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.

[Iwo Jima]

Not being credible is very different from being a "cretin," wouldn't you say? I'm glad to know that when you use the word "cretin," you are merely decribing a person whom you do not believe.

Why do you say that subpeonaing Evancho would be suborning perjury? It would only be subornation of perjury if the defense knew for a fact that what the witness was going to testify was false. Even if you are correct that Evancho's statements are not true, how would the defense know that? No, it would not be subornation of perjury under any fathomable set of facts. It would however be the a clear case of legal malpractice not to subpoeana Evancho.

Do you have another basis for saying that Evancho won't be subpoenaed or are you going to rest on your "subornation of perjury" claim?

I do not believe that Evancho is lying, just as I would not believe Pietrack to be lying if he made a statement about what he saw or heard. Your animosity against Evancho betrays your assertion that you are just interested in the truth.

[Iwo Jima]

Well, it is clear that you have no legal knowledge, so let me explain a few things to you.

You said "depositions," not "discovery." If by "discovery," you now mean to say that the defense gets to see the prosecution's witness list, well, that is certainly true but totally irrelevant to this discussion.

The prosecution will not be calling Evancho or the other partygoers as witnesses. The defense will. And they will be subpoenaed. This process is not considered discovery.

Discovery, meaning something formal other than exchanges of witness list and mandatory disclosure from the prosecution to the defense, is almost never done in crimninal cases, and this is especially true for depositions.

I have not "removed" any possibility that the partygoers are liars, just as I would not assume that the bellhop is a liar. The jury will decide whether or not their testimony is to be believed and if so what weight to give it. But to claim that they will not be called to testify is unsupportable and displays ignorance and bias.

Interesting, I say, that you don't think that there is any chance that they did NOT lie. Most interesting.

[xm177e2]

"sources?"-why should I believe these more than what Rita reported?

You are supposed to believe the sources you want to believe, and then accuse the other side of obviously being a bunch of liars for believing the other sources.

[xm177e2]

Am I missing something?

She is a "person of gender."

[Iwo Jima]

"Cretins" is the term which is being applied to persons whose public statements you do not believe.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

The defense will. And they will be subpoenaed.

I believe its unlikely they will testify to anything IF such testimony would even be allowed. Again, no one alleged they heard her say she wasn't assaulted.

Interesting, I say, that you don't think that there is any chance that they did NOT lie. Most interesting.

I have never posted any such thing. I only commented that it appears you believe there is no chance they are lying.

[capt. norm]

"While Rita may not be the ultimate babe at FNC, she remains one of the best reporters in TV news."

My feelings exactly.

Been watching her a long time and was glad to see that she got her own show.

She's had a number of stories where she was the prime reporter and she persued the subject in great depth.

I do hope her wieght thing is something she can work her way past.

[Iwo Jima]

You are not making any sense and keep changing your position. You state no basis for your claim that they will not testify.

As to whether or not any particular witness will be allowed to testify, that is the judge's call initially. I cannot see any reason why this testimony would not be allowed, and I think that it would be clear, reversible error if it is not. It is certainly relevant and, IMO, outcome-determinative if believed by the jury, which I think that it would be.

The accuser may not have said that she was not assulted, but if this testimony is true, she certainly acted as though she had not been assaulted.

[cinFLA]

She is a "person of gender."

We are all persons of 'gender'.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

You are not making any sense and keep changing your position. You state no basis for your claim that they will not testify.

Huh?? I said, in my last post, that I have not concluded that there is no chance they are telling the truth. That does not change the fact that I, and others here, do not think they will testify because they may have lied or exaggerated.

I cannot see any reason why this testimony would not be allowed, and I think that it would be clear, reversible error if it is not.

One, its highly prejudicial, as demonstrated on this board and many others. I have seen numerous people post and say that they believe Kobe is innocent based upon this short interview. Secondly, if she was not talking to these people who make this claim, then it may be ruled inadmissable.

And also, I think these "witnesses" would be easily "shredded" by the prosecution.

[cyncooper]

Not being credible is very different from being a "cretin," wouldn't you say?

Why, yes I would.

I'm glad to know that when you use the word "cretin," you are merely decribing a person whom you do not believe.

No, when I use the word "cretin" I meant to convey that I found Evancho didn't appear to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

Why do you say that subpeonaing Evancho would be suborning perjury? It would only be subornation of perjury if the defense knew for a fact that what the witness was going to testify was false. Even if you are correct that Evancho's statements are not true, how would the defense know that? No, it would not be subornation of perjury under any fathomable set of facts. It would however be the a clear case of legal malpractice not to subpoeana Evancho.

I currently tend to not believe Evancho because, as I clearly stated, he did not appear credible in statement or demeanor to me. As to finding truth, if the girl did not attend the party (as other reports have said) then she might be able to provide proof that she was elsewhere on the night in question, thus the lawyers would determine well before drawing up their witness list to not call these guys. Other versions of the story have the girl there but not behaving as described. The witnesses will be interviewed by lawyers before a determination is made to call them and my position right now is these guys will not be called.

Your animosity against Evancho betrays your assertion that you are just interested in the truth.

My opinion of Evancho is based on observing him tell his tale and the reporterette characterize the rest of his story. I am offended that these guys assert that this girl was at the party and by their own account they brought up the topic and goaded her to comment upon it. That behavior on its face is cretinous and disgusting.

