Posted on 11/07/2003 12:41:54 PM PST by Timesink
Kobe Bryant Hearing TranscriptSordid details of NBA star's alleged sex attackNOVEMBER 7--With Kobe Bryant scheduled next week to formally enter a plea in his sexual assault case, a Colorado judge has finally released the official court transcript of the NBA star's explosive preliminary hearing, held over two days last month.
The sole witness during the Eagle County District Court proceeding was Doug Winters, the sheriff's detective who interviewed the alleged 19-year-old rape victim the morning after the attack. According to the woman, Bryant, 25, grabbed her by the neck, bent her over a chair, and raped her while she cried and asked the athlete to stop. Bryant repeatedly warned the woman not to tell anyone about the incident at the luxury hotel where she worked, according to Winters's testimony.
Below you'll find the bulk of the Bryant hearing transcript, which picks up when Winters takes the stand on October 9 and concludes with the brief closing arguments (on October 15) of prosecutor Greg Crittenden and Pamela Mackey, Bryant's defense attorney. Testimony on the hearing's first day came to an abrupt end when Mackey asked Winters whether the woman's vaginal injuries could have resulted from her having "sex with three men in three days."
Here's how we've set things up: Just click anywhere on a transcript page and you will jump to the following page of the 166-page document. If you'd like to go directly to the beginning of Mackey's cross examination of Winters, just click here.
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
(Excerpt) Read more at thesmokinggun.com ...
So? Winters relates what the accuser says.
Mackey was able to pry out of Winters that this girl had at least two sexual encounters and maybe three within a 72 hour period, wore dirty underwear with non-Kobe semen in them to her rape examination, and that Winters had not asked her, until the SECOND interview (after she had time to be prepped) why she didn't say no, or if she did, in fact, say no.
Yes, there's sordid stuff here, but the accuser may or may not have wanted it.
Remember, the judge said, after the prosecution laid out its evidence for the prelim, that its case was extremely weak.
Yeah, but not as disgusting as the alleged victim wearing soiled underwear with another man's semen in them to the examination.
What evidence do you have that KB is homosexual?
Ever heard of heterosexual sodomy? Happens more than you'd think.
Nope. Conservatives used to be pro-troops and anti-crime. I guess many aren't anymore.
And yes, I said victim, not alleged victim. It does not matter if she said yes to two or three people ahead of Kobe. She still had the right to say no, and based on what I have heard so far, I find it extremely hard to believe she consented to what had happened to her.
Furthermore, I am quite frankly stunned and amazed how people have gone out of their way to make this woman's name and face available to the public, which includes Tom Leykis, the tabloid the Globe and Kobe's attorney. I find such behavior nothing short of despicable and you think for even a second this will not drive future rape victims to silence, you have another thought coming.
And the Eagle County Court.
If that were the case, how stupid was that?
And yes, I said victim, not alleged victim. It does not matter if she said yes to two or three people ahead of Kobe. She still had the right to say no, and based on what I have heard so far, I find it extremely hard to believe she consented to what had happened to her.
Maybe you do, but that's beside the point. The question is still whether or not she actually said it.
She is an accuser, not a victim, not until KB is proven guilty in a court of law.
According to Winter's testimony, when the accuser told KB to stop, he stopped.
I find such behavior nothing short of despicable and you think for even a second this will not drive future rape victims to silence, you have another thought coming.
If she were more believeable, it's likely she wouldn't have been as exposed as she has been.
Even the judge, remember, said that the prosecution's evidence was weak.
What would be the reason though to keep dirty undies around? Sure she might have grabbed the wrong ones to present as evidence ---- but it almost seems like she was saving all of them until she figured out who would get the rape accusation. She's just not a very good witness in a rape trial --- that's for sure.
Yes, in a court of law. But not in the court of public opinion.
If she were more believeable, it's likely she wouldn't have been as exposed as she has been.
Hogwash. Tom Leykis was mentioning this woman by name the first weekday after the story broke. Credibility had nothing to do with it. It had to do with protecting another popular sports star accused to committing a violent crime.
And revealing that woman's name is uncalled for whatever the circumstance. That's why Colorado has something called a Rape Shield law. That's why Congressman Billybob got comepletely ticked off when Bryant's attorney attempted about a half-dozen times to get that woman's name out in the open knowing there were cameras inside the courtroom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.