15.10.03
The Kobe Bryant hearings and "evidence"
I had been avoiding it, but I decided to have a look at what is happening in the Kobe Bryant rape case hearings. As I have pointed out before, I'm not a lawyer - but this seems like awfully weak "evidence":
But this "evidence" that is being brought in by Bryant's lawyer is incredibly weak and insulting. It seems to me to smack of both the "she was asking for it" and "the woman was a slut and it couldn't have been rape" lines. The alleged victim's sexual history does not bear on whether or not, in this instance, she was raped. The fact that her underwear has a different person's semen on it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The woman's admission that she was "excited" to meet Bryant also adds nothing to whether or not a rape took place - presumably women can also be interested in sports figures without wanting to have sex with them.
As the article notes, this might score some PR points for the defense - but it does nothing to establish whether or not a crime was committed.
I had been avoiding it, but I decided to have a look at what is happening in the Kobe Bryant rape case hearings. As I have pointed out before, I'm not a lawyer - but this seems like awfully weak "evidence":
Kobe Bryant's accuser showed up for her rape exam wearing panties containing another man's sperm, a startling discovery that defense lawyers called "compelling evidence" the NBA star is innocent.I don't know if Bryant is innocent or guilty. It is up to the judge to determine whether or not this goes to trial, and if so, then it will be up to the jury that hears the case to decide. Since I believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, I am assuming at this point that Bryant is innocent.
...
She [Bryant's lawyer] wasted no time getting Detective Doug Winters to say that the yellow underwear the woman wore to her rape exam at a hospital the next day contained sperm from another man, along with Caucasian pubic hair.
...
Some legal experts said the evidence of the woman's previous sexual partners and her admission she was excited to meet Bryant makes the prosecution's case appear weak.
But this "evidence" that is being brought in by Bryant's lawyer is incredibly weak and insulting. It seems to me to smack of both the "she was asking for it" and "the woman was a slut and it couldn't have been rape" lines. The alleged victim's sexual history does not bear on whether or not, in this instance, she was raped. The fact that her underwear has a different person's semen on it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The woman's admission that she was "excited" to meet Bryant also adds nothing to whether or not a rape took place - presumably women can also be interested in sports figures without wanting to have sex with them.
As the article notes, this might score some PR points for the defense - but it does nothing to establish whether or not a crime was committed.
