That is an idiotic conclusion to draw from my statement. My statement is that a sexual history is relevant, especially in a case of alleged rape like the facts in this case. We know that the girl voluntarily went into Mr. Bryant's hotel room, alone, at night, late, and began having some kind of voluntary sexual relationship with Mr. Bryant within minutes of the time that she first met him.
The SOLE question that must be answered then is whether or not the act of sexual intercourse was voluntary on the part of this woman. Now she says that it was not voluntary. That's fine. Maybe it wasn't. If it wasn't, then it was rape. Then Mr. Bryant should go to jail. End of story.
But Mr. Bryant says that she consented. If she consented, then it wasn't rape and this girl ought to go to jail. Someone ought to go to jail and if Kobe is found innocent, this girl is not going to get charged. But even if Kobe is found not guilty, this girl is going to sue the bloody pants off Kobe, and Kobe's insurance company is going to pay millions just to keep the lid on the mess.
Ok, there's your background nick. Now perhaps you can suggest a way of legally getting to the truth of the matter without bringing out the skeletons in both of these people's closets, huh?
There is a STUPID law on the books that will probably prevent Kobe from questioning this promiscuous teenager about her documented promiscuity. But in this case NOTHING could be more relevant to the question of consent than whether or not this girl makes a habit sleeping with men on the first date or within a few hours of meeting them.
This is not a stranger rape or a rape by force using a weapon. In cases like that the sexual history of the victim is obviously irrelevant. In cases like that prostitutes can be raped and men who rape prostitutes should go to jail for the same amount of time as men who rape 19 year old virgins.
But the PC crowd has managed to extend the law to prohibit the introduction of sexual history in date rape cases, which is clearly insane and clearly a violation of due process.
Now you brought up whether or not Mr. Bryant's sexual history is relevant. Of course it is. But on Mr. Bryants side the question is one of use of force and not consent. Obviously Mr. Bryant consented, so evidence of his consensual sexual history is not going to be relevant. But evidence that he has forced himself on other women would be relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Bryant forced himself on this girl.
Yes Mr. Bryant was guilty of Adultery. Last time I checked that was not a crime in Colorado. And in most states where it was previously a crime, Mr. Bryant would not have been guilty of "Adultery" since the girl was not married. However, the girl, if she had consented, would be guilty of adultery since adultery is defined as sexual intercouse with a married man or a married woman not your husband or wife.
At any rate a lot of freepers are buying into this politically correct notion that a woman's sexual history ought not to be brought out in a "rape" trial. However, where the question is not the identity of the perpetrator, but whether or not a woman who went into a hotel room with a man she knew was married and was away from his wife and started to play tounge hockey with him would give consent to sexual intercourse cannot be answered without an inquiry into whether or not she had sexual relations with a variety of men on casual occasions in the immediate past or immediate future.
Now tell me how you expect Kobe to get a fair trial if this evidence is excluded?
Yes, but last time I checked a 19 year old girl having sex with several men is not a crime either, so what is your point? If her having sex with other men is relevant, than so is the fact that Bryant violated his marriage vows. Neither is illegal, but you want to disregard one. The fact is, that Braynt took an oath to his wife. This victim, may not be an admirable person for her promiscuity, but she never took a commitment not to have sex with other people. Unless you are a member of the Massachusetts Supreme Court you should acknowledge that.
If someone shoves a gun in my face and demands money from me, and the prosecutor can prove I gave cash to severalpeople that day, does it prove I wasn't mugged?