Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE.
That is a fact indeed, but having said that isn't it also true that she could be celibate and still lie for whatever reason she has in her heart.
My point is there may exist motives and a proclivity for lying, that are also possible, and in the nature of a thorough defense the accused must not be muzzled by political expediency.
It is inherent in the fabric of common law that a defendant in entitled to a vigorous cross examination, no matter the accusation. However in this age of political correctness, the inference of sexual misdeed, scuttles a defendant's right to search out any motive or pattern of behavior that contribute to finding the truth.
That is certainly true, but misleading.
Her RIGHT to refuse intercourse with Mr. Bryant is undisputed.
The state, however, must prove that she DID refuse, not that she had the right to refuse.
And her propensity to consent to intercourse with strangers (if proven) is a material fact which bears on the state's ability to prove, in this instance, that she refused.
But it would certainly cause me to doubt her claim that any vaginal swelling,bruising or redness was caused by the one fellow she refused.
I would also be curious about why she said yes to 100 Joe Averages, but said no to the one celebrity with millions of dollars.