At the risk of further painting myself as an enemy to women everywhere, I think it’s fair to mention that there is a potential motive for a woman in the Bryant case to lie, and that same motive is either non-existant or very slight in a situation such as Shayna describes.
The criminal process is only one part of the justice system. A guilty verdict against Mr. Bryant would pave the way for a large civil lawsuit against Mr. Bryant by his accuser. The promise of that potentially multi-million dollar verdict is a reason to lie, one that doesn’t apply to Joe Schmoe.
That doesn’t mean she is definitely lying. Nor does it mean that I believe she’s lying. Assuming this was always true would allow the rich to commit assaults with impunity, since they could always claim that accusers were motivated by the desire for financial reward.
BUT - it would be foolish to bend over in the other direction and assume there is absolutely zero motive for the woman to lie.
I make no claims to having my fingers on the moral pulse of mainstream America, but know I’d find her even more credible if her attorney put her up on the stand to explain that yes of course she intended and expected to have sex with him and then things went sour and she changed her mind, was very blunt and unmistakeably specific about that, and that was when he raped her.
Do you folks honestly think that many people on a random jury would not support a woman’s right to change her mind and stalk out of the hotel room? That imposing sex by force at that point would not be construed as “real rape”? That a woman who is not trying to hide the fact that she is sexually active and goes to guys’ hotel rooms (at least on occasion) to have sex is somehow still a believeable candidate for having some kind of psychological or personal reasons for calling it “rape” when it was actually consensual?
I’m not saying you’d be wrong but it would be sad and infuriating to think otherwise.
If I were her attorney I would not make the faintest effort to portray this event as “pristine and clueless woman done wrong”; I would instead argue that Kobe Bryant, an adult, has the unchallenged right to go to a hotel room to have sex with a consenting gal, decide subsequently that she’s too skanky a ho for him, and get disgusted and leave; and that she, the victim, has the same right, but that when she tried to exercise that option he raped her, a crime punishable by law.
Shayna, I had read your post and while I can see the similarities, you must also see the differences, namely the lack of drinking/clouding judgement beforehand. Not to say that alcohol is the end all, be all for rape…in fact, sorry, I’ve got a splitting headache right now and can’t really give this the attention you deserve, but you should know I understand your position, believe you, and never had any doubt that it is possible for someone to change their mind.
Mr. B, I suspect I should have thrown a “will” in there- “I do, in fact, believe the facts will bear out …” making the second half of that sentence redundant.
If this is what the evidence leads you to believe, so be it. At least this is more clearly worded than your offensive ‘cum-dumpster’ statement. I find it curious that a self-proclaimed advocate of rape survivors would jump to such slanderous name-calling at such an early point in the process. I happen to think Kobe’s position is highly suspect, but you won’t catch me going off the deep end until further evidence arrives.
For the record, the fact that I had been drinking in no way clouded my judgment. I knew perfectly well what I was doing and willingly went back to his room with him for the purpose of having sex (hey, I was a single, 24 year-old woman on vacation at Club Med!). I am not claiming impairment or inability to give consent. Nor would I try to claim that had he raped me and I pressed charges. I merely mentioned the drinking to illustrate how out-of-control his behaviour became – behaviour which frightened me enough to cause me to change my mind.
We don’t know what Kobe may have done to have caused this girl to decide, after flirting with him and kissing him, that she didn’t want to have sex with him, afterall, but it didn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with drinking. He may have merely loomed over her in such a way that she became scared, even though he meant no physical harm to her by that particular action.
Whatever did happen, he says she consented to what followed and she says she changed her mind, but he wouldn’t stop. I’m just wondering what about her actions or her statements causes you not to believe her, when you do believe me.
