[sinkspur]

This is the end of this case. The judge's decision, on its face, admits that the accuser had sexual relations after her encounter with Bryant.

[Chieftain]

So she had sex afterwards, that doesn't nean she wasn't raped!

[sinkspur]

There is no doubt, now, that this accuser had a sexual encounter after her "violent assualt" by Bryant!

What a joke this case is becoming!

[muawiyah]

Not just "after" ~ that would not be so remarkable, but "just after" ~ which is less remarkable.

Still doesn't mean Kobe was free to just grab her and have his way with her.

[miele man]

I agree, assuming the jury doesn't practice jury nullification and the members can think for themselves. This should now prove most interesting to watch.

[CheezyD]

This has been a farce from day one. My personal opinion is that there was no rape and this girl wanted money or fame or both. Kobe was stupid but I don't think he's a rapist. Your mileage may vary.

[Question_Assumptions]

While I absolutely agree that "No means no." and that no woman deserves to be raped, people miss the very important reason why rape cases historically paid so much attention to the woman's history and reputation. Aquaintence rape accusations are frequently "He said/She said" situations and the jury needs to determine who is lying. The purpose of looking into a person's sexual history is to determine if they have a history of consenting to sex because their consent, or lack of it, is critical to determining if the act was rape or not.

In days where "nice girls" were expected to say "No.", it was possible to assume that a "nice girl" wouldn't agree to having casual sex without strings and a man would be wary of any nice girl who did. In that case, it was possible to assume that if a "nice girl" cried rape, it really was rape. When the woman has a past sexual history, all of that becomes uncertain. If she gave consent to sex before, how do we know that she didn't give consent this time? And if we can't know that she didn't give consent, how can the man be convicted simply on her word, without other damning evidence that the sex was non-consentual? And given that we make a presumption of innocence, can anyone be convincted with that much uncertainty? To make matters worse, since it's become somewhat "normal" to consent to kinky sex that can leave marks, even bruises and scratches are not incontrovertable proof of a lack of consent. The loss of traditional dating and relationship culture has created a vaccuum and no reliable way of sorting out false rape accusations from true accusations.

Did Kobe Bryant rape that woman? Should I believe the promiscuous possible victim or the basketball star who cheated on his wife? In a context in which character should matter but no longer seems to, I have no way of knowing which one is the liar. It's quite possible that she was raped but I (and the jury) have no reason to assume that if she's given consent to so many others. It's a character issue and if she'd shown more character, perhaps she'd be more trustworthy. But I do know that "maybe he did and maybe he didn't" is not enough to convict on and shouldn't be.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I thought FOX news just said her previous sexual history could be admitted.

And while at first my thought was "game, set, match...he will walk", this could very well backfire. If her lawyers pull their heads out of their butts and think, they can use this to show that she was not promiscuous, that she is not a gold digger, and all the other things that Kobe's lawyers are trying to paint her as being.

[writmeister]

To me, this was the correct decision. Other sexual encounters around the time of the alleged rape are clearly relevant to whether Mr. Bryant caused the injuries attributed to him.

I don't think this decision undercuts the purpose of the rape shield law, which excludes prior sexual encounters where there sole purpose is to show character conformity. That law is comparable to evidentiary rules which prevent the admission of extraneous misconduct by a defendant to show character conformity.

[Mr. Mojo]

Slut, nutcase, liar, criminal -- that about sums up the accuser.

[najida]

I'm just sittin' here in my lawn chair with a bowl of popcorn-- watchin' all the fun.

[Iron Eagle]

I think your point is well taken. First, the ruling means there was "post assault" sexual history. Second, while many posters here will argue that merely because a woman has sex after a rape, does not mean she had consensual sex. That may be true, but for Kobe, the case is about reasonable doubt.

I don't think anyone here can argue that if evidence comes in that this woman had sex once or twice in the days immediately following the alleged assault, that most jurors will question the validity of her story on the rape. Right or wrong, the perception of most people is that if you are raped, you are a shattered soul and you would not be intimate, with anyone, immediately following such an event.

Perception is reality -- and depending on the facts, this case is over.