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.

[nyconse]

"You, for instance, could live with KB being found guilty."

You must be kidding-right?

[Iwo Jima]

You are pretty easily satisfied when the statements being bandied about are supportive of your desired outcome. You are willing to bet money on an outcome which requires that unidentified persons "will come forward" and say who knows what. Just something, anything that will smear Bryant. I don't think that it much matters to you what they say, just so it's harmful to him.

As to the statement that the "boys" (your term, not mine, I didn't realize that it was all males)at the party to whom the accused is said to have discussed Bryant's size, why on earth do you think that they will have the slightest hesitancy about "swear[ing] to this stuff under oath." Just how are they going to avoid it? Are you saying that they will go to jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify? It's not their decision, you know. The judge will have something to say about that.

And why would they be reluctant to testify about something that they (or one, at least -- Evancho) has already appeared on national TV talking about? It's not like they have anything to be ashamed of. If the accused said these things, the shame is on the accused, not on them. She said it; they just heard it.

So let me try one last time to pin down your free-floating abstractions: do you maintain that the partygoers will not testify because they will not be subpoenaed, because they will defy a subpoena, or because they will refuse to testify and suffer contempt of court instead?

This ought to be interesting.

[nyconse]

I don't even know who Randy Warwick is. Maybe he has contacts and maybe he doesn't. But didn't red post something where Randy mentions the victim talking to the bellhop? I don't care if she was driven home. The important thing is did she speak about the rape to the bellhop and other employees right after the rape. Also, what about injuries? Do you discount the many reports of injuries?

[cyncooper]

It's the Westerfield effect, all over again. It's just fun to watch, and to play.

Funny, I think of the Westerfield effect as not thinking the defendent is guilty no matter the incriminating evidence there seems to be. Then trash the "accuser".

So, for your Westerfield effect to be analogous it would those who insist Bryant is innocent depite any evidence that may come out to incriminate him (way too soon to say, IMO, but some are clearly digging their trenches) are the same that said "Westerfield has been framed!". And those pointing to the accuser as the bad character of the piece would be the same that pointed to the van Dams as the villains of that saga.

[Howlin]

I don't even know who Randy Warwick is.

I know.

[nyconse]

I don't think what they said was true. Others at the party have said it wasn't true. Also, I am not sure it would be admissable under Colorado's tough rape shield laws.

[Iwo Jima]

Then how do you know what he will say?

Witnesses can speak out. There is no gag order which applies to them. They just may prefer not to, and if that is the case, I respect them for it. But Evancho and others who have spoken out publicly are likely witnesses, too.

[nyconse]

Witnesses can not speak out. There is a gag order which covers the participants-including witnesses. Also, the DA would certainly have told witnesses not to speak out.

[cyncooper]

Watch out for that; that's VERY sketchy.

Don't worry. When testimony is given I'll be able to evaluate it properly.

[Dolphy]

What will the accuser come across as, for having answered it?

We don't know that she answered him, or answered him in the way he claims. My point is that the defense better be sure and better be certain that others won't discredit their witness. If this becomes a few witnesses saying one thing and few others saying another, Evancho stands to look like a bullying, jerk for asking that type of question and by association, hurt the defense.

[nyconse]

You know, You may think some small town reporter is telling the new version of the gospel, I don't know how credible he is because I am not familiar with his work. I have not called this guy a liar. I merely suggested that-like others-he may have gotten inforamtion from sources that is not correct. Of course, he may be completely correct. How should I know. I maintain, we will not know much until the case is tried unless some information such as arrest reports is released by the court.

[Howlin]

I wonder if we'll hear from the first "grouping" of friends of this girl who all said, yes, she WAS capable of making this up.

[nyconse]

I doubt it very much- there opinion will carry no wait in court.

[cyncooper]

I don't think you are very perceptive. At least when it comes to evaluating comments on this case.

Clearly those with an emotional investment in a preordained outcome are the "Kobe is INNOCENT!" camp.

[Howlin]

You've already proved that you don't know much about the law. I'll go with Iwo Jima on this one.

[nyconse]

"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."

Tell me how this helps Kobe? I don't see that this aids his defense in any way-in fact it hurts him.

[Iwo Jima]

You are refusing to anser my question. JUST HOW WILL THESE WITNESSES AVOID TESTIFYING????? My question was very clear and specific. But you refuse to respond.

You are actually saying that these witnesses will not show themselves in court just because YOU don't think that what they said is true. Do you really think that your belief in the truth or falsity of their statements has any bearing on whether they testify or not? They must think that what they said is true, or they wouldn't have said it on national TV.

No rape shield law will bar this testimony. This has nothing to do with prior sexual history, which is about all that a rape shield law covers. But then you knew that, didn't you? Just more wishful thinking.

[nyconse]

I thought only the accuser's friends lashed out at the other side: cirled wagons and all.

[nyconse]

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

Well this certainly helps the defense (sarcasm).

[Howlin]

Let me give you a little primer about a court of law:

Until it is sworn to in a court of law and CROSS EXAMINED nothing you read anywhere is considered evidence.

Stop grabbing anything you can to trash Kobe Bryant.

For all you know that's another lie.