kobe ACCUSER CRIED RAPE TO BELLHOP JUST AFTER INCIDENT

New York Post ^ | August 4, 2003 | Dan Mangan

[Recourse]

August 4, 2003 -- The woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape tearfully told a bellhop minutes after the alleged attack that that she had just been "forced to have sex" with the NBA superstar, according to a new report. Friends and co-workers of the accuser told Fox News correspondent Rita Cosby that the 19-year- old hotel worker's clothing was torn when she spoke with the bellhop.

[cyncooper]

Wyrick also said that his sources told him that the alleged victim then turned up in the lobby in "a stupor" and with visible physical injuries. He also said that Bryant initially denied even knowing the victim.

Just reading your article of what Wyrick is reporting. It sounds more and more likely that she was in fact seen by co-workers and did indeed suffer physical injuries that could be seen without her disrobing. Just as I and others conjectured due to various statements that have been made. Also I had deduced that he had NOT acknowledged sex right off the bat when asked by authorities. All remains to be testified to, but I can't say I'm surprised.

[Jrabbit]

That's exactly why her statement about the bellhop telling her this was so nonsensical!

[nyconse]

Most of the stuff coming out is what red, me, cyn and infidel said would be needed for a conviction. You guys (more than me)predicted much of what has come out. It stands to reason that the DA has some kind of evidence; he has nine years experience and doesn't seem like a fool. Some Kobe supporters (not all) try to explain away the evidence by shooting the messenger (Rita), injuries=rough sex (all in 20 minutes), victim tells witnesses right away (she's/he's lying). Some refuse to believe Kobe could have done it-no matter what the evidence may be and some think she deserved it (sad). Good job! LOL

[nyconse]

It may have been a different bellman? She talked to more than one source. Should be up on Fox soon. Look does it matter? The important thing is this: Is it true? If true it hurts Kobe's defense-I think.

[cyncooper]

You guys (more than me)predicted much of what has come out. It stands to reason that the DA has some kind of evidence; he has nine years experience and doesn't seem like a fool.

This is part of why I tend to think there was an assault. I absolutely am open to exculpatory evidence, but the story started for me when the DA made his announcement that charges would be filed. I am just trying to interpret what I'm reading and hearing and don't "hope" for any outcome, except justice.

[cynwoody]

BTW, if I were a judge, I wouldn't allow the "forced sex with Kobe Bryant" comment to be said in front of the jury (it's hearsay and it's prejudicial - it concludes guilt or innocense in its very utterance when the bellhop was not there to conclude if the statement was true or false).

It is indeed hearsay, but it is nevertheless relevant because it's indicative of whether she was claiming to have been raped right after the incident, not after twelve hours of persuasion by her parents and her own guilty self. So, also, should those reports of her describing his enormity with hand gestures, if they appear to be reliable. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

[nyconse]

I agree. People have said I want Kobe to be found guilty-I do if he raped her, but not if he is innocent. I listen to all the evidence-such as it is- and I won't discount future evidence of any kind. I still am unable to understand why Kobe supporters (for lack of a better word) are absolutely positive he is innocent). I don't know if he is innocent are not. I think that if some of the reports about injuries,telling the bellman and physical evidence are true, then he may very well be guilty. It's not that I believe he is guilty, but that his supporters believe completely he is not guilty, and I don't think any evidence short of a confession would change their minds: I'm not sure a confession would do the trick either. Watch Kobe's lawyers desperately attempt to get a change of venue. It may be that the race card is Kobe's only card, and that won't play well in Colorado. LOL

[Jrabbit]

No, it doesn't matter. I predict that we will hear sworn testimony if this goes to trial. How's that?

[nyconse]

Quite true.

[nyconse]

Exactly true. His whole defense is "she wanted it".

Bruises=rough sex

sodomy=consensual

ripped clothing=she likes it that way

told bellman=cya because she changed her mind

screams=showed she liked it.

Please, if you believe the above, you have to believe she decided to have sex (rough sex), changed her mind after sex and then decided to ruin (bankrupt) Kobe-all in 20-30 minutes tops: not buying it.

