Wouldn't the blood evidence be enough to offset the "he said, she said" kind of case the defense is making it to be?
Best to you,
Penny
Was having a female attorney suppose to tell people "look, I'm a woman just like the supposed victim and she's a rag in my eyes" so it must be so. Stupid women tactics but I'm sure she's being paid quite well.
Wouldn't the blood evidence be enough to offset the "he said, she said" kind of case the defense is making it to be?
I hadn't heard about the blood on the shirt until yesterday, but I did know the police arrived at his hotel room about 24 hours after the alleged attack (the girl reported it about 12 hours after, and was photographed and examined that afternoon, then the police go to visit Bryant) and were there quite a while looking for and collecting evidence.
To my mind it definitely goes against him. First, the presence of blood indicates force---and here the defense attorney wanted to make it sound like she's with guys all the time--bleeding the whole while? I don't think so----and the fact that he kept a shirt on during the act has some implications.
Also, there are reports---NOT on the court record, so we shall see----that he at first denied being with the girl, so finding her blood on his shirt goes against his later admission they were together consensually. I wonder if, when he finally admitted to having sex with her, if he indicated it was on the bed, and I wonder if they subsequently found evidence on that chair. Time will tell.