Bryant denial made accuser 'sick to her stomach,' friend says

CNN ^ | July 21, 2003 | CNN

[onemoreday]

.....
.....KOBE BRYANT EVENING......

the KOBE BRYANT song
.....the Clean, Sweeping IMAGE
of "the Man"
............so Pure
............so "Christian-complete"
......a Lover of "the Good"
......a Bastion of "the Family"

ROLE MODEL BEFORE
THE CHILDREN OF THE GREATEST NATION
IN THE WORLD!!
...................
(.....so, OF COURSE!.....
any girl who would visit him in his room at the hotel in which she worked

---

with 3 other men presumed present----would assume it was for SEX........

.......naturally............NOT!!!!!!!

---

MORAL

a man using a woman's body to avoid "sticky fingers"......

may find himself with other "sticky issues" later

---

it is funny to see how the one (KOBE BRYANT) obviousy "in control" of the situation...
...is being pictured here as "the manipulated one!"

---

WE often talk about ABSOLUTE MAORALITY here at FREE REPUBLIC

(and the Sanctity of the Sexual Act)

however you look at it.........(AND...it is NOT necessary to access "blame" at present.....so devoid are we of "facts")

......however, it seems that there is much fanticizing about the Naturalness of BRUTAL "QUICKIE" SEX...

however well hidden by our "legalese"

[Nick Danger]

SUPPOSE her allegations are true... then she was already raped once, why should the media do it to her again?

Why would you liken people talking about her in the media to a second "rape"? That strikes me as fishing for an emotional reaction via hyperbole. As others have pointed out, your line of argument amounts to, "Suppose he's quilty... once you've done that, shut up." Sorry, but that's a non-starter on this forum.

There is a good chance that her background is irrelevant, anyway. If there are bruises and abrasions consistent with the tears in her clothes, and the DNA matches, and the security cam in the hotel hall and witnesses from work corroborate her -- then it is obvious that he did it...

I'd like to examine that a bit, because I think it's an example of a kind of rhetoric that royally pisses me off, regardless of subject matter.

You state as fact that there is a "good chance" that her background is irrelevant. You treat this as an assumed fact, when there is no evidemce whatsoever to support such an assertion. It amounts to saying that there is a "good chance" that Mr. Bryant is guilty... something you cannot know. To date, none of us have seen any physical evidence.

Except that you are going to make some up. First you make up some bruises and abrasions. And then DNA!! Everybody knows DNA proves guilt! Except that Bryant stipulates to having had sexual relations with the woman. And you know that. So why did you put DNA in there? Because you think it's a cool word that implies guilt? You are regaling us with rhetorical skills, not actually saying anything useful. Next we have security cameras in the halls! So what? Again, the issue that she was in the room is not in dispute. So let's throw the next scary buzzword, "security cam," into the same junk pile with the DNA evidence. Next we have 'witnesses from work' who corraborate her. Were they in the room? If not, they can't 'corroborate' anything except that she said X. And finally, after stringing some hypothetical bruises together with a bunch of guilty-sounding buzzwords, you conclude "-- then it is obvious he did it."

What a pile of steaming, stinking rhetoric that was.

here we know that hard evidence exists, we just dont know what it is yet.

So all the medical-sounding hoo-hah about the labia tears and whatnot... you made that all up? Why? Why go into great and specific detail about you something you totally made up? It's fishing for an emotional reaction with hyperbole, isn't it. Don't tell me, you're a pot-stirrer for Amalgamated Gender Wars. Yeah, that's exactly what we need more of in a criminal trial.

[cinFLA]

I wasn't raped by him but he made me feel sick to the stomach also as I watched him talk about how all this should not affect his endorsements.

[honeygrl]

"Someone on this board said there is a rumor Shep is a little bit um..funny."


*hands over ears* LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA

LOL

doesn't matter anyway, I'm happily married. But I can still drool.

[honeygrl]

"I'm the first to admit that. "

Actually I said the same Saturday I think. :-p

[cinFLA]

Although I don't believe this woman's claim at this time, I certainly would hate to see a race card being played by the likes of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

It's already being played by the KB organization.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

You piece of shit... If you cannot debate a topic, then keep your damn mouth shut.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[Iwo Jima]

Well, I'm sorry, but there is some wisdom in the saying that "if you don't scream, it ain't rape." Not that the lack of resistance or immediate outrage necessarily always means that the woman consented -- there can be good and valid reasons why that did not happen -- but you need to explain why you did not come bolting out of that room screaming "RAPE!!!!" Otherwise, it appears that after he wouldn't take your calls the next day that you got angry at the brush-off and decided to teach him a lesson that he would never forget.

[honeygrl]

are you related to f.christian? You make about as much sense as he/she usually does.

[TheOtherOne]

I wasn't raped by him but he made me feel sick to the stomach also as I watched him talk about how all this should not affect his endorsements.

