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 said his sources are more reliable. Or can't you read?

[Brandon]

I stand second to none in the trauma she caused me. I got sick to my stomach when she crowed "Gore won!" (Which obviously meant "won" another recount, since the counts to that date had gone in GWB's favor consistantly.) I turned to MSNBC and, to his credit, Dan Abrams and team were analyzing the decision correctly.

I'm going to give Rita a bye on this one. A lot of people thought Gore might have "won", based on the first impression. There was a tremendous amount of confusion, with reporters paging frantically through the decision looking for the bottom line. I thought Gore had won at first, because whichever channel I had on (I no longer remember) started by reading the part of the decision that said the case was being reminded to the SCOFLA. IMHO, this is what happens when you get a bunch of reporters trying to interpret a complex (and in this case hastily and poorly written) legal document on the fly. They should have had a prior agreement: When the decision is issued, we will all take a 30 minute break to actually read the darn thing all the way through before attempting to report the outcome.

[Brandon]

I doubt that there will be any depositions. There hardly ever are in criminal cases. But the defense will subpoena Steve Evancho (and any others who have made similar statements) and just put them on the stand live at trial. I doubt that they would defy a subpoena, but if they did the judge will deal with that.

Why in the world would you assume that these people will not testify? And do you question the significance of this testimony to the jury?

The questions weren't directed at me, but I agree with the person who said they suspect these people will never testify. My reason for thinking so is that when they get interviewed by the defense team (actually, they probably already have been interviewed by both the defense and the D.A.), it will turn out that the incident at the party didn't happen they way they told it to the media, and that at least some of them were not actually first-hand witnesses of the alleged remarks.

[Brandon]

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.

If there is any testimony about the party at all, the prosecution most certainly will be calling some party-goers. They will be calling the ones (also quoted in the media) who claimed the conversation never occurred, and/or the ones who claim that the girl talked about the even briefly, and only after being badgered by other party-goers. The fact that there are at least four different versions of what happened at that party is one of the strongest reasons to suspect that there will be no testimony about the party -- it's only marginally relevant (if at all), and the testimony is likely to be contradictory -- a bunch of hearsay generated by teenagers, based largely on whether they like the accuser or not.

[Hildy]

I agree about her voice. And I will never forget how she screwed up during the 2000 Pres. election...everyone remember what I'm talking about?

[Smogger]

The mere fact that she made the decision to attend the party three days before Kobe was formally charged is IMHO telling.

[cyncooper]

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

I'll try to remember. I actually like Olberman's show when he is not talking politics. (The presidential kind)

[Iwo Jima]

Steve Evancho, at whose house the party was held, was interviewed on camera on MSNBC. The others have made public statements (i.e., not anonymous) but I do not know if they have been interviewed on camera. At least this is my understanding.

I have heard that anonymous persons have said that they did not hear those statements, but I personally do not give such anonymous and inconsequential statements much credibility. I have not even heard (except unsourced statements by posters here on FR) that the accused was not in town when Evancho says she attended a party at his house. I totally discount any such possibility.

That the accused made the statements attributed to her by Evancho and others is totally believable to me, perhaps because I have unfortunantely had personal experience with two very close friends with the type of "histrionic personality" which the accuser's friends, former friends, and acquaintances have so clearly described. This is exactly the type of attention-seeking, negative behavior which people of that type are compelled to engage in. They really can't help themselves.

You do understand that if it is true that the accuser was "badgered" into joking and talking lightly about the incident or speaking about Bryant's size at all, she has totally destroyed her credibility. I do not think that the jury would want to send anyone to prison on the testimony of such a weak person.

[Iwo Jima]

Thanks for the heads-up.

[cyncooper]

The mere fact that she made the decision to attend the party three days before Kobe was formally charged is IMHO telling.

It has been established as fact?

Source?

And what if she did? Is she not to socialize? It was two weeks after the incident and how was she supposed to know if the DA was going to charge three days later. She was probably told when the DA made his decision which would have been afterwards.

At any rate, it is not a proven fact she even attended, much less behaved as described by the famous five.

