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.
Sure. So they too can be called sluts?
Some even lie about infidelities here on this planet.
Maybe it was Kobe giving gag orders, and that's what got him into this trouble...
Or At Least 10 to 20...
Here's mine: If the couple has begun intercourse (or other serious sexual act) and the woman suddenly says no, stop, I believe the man should stop. However, if the act has gone on for more than a few minutes, assuming she is fully conscious, before she asks him to stop, then she has already tacitly provided her consent to the act and can no longer call anything that happens "rape" unless he physically begins to use violence to restrain her.
In other words, the man "trying" something on her with no immediate refusal from the woman may assume consent. This should be a given.
Any time a woman wants a man to stop the act (or vice versa for the man), he should. However, if the act was begun for two minutes without comment, while he should still stop once asked, if he doesn't immediately stop it is too much of a grey area to be called rape. It becomes ridiculous to prove consent or not at that point.
OK...that detail is NOT in the link that you provided. Where did that come from?
It is the purest rumor and speculation. It had been mentioned on Drudge's website as well as WFAN sports radio in New York, obviously without the benefit of named sources.
I'm not sure it would have been illegal. Unless the victim is under some legal obligation to report that she has been assaulted, which I don't think she is. She would have to walk a very fine line to avoid being guilty of blackmail, but there is nothing wrong with having your lawyer contact someone with the message, "My client feels you have harmed her. Here are the alleged facts. She is contemplating a civil suit to recover damages, but would like to avoid doing so if possible. Are you willing to meet to discuss a settlement?"
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.