Home


 

Kobe Bryant's Accuser Tried To Commit Suicide Two Months Ago

Kobe's accuser

From the Orange County Register:

EAGLE, COLO – Everyone here knew her as the popular Eagle Valley Senior High School cheerleader springing with vibrant spirit and sweet smiles, as the beautiful singer always ready to perform in school musicals with the clearest voice and the strongest heart.

But her close friends have been doggedly protecting a secret in the unnerving days since the 19-year-old woman accused Los Angeles Lakers All-Star Kobe Bryant of forcing her to have sex with him - a secret that Bryant's attorneys could use to undermine her credibility, legal experts say.

Two months before the woman went to the Eagle County Sheriff's Department on July 1 alleging that Bryant had sexually assaulted her, the woman suffered under such mental anguish that she overdosed on pills and was rushed to a hospital, her friends told The Orange County Register.

"I think it was just a cry for help," said Lindsey McKinney, 18, who lived at the woman's house in May, when the woman took the pills.

McKinney was visiting other friends when, about 2 a.m. one day, she learned from the woman's ex-boyfriend that the woman had "overdosed." McKinney rushed to the woman's Eagle home and found the woman incoherent, lethargic and seemingly drunk. "I was scared. She wasn't really talking at all," McKinney said. "I was like, ' you need to open your eyes.' "

Moments later, the woman's parents awoke and called 911. An ambulance responded and took the woman to a hospital, McKinney said. Some friends said they thought the overdose was an accident. Not McKinney.

Kobe Bryant Now Has Street Cred?

C. Jemal Horton writes on Indystar.com: So now Kobe Bryant finally is supposed to be accepted by inner-city black kids?

So now the middle class-bred Bryant is supposed to have -- I hate this term -- street credibility?

All because the Los Angeles Lakers star recently was arrested in Colorado on a felony count of sexual assault?

Flip through enough television channels and you'll hear this conclusion more than once from the high-brow experts: Kobe's got "street cred" now. Inner-city black kids, who loathed him before, can identify with him now. His Nikes will sell like crazy.

DENNIS PRAGER SAYS 7/21/03: The rape of a name is as bad as a rape without violence. So why name the accused but not the accuser? As the victims of rape are 99% women, this is as blatant example of sexism as there is. I thought we were all about equality now.

You could argue that you don't name the accuser to protect her feelings and those of the men around her. But the feelings of those who are accused of rape, and those around him, are just as real and deep? Kobe's wife feels just as badly about this situation as Kobe's accuser.

Wendy McElroy writes on Foxnews.com:

In his forthcoming biography Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News (search), Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson (search) discusses another motive that underlies some false accusations. In 2001, a woman he had never met alleged he had raped her in Louisville, a city he had never visited. After $14,000 in defensive legal bills, Carlson discovered that the woman had a chronic mental disorder. He decided not to sue for redress since it would further link his name with the word "rape."

Carlson even hesitated to speak out in his tell-all book because "the stigma of being accused of that kind of crime is so strong." Fortunately, he thought it taught a valuable lesson: "I always assumed, like every other journalist does, that all sex scandals are rooted in the truth, period. You may not have done precisely what you're accused of, but you did something." From bitter experience, he now knows differently.

Even charges that are later revealed to be false can devastate the accused. Consider journalist John Fund (search), who was arrested on charges of domestic violence and publicly excoriated for sexual misconduct. The charges were later dropped.

How prevalent is the false reporting of sexual assault? Estimates vary widely.

According to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin (search) of Purdue University, the correct figure may rise to the 40 percent range. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987. Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."

Naming Kobe's Accuser

Kevin Roderick writes on LA Observed: "Kobe's home address, phone & email aren't on the Web[.] But his accuser's are now, and so is her name, her photo and where she goes to college. Some L.A. bloggers, including Luke Ford, are linking to the site that is circulating the personal info. Also local talk jock Tom Leykis chose to broadcast her info nationwide today, reports SoCalLawBlog. The moral: don't dare file a police report against an NBA star."

AlexanderThePoet thinks: "Rule #1 of the world wide web is that anything you post, can be copied and pasted elsewhere. Or at the least, that's how people should look at it. If info regarding the victim of Kobe Bryant was posted on a site, it becomes public domain. In which case, you can't blame Luke Ford or anyone else for linking to that site. The info was out there people! It's not like they opened up Pandora's Box."

EH writes: "Luke publishes a lot of stuff he probably shouldn't. And just because it's already on the net is no excuse. Like my mother (and probably everyone else's, too) used to say: Two wrongs don't make a right."

Luke replies: As soon as I heard about binaryreport.com report on Kobe's accuser, I wanted to visit the site. I did visit the site. I bet Kevin Roderick visited binaryreport.com, if just to see what the fuss was about. Yeah right. If it was ok for Kevin and the institutional media to visit the site, why was it not ok for them to link to it? Ok, I understand there are powerful reasons against linking to it because the great unwashed are dangerous.

My philosophy on such stuff is - if I want to visit the site, I'm going to feel free to link to it so my readers can visit the site too. If I would've wanted to see Diana's crash pictures (I didn't), I would've linked to them. My site reflects me and my interests.

