FanDuel - WFBC

October 09, 2003

Obey your thirst for this story: A preliminary hearing in Eagle County, Colo., included the first detailed accusation against Kobe Bryant and a court-clearing question by his attorneys.

posted by rcade to basketball at 10:05 PM - 13 comments

When the Kobe Bryant story first broke I couldn't say one way or the other wether he was guilty. Maybe it was rape, maybe she was trying to set him up. But as the details have come out, the accuser's story seems to have the ring of truth. I just don't see a 19 year old who randomly encountered Kobe Bryant improvising a plan to entrap Kobe nor do I find the "it was consensual" and she began to regret it aftewards argument credible either. I've had friends (girls) who consensually hooked up with pro athletes and they weren't crying to the police about it. This story is just plain disturbing.

posted by Mike McD at 08:33 AM on October 10

Survey question: Was it ignorance of the 'rape shield' law, or just dirty tactics on the defense team's part? And what's with the post-rape junk kiss? I'm surprised she didn't orally bobbit the jackass!

posted by garfield at 09:11 AM on October 10

I don't see any way to view the "sex with three men" question as ignorance; Bryant hired one of the best defense attorneys in Colorado as part of his team. Though I'm reserving judgment until the case goes to trial, if Bryant is proven to be guilty, his decision to intentionally smear the victim's reputation to save his ass would be truly loathsome.

posted by rcade at 09:17 AM on October 10

Well, other states allow such lines of questioning, so I'm wondering whether it was jurisdictional ignorance. I don't really think it was a court room flub, and explains why they didn't waive this hearing.

posted by garfield at 09:23 AM on October 10

Whew - this is ugly. And you wonder why some women don't come forward after being raped. Sex with three different men in three days. Promiscuity is no justification for rape - I find that to be a puritan accusation - sexist and demeaning to all involved.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:27 AM on October 10

...goes to witness' credibility/character. conversely, getting three women in three days would be considered a successful spring break weekend.

posted by garfield at 10:59 AM on October 10

his decision to intentionally smear the victim's reputation to save his ass would be truly loathsome. You really think that Kobe has any say in strategy and tactics? WTF does he know about the law and how to win a trial, that's why he hired the top legal talent he could. And as for the tactics, hey, they're lawyers and doing the best job they can for their clients. No one in America, even a 19 year old, should go into this thinking there's no pain involved.

posted by billsaysthis at 11:36 AM on October 10

Bryant's responsible for what's being done on his behalf in the courtroom. ...goes to witness' credibility/character. That's not the overriding principle -- look at how many times a defendant's criminal history is not allowed to be brought up at trial. She could have fielded the attentions of an entire high school football team that afternoon and it wouldn't change the definition of the word "no."

posted by rcade at 01:15 PM on October 10

Bryant's responsible for what's being done on his behalf in the courtroom. Sure, in the end, but if you were in a legal bind and your lawyers told you this was the best way to not spend many years in jail, would you not go along and take that chance?

posted by billsaysthis at 01:55 PM on October 10

...goes to witness' credibility/character. That's not the overriding principle -- I'm merely pointing out that in some states the gang-bang the night before is admissible, and this move by Kobe's team tries to exploit this tact and ultimately plays to the jury's perception of the accuser. No comment on the merits of such policy -- too dependent on circumstantial specifics. Besides, to completely discount past behaviour is somewhat counter-intuitive (speaking in general terms) She could have fielded the attentions of an entire high school football team that afternoon and it wouldn't change the definition of the word "no." The definition of 'no' is not in question, though her actions make her side of story harder to believe.

posted by garfield at 02:17 PM on October 10

She could have fielded the attentions of an entire high school football team that afternoon and it wouldn't change the definition of the word "no."
True, but it brings the credibility of the vaginal tearing evidence into question. Repeated abuse and all that.

posted by lilnemo at 02:39 PM on October 10

Sure, in the end, but if you were in a legal bind and your lawyers told you this was the best way to not spend many years in jail, would you not go along and take that chance? Depends on whether I had a conscience or not. If Bryant is guilty, he's letting his lawyers take a second crack at his victim.

posted by rcade at 03:15 PM on October 10

Depends on whether I had a conscience or not. True, but the instinct towards self-preservation is pretty damn strong and, not being in that position, I find it hard to answer with any certainty.

posted by billsaysthis at 03:44 PM on October 10

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.