You must have comprehension problems. He said his endorsements don't mattter, only his family - He never talked "about how all this should not affect his endorsements." You have made that up and completely turned around what he said.

Both your bias and lack of comprehension are showing.

[TheOtherOne]

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Did you see the post Sun was repling to? The reply seems restrained in comparison.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Before I start forming opinions, I would need to hear how she came to be in his room in the first place.

Gold diggers do stalk sports stars, but sports stars often feel they are above the laws that govern common folks, as well, and abuse the power of their popularity.

[A CA Guy]

It's an all white town and probably the same color jury.

Considering her mental problems and drug problems only weeks ago, it would be injustice to take her word and stick a felony on Kobe who has never had any record of any type before.

This case should be dropped and if the DA knew this, he is short lived for his career.

[Arpege92]

LOL

[Iwo Jima]

This case should be dropped and if the DA knew this, he is short lived for his career.

Think about the tight spot that the DA is in. This is a well-known, well-liked hometown girl who claims that she was assaulted by an out-of-town celebrity. If he refuses to prosecute, he is proclaiming that she is not credible. That is not likely to lead to his re-election because the accuser's supporters have a vote and the defendant's supporters do not.

Better from his selfish point of view to prosecute the case and blame the jury or the "system" if he can't get a guilty verdict. Then, he did the best that he could and no one can blame him, at least that's what he hopes.

[Recourse]

Of course he knew she overdosed a couple of months ago. This is a SMALL town. The DA has physical evidence. That will be the crux of his case.

[onemoreday]

....
....
NO, my poem and commentary make plenty of sense.

what DOESN'T make sense is the fascination with a "story" that is essentially

BORING
INCOMPLETE
INNANE
UGLY
BRUTAL
and TRITE

unless (of course) if seen in the light of our "interest" in the LIFE STYLE of a celebrity with an income of about $400 thousand a week........

and what he MIGHT DO with it...........!

---

CAN he just get SEX whenever he wants!!!

(inquiring minds want to know!!!!!!)

BUT

for many different reasons.........

SOME HEALTHY
SOME NOT!!!!
..............

MY POINT is that it seems the "thread" of the commentary is being driven by

an unhealthy and un-christian "urge" to fantacizes with the "liberties" wealth and fame may bring and that the interests of "justice" are more than secondary

[A CA Guy]

Then there is no case.
Kobe admitted sex, the issue is he said it was consensual and she says it was not.
He has NO previous history and she has a recent history of mental instability.

The DA will be trying to get out of this with his career intact. I don't think that will be possible either.

The DA never should have filed if he knew her recent mental history with her problems.

[Yeti]

Sorry, but that's a non-starter on this forum.

I don't need you to tell me what starts and doesn't start on this forum. And the people reading this don't need you to tell them what does and doesn't start with them.

You state as fact that there is a "good chance" that her background is irrelevant. You treat this as an assumed fact, when there is no evidemce whatsoever to support such an assertion.

You must have missed those threads and news posts. There was a rape kit. There were witnesses immediately after the fact. There was torn clothing. If there was labial tearing then the idea that she was hot for Kobe is false. So the idea that she was hot for him and resented being used is false. The DNA proves he ejaculated in her, the tears in her unlubricated labia proves he forced his way into her.

Now, once we know that, the tears in her clothing are not really so questionable. The testimony of witnesses after the fact, etc... corroborate her own story. Then we know that he raped her.

We will know that, if it is the case, when we know the results of the medical tests done on her. Once we know that, her background will be irrelevant. Do you understand now? It depends on the results of the rape kit, which we know was taken. But we don't know the results.

If the rape kit results are ambiguous, then we may need to look at her a bit closer. But if they are clearly indicative of forced intercourse, then it really doesn't matter what her past is, Kobe is guilty of rape. And so her past will be irrelevant. They took the tests well within the appropriate time frame, the DA saw the tests and decided they warranted pressing charges. That means there is a good chance that the kit was decisive. Which means there is a good chance that her past is irrelevant.

Now, I don't know what part of this reasoning pisses you off, but I know it pisses me off when I am *wrong*, especially when I make a big deal about my opinion, and it turns out to be in the wrong.

"Suppose he's quilty... once you've done that, shut up." Sorry, but that's a non-starter on this forum.

when there is no evidemce whatsoever to support such an assertion.

So all the medical-sounding hoo-hah

after stringing some hypothetical bruises together with a bunch of guilty-sounding buzzwords,

Don't tell me, you're a pot-stirrer for Amalgamated Gender Wars.

What a pile of steaming, stinking rhetoric that was.

The last snip says it all...

So why did you put DNA in there? Because you think it's a cool word that implies guilt?

Oh, you know me...

[FITZ]

LOL ---well I didn't mean that quite that way. I'll be the first to admit we're all speculating. But if you were really first ---I'll admit that too.