Two more rumors bite the dust (Ride home and torn clothing just not true, sources say)

The Vail Daily ^ | 8/4/03 | The Vail Daily

[Smogger]

Two more reports regarding the Kobe Bryant case circulating among part of the national media were debunked Monday.

Media reports that the 19-year-old woman who Bryant allegedly assaulted received a ride home is not the case, sources said Monday. Reports that her clothing was torn are also untrue, sources also.

Sources told the Daily that the alleged victim managed to get herself home by 11:50 p.m., June 30, after ending the shift at the Lodge at Cordillera at around 11:10 p.m.

They also said that while her clothing was disheveled and showed signs that something had occurred, it wasn't torn or ripped, as some reports indicated.

"Some of the reports made it sound like something out of a bad movie," said one source. "It wasn't like that."

The reports are part of a larger set of rumors and gossip that have been circulating across the country about the case. Among them:

- That the alleged victim was in the room two hours. It was only about 20 minutes.

- When she came down, she was hysterical. She was not. Sources said she was in a stupor and a state of shock.

- A few days before the incident, the alleged victim had accused another hotel worker of sexual harassment, getting him fired. Not true, said the man who was terminated. It was not the alleged victim.

Cameras in court

Eagle County Judge Fred Gannett ruled that not only is Bryant required to appear at 4 p.m. Wednesday, he also ruled Monday that there will be cameras in the courtroom.

Gannett denied a motion by Bryant's attorneys asking Gannett to reconsider an earlier order allowing one video camera and one still camera in the courtroom while Bryant is advised of the charges against him, and also advised of his rights.

[Smogger]

I am glad to see you respect Wyrick's reporting. Perhaps what he says here will give you pause and let you consider that Bryant just MIGHT have assaulted this girl:

I have no opinion on his reporting, but I assume all of his sources are going to be police officers, so of course they are all going to recount her version of events.

Are you asserting he has some more insight into what happend in that hotel room other then waht the police tell him SOMEONE ELSE SAID took place?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

I only know what is reported in the papers on TV just like everyone else.

But you said that based upon what you know about his and her past, you conclude he is innocent and can't see how anyone could possible come to another conclusion. Now, you have just admitted that you really don't know anything and have essentially admitted that you have disregarded anything incriminating for Kobe.

I'm in favor of full discolure. Let's have a look at everyone's 911 records.

"They're sealed [dispatch records] because they have nothing to do with the investigation,

Nah, no point. Unless the records pertain to a call to report a rape on the night of the alleged assault. You seem intent on bringing irrelevent information into a trial. It's not hard for one to figure out why that is.

[Elsie]

I could, if I understood html.

It's not so hard.

---

Do you understand any programming language?

Structurally, HTML is a LOT easier. No GOTO's or subroutines or loops of IF statements.

---

I did not KNOW HTML either, when I started. I just right clicked on things, selected VEIW SOURCE from the menu, and just watched to see how OTHERS coded their stuff.

---

There is an HTML primer right here on FR.

[cyncooper]

How admirable that you stick scrupulously to the known facts.

(/sarcasm)

[#3Fan]

just cause a man wears shorts to works and dribbles you'all think he is important.

This isn't just about a basketball player, it's about justice. We saw what happened before when a rich worshipped athlete commits a crime against a Joe Everybody. OJ got off because of his status. This is what makes this important. There should be justice for all.

[cyncooper]

I am sure you will become familiar with their names faces and testimony as this case moves towards trial.

I'm on record that my guess is we will never see those cretins (hey, I saw the "host" and didn't like him) take the stand.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Oh yeah? Well I have physical injuries, and I assert that your to blame. Case closed eh?

You are not that dense now are you? I wasn't in a hotel with you, I haven't admitted to being there, there are not witnesses that said I was there and I have not admitted to having sex with you. Sheesh.

The victim is going to have to take the stand and be believed, and frankly thus far she is not very believable.

So, you have talked with her when no one else has? You know of a history of her falsely reporting rapes?

And know one has even asked her a softball question yet.

