Bombshell: Kobe Accuser Had Sex with Key Witness

The Globe ^ | 11/20/03 | Globe

[Smogger]

So is that the type of girls you know or what? Let's stick to the topic at hand thanks.

[Humbug]

did you have to use the word 'thrust'?

oops, lol, you're right..not a good word choice on my part there

[xsmommy]

just teasing! i saw this at the grocery store yesterday and was the first i saw her pic or heard her name. well the truth will out, will it not? : )

[Dosa26]

.......I don't care if she had sex the same day, within the hour

The jurors probably will. If she had sex with some one prior or after sex with Kobe, it causes doubt over whether Kobe caused her gyno-injuries. Without the physical evidence directly tied to him it becomes a promiscios womans word against his. BTW I don't have any idea if he is guilty or not.

[marajade]

"The jurors probably will."

I bet you they be instructed by the judge otherwise. You see even as jurors you are sworn to uphold your duty as a juror and not base your judgment on personal biases.

[Smogger]

On the other hand, there was no one who witnessed the sex between Bryant and his accuser. If she made a choice to lie to her key witness about rape to cover up a consensual encounter with Bryant, she could have just said, "We were talking, and he was a perfect gentleman. Nothing happened, don't be silly," and no one could contradict her. Kobe, a notoriously secretive married superstar with a sparkling reputation, would never have walked into the lobby of the resort and said, "She's a great lay!"

The bellman know's whether or not she is easy or not if he had sex with her. He's not gonna by that crap.

[marajade]

The evidence will decide whether or not there was rape; not the fact she had sex with the bellman. I'm guessing the judge won't even allow the defense the ability to bring that into evidence because its not relevant.

[F.J. Mitchell]

So Kobe is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial jury,while you have already tried and convicted her within the confines of your teenie weenie hero worshipping mind of being a gold digging mega slut and a skunk and a fraud.

I do not know the young lady we are discussing and I don't know the powerful super star she is accusing either. I do know that women are raped every day by scum bags who are an embarrassment to me, as a man. I know too that the rapes we hear about are less than the tip of the iceberg. Women have almost always been treated as the perp more than the victem and too often been portrayed as a wanton bitch who deserved what she got, rather than the victem. Just like this young woman is being treated.

Why can't women who bring rape charges, have the privilige of being considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the impartial jury judging the alleged perp, if they find in favor of the perp?

[OldFriend]

If the judge believed that he ought to have had the courage to dismiss the case.

IMO he was merely playing to the monied crowd that plays and pays at the ski resorts in snowy Colorado.

[marajade]

"If the judge believed that he ought to have had the courage to dismiss the case."

He couldn't. The prosecution met the standard of bringing forth a case to trial by state law.

[Strider]

If the judge believed that he ought to have had the courage to dismiss the case.

That's not true. The law does not allow him to look at the evidence from any other perspective that the procecutors.

He had to bind it over. Given a choice he wouldn't have.

[onyx]

I've sent you my heart-felt apology and explanation in FR mail. Now, I'm outta here. :)

[Dog Gone]

I'm guessing the judge won't even allow the defense the ability to bring that into evidence because its not relevant.

It directly goes to the credibility of the testimony of the bellman. If he's not a disinterested party, the jury is entitled to know that and weigh his testimony accordingly.

If the judge doesn't allow this evidence, an appeals court certainly will.

[TexKat]

Sounds like she's not fussy about what she has on her clothes, or when she changes them.

Reminds me of: THE SOUVENIR SEMEN STAINED BLUE DRESS

[marajade]

We'll see. Want to place a friendly wager?

[george wythe]

I don't care if she had sex the same day, within the hour....If she was raped, she was raped.

If her bleeding was caused by sex with other men, before and after Kobe, then the blood specks on Kobe's shirt are not necessarily evidence of a rape.

Only God, Kobe, and Katelyn knows what happened inside that room. The rest of us have to examine the circumnstantial evidence to try to find out the truth.

If Katelyn serviced several men a few days or hours before having sex with Kobe, then she will have an uphill battle trying to convince a jury that those tiny lacerations in her fourchette came from sex with Kobe.

How many men had access to her vulva and her vagina before Kobe, in the time period where injuries where still fresh on June 30, 2003?

[marajade]

How would her blood on his shirt be from sex from other men?

[Dosa26]

I don't have any experience with rape trials. Do you know if evidence of intercourse with another other than the accused is sufficiant or even admissable in regards to disqualifying or bringing doubt onto the physical evidence against him?

[marajade]

I sincerely doubt the sexual history of either the victim or the defendant or witness for that matter will be allowed. But I guess I could be wrong. We'll see.

[Smogger]

If the judge believed that he ought to have had the courage to dismiss the case.

The judge said the standard was that he was required to view the evidence in "the light most favorable to the prosecution" which is why he said he bound it over.