[Palladin]

These guys must think he's guilty: (See new thread)

Company Ending Kobe Endorsement
AP ^ | August 4, 2003


Posted on 08/04/2003 2:57 PM PDT by presidio9


The maker of Nutella chocolate spread said Monday it is phasing out endorsements from Kobe Bryant in part because of the sexual assault charge against the NBA superstar.

Ferrero, an Italian company with U.S. headquarters in Somerset, N.J., said its contract with the Los Angeles Lakers guard expires in January.

"Marketing plans established earlier this year did not contemplate a contract renewal," the company said in a statement. "In keeping with this decision, and considering the recent developments, Kobe's image on Nutella labels and promotional material is being phased out."

[nyconse]

Nutella-the name invites sick jokes when you think about it.

[truth_seeker]

"..how about a plea bargain?"

The DA says his case can be proved, beyond reasonable doubt.

Looks like he has a strong hand, going in. It would appear if any side would be interested in discussing plea bargain, it would be Kobe's defense team.

His defense isn't simply about defending him in a winner take all duel.

If they believe their client would be convicted at trial, they should advise Bryant that his best outcome is plead guilty to lesser charge(s).

If the DA is dealing.

[Tall_Texan]

It is indeed hearsay, but it is nevertheless relevant because it's indicative of whether she was claiming to have been raped right after the incident, not after twelve hours of persuasion by her parents and her own guilty self. So, also, should those reports of her describing his enormity with hand gestures, if they appear to be reliable. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I'll start by admitting I'm no attorney and have no law degree. I realize there are exclusions to the hearsay rule and this type of situation fits one of those exclusions.

But here's the other side of the coin. The judge my rule that the comment draws a conclusion that would so prejudice the jury as to outweigh the relevance of the comment. In other words, the jury is going to more likely believe a rape because the victim told the man she was raped than whether there is other evidence to refute or substantiate the claim.

Let's say that I was walking through a hotel hallway and there was some loud noises. As my attention builds, I see Cynwoody coming out of the room where the noises came from, breathless and clothes rumpled. Cathcing her breath, she says "I was just forced to have sex with Christopher Reeve."

That you told me this is true. I could testify truthfully to what you said. But whether you were actually raped by Mr. Reeve may be a flat-out lie. Still, if I repeat your claim under oath, the jury has now been told by a third party that you were raped by Mr. Reeve.

THAT'S prejudicial because the other evidence at trial may not support any such thing (in fact, Mr. Reeve is no physical condition to rape a woman - that's why I used him as an example) and yet a jury may tend to believe a hearsay witness instead of the actual evidence.

If the bellhop's story is true (and there do appear to be some questions), the bellhop can safely testify about what he has first-hand knowledge about - what time the accuser left the room, her physical and mental condition, the condition of her clothes, etc. That's all going to be very useful in deciding the case.

But, IMO, he should not divulge to the jury the quote she is alleged to have said to him. If the physical evidence supports a rape, this comment will be unnecessary. If it doesn't, then this comment should not be allowed to change the mind of any fair-minded juror.

I'll be disappointed in the judge if he allows those words to be said by the witness although I am often disappointed in the performance of judges.

[Brandon]

Please, if you believe the above, you have to believe she decided to have sex (rough sex), changed her mind after sex and then decided to ruin (bankrupt) Kobe-all in 20-30 minutes tops: not buying it.

Hey, you left something out! You also have to believe that this cold-blooded blackmailer took the unusual step of going to the police and reporting the incident, rather than going to her target and threatening to go to the police if she wasn't paid off!

[Brandon]

His defense isn't simply about defending him in a winner take all duel. If they believe their client would be convicted at trial, they should advise Bryant that his best outcome is plead guilty to lesser charge(s).

Although to Bryant it may look pretty all or nothing. Any felony conviction, including a plea to a lesser charge, probably ends his NBA career. He might decide to role the dice and pray.

He could also be innocent (or at least believe himself to be), and an innocent man is probably less likely to be willing to accept a plea.

[185JHP]

The "outcry" has some weight...

[185JHP]

The nettlesome thing is, (1) She is morally repugnant and a mental case, (2) She was, in fact and in truth, raped. Both (1) and (2) may be true.