The moral has nothing to do with filing a police report against an NBA star. I couldn't care less about Kobe the basketball player. I'm not a Laker fan. I don't look up to athletes generally.

Here's the moral: It's wrong to name the accused in a sex crimes case and not the accuser. You may say that naming the accuser causes her great shame and causes those who love and try to protect her great shame. Well, accusing someone of rape causes the man great shame and those who love him great shame.

Not naming the women (and victims of sex crimes are usually women) is blatant sexism. I thought the moood in this modern era was to make things equal. I'm echoing the thoughts of talkshow host Dennis Prager.

Kevin makes an excellent point that Kobe's personal information (address, email, etc) aren't being distributed like the accuser's. True. But it was Kobe who was named and his reputation dragged through the mud while the conventional news media, as always, gave the accuser a free pass. That's not right. I don't like it that the accuser's personal info is now all over the web (helped in small part by my link).

I don't think it's right to give out her home address but it is the understandable reaction to a feminist news media and justice system that treats men and women differently. Just because there is something on a link I find morally objectionable does not automatically mean I will not link to that page. I will weigh the good with the bad. I think it is good that this woman, and anyone who files charges of rape, be named. I think people should be held responsible for their behavior (i.e., filing charges). If they want to avoid the publicity of charging a star with rape, they should not file a charge, and they should see if there's anything they can learn from the experience, such as do not go to a man's room alone unless you want to have sex.

Also, if privacy is vitally important to you, there are lots of things you can do to protect your information. Take responsibility for your lives, folks.

I hope that if this woman is found to have brought a false accusation, that she's sentenced to the same prison term Kobe faced if guilty. All false accusers should suffer this, as the Torah prescribes. Secular law however does not use this.

Dennis Prager points out that Kobe has developed a strong moral bank account. He's led a responsible life. He got married. He has no tattoos. He seems like a decent fellow. The number of characters in the NBA with good character and good family life (he married before having kids) is so small, I pray Kobe is innocent. It's important that inner-city black kids have a good black role model for a bourgeois life.

When Mike Tyson was charged, I tended to believe the accusations.

A juror is not supposed to take the past into account, only the event. In life, we act differently.

Feminism has warped jurisprudence. According to Ms Magazine, rape is any sex a woman regrets. When I was a kid and I heard a woman was raped, I shuddered because it was so horrible. But feminists have raped the word of meaning.

Just like the civil rights establishment has raped the word racist. Now it can one who opposes affirmative action. Rape and racist have become meaningless terms.

The New York Post writes: "THE Kobe Bryant case brings to mind the young Chuck Berry. The rock 'n' roll pioneer, like Kobe, was good-looking, famous, wealthy - and black. Berry, who toured all over America just like an NBA player, was always afraid he'd be charged with rape after having sex with willing women who flocked to his dressing room - not to say that Kobe's accuser is in this category. But Berry protected himself with a Polaroid camera. Before he'd have sex with a fan, he'd insist she strip and pose for a photo with him, smiling with their arms around each other. If Kobe had a Polaroid shot like that, he might have a much stronger defense."

Uno writes: There is a good chance he can lose 20 million dollars annually because of potentially false accusations. I'm not saying they ARE false. I'm also not saying he did or didn't do it. The accusations are potentially way more life shattering for Kobe than for the accuser. He'll be famous for a long time to come and things like this have a tendency to haunt. She'll have her 15 minutes and thats it. Anyone committing such crimes against her ("This girl is going to have psychos calling her house, harrassing her at work and on the streets, putting bricks through her windows, etc.") SHOULD and will be prosecuted.

Kevin Roderick Finds Charges Of Feminist Media Laughable

Kevin Roderick places at the top of his site, LA Observed (one of my favorite sites on the web), this commendation of KCAL TV's coverage as the best by Ron Fineman: "I got no sense of bias from them, and they covered all the angles, including a story by KCAL's Joel Connable in which the rape expert said that only two percent of rape charges are false."

Luke says:

Notice what Fineman finds so objective? A so-called rape expert proclaiming that two percent of rape charges are false. This is based on the 1975 work of a rabid feminist, Susan Brownmiller. An exhaustive academic survey found the rate closer to 50%.

What feminist media, eh Kevin? To Roderick, Fineman and company at the institutional media, that which is feminist is objective. To be conservative is to be rabid and evil.

Kevin replies: "Luke, if one comment in one report on one TV station is proof to you of a "feminist media," more power to you."

Luke replies:

Kevin, it obviously meant enough to you that you chose to quote that 2% number. You didn't just blindly select a paragraph from Fineman to highlight. You selected something that fit in with your worldview.

I linked to a long discussion by Wendy McElroy on this topic to back up my claims.

So Kevin, you seriously doubt that the news media is feminist? Then please list all the pro-life reporters you know. When LA Times media reporter David Shaw went to write an article on this topic, he could not find one at the LA Times. Not one among a thousand. To the overwhelming majority of reporters, it is axiomatic that women have the right to abortion.

It's also axiomatic to most reporters that mens-only clubs are discriminatory and immoral. Look what the NY Times tried to do to Augusta golf club.