Damn, who are all these people who have been interviewing her? Man, are you sure you don't know more than what's in the media? LOL!! You are a hoot!!

[cyncooper]

Won't be the last you here of this kid. BTW it was HIS party.

It looks like this kid is the one angling for his 15 minutes, unlike the bellhop that you labeled as such.

[EllaMinnow]

I've been trying to catch up on this thread before the eaily thunderstorm rolls in.

Two questions:
1. In this article debunking two rumors, does Wyrick debunk the "visible injuries" that he mentioned yesterday?

2. Am I seeing the suggestion that the bellhop's website counts against him?
Geez, my husband is right at this moment loading software into the county schools network. One of the programs is for the students to put up their own sites - as a REQUIREMENT of high school computer classes.

[Elsie]

I

didn't

CODE anything here!!!

 

My e-mail did it all!!!!!   (Outlook Express)

[EllaMinnow]

How did you do that>

Heck, I can't even figure out how to post a photo on my profile page.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Wow, pretty neat trick, committing suicide twice. What is she, the virgin Mary incarnate?

Actually she's a cat with seven more lives to go...

[HurkinMcGurkin]

I'm on record that my guess is we will never see those cretins (hey, I saw the "host" and didn't like him) take the stand.

I am with you. Wait till its time for depositions and there is no one to be found. Even if some people do file a deposition, much of this heresay isn't going to be allowed. No one has yet said anythig close to that they heard her say Kobe didn't assault her. Everything is just character assasination.

It will come down to two things: The evidence and her testimony as to what occurred.

[cinFLA]

I

didn't

CODE anything here!!!

 

My e-mail did it all!!!!!   (Outlook Express)

[cyncooper]

Re 911 calls to Kobe's So. Calif. home -- his wife probably fainted a few times when he confessed this crap to her..........

How does that explain the March call from his home to 911? (I have no idea what it entails, but it is ODD) Clearly the March call had nothing to do with this Eagle, Colorado situation.

Also, the July 3 call was placed and there was a hang up. Again, very odd. (And has potential sinister implications)

[NittanyLion]

Nice dodge trying to drag Clinton into this.

Hardly. It's a direct analogy - you claimed if one doesn't know all the details innocence must be presumed. Since you don't know all the details of the Clinton case I'm assuming the same. Or if you'd rather not talk Clinton, let's talk OJ, Menendez Brothers, etc.

but I digress. What's your question?

Question is, do you apply this "principle" beyond your defense of Kobe Bryant?

[Iwo Jima]

Why do you call Steve Evancho a "cretin?" Is that the sort of name-calling that you have said should not be done with respect to the accuser? Just what did Steve do to obtain cretin status in your eyes?

And, cretin or not, why do you assume that the defense will not subpoena Steve and force him to repeat on the stand in front of the jury what he has already said in front of cameras? What earthly reason would they have for NOT presenting to the jury evidence that the accuser was making light of her experience?

I think that you just don't like what Steve said and so you trivialize and discount it. Do you doubt that most jurors would find that testimony very significant? I think that it would be outcome-determinative.

[#3Fan]

Well acutally the accused is supposed to have the presumption of innocence to begin with, adding to that what I know about the the alleged victim's past and the alleged accuser's past, and the details surrounding the incident that have come out, and I would say the presumption of innocence is intact, and frankly I don't see how any fair minded person could see it any other way.

So then you believe that OJ is innocent and always presumed him to be innocent? Do you believe he's actually searching for the killer on those golf courses? lol

[cyncooper]

1) No, that is not debunked, so I posted the link and excerpt to that NBC article quoting Wyrick that you provided yesterday to underscore the point.

2) Thanks for that info about mandatory sites as part of a school curriculum. I didn't read Pietrack's site, but he can't be too old. Perhaps he had the same requirement and ending up maintaining it.

3) Please send rain this way. Thanks.:)

[Republic]

I don't think Rita is a fat cow. I like her. She is devishly good at interviewing-if a witness is lying, that is beyond her control. If you don't like her, fine. But I do, and that is fine, too!