The Wicked Wop Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Report: Lab Results Counter Bryant Accuser's Story Wed May 26, 8:18 PM ET DENVER (Reuters) - Crime laboratory evidence shows the 19-year-old woman who has accused Kobe Bryant (news) of rape had consensual sex with another man hours after she said the basketball star raped her, MSNBC reported on Wednesday. The DNA evidence from the prosecution's own laboratory could be introduced in court as early as Thursday when the Los Angeles Laker will be back in an Eagle, Colorado, courtroom for a pre-trial hearing, the cable TV report said. Bryant's lawyer, Pamela Mackey, laid a bombshell in a prior pre-trial hearing when she suggested the woman had sex within 15 hours after she said she was raped. Through her attorney, the young woman denied having sex so soon after she said she was raped on June 30 at a Colorado resort where she worked and Bryant was staying for out-patient surgery on his knee. According to the MSNBC report, fresh sperm and semen samples were found inside the woman's body from samples given during a rape examination and that such evidence would prove she had sex within hours after the incident with Bryant. Krista Flannigan, a spokeswoman for Eagle County prosecutor Mark Hurlbert, said the office could not comment on the report. The 25-year-old Bryant, who has pleaded not guilty to raping the woman, has said the two had consensual sex. If the woman did have consensual sex soon after she said she was raped by Bryant, then she also would have lied to police who were investigating the case. Prosecutors have said that DNA from someone other than Bryant was found on the underwear the woman wore when she went to the hospital and was the result of mistakenly putting on soiled underwear that had DNA from an earlier sexual episode. However, the DNA sample taken from her body could refute that line of thinking. ********************************************* Looks like Kobe is cashing in his get out of jail free card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I don't know anyone that was raped but I just don't see it possible how someone could have sex just hours after being raped. If this turns out true, then I think the case is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I dont know about the 15hrs after she was "allegedly" raped having sex.. Does anyone know about a group that has done a story about the average time after??? Is there some kind of stat on trends or such.. You might be suprised to find out it happens quite often or you might find it takes months.. If the Prosecution can point to evidence to say its not out of the ordinary..... They are now Crushed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I thought we've known about this for months. I know we've had discussions on this board about this scenario as it seemed to be the case for some time. Given the knowledge we've had and this article appears to confirm, this is a case that should not have even been started. Of course, there's a slight chance a liberal court somewhere will say the evidence of this is inadmissible due to the rape shield law and if so, the jury will convict a man the rest of the world knows to be innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Art I thought we've known about this for months. I know we've had discussions on this board about this scenario as it seemed to be the case for some time. Given the knowledge we've had and this article appears to confirm, this is a case that should not have even been started. Of course, there's a slight chance a liberal court somewhere will say the evidence of this is inadmissible due to the rape shield law and if so, the jury will convict a man the rest of the world knows to be innocent. Even if the rape shield law is not thrown out all the jurors are going to hear and see this in the news anyway. Kobe's lawyer is brilliant by doing this. It is going to be hard to find anyone in colorado that has not been paying attention to all the news about this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 If she had sex with 50 guys 10 minutes after, it still wouldnt matter. That has no bearing on what happened with her and Kobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Art I thought we've known about this for months. I know we've had discussions on this board about this scenario as it seemed to be the case for some time. Given the knowledge we've had and this article appears to confirm, this is a case that should not have even been started. Of course, there's a slight chance a liberal court somewhere will say the evidence of this is inadmissible due to the rape shield law and if so, the jury will convict a man the rest of the world knows to be innocent. The rape shield law is designed to keep the defense from trying to paint the victim as a whore and thus creating the "she deserved it" or the "she wanted it" defense. Idiots that still believe in the men can screw anyone but women can't double standards would actually fall for that trash and thus a law was needed to save the court system from their backward thinking. This situation is different however because this is NOT about sexual history, these are actions that occured immediately after the alleged rape and most importantly BEFORE evidence from her body was collected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If she had sex with 50 guys 10 minutes after, it still wouldnt matter. That has no bearing on what happened with her and Kobe. I disagree, she had sex before evidence was taken from her body. Thus any damage found may not have been caused by Kobe. At the very least this will go a long way in creating reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If she had sex with 50 guys 10 minutes after, it still wouldnt matter. That has no bearing on what happened with her and Kobe. But it does raise questions whether the story is true or not. I seriously doubt a woman is going to have sex hours after she was raped. If this is true then I feel it would be logical to think that she is not telling the truth about what happend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Let me rephrase, Just because she had sex with someone after the alleged crime was committed, DOES NOT mean that the crime didnt happen. Your point about evidence is correct. But that's not what I was trying to convey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Let me rephrase, Just because she had sex with someone after the alleged crime was committed, DOES NOT mean that the crime didnt happen. Your point about evidence is correct. But that's not what I was trying to convey. Ah I see now what you are saying. