RIP Kobe

anon38180840 · January 27, 2020, 7:52am

anon38180840:

The LA Times did not attribute it to his defense team. They just write that DNA evidence suggested it, and that the prosecutors denied it.

"Her name was mistakenly released to the media three times (by policy, The Times never published it), and a sealed transcript of a closed hearing on DNA evidence was emailed to seven media outlets, including The Times.

In the transcripts, a DNA expert detailed evidence bolstering the defense’s contention that Bryant’s accuser had sex with someone else soon after the alleged rape."

Jeeze I wonder who did that? I suppose since we don’t know for sure, we have to consider all possible ways this thing could have been mailed to several media sources.

And also, I wonder which team the “DNA expert” worked for? I guess we shouldn’t assume the defense.

And ya, this is the same DNA evidence that the prosecutor denied proved anything about her having sex just after the rape.

I’m already repeatedly on the record that the defense team, and by having presumably approved their strategy, Kobe as well, are responsible for their wrong and bad actions shaming and outing the name of the victim.

Now, as for what I posted specifically, the LA Times may be interpreting the evidence they saw, or they may have made a mistake in not attributing the allegation, or they may be trying to go extra easy on the hometown hero the day after he died. I don’t know. I’m passing on information from the LA Times, which I hope we can all accept as a credible news outlet. I’ll allow for the possibility they’re doing something bad here, though.

Did the prosecutor say she didn’t have sex in those 15 hours, that it was not proven that she had sex in those 15 hours, or something else? Like, again, range of possibilities. Personally I don’t really care if she had sex 5 hours before, 5 hours after, 20 hours before, 20 hours after, whatever. That’s her business and nobody should judge her for it. All I’m concerned with is the evidence for the case and how it impacts the facts of the case.

Really at this point, I also don’t care much about that. Getting back to my main point: there’s a significant likelihood that he raped her intentionally, a significant likelihood that he misunderstood the consent being withdrawn, and a very small likelihood of other events. He should be judged based on a range of possibilities, not just one.

That’s pretty much all I’m saying - that there’s no way to know what he truly believed in that moment, thus no way to know what really went down. I don’t think that “he thinks he had consent” and “he didn’t care about consent” are the same. People who care about consent can misinterpret consent, especially about specific acts rather than an overall sexual encounter.