Posted on 02/03/2005 4:05:54 AM PST by Hawk44
February 3, 2005 -- Kobe Bryant's accuser unexpectedly showed up at yesterday's pretrial hearing in her sex-assault civil suit, wearing a wedding ring, with a nervous husband at her side — and a baby on the way. Katelyn Faber, holding hands with her husband, braved a gaggle of media as she walked into the federal courthouse and took her seat before Judge Richard Matsch — no more slipping in through side doors.
It was a clear message from the 20-year-old — who bowed out of her criminal case against Bryant last September — that she's determined to follow through on her civil case, said lawyer Lin Wood.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Oh yeah... this again...lol.
it is always so refreshing to find those freepers that definitively state their personal opinion as fact. ie; kobe admitted her raped her.... RIGHT!!!
Those folks must gag you to the hilt...
considering your profession.
If a man says to a girl "I can understand how you feel you were raped" after he had sex with her, and that's not an admission of rape, what is it then?
If "He stopped when I told him to stop" isn't a confession of consensual sex, what is?
It's legal speak for "Sorry you're nuts"
He said:
"I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. "
He said he now knows SHE thinks she didn't consent.
That's not an admission of anything, jack.
The quoted text is NOT an admission of rape.
He would have meant what you're saying if he didnt say "how."
"I now understand she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. " = What you're saying, ie he knows she thinks he raped her.
"I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. " = He knows WHY (the reason) she thinks she was raped.
There is a difference.
I see you're completely ignorant of the way some blacks speak.
Do you understand HOW it works?
Do you understand HOW you are wrong?
Do you understand HOW you are twising his words?
And besides, you're putting Bill Clinton to shame with your parsing.
I wonder if that will be his defense in the civil trial. He can claim he was speaking Ebonics.
I recall a number of the screaming pundits said pretty much what I'm saying now, way back when. They recognized it as an admission as well.
Look, he made NO admission.
She was NOT raped.
The criminal case was dropped and for good reason.
He's innocent.
No court of law has deemed him otherwise.
I think he did.
If I read that statement and I was on the jury, I'd be inclined to believe he's a rapist.
It's OK to have a different of opinion.
All the fans come out to cheer for their star. They don't care whether he raped her or not, only that their man gets away with it. It's a jungle and the predators win until Judgment Day. That is why OJ is playing golf and looking for the real killer ...
No one's a bigger NBA fan than me.
Kobe's an overrated, low self-esteem crybaby.
But, I wouldn't deny him the right to play. He's within the system.
If one doesn't like the system, they should work to change it. They just shouldn't whine when someone who does something one doesn't like operates within the system.
I gotta agree with you.
"I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.
I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado."
The excerpt from Bryant's statement is nothing more than an invitation to negotiate a settlement of some sort. It appears he made the statement, at the advice of his counsel, to mitigate any public reaction to a negotiated settlement. It would be beneficial to both parties' reputations to avoid any trial and further disclosure of their sexual histories, and Bryant was letting everyone know he was willing to pay some price to shelter such information. The fact that the civil suit is going forward simply tells me the parties could not agree on a price for their respective reputations.
If she agreed Bryant's statement could not be used against him, then how is it an admission? And if you think Bryant did anything more than read a statement prepared by his attorneys I think you are hopelessly naive. All it acknowledges is that Bryant now understands his accusers interpretation of the events and how she arrived at them. He continues to assert his belief the acts were consensual. At no point does he admit her interpretation is correct or even reasonable. He was simply laying the groundwork for an attempt to negotiate a settlement.
BTW, this:
The fact that the civil suit is going forward simply tells me the parties could not agree on a price for their respective reputations.
also could meant that Kobe isn't going to settle. I mean, they ARE in court, aren't they? If what you contend is true, what different would the dollar amount make to him?
"Um, why did you address that to me?"
Why did you include me on the ping list in your reply #26? Shouldn't I have interpreted it as an invitation to the party? Isn't it funny how people can arrive at different conclusions from the same set of events.
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.