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If she had sex with 50 guys 10 minutes after, it still wouldnt matter. That has no bearing on what happened with her and Kobe. This is a statement completely without merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Destino The rape shield law is designed to keep the defense from trying to paint the victim as a whore and thus creating the "she deserved it" or the "she wanted it" defense. Idiots that still believe in the men can screw anyone but women can't double standards would actually fall for that trash and thus a law was needed to save the court system from their backward thinking. This situation is different however because this is NOT about sexual history, these are actions that occured immediately after the alleged rape and most importantly BEFORE evidence from her body was collected. Destino, I don't disagree with you on what the intent of the law was meant to cover. However, as with many laws where the best intention is meant, liberal courts expand the law to cover other things. In Colorado, as an example, courts have stated that sexual history doesn't really matter even in cases where the defense says injury could have come during those incidents rather than with the accused. The point that the defense can call experts who can say such injuries are possible is a hypothetical that is all that is necessary and actually demonstrating that a "victim" fits that hypothetical is beyond the scope and protected by rape shield. Given that we've had that sort of ruling previously in Colorado, it is not inconceivable it could happen again to Kobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Kilmer you forget the big problem here, if it turns out she did have sex after Kobe she has then lied to the police, and lied in an investigation. Which is going to kill ANY crediblity she has left and the court will have to let that stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I've talked to a few female friends of mine that have had experience with sexual assaults and they stated emphatically that there is no way that they would have thought about sex let alone had sex within hours of being raped......it is pretty damning evidence.......this girl needs some common sense...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 The more I think about it if they prove she lied to the police then I think the judge might have to throw the case out anyway, not a lawyer so don't know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Let me rephrase, Just because she had sex with someone after the alleged crime was committed, DOES NOT mean that the crime didnt happen. Your point about evidence is correct. But that's not what I was trying to convey. Kilmer, Rape of this sort, with minimal physical evidence -- such as bruising cops who initially met with the "victim" couldn't see -- and only two people who KNOW the truth goes to the credibility of the witnesses. Obviously, a hooker can come in after a night of sex for money, and get brutally raped in a way that the whole world has no question about it. Even if she goes back to work the next night, the physical evidence is so conclusive there is no doubting it. However, if that same hooker has sex all night, then says her last client "raped" her, but there is no physical evidence at all or very little, then the case becomes what she says versus what he says and while he could be lying, so could she. In such cases, character matters. And whether we want to admit it or not, a woman who has a pattern of frequently having sex -- whether as a hooker or as a woman who likes one night stands at bars -- such does matter. Now, does that history mean she CAN NOT have been raped? Not at all. On that narrow point I agree with you. It just means she can't reasonably prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted May 27, 2004 Author Share Posted May 27, 2004 This thing is done......fact is she lied to the police, this alone would jeprodize any bit of credability she has.....Kilmer your right, a rape still may have occurred, but this like most rape cases are about her word vs. his........and if shes lying to the police, she can be lying about the whole thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Now, does that history mean she CAN NOT have been raped? Not at all. On that narrow point I agree with you. It just means she can't reasonably prove it. Art, that is entirely ALL that I was saying. But the premise of the thread (the way I read it anyway) was that BECAUSE she had sex with someone else, that somehow PROVES she wasnt raped by Kobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted May 27, 2004 Author Share Posted May 27, 2004 The premise of the thread was to show that she had someone elses gue insider her, not just on her drawers.......and that it appears that she lied to the police regarding her sexual activity after the alleged rape......if anything, this is way more damaging then any sexual history that they bring up about the women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.