[xzins]

"If the (woman's) story indicates that she was sexually assaulted, that is enough to bring the case forward absent some conclusive proof that she is lying,"

I thought in America it was the accused who was presumed innocent.

The above should read, "no way to bring the case forward absent some conclusive proof that she is telling the truth."

If this judge thinks their obvious reason to have doubt about Kobe's guilt, then he should halt this trial and save his county some money.

[truth_seeker]

"I thought in America it was the accused who was presumed innocent."

The issue under consideration is "probable cause." Different than a final determination of guilt, innocence in the TRIAL.

Seasoned criminals know to always plead "not guilty" especially when they are guilty.

Bryant clearly has skilled defense. Let the jury decide.

[Coeur de Lion]

Your logic is absurd. Bringing this case to trial if there's no conclusive evidence that the alleged victim has lied has nothing to do with the presumpion of innocence. Your substitution is that there should be conclusive proof that she's telling the truth. According to your logic: if my house is burglarized and I'm an eye-witness, I need to conclusively prove that I'm telling the truth, otherwise it shouldn't go to trial.