I’ll now add that I had had slept with an entirely different guy on that trip earlier in the week. Does my “promiscuous nature” and my admitted “intent to have consensual sex with” the second guy change whether or not you believe that I changed my mind during the second encounter?
couple of points - think yes, it appears she talked to the coworker immediately afterward. There is a real difference, tho’ in how it’s portrayed - you portrayed it as ‘bragging’, from what I got from the news this am, it was more of a 'he was concerned about her ‘cause she seemed to merit concern’ as in he was so worried about her that he followed her home to make sure she got there safely. This, to me, is a distinct difference and makes it more plausible that it was not consensual - if she appeared upset right afterward, it does give her side more credibility. the fact that Kobe lied at first should also be seen as diminishing his credibility.
much is being made about the fact that she went to his room willingly. two thoughts from me:
I do ** not** believe that simply 'cause a woman enters a man’s residence (including hotel room) she should automatically assume that sex is assumed. Nor should a man assume that she’s willing. There’s any number of reasons to enter the room ‘I have to make a phone call, get something’ etc. It would be idiotic (IMHO) for the woman to stand outside the room door.
the woman involved worked at the hotel. I think that makes #1 even less likely. She was on duty. WOuld you also assert that the bell hop bringing up the bags, the room service person stopping in for the dishes etc should also assume sex was probable? even if they’d chatted downstairs etc.
I wasn’t in the room. what I’m looking at is:
At least one states that it wasn’t consensual.
One of them lied about the encounter. that’s also, coincidentally, the one who’s now claiming it was consensual.
The demeanor of the complainant immediately afterwards will be the deciding factor to me. If she exited the room showing signs of being upset, crying etc, that would be sufficient in my eyes to demonstrate lack of consent. If she exited the room and looked normal and/or bragged about the encounter, I’d be outraged that she’d falsely accused some one.
False accusations of rape are horrendous. But, so is rape. And going up into some one’s room, kissing them does not given them the right to go further without consent.
Not quibbling with you, wring, just adding to your post. The woman entered Mr. Bryant’s room because she was giving him a tour of the hotel, which ended with her showing him the features of his suite.
I have it on information that the complainant left Mr. Bryant’s suite, went back down to the lobby and finished her paperwork. The bellman noted the woman was visibly shaken and engaged her in conversation, whereupon she broke down in tears. After she told her story the bellman made a lynching threat about Mr. Bryant, for which the bellman was reprimanded by the Cordillera. The Smoking Gun was supposed to have received a copy of this reprimand but it has allegedly been suppressed by the Edwards authorities.
Duly noted. I prefer my crow well done, with a side order of fries.
The flirting and kissing are still evidence of sexual interest. She was not in any way required to be in Kobe’s room because of her job. It was noted in the hearing that she went up to his room by the back way specifically to avoid security. She wasn’t supposed to be up there at that time, and she knew it.
Her demonstrated interest in Kobe in no way invalidates her claim of rape (at least legally, the minds of jurors are a different matter). The point of broadening rape statutes to include acquaintance rape is that it allows a woman to just say no, whatever the reason, whatever the circumstances. Doesn’t matter if they made out. Doesn’t matter if they were boozing. Doesn’t matter if they were playing naked twister.
See, here’s a problem. I can scratch around and find her name and the names of her best friends, her address – heck, there’s even a picture, but I can’t seem to find anything out there to back this up. I guess I’m not looking in the right places. Do you have a cite?
Also, having trouble these days with the media’s view on the tattoo: first it was “lifted her skirt” for a tattoo on her back, then it was lifted her shirt, and now it’s an ankle tattoo.
Hey, thinksnow, what has been presented so far to make you believe the facts will bear out her promiscuous nature?
I want to put a little more emphasis on this statement, in the midst of this credibility discussion. It’s not a throwaway detail; it is one of the few provable facts that we are all, sideline judges, privy to. We don’t have the photos, we didn’t see the woman’s* demeanor that evening, we haven’t heard Kobe’s taped statement. But we watch the news, and we’ve heard his public announcements.
In these three pages of discussion and invective [we are after all in the Pit, home of rants, let’s not forget], the focus of the credibility debate has been the accuser’s credibility. To some extent, this must be so, as it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that a crime was committed, and by the defendant. However: as we are all by now well aware, this case is currently sitting at the “he-said-she-said” stoplight. But how does speculating that she may be a liar stack up against knowing that Kobe Bryant IS A LIAR?
(Do initial claims of total innocence amount to a lie when there is a later admission of a sexual encounter? I see no need to split Clintonian hairs here. We all seem to agree that he lied about the incident originally. Does anyone have the text of the July 12 LA Times initial statement? Did he say “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? I think we’re all calling it a lie.)