[Iwo Jima]

The witnesses who contend that they did not hear the accused say the things that Evancho et al say that she said would be called as rebuttal witnesses by the prosecution after the defense has put on its case. The prosecution would only call someone who would testify "I was with her every single second of the party, she never was out of my presence, and she never said those things." I doubt that there is anyone who would be able to provide such testimony, so I doubt there will be that rebuttal testimony.

Now if there is iron-clad evidence (which I seriously doubt) that the accused did not even attend the party, then I would expect that neither the defense nor the prosecution present any evidence along these line. But if there is evidence as to all three (attended the party and said these things, attended the party and did not say these things, and did not attend the party), then it all comes in and the jury (I predict) says to heck with it, we're not sending anyone to prison on screwed up testimony like this. The muddier the water, the better for the defense because the prosecution has the burden of proof.

[cyncooper]

No mention that she attended the July 15 party in this article. I acknowledge they don't outright debunk her attendance either, but by the time this article was written the party story was out there.

Kobe Bryant's Accuser Craves Spotlight, but Friends Say Not Like This

Excerpt:

She is less visible these days, her friends say, staying home most of the time, unless she's driving to meetings at her attorney's office in nearby Avon. She still visits friends but has been warned by authorities not to talk about the case.

I really think the party story has not been established as fact and I would not race to embrace it.

[#3Fan]

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.

(That was several years ago, let's see if I can remember here) No, you're throwing away bloody truck, bloody shoes, matching shoes, truck chase, admissions in the truck chase, late for car, no alibi, cut finger, bloody goves, yard noises, footprints, etc., for the fact that one piece of evidence that wasn't babysat for 24 hours a day for more than a year. I hope you're on my jury in case I ever want to get away with a crime.

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.

Gee, what'd they ever do before DNA evidence to convict someone of murder? Regardless, it's beyond credibility to suggest that any police force could plant that much evidence.

[#3Fan]

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?"

It's relevent to your claim that when a person in going to be on trial, we out here in cyberland should presume him innocent. I assume you don't presume OJ innocent. You gotta be consistent.

[Iwo Jima]

I appreciate your efforts to dig for articles on point to this discussion. That is something that I am not willing to do, and so I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

As you acknowledge, there is no one indicated in this story who can take the stand and swear "I was at the party and she was not there" or "I was with her somewhere else and she was not even at the party."

You are of course free to disbelieve anything that does not seem "right" to you, as am I. But until someone credible publicly states that the statements of Evancho et al are not just incorrect but just plain false, then I am factoring in those statements as likely testimony at trial. And I would say the same thing about any public statement which, for example, the bellhop allows to be attributed to him.

[#3Fan]

I said his sources are more reliable. Or can't you read?

Like those at the party which you started an article on if I'm not mistaken, where there was more than account. Yeah, real reliable.

[jjbrouwer]

My apologies for being so perfect. Get over yourself, twit.

[#3Fan]

The mere fact that she made the decision to attend the party three days before Kobe was formally charged is IMHO telling.

Yeah, when bad things happen to me, all I want to do is lock myself in a dark room and stew about it for three weeks. /sarcasm

[EllaMinnow]

I was doing a google about the party story, and found this article. From the Washington Times, which can by no means be considered a liberal newspaper.

