened, that is relevant because it does CLOUD the issue of his guilt.