Replies

That's why examining her background is a legitimate thing to do. This is not the first allegation of sexual assault we've ever seen against a wealthy sports celebrity. Sometimes there turns out to be a less-than-pure motive in making such an allegation.

Well, Nick, if Kobe is found "not guilty" then we can dissect her. But for now SUPPOSE her allegations are true... then she was already raped once, why should the media do it to her again? She didn't have a press conference to announce what happened.

Maybe the media should not be in this at all, but Kobe is a media personna, and loss of privacy is part of the price HE pays for the money he makes.

There is a good chance that her background is irrelevant, anyway. If there are bruises and abrasions consistent with the tears in her clothes, and the DNA matches, and the security cam in the hotel hall and witnesses from work corroborate her -- then it is obvious that he did it, and there is absolutely no reason to subject the girl to more than she has already been through.

People like sinkspur will then be reduced to claiming that she told him she liked it rough and he obliged, just to be a nice guy. Which is just absurd when they only had contact for such a brief time.

The vaginal tears -- internal ones could be from Kobe having giant noble hero penis diameter of a baseball bat as some have claimed, but tears to the skin at the entrace and the labia are from no lubrication, which means she REALLY wasn't "aroused" which means she REALLY didn't want to have sex with him. They can tell the difference.

So then sinkspur will claim that she came up, told Kobe "Quick, I don't find you sexually arousing, but I like rough sex, so throw me down and rough me up and do me anyway. But make it fast, I gotta go!"

And the rest is history...

Unlike other cases, here we know that hard evidence exists, we just dont know what it is yet. When it comes out, if it convicts Kobe, then those who have smeared or badgered this girl's character here on this forum will be rightly shamed.

Hold the phone: are you suggesting that NO investigation of this girl be done unless Kobe is found not guilty?

Ahem, he has the right to FACE his accuser.......and if there is ANY reason that might have affected her life before she put her foot through that door, he's entitled to know it.

Unless you just believe that the charge/accuastion is good enough and he doesn't have the right to defend himself and he should just go right on and pick out his cell.

Are you a man? Is that the kind of "evidence" you'd like lodged against you from a girl friend or a wife????

When it comes out, if it convicts Kobe, then those who have smeared or badgered this girl's character here on this forum will be rightly shamed.

I'm just repeating what I read in the press. You got problems with that, take it up with the AP.

But for now SUPPOSE her allegations are true... then she was already raped once, why should the media do it to her again?

Sorry. Life ain't fair. The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his accuser, and, in the 21st century, some of that is going to be done in the press.

Free Republic is a discussion forum, not a court of law. We are free to speculate, theorize, ruminate, and discuss. You, of course, are free to disagree, as you are doing now.

But telling people to basically "shut up" because you don't agree with what they're saying is a non-starter around here.

those who have smeared or badgered this girl's character here on this forum will be rightly shamed.

I won't feel any shame. When a girl goes unescorted into a man's bedroom or motel room there is an implied consent. That is what my mother told me, and that is what I tell my daughter.

If the man misbehaves and treats her roughly or forcibly, the girl's father or the brother pay the man a visit and teach him a lesson about good manners. The girl is then repeatedly scolded and shamed by her family until she seems to learn her lesson on how young ladies should behave.

which means she REALLY wasn't "aroused" which means she REALLY didn't want to have sex with him. They can tell the difference.

I wonder if groupies are always aroused ---sometimes if everything is done within 20 minutes, the woman might not have even had time to be aroused. I can see where this woman might have been impressed that a rich celebrity was flirting with her but wasn't prepared to accept that she was just 10 minutes of fun and that was it. Even if it seemed she was consenting at the time, she may have regretted what really did seem like rape sex. I can see where her going to his room, going into the room, removing her clothes seemed like consent to him ---but when it was over and done with so quickly she felt raped or at least assaulted.

SUPPOSE her allegations are true... then she was already raped once, why should the media do it to her again?

Why would you liken people talking about her in the media to a second "rape"? That strikes me as fishing for an emotional reaction via hyperbole. As others have pointed out, your line of argument amounts to, "Suppose he's quilty... once you've done that, shut up." Sorry, but that's a non-starter on this forum.

There is a good chance that her background is irrelevant, anyway. If there are bruises and abrasions consistent with the tears in her clothes, and the DNA matches, and the security cam in the hotel hall and witnesses from work corroborate her -- then it is obvious that he did it...

I'd like to examine that a bit, because I think it's an example of a kind of rhetoric that royally pisses me off, regardless of subject matter.

You state as fact that there is a "good chance" that her background is irrelevant. You treat this as an assumed fact, when there is no evidemce whatsoever to support such an assertion. It amounts to saying that there is a "good chance" that Mr. Bryant is guilty... something you cannot know. To date, none of us have seen any physical evidence.

Except that you are going to make some up. First you make up some bruises and abrasions. And then DNA!! Everybody knows DNA proves guilt! Except that Bryant stipulates to having had sexual relations with the woman. And you know that. So why did you put DNA in there? Because you think it's a cool word that implies guilt? You are regaling us with rhetorical skills, not actually saying anything useful. Next we have security cameras in the halls! So what? Again, the issue that she was in the room is not in dispute. So let's throw the next scary buzzword, "security cam," into the same junk pile with the DNA evidence. Next we have 'witnesses from work' who corraborate her. Were they in the room? If not, they can't 'corroborate' anything except that she said X. And finally, after stringing some hypothetical bruises together with a bunch of guilty-sounding buzzwords, you conclude "-- then it is obvious he did it."

What a pile of steaming, stinking rhetoric that was.

here we know that hard evidence exists, we just dont know what it is yet.

So all the medical-sounding hoo-hah about the labia tears and whatnot... you made that all up? Why? Why go into great and specific detail about you something you totally made up? It's fishing for an emotional reaction with hyperbole, isn't it. Don't tell me, you're a pot-stirrer for Amalgamated Gender Wars. Yeah, that's exactly what we need more of in a criminal trial.

When it comes out, if it convicts Kobe, then those who have smeared or badgered this girl's character here on this forum will be rightly shamed.

Somehow, I doubt that. They'll just move on to another topic, just like Democrats do.