Posted on 07/31/2003 7:54:22 AM PDT by Recourse
Posted on Thu, Jul. 31, 2003
Prosecutors say Kobe lied to authorities
Report: D.A.'s case will focus on injuries, 'inconsistencies' in statements
By GEORGE MERRITT & CHRIS FRATES Denver Post
EAGLE, Colo. - Prosecutors will argue that basketball star Kobe Bryant and his 19-year-old accuser had some consensual sexual contact, but the intercourse was not consensual, unnamed sources have told ABC News.
Sources also told ABC the prosecution will argue Bryant "deceived law-enforcement officials and that he gave inconsistent statements."
District Attorney Mark Hurlbert deferred questions to a spokeswoman, who would not comment on the report.
Hurlbert, however, has said there was "alleged sexual penetration or intrusion" and that Bryant caused "submission of the victim through actual physical force."
Hurlbert charged Bryant July 18 with one count of felony sexual assault after the woman, an employee at the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera in Edwards, accused the Los Angeles Lakers star of sexual assault stemming from a June 30 incident at the resort.
After he was charged, Bryant admitted to having sex with the woman, but he maintained the sex was consensual.
Still, Denver trial lawyer Craig Silverman said it may not matter if Bryant lied to investigators.
"I don't think it means a lot," Silverman said. "In the post-Bill Clinton era it's not surprising that a married man would lie about a martial infidelity."
Bryant was in Colorado for a scheduled knee surgery when the incident occurred. He was contacted by the Eagle County Sheriff's office on July 1 and submitted DNA samples at a local hospital. He was arrested July 4.
If convicted, Bryant faces four years to life in prison. He is scheduled to appear in court Wednesday, though it is unclear whether he will be there in person or whether a representative will appear on his behalf.
The judge in the case, Frederick Gannett, warned news organizations yesterday not to publish or broadcast the name or photograph of any witness, juror, potential juror or the alleged victim and her family on the courthouse grounds. Any organization violating the order could be denied a seat in the courtroom.
Gannett will hear arguments today on whether the records should be made public.
Attorneys for media organizations - including the Los Angeles Times, Denver Post and NBC - have argued that many details have been publicized already.
Hurlbert and defense lawyers want to keep the records sealed, arguing that publicity could affect Bryant's right to a fair trial. Defense attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon also have asked Gannett to reconsider an earlier order allowing cameras in the courtroom during next week's hearing.
But to follow on, is this as serious an offence as abduction/rape of a stranger? Should the punishment be life in prison?
So true.
But, then again, Kobe should have considered how long and how poisonous the snake was before he stepped on its tail.
And VFR conditions to boot. (True, the target is small. But, the range is point-blank).
Thank you so much for the encouragement. It has been a real disappointment that those who I thought knew my character best turned away once I stated doing something that is so clearly right. My biggest supporters are FReepers and many wonderful new friends I have made since my ex divorced me; along with the new church I go to where they actually encourage people like myself.
I know more than a few court reporters who have said the same thing.
I totally agree with you about this concept of "withdrawn concent". I'm not going to apply it to the Kobe case, because we don't know what happened yet. But I agree that it can give a spiteful woman a tool to "get" someone.
I have had this discussion before with people, and it always comes down to one question: "If sex began consensual, and then the woman changes her mind, how much time can elapse before the male's failure to "disengage" results in rape? One second? Ten Seconds? How long?".
I tend to believe that unless their are some extraordinary circumcstances(The man continued for a long time while the woman pleaded, the woman was essentially held by force for hours, there are major physical injuries to the woman, etc) that there should be no charge of rape or assault in such cases of "withdrawn consent". Is it rude, uncouth, anti-social and mean not to stop when asked? Sure it is. Is the woman harmed or "violated" if the man doesn't immediatelt stop doing what she originally consented to? No. And again, I'm not applyig this to the Kobe case or a similar case where it may be alleged that the woman consented to one type of sexual contact, but the man forced another type upon her - only where the man essentially "finishes what he started".
No, it means cheating on a dyslexic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.