[Smogger]

Let's see...The National Enquirer comes to town and tells you they'll give you $20,000 to give you dirt about this girl, and you'll remain anonymous. Hmmm....

1. The Enquirer would never goto press without 2 sources.

2. The sources weren't anonymous. They gave their names on the interview. They showed them on the interview. I just didn't catch their names. None of the townspeople that I have seeen give interviews have been "anonymous"

3. The Enquirer would be much more interested in digging up dirt on the celebrity in this case (Kobe) then the alleged victim.

[mhking]

3. The Enquirer would be much more interested in digging up dirt on the celebrity in this case (Kobe) then the alleged victim.

Wanna bet? Mike Walker (Enquirer editor) will go after any side of the story, as long as it's juicy. I'm sure he's got someone digging for just as much dirt on her as on him.

[#3Fan]

3. The Enquirer would be much more interested in digging up dirt on the celebrity in this case (Kobe) then the alleged victim.

But it's much easier to lie about some no one knows. For instance, which printed lie would be more believable: a lie about me saying I drag raced on the streets last Saturday night endangering bystanders, or a lie that President Bush drag raced on the streets last Saturday night endangering bystanders. Hardly no one would believe the lie about President Bush, plus it would be easily refuted, but a much higher percentage would believe the lie about me, because no one knows me nor tracks me.

[honeygrl]

"3. The Enquirer would be much more interested in digging up dirt on the celebrity in this case (Kobe) then the alleged victim. "

And so far The Star and The Enquirer appear to bee staying far far away from this story.