That said, it's a little annoying to read articles that lament the "poor accuser" and her uphill battle against a beloved celebrity. First of all, pro athletes have a big fat bullseye on their crotches, and false accusations are not unheard of. I would guess that they are probably more likely when a famous person is involved (because of the potential windfall to the accuser). It's also annoying to hear people criticize Bryant for getting the best lawyers money can buy. Who wouldn't? Contrary to the articles assertions, the accuser is not saddled with a couple of underpaid public servants. The Eagle County public is the plaintiff in this case, and they have at their disposal all of the funds necessary to prosecute effectively.
This is not a civil case, and it's not David vs. Goliath.
That said, it's a little annoying to read articles that lament the "poor accuser" and her uphill battle against a beloved celebrity. First of all, pro athletes have a big fat bullseye on their crotches, and false accusations are not unheard of. I would guess that they are probably more likely when a famous person is involved (because of the potential windfall to the accuser). It's also annoying to hear people criticize Bryant for getting the best lawyers money can buy. Who wouldn't? Contrary to the articles assertions, the accuser is not saddled with a couple of underpaid public servants. The Eagle County public is the plaintiff in this case, and they have at their disposal all of the funds necessary to prosecute effectively.
I agree with your withholding of judgment. That is my view as well.
But I am annoyed by the well-trod Clintonian "nuts & sluts" defense so quickly paraded.
I do take issue at the idea that the prosecutor has unlimited resource. That is classic defense complaint when the reality is that the prosecutor's resources are limited by the county commissioners (and by extension the taxpayers).