So, we have this:
Accused: liar…Credibility not under fire
Accuser: no story changes to date…Credibility under massive assault via hypothetical guesses about unproven sexual habits, unverified demeanor after the alleged incident, suicide attempt(s?), speculations about motive for lying (money, embarrassment, racism?). She’s been threatened with death. Is anyone threatening Kobe Bryant?
I don’t know what happened. I am trying hard to withhold judgment and hope that a judge and jury will come to the heart of the matter. One way or another, I doubt Kobe’s going to the Big House. For my part, I speculate about whether this case would have been the circus it is had it been a lousy basketball player involved instead of a good one.
*I know 19 counts as ‘woman’. But she’s still pretty young. I don’t see a lot of respect for that floating around the news media as they discuss her potential for promiscuity and gold-digging. If she were my daughter I’d still be thinking of her as a “girl.” Irrelevant, I guess, but I was 19 once, and I was young.
By “it” I meant to refer to his omitting to mention the sexual act in the July 12 article. I’m not trying to say he ever said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” that’s where I’m trying to make a joke. Ha ha?
In the old days, the defense would bring in the victims sexual history to portray her as a slut who was ‘asking for it’. sadly, it worked a lot of the time. Whatever sex she had in the past has no bearing on whether she consented to THIS sex act. Therefore, it is not relevant.
Kobe’s history may be relevant to show a pattern, possibly one of being overly aggressive and unwilling to take NO for an answer.
Would her having made many allegations against men in a similar fashion as in this case be of validity? It doesn’t mean that she is lying, but it would give the jury pause to look closer at the circumstances of the particular case they are deciding.
**
Wouldn’t he have then been charged and then convicted for rape in those cases? If not, then they are just allegations, aren’t they? The same as in my paragraph above. He could show a pattern of aggressive behavior, she could show a pattern wanting her throat held during hard screwing. Why would his pattern be allowed in court and not hers?
I’m honestly asking here. It confuses me why a man’s past sexual history might be allowed to be brought out in a court room, while a woman’s is not.
I believe it would. Credibilty is a matter for the jury to decide. If she has a pattern of allegations…
Yes, they would be allegations. But if they fit a pattern, those who made the past allegations may be able to testify, even if charges were not previously filed. But that would a matter for the judge to decide (whether or not they could testify, or whether it would be overly prejudical). But IANAL, so I could be completely wrong.
[sub](You’ll have to be patient for replies, I’m still moving and unpacking a new house) [/sub]
I’d not read/heard the “broke down in tears” part of this, and admittedly, that would change my thoughts.
Instead, the interpretation I’d had was that after telling the bellman what she’d done, he made disparaging comments about Kobe which where understood to have been racist in nature, due to the lynching bit. A different spin, to be sure.
Thoughts being that if he’d told the staff that she’d just said she’d been raped, there’d have been a bit more reaction than just his reprimand for the bigoted lynching threat, which could have been out of racist disgust for mix-race-coupling alone.
Now, though, if you’re saying witnesses have her breaking down shortly after the event, rather than simply be-bopping along with her work day like it was any other night… well, I would very well stand corrected if these were the facts, and I readily admit that.
In the end it sounds like they will be able to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt she went up to his hotel room to get busy with him in some fashion, and she willingly participated in his attempts to seduce her up to a point, and then all hell broke loose. Giving the nature of her described injuries the jury is going to have to parse out if they were possible from vigorous sex (his likely claim) or were the result of his manhandling and penetrating her (her claim), and at what point on the continiuum of of seduction and penetration they were when sexual negotiations turned to (claimed) violent coercive force.
From a strictly jury strategy POV, and given that it seems she has some serious pre-existing (to the claimed rape) emotional problems (re 2 suicide attempts in the past year or so) his defense will obliquely flog as evidence of her instability, it does not sound like she will be a “good victim” in this context, and unless compelling new evidence comes to light to change the current, seeming nature of this “he said rough sex - she said rape” conflict", it is unlikely he will do any time.
What could possibly change this is some harder, definitive evidence (which may be pending) that he actually beat or choked her that cannot reasonably be explained by the “rough sex” claim, or that he has been changed with this sort of violent, coercive sex in the past.