[cyncooper]

I just read your locked thread and had a reply all typed and it got pulled, then put back, then locked!

First, even the prosecutors said the underwear evidence belonged to either one of two guys. This indicates she informed them of this information and most of us following the case guessed the bellman was one guy she'd been with.

You queried on the other thread how this guy can be a witness. Because the finding of her blood on Bryant's shirt happens to back up her story, in addition to a he said/she said. And if in fact events transpired exactly as she said, and the bellman did in fact hear the story from her that night and so on, how can he not testify.

Still haven't called Bryant a rapist, but "revelations" like this that are really not new news and don't demonstrate Bryant's innocence do not lead me to think he is. Innocent, that is. Also note that it does show Mackey's "three day" question was cleverly devised to imply 3 consecutive days when she knew it was not. Despite what others have accused me of, I do not begrudge Mackey using defense lawyer tactics to present a deceitful presentation of facts. It's what defense lawyers do. I always wonder why someone deviates from the strict truth to skew it, though,and it does not cause me to think it's because they have nothing to hide.

[Sabertooth]

You queried on the other thread how this guy can be a witness. Because the finding of her blood on Bryant's shirt happens to back up her story, in addition to a he said/she said. And if in fact events transpired exactly as she said, and the bellman did in fact hear the story from her that night and so on, how can he not testify.

Mention her blood on Kobe Bryant's shirt, and you get:

No replies.

Freepers really want the truth on this thread. By the reasoning of some of them, a husband couldn't credibly testify if his wife was raped.