Bryant's accuser unfairly prejudged as false by public


By Adrienne Washington
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



It is legal canon in this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests with the public prosecutor.
Having gotten that fundamental "Law for Dummies" lesson out of the way, however, the visceral, knee-jerk reaction to basketball star Kobe Bryant's accuser deserves to be put on public trial long before he sets his expensive Nikes in a Colorado courtroom.
"She's just a gold digger" became the maddening mantra. Fans are "shocked" by the sexual-assault charges leveled against clean-cut Kobe. Excuse me, but I have been awed and appalled by some of the off-the-cuff comments being made about the 19-year-old hotel clerk — also clean-cut by local accounts — who filed a complaint against the 24-year-old basketball player after their encounter in the wee hours of the morning June 30 at the posh Lodge and Spa at Cordillera.
Only two persons on earth really know what went on in that room.
"He didn't have to force her. He can get anyone he wants," was the rallying chant.
This the most damaging and injurious of defenses, because as experts in this awful arena will tell you time and again, rape and sexual assault are violent crimes that are actually not about getting sex at all. They are crimes in which sex is used as a weapon of power and control.
So quick was the judgment against her that you'd think the unnamed woman, who everybody will soon know, was the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Already stories are circulating about the former cheerleader, "American Idol" contender "seeking the limelight" or being unstable or being suicidal. Is this fast and furious finger-pointing because most don't have a clue what constitutes rape? Is this because too many people put too many athletes on pedestals? Is it cynicism or fear that drives society's discomfort and disdain when celebrities are called into question, particularly with sex-related crimes? Witness how Paula Jones was turned into a pariah when she accused Bill Clinton of untoward sexual advances. Nobody believed her either, until the infamous intern Monica Lewinsky disclosed the dress.
Remember who said "the bitch set me up"? Remember Jodie Foster in "The Accused"? Remember sportscaster Marv Albert in a Virginia hotel room? These high-profile cases have a chilling effect on lesser-known victims who are reluctant to come forward and file charges against their attackers because they know that they will be immediately ridiculed by either their parents, their peers, their partners or the police.
Does anyone really believe that someone would so lightly set themselves up for such scrutiny and scourge? And, no one blames the victim more than she blames herself. Most troubling was that some of the most rabid ranting came out of the mouths of women. "It's just Mike Tyson all over again," said one woman who called into a local radio station seeking instant reaction to "breaking news" that Bryant had been formally charged Friday.
Granted, Kobe is no Madman Mike, but a rape by any other nice name is a "sexual assault" or having "inflicted sexual intrusion or sexual penetration causing submission against the victim's will." Granted, the tearful sports idol fessed up about his "mistake of adultery." Good move. Slam-dunk. But he just as swiftly denied the assault charges with his betrayed wife by his side. He may well be acquitted claiming that what happened was between two consenting adults.
Still, the only supportive and protective comments for the victim — yes, the victim — heard above the hue and cry about Kobe's career and advertising contracts came from Eagle County (Colo.) District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, who asked the media to respect the victim's privacy.
Yesterday, I checked with the D.C. Rape Crisis Center. Mine was the first media call they received. Ditto over at Men Can Stop Rape headquarters.
Jonathan Stillerman, co-founder and co-director of Men Can Stop Rape, said that he hopes the Bryant case will present "an opportunity to elevate the issue of sexual assault in the public's eye so people see this as something to be taken seriously." He explained that "a lot of people see [sexual assault] as rough sex rather than a crime. They think the rapist is hard up and the crime comes out of some desperation to get some kind of sex."
Not so. In fact, the statistics show that the majority of sex offenders were involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with one or more partners at the time they committed their offense, Mr. Stillerman said.
"Fundamentally, this is not about sex. It is about using sex as a weapon to gain power and control or to express anger," which very often comes out a sense of entitlement.
"It makes perfect sense that someone in a high-profile position who is worshipped and has hero status may feel entitled to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to whoever he wants," he said. "It's that sense of entitlement that can fuel sexual coercion or sexual violence." Therefore, "It comes as no surprise that someone with that same sense of entitlement may not end up thinking much about somebody else's boundaries, wishes or limits," he said.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Stillerman points out, "we don't have a radar to detect the safe man from the dangerous man," because sexual assailants cross all economic, class, race and cultural lines.
More often than not, we let our hero worship blind us in an attempt to deal with our discomfort and feelings of helplessness. We live through our idols, and when they fall, so do we. The result is an overriding tendency to defend and protect. Nonetheless, in his dozen years' experience in this field, Mr. Stillerman said it is rare for someone to file such a claim falsely. In fact, he said, the statistics indicate that only 2 percent to 3 percent of filed reports end up being false assertions.
No doubt "victim blaming is all too common in sexual assault," as he said.
The next time we're tempted to say "She's just a ... ," we should give great pause.