Prosecutors say Kobe lied to authorities

Phildaelphia Inquirer ^ | July 31, 2003 | GEORGE MERRITT & CHRIS FRATES

[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.

[Howlin]

I believe you and I discussed the case that put me over the edge......LOL.

[dwd1]

We can neither confirm nor deny....

I do not recall...

I have no clear recollection of that particular incident...

By the way, all the bad things you may hear about me are absolutely true...

[wardaddy]

Well said....there are many lessons to be learned from this story at both angles.

The two most obvious competing lessons are as old as sex and celebrity.

Male celebs should be very careful about their encounters with women strangers especially if they are married.

Women should be aware of inserting themselves into potentially dangerous situations which they cannot control

Imagine if he was guilty and she was armed legally and shot him.

[Chantal]

Have you met individuals that are anywhere near as arrogant as attorneys?

Specially defence attorneys.

[connectthedots]

If he admits that he prefers what some believe is distasteful sex, he loses...

First, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have not had sex since my divorce and will not have sex until I remarry. That said, in discussing the issue of sex with several (9-10) middle-aged Christian women, three of them exprssed their enjoyment of anal activity or an interest in experimenting with it within marriage. Not having ever experimented with this particular activity, I'm still not quite sure what to think of it. I suppose if a woman wants anal intercourse, it could hardly be considered pressuring her into an activity she is uncomfortable with and not inconsistent with the principle that a married couple only engage in sexual acts that are mutually desireable.

[Chantal]

LOL :>)

[wardaddy]

Indeed and everyone has some opinion about some aspect of it.

While I am arguably torn but "leaning" towards believing that things probably got out of hand....(just a surmisal, nothing more), I have seen that in my family and extended family that the women are much much more likely to condemn him. I think the fact that he was at a minimum cheating seals his fate with the Madame DuFarges in my family...lol

...and the fact that they are angered that he did that to such a beautiful young wife NOT LONG AFTER SHE GAVE BIRTH TO THEIR CHILD.....makes it sort of personal for the ladies.

Of course they all support her standing by her man for now in the course of practical considerations.

You should have seen the thrashing I got from Mrs Wardaddy at the beginning of the Peterson tragedy when I told my wife that "The prosecution is going to need more than simply the appearance that his pregnant wife disappeared"....one of the few times we have clashed over anything like that. I of course admitted my pure idiocy and submitted to her opinion that Peterson was indeed Satan...which as the case has unfolded, it would appear that she was right. Naturally.

Women...gotta love em.

[wardaddy]

Well, bless yer heart. Thank You!

[dwd1]

I wonder if the women on this forum have an opinion...I am of the opinion that there is a violation of trust when a man continues with something after a women says to stop...Is there an opinion as to whether the man is guilty of a crime but perhaps to a lesser degree because of the details and circumstances...I guess what I am trying to say is that I look differently at a guy who puts a gun or knife to a woman and takes pleasure in harming and humiliating her versus a man who puts drugs in a woman's drink and has is way with her versus a man who engages in consensual sex with a woman but does not immediately stop when asked. I understand that all are crimes but are not there degrees of criminal behavior....(sort of like the difference between murder 1 and murder 2)

[wardaddy]

LOL....unfortunately, they are not sealed.

[connectthedots]

LOL....unfortunately, they are not sealed.

Not being sealed puts others on notice, so it's not all bad.

[NativeNewYorker]

I have not had sex since my divorce and will not have sex until I remarry

Think of all the poor b@stards for whom the oppostite is true!

[najida]

I think the fact that he was at a minimum cheating seals his fate with the Madame DuFarges in my family...lol

As quoted in a group of friends of mine "Oh he woulda been alone at that press conference, with bruises and broken bones!"

...and the fact that they are angered that he did that to such a beautiful young wife NOT LONG AFTER SHE GAVE BIRTH TO THEIR CHILD.....makes it sort of personal for the ladies.

I was twerked about that too. At the time in his marriage when he should have been showering his wife with support and attention! Granted, she is drop dead gorgeous, but she may have stretch marks etc and not feel very attractive. The creep.

Of course they all support her standing by her man for now in the course of practical considerations.

Now maybe it is because my group is older and meaner, but I keep hearing "Well, bless her heart, she doesn't know any better, she is only 21!" Then they proceed to discuss in graphic detail how they would kick his butt (and other sensitive anatomy)

Women...gotta love em.

We love you guys too.

[dwd1]

Fighter pilots, professional athletes, social workers, some (not all) religious leaders), actors....I am sure that there are many groups that have what could be perceived as an unjustified level of confidence and feeling of entitlement...

[dwd1]

Those that have no sex after they get married...Those are the ones I feel sorry for....and believe me, they are out there...

[wardaddy]

I must defend my parental visitation attorney. She was a champ and we are still friends 9 years later. In fact we just chatted yesterday. She was very honest and refused to engage in any hyperbole because she knew that her reputation in presenting facts in a Miami family court would carry the day because the judges knew she was honest....quite unlike opposing counsel who accused me of everything from murder to being in the mafia to beating my ex-wife. And I (we) got everything we asked for which was simply standard arrangements. (Note*...my ex left me for money, I would probably never have left my daughters under any circumstances baring extraordinary)

Oddly, this lady is Jewish and I'm a Prod. She's a bonafide Yankee and I'm butternut Southern. She is on the state board of NOW and other quite liberal orgs and well....I'm pretty Paleo culturally and an all around knuckledragger but I know character when I see it.

Anybody need a divorce arena attorney in Miami and I can sure tell you who I think is tops.

(Defense of one particular attorney rant off)

[connectthedots]

Think of all the poor b@stards for whom the oppostite is true!

Didn't get much when I was married, either. She thought I was always pressuring her for sex, and we had sex exactly three times in the last 2 1/2 years we were married. When I told her that, the look of shock on her face was one of disbelief, but she didn't dispute it.

[wardaddy]

LOL....ok...you've been put on notice.

[dwd1]

Disagreeing with your wife...Let no one say you don't have courage....As a happily divorced (not!) person, I agree that the women's view helps us see things we do not normally consider and come to a more moderate position where we do not have to be classified as neanderthals...

In my family, women are only forgiving if there is a larger upside than downside...Otherwise, look forward to a lot of quality time on the curb...

[Stone Mountain]

Big if. But even if this was the case, Bryant would be guilty of rape at the point where he did anything that she didn't consent to. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what happened before that... But to follow on, is this as serious an offence as abduction/rape of a stranger?

Yup. Just as serious. If there was some question as to whether or not consent was given by the woman, then I can see that there might be a question. But if the woman didn't consent and the man knows it, I have no problem with giving him the same sentence that any other rapist would receive. As far as I'm concerned, the only issue with there having been any kind of consensual activity before is whether or not the woman made it clear to the man that she wanted to stop. If he knows that she wasn't consenting, it's rape. It matters little to me if he was sexually aroused or expecting more or anything like that. I've had women tell me to stop after we started (what I thought) was foreplay. I stopped. Was I frustrated? Sure. But I didn't commit rape, nor would I consider my condition a mitigating factor in an assault.

A similar case to what you are making could go the other way - is it just as bad to rape a stranger as it is to rape someone who trusted the guy, violating their trust as well as their body? I can see that some might say that's even worse... Either way though, I personally just don't see a big distinction - if a guy is taking sexual liberties with a woman without her consent, it's just rape. And it's just as serious an offense whether or not she knew the guy, or even if she consented to other sexual activities before withdrawing consent.

What argument would you use to make the point that this type of assault is less serious than a stranger rape?