Bryant denial made accuser 'sick to her stomach,' friend says

CNN ^ | July 21, 2003 | CNN

[honeygrl]

Yeah, their response was probably meant for Zevonismymuse rather than you.

[Iwo Jima]

Yes, and his credibility suffered greatly as a result. There of course the issue was not whether what was eventually reported had occurred -- the dead body proved that there had been a drowning. But Kennedy's failure to immediately go to the police convinced most people that his version of the facts was not correct, that he was not credible, and that he was hiding something.

Bottom line: failure to immediately go to the police detracts from and can be fatal to the position of the person who failed to do so.

[Snerfling]

So the first time your wife/girlfriend f*cked around on you, it was no big deal right? Everybody does it?

Actually you're right ... with regards to his wife.

On the other hand, trying to establish a pattern of behaviour for purposes of convicting someone of FELONY RAPE against the allegations of a druge taking, suicide attempting bimbo is another story.

[Snerfling]

just because your smarmy lawyer buddies all cheat doesn't make it right.

It must be tough living in an imperfect world; all the rage and bitterness just seeps through.

[Helms]

Very interesting:

Last evening Geoffrey Feigner the lawyer mentioned that Kobe did not use a condom. Also can one really off themselves using over the counter sleeping pills? Seems to diminish things a bit for the defense.

» Sleeping Pills

Can’t sleep? Take a pill. Need to stay awake? Take a pill. Can’t stay awake because of the pill you took to sleep because of the pill you took to stay awake? Take a pill. . . Millions of Americans use sleeping pills, some regularly, some occasionally. Others use pills to stay awake. Are these pills good for us? Doctors and pharmacists agree they’re not and can be the beginning of a dangerous cycle.

"The primary ingredient of most over-the-counter sleeping pills is an antihistamine—the main ingredient in most allergy medications," says Fairview pharmacist Jean Lake. "Besides causing drowsiness, antihistamines also cause dry mouth and, in some people, urine retention, tremors or blurry vision."

Pills designed to keep you awake are mostly made up of caffeine. The pills actually do little more than a cup or two of coffee would do. "Caffeine is an addictive substance that stimulates the central nervous system and the heart," says Lake.

"For many people who want to stay awake and alert, it’s remarkably effective. The problem is that when it wears off, your body crashes." Most physicians and pharmacists will not recommend the use of these pills for anyone.

If you have chronic insomnia or can’t stay awake during the day, pills are probably not the answer. Instead, you should seek medical help.

http://www.adrugguide.com/www/sleeping_pills.htm

[Tall_Texan]

I would like to get all our pothead Libertarian friends here to go on record that taking drugs disqualifies you as a reliable witness in a court of law, even if the drugs were taken months prior to the event in question.

Do you really want to go down that road?

BTW, the "drugs", from what I had read, were over-the-counter sleep medicine that she overdosed. Although I am not naive about what goes on in the Colorado mountains around posh ski resorts. I don't doubt harder and illegal drugs were available to her if she wanted them.

If she had a history of "drug abuse", as you say, it might be relevant to her mental competency. Certainly, a lot of the crap that gets abused does have longterm negative affects on the user's mental functions.

I'd just like to hear the drug legalization crowd in here support your premise that prior drug use disqualifies you as a reliable witness in a court of law.

[Snerfling]

I'd just like to hear the drug legalization crowd in here support your premise that prior drug use disqualifies you as a reliable witness in a court of law.

You're during the proud state of TX a disservice if this is what amounts to your logical tour de force. What part of 'atttempted suicide from drug overdose' don't you understand? It's the suicide attempt, not the method. Replace 'drug overdose' with guns, knives, heights, etc. By your logic, gun owners, cooks, construction workers, etc should all be barred as witnesses, right?

[SunStar]

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

No, only jerks who call me an a**hole.

Thanks for chiming in!

[Godebert]

Crying uncle already? Too easy.

[Tall_Texan]

You were the one screaming "drug abuse". It's actually another, I believe intentional, distortion by the KoBots.

By calling the accuser someone who abuses drugs, you're simply trying to tar the woman with negative words. She *allegedly* (this is no more an established fact than what Kobe is alleged to have done) OD'd on sleeping pills, possibly as a suicide attempt or possibly as a "cry for help". Big deal. It's irrelevant to the case if there is physical evidence of sexual assault.

I know men who have been convicted of raping women in mental hospitals. So the woman's mental state isn't everything to a rape case. It is, however, a lovely smear attempt over something that isn't really relevant to the discussion any more than whether she was a cheerleader or a reality show contestant.

I gather from those that she is outgoing and not afraid of meeting new people but it doesn't tell me whether she is a rape victim or not.

By the way, you never did answer the question. Should drug abuse be a disqualifier for testifying in a court of law? If you answer "no", you've made your own point irrelevant. If you answer "yes", my guess is a lot of pothead Libertarians are going to come down on you. That's logic.

[notdownwidems]

no, but most of em are quite beautiful, and uh, nubile

[Maximum Leader]

I apologize for unloading on you like that. I meant to reply to zevonismymuse.

[redsoxgrl]

"She went voluntarily to the room cause she was a hotel employee and he called for room service apparently.
It appears that this is a completely different situation than someone going voluntarily to a room."

The accuser was a front desk worker. To my knowledge, she took it upon herself to personally give Kobe a tour of the resort and opted to personally deliver the item when he called the front desk to request it. Neither of these tasks are a job requirement, or even common tasks, of a desk clerk. It seems to me that she had some type of motive.

I'm not a Kobe Bryant fan, nor do I make it a practice to defend rapists, but in this instance it just doesn't add up. Women that are raped don't have multiple, or even one, sex partners a day or two after they have been raped, as she did, which is the damaging evidence the defense has against the accuser. It's not in the psychological profile of a rape victim. Even if it is a boyfriend or husband, most rape victims have a very hard time being intimate again for quite some time. I think it was consensual, and she saw the opportunity to make some money and get some attention.

[redsoxgrl]

"She comes to the room. They engage in sex. Kobe, not looking for a relationship, asks her to leave. She snaps. He tries to calm her down, and get her out of his room. She gets loud and he has to push her out."

I have to agree. That scenario makes the most sense. I think it's a scheme on her part to get attention, that she took to far, and now she can't turn back.

[redsoxgrl]

"but you need to explain why you did not come bolting out of that room screaming "RAPE!!!!" Otherwise, it appears that after he wouldn't take your calls the next day that you got angry at the brush-off and decided to teach him a lesson that he would never forget."

Well said. In this particular instance, I believe this was the case.

[cinFLA]

"Bryant has helped lead the Lakers to three NBA championships in the seven years since he turned pro out of high school. His role model image has added to his popularity with fans, and fellow players have rallied to his defense."

I guess rape and adultery moved his street cred up a few notches.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

My comments here were made way before the trial started I believe, or at least way before a lot of info. came out.

I was basically against concluding at the time that because she went to the room it was consensual.

I haven't really followed the case since then.

The circumstances you describe regarding her going to the room would be different from the reasons I initially had thought she might have gone to the room for.

There are a lot of possibilities here as to what may have taken place and I haven't looked at any evidence.

I am not expressing an opinion either way here.

Did you follow the recent St. John's basketball scandal?

What would have happened there if they didn't have the videocam cell phone?

However those players seem more honest about things that happened than Kobe has.

Sex with another person doesn't mean necessarily she wasn't raped.

Though that alone may create doubt in a jury rightly or wrongly.

I did hear reporters talking of a possible lack of memory though regarding the events that happened on her part though which I would believe would hurt her credibility some.

However the prosecutor still may have some of the strong case people thought he had initially still left, I don't know.