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]

Don't know if it is or not. A woman with emotional problems can still be raped. The jury is going to determine if Kobe Bryant raped this girl. I am not convinced the suicide attempts will be admissable, but anything is possible. However, if there is physical evidence and witnesses, I don't think it will be that damaging anyway.

[Howlin]

Well, yes......I was replying to your post to me......just responding to your posts.....not commenting on anything YOU said. Venting, if you will. :-)

[Iwo Jima]

I thought as much.

[nyconse]

I only offered my opinion. I can see these witnesses getting massacred on the stand and that would not be helpful to Kobe's defense. I hope they do testify. I would like to hear what they say.

[katz]

Yes. Rita of FOX is starting to irritate me with her 'latest' reports. She belongs on CNN.

[Howlin]

Do you not think that the fact that this girl tried to take her own life 30 days before she accused this man of raping her is relevant?

[nyconse]

I was actually referring to more threads than this one. I don't feel I am fighting off Kobe defenders. I like a good argument. I really don't know if Kobe is guilty or not. I don't like him because he cheated on his wife and I think he may be a fraud. That being said, it remains for the DA to prove in a court of law he is guilty of rape or not. I have seen no "evidence" only media reports which can not be considered to prove anything.

[nyconse]

It may be relevent. If so, the judge should admit the evidence: it goes to credibility. However, she could be mentally unstable and still be the victim of a rape. Now if there was evidence that she falsely accused others, that certainly would have bearing on this case. Of course, this was one of the "myths" debunked in this post.

[nyconse]

and you of course do know what you are talking about....?

[Iwo Jima]

As a general rule, I would say so.

[nyconse]

What post are you referring to? there have been so many...

[Iwo Jima]

Your last post to Howlin.

[nyconse]

Fair enough. Well I must take myself off to bed. I have enjoyed your posts. You are an excellent debater as is howlin I guess we will have to wait and see what the outcome in this case will be. I find this case fascinating-don't know why: never cared about OJ or anything. Ah well....goodnight.

[Brandon]

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.

No, I understand nothing of the kind. I do understand that if this girl went to a party, trying to get back to as normal a life as she could manage, and people at the party badgered her until she flared up and said something like, "Okay, yes, he had a big ****! Now leave me alone!" That this does nothing at all to damage her credibility.

[Brandon]

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

Is it equally telling that Bryant went to some big Hollywood 'do at about the same time? Personally, I think both his public appearance and her attendance at the party are irrelevant. They are people who are trying to continue to live their lives, while controversy swirls around them.

[Howlin]

Yes, I do. I've been a court reporter for over 20 years. I've seen more courtrooms than you could imagine.

[nyconse]

Howlin I must go to bed. Interesting posts-enjoyed the discussion. I don't see how I can wait six months or longer to find out the outcome of this case. Sometimes when I read mystery novels (love to read), I read the ending before finishing the book-simply must know! I have never cared about stuff like this before-not interested in OJ case or anything. Have a nice evening. LOL

[Howlin]

I asked YOU a point blank question in 346; I notice you didn't answer it.

[Tall_Texan]

It is her JOB to verify the things she reports are FACTS.

You would think so but how often have you seen a media feeding frenzy over some information that wasn't totally correct? According to the media, Gore won Florida twice and Saddam Hussein was killed twice in bombing raids. You act as if Rita Cosby is the only person who ever made a mistake with an on-air report.

I tend not to believe the first report from *any* reporter and check to see if the second one is based on the first one. For example, is the story that appears on ESPN the same one that appears on ABC? Mostly. Same company, same report. Is the story in the New York Post parroting what was reported on Fox News? Probably. Same company, same report. So even if a story appears twice, I still want to know if they can be traced back to the same source. If so, I still want independant verification.

[cars for sale]

answered that several posts later w/ an oops....