As I said, at this time I don't find it credible. And jurors will be looking at witnesses and determining credibility in much the same way.

[cyncooper]

"Cretins" is the term which is being applied to persons whose public statements you do not believe.

Really? Who is doing that?

Not I.

[lonevoice]

You are supposed to believe the sources you want to believe, and then accuse the other side of obviously being a bunch of liars for believing the other sources.

A good point, and very well illustrated by the Bryant Rorschach test! :-p

[dts32041]

Actually if I was sittig on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit.

The blood evidence was totally tainted (chain of custudy issues) there was no way he could be convicted.

[#3Fan]

Actually if I was sittig on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit. The blood evidence was totally tainted (chain of custudy issues) there was no way he could be convicted.

So then you'd vote to aquit anyone who wasn't caught on videotape committing the crime. You take "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "beyond any hint of doubt whatsoever".

[dts32041]

Nope reasonable doubt, as I said the chain of custody on the blood evidence was tainted.

Tainted means that it was not accounted for 100% of the time.

Reasonable doubt would come into play there.

Nothing to do with racism or anything like that, just proper police procedure.

If you have basically written the book on chain of evidence and you can't follow those procedures, then maybe you should stop writing the book, and actually read it.

[Iwo Jima]

I, and others here, do not think they will testify because they may have lied or exaggerated.

The fact that a witness may have lied or exaggerated does not mean that they will not testify. The witness does not make the decision whether they testify or not. The party calling them (in this case, the defense)will subpoena them if what they have publicly stated is helpful to the case, so long as the party calling them does not know for an absolute fact that the statement was false.

The defense will of course try to speak to the witness prior to their testimony but would likely call them even if they cannot. After all, they have the videotape of their statements and IT IS GOLD.

One, its highly prejudicial, as demonstrated on this board and many others. I have seen numerous people post and say that they believe Kobe is innocent based upon this short interview.

Prejudicial?? Of course, it's prejudicial!!! That's what makes it so relevant. Any evidence which discredits the accuser so thoroughly as this does is by definition prejudicial. And that's the point.

I well remember my evidence professor making fun of the objection of "prejudicial." The only response he said to make was "of course it is, that's why I offered it." He was scathing in his derision of lawyers who objected that evidence was "prejudicial."

In civil law, there is a rule of evidence that evidence which is so prejudicial and of so little probative value that its prejudicial effect far outweighs any arguable relevance that it would simply be appealing to bias and prejudice can be ruled inadmissible. However, I am unaware of any similar rule in criminal law, especially as applied to the prosecution.

Your statements regarding the likely effect of this testimony on the jurors is most instructive. Of course, this testimony would likely determine the outcome of the case. That's a pretty clear expression of its relevance. What you are saying is that the jury will be more likely to acquit if they hear this testimony, and I agree. But the difference between you and me is that you say that means that the jury should not be allowed to hear the testimony, and I say that that means that the jury must hear the testimony or it will be reversible error and the case would likely have to be retried.

Secondly, if she was not talking to these people who make this claim, then it may be ruled inadmissable.

If they witnesses say that she talked to them, they will testify. If she says that she did not even talk to them, she can testify to that effect but that would only go to the weight of their testimony, not its admissibility. The judge is not going to decide that factual issue.

And also, I think these "witnesses" would be easily "shredded" by the prosecution.

I started to ask why you would say that, but on second thought, I don't think that I will. I think that these witnesses will hold up very well and the only shredding will be the accuser's credibility.

[Brandon]

I consider statements made by people who are willing to go on camera and speak for themselves about what they saw or heard as far more trustworthy. I'm talking about people like Luke Bray and the five (?) partygoers. Those reports were not along the same lines by any means and of course any or all of them could be wrong, but at least we don't have to guess who said what or if the person really said what they are said to have said.

I'm confused by this para. Last I knew, the five party-goers were all still bravely hiding behind their anonymity. I also believe I have heard four separate, mutually-exclusive versions of what happened at that party, all based on anonymous sources:

1. The girl was boasting and bragging about her encounter with Kobe.

2. The girl said nothing whatsoever about the incident.

3. The girl made a few comments about the size of Kobe's equipment after having been mercilessly badgered by other party-goers.

4. The girl didn't attend the party, and was in fact not even in town the night the party happened.

As I said, all anonymous sources, so far as I have heard, so they all need to be taken with a grain of salt. I tend to go with #2 or #3, because #1 is so inconsistent with all other reports of her behavior since the incident, and because #4 would be easy to verify if it were true, and I haven't heard that it has been verified. #3 in particular rings true to me, given what I remember of going to parties as a teenager. I could easily see a young woman in her situation being hassled by others at the party until she finally felt backed into a corner, and that anything she said would then quickly be distorted as it was passed around by word of mouth. Anyone ever played the Telephone Game?

[sinkspur]

Everyone should watch Keith Olberman tonight on MSNBC at 7 PM CST.

The lead-in to his show says "Why the friends of the accuser may hurt the prosecution of Kobe Bryant rather than help."

[Smogger]

Do go on about OJ...

Were not discussing OJ. Were discussing a completely unrelated case with a completely different set of circumstances.

OJ was a "Who done it?"

This is a case of "What if anything was done?"