Team Kobe's bomb: Proof of other man

New York Daily News ^ | October 11, 2003 | GREG GITTRICH, CORKY SIEMASZKO

[TommyDale]

Kobe Bryant's defense team believes it has proof that the woman who accused him of rape had sex with at least one other man shortly before the alleged attack, the Daily News learned yesterday.

The revelation came a day after Bryant's lead defense lawyer, Pamela Mackey, caused an uproar at a court hearing by asking whether the woman's vaginal tearing was the result of "sex with three different men in three days."

Retired Eagle County District Court Judge William Jones said Mackey asked the question because she has physical evidence suggesting the tearing could have happened during an earlier sexual encounter.

"There was more than one man's semen found in her panties," Jones said. "That's what's behind all of this."

Jones said he learned of this from Mackey's co-counsel, Hal Haddon.

[sinkspur]

Why is this retired judge shilling for the defense?

How is this shiling for the defense?

The FACT of another man's DNA in the accuser's underwear simply calls into question the source of the tearing, the blood, and the bruises.

It also calls into question the credibility of the accuser, which the defense has every right to do.

[Howlin]

You just love to post your description of the details of this case; I'm beginning to think you're getting a real big charge out of it.

[Howlin]

Fox just had a report: no bruising or scraching on the neck. One small (size of half a penny) mark on her jawline.

[sinkspur]

The "bombshell evidence" from the prosecution seems to be vaginal tears not evident to the naked eye, and bruises that the investigating detective never saw.

It appears to me that the prosecution is in over its head here. Mackey made fools of them on Thursday.

[TheOtherOne]

The finding of other DNA is almost a 100% guarantee that the accused will be found not guilty, based on "reasonable doubt".

Well, maybe in some cases where the accused claims not to have done it, so identity is a question. But here, Kobe admits to having sex, so it is not a question of identity - - it is one of consent. The prosecution is using the lacerations and redness to show lack of consent, so Kobe is defending himself showing that the redness and lacerations may not show anything or be relevant.

[AngieGOP]

What part of the word "no" does Kobe not understand? Even if this young woman had sex with someone twenty-four minutes before her encounter with Kobe, no still mean no. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

[Owen]

Bit of a problem here. So there is evidence she had sex with someone else. That will be pointed at as a possible cause of tearing and bruising.

This would suggest only that the original tearing and bruising was from someone else.

Unless she had sex while on duty, perhaps only hours before, all of this would not rebut her blood being found on his shirt. Blood results from injury. He injured her. Alleged previous injury would not rebut his injuring her.

[jimbo123]

"Mackey referred to the examination report in which "no trauma observed" was reported around the vaginal area, except for "bilateral redness" in the labia minor and "small shallow pinpoint lacerations" in the area between the vaginal opening and the anus."

This is consisentent with rape.

[jimbo123]

So who thinks Kobe the rapist is going to take the stand in his own defense?

[per loin]

How is this shiling for the defense?

Do you understand the meaning of the word shill?

The FACT of another man's DNA in the accuser's underwear simply calls into question the source of the tearing, the blood, and the bruises.

Capitalizing the word "fact" does not make its referent one. The facts of the case are to be determined in a court of law, not released out the back door of some retired judge who "accidentally" heard about it.

The defense is manipulating the denser members of the human environment from which a jury will be picked. As for Jones, it appears that in Colorado, even retired judges can hang out a "for sale" sign.

[bereanway]

It seems to me the testimony of others who worked at the resort and saw her immediately after she returned from Bryant's room will be key. Also, didn't some other patrons near the room claim to hear screaming or yelling coming from the room?

[freedumb2003]

This would suggest only that the original tearing and bruising was from someone else.

Unless she had sex while on duty... The defense will raise the issue that there is no way to know whether she did or didn't. And the fact she didn't come clean to the cops potentially impugnes impuignes damages her credibility.

This is sadly an example of extremely good lawyering. I would definitly want her as my barrister if I was in a jam. But it stinks.

[Mike Darancette]

Oh, I see. So a woman can be raped if it can be proved that she had sex with someone else before being raped.

You don't get it, the prosecution presented evidence of physical damage and stated it was all caused by Bryant and is evidence of rape. If the defense believes otherwise then the can present any impeachment evidence they have.

If defense allegations of prior sex are true and victim did not tell health workers or police the Kobe walks.

[Babalu]

I think you might have it backwards. The alleged perp (the accused) doesn't carry the burden of proof. The alleged victim has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged rapist did in fact rape her. In order to make her case, she introduces physical evidence that is supposedly "slam dunk". Is not the defense then both morally and legally obligated to raise questions as to the veracity of that evidence? If the defense has its own evidence that raises "reasonable doubts" about the veracity of the accuser's evidence, are they not obligated to do so?

I am no fan of Kobe Bryant. I am no fan of superstar athletes and entertainment types who seem to think they can make a mockery of our laws because of their inflated status. I'm not even a fan of any jerk who thinks they can rape someone and get away with it, nor of anyone who believes the victim was "asking for it". In my own court, he is at very least guilty of stupidity, immorality and not being able to keep his trouser worm under control. From what I have read, the alleged victim, again in my own court, is also guilty of stupidity, immorality, and promiscuity. Both are accountable to God, to the court of public opinion, and to whatever moral compass they have(if they have one). However, immorality and promiscuity are not state offenses for which one can be jailed for life -- at least not in our country to the best of my knowledge.

I, for one, will reserve judgement until ALL the facts and ALL the evidence is presented. I don't think we're there yet.

Tracer rounds do work both ways.

[Mike Darancette]

If defense allegations of prior sex are true and victim did not tell health workers or police the Kobe walks.

I do not believe that rape charges would have been filed based on physical evidence if the victim had disclosed prior sexual acts.

[Joe 6-pack]

Bill Clinton on phone with Kendall: "Why the F$*k didn't you think of this!"

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The problem for Kobe is that the girl's blood was found on his clothing. That indicates some degree of aggressiveness.

[Alberta's Child]

I would normally "blame the victim" in a case like that, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the victim in that Central Park case. I know a New York City cop who warned that exact same woman on several occasions before the assault that she should not be running alone in the park.

[TommyDale]

Actually, the point is that if another man's semen is found in her underwear, it is entirely possible that the tearing and injury could have been caused by the OTHER man.