How come the news media almost never covers studies that show working mothers are not good for their kids and always highlight studies that show it does not harm kids to have working mothers?

Kevin Roderick writes on LA Observed: "Feminist news media, yeah that's the problem here.... It bears repeating -- the accuser has done nothing except file a police report ands talk to the DA. She has made no public statements, done no dragging through any mud. As for standing behind her allegation, that happens in court. These claims to some high-minded principle behind publishing her contact info and ripping into her are worse than ludicrous."

Luke writes LA Observed: Oh, so why the double standard then? Name the accused but not the accuser, who is almost always female? News organizations usually know the name of the accuser but they never name her.

Kevin: "It bears repeating -- the accuser has done nothing except file a police report ands talk to the DA. She has made no public statements, done no dragging through any mud."

Luke: "Well, she's certainly had tons of leaks from her side into the news media."

Kevin: "These claims to some high-minded principle behind publishing her contact info and ripping into her are worse than ludicrous."

Luke: "She chose to make herself a public figure by filing a charge against a star. If she wanted to avoid publicity, she should not have filed a criminal charge and simply learned from the experience - that you do not go to a man's hotel room alone unless you're up to having sex with him. Her past gives plenty of reasons for people to question and criticize her. It was her choice to try to commit suicide two months, and to try to get on American Idol. That indicates a person desperate for attention and possibly in need of psychiatric help."

David "Hot Button" Poland replies to my post on LA Observed:

Now, if this woman was raped - and I have no reason to believe of disbelieve her at this point - that is a horrible, immoral, sexist, hateful comment. Actually, it is all those things even if she is lying. It is a tacit endorsement of everything that is wrong with the criminal system.

Not believing in shield laws does not make you a bad guy. But you wave the anti-feminist flag around in a way that makes you every bit as bad as the most extreme feminists.

You have effectively branded yourself as the insensitive, empowered, white, financially secure, male that arch-feminists would accuse you of being. Forget about blaming the victim... in your world, she is guilty even if what she is saying is true.

If you flip your logic, Kobe should not of allowed her in his room unless he was "up to" being accused of rape, falsely or not.

It seems that moral outrage only extends as far as the tip on your penis, Luke.

Also - Judgment is not inherently wrong. I am, obviously, judging you right now. But you turn the classic trick... you use the example of self-preservation while using this as an excuse for judging people who really have no effect on your life. People who have decided their "truth" about this matter at this point are idiots. The media is behaving like idiots. The prosecutor is behaving like an idiot. They are all rushing to judgment - no Cochran reference intended - on either side. The problem is that these are human beings... not statistics, not billboard photos, not newspaper stories. And it is far too easy to start treating them like icon symbols on a socio-political Monopoly board instead of human beings. Shome on us all for that.

Kevin writes: "Luke, pick a date or an era when you and Prager think "the media" became "feminist." This so-called double standard of not naming victims of sex crimes will have existed before that."

Luke says:

The media became feminist when feminism swept academia and popular culture - the 1970s. Prior to that, there were all sorts of double standards in society, including the one of not naming accusers of sex crimes. Since feminism, there's been a concerted effort to remove all discrimination based on sex. So why not in this instance?

I don't mind maintaining this double standard in a more chivalrous age where it is understood that men and women are different. Today when men's clubs are forced to open themselves to women, and women are to have as many sporting opportunities in college as men, who need sports more, then let's get rid of this double standard.

I challenge people to name reasons for keeping the names of alleged rape victims private? Kevin, there have been a ton of cases when persons not party to sexual cases have had their private info thrown all over the web. See that article from a couple of weeks ago in the LA Times or NY Times about a critic of Washington State police posting their home addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers on his website.

So give me specific arguments about what is decent in naming the accused by not the accuser in sex crimes only?

The media is already parked outside her home, so I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes to her to have the address on the web.

Howard Kurtz, media journalist for the Washington Post, writes 7/23/03: "Everyone in the small Colorado town knows who she is. So at some point is it unfair for her to hide behind the shield of anonymity while sending out her friends to trash Kobe? Just a thought."

If you want to claim that women deserve special protection and anonymity in certain criminal cases like sex crimes, then you can't also argue that they deserve full access and equal treatment elsewhere.

Chaim Amalek writes:

I remember the Central Park jogger case of the late 80's and the William Kennedy Smith rape case. In the former case, the NY Times guarded the victims's id; in the latter they not only published it, but they investigated her personal history AND her entire family tree. It was hugely controversial naming the rape victim, particularly with the feminists at the Times. The editor of the paper got in big trouble with his staff.

Also, the rationale that the NY times gave for going public with Kennedy's accuser was that one of the weekly tabloids based in Florida had beaten them to it. Yet, when the identity of the Central Park Jogger was made public by the local negro paper - arguable more serious, since it was, after all, local, the NY Time STILL protected the id of the jogger.

Kevin Roderick writes: "Luke, I'd like to believe that your passion here is because you're a purist about equal treatment of men and women, but I'm sorry I don't."

Luke replies:

Kevin, I am not here to try to get you to change your mind either about me or the issue. I know that's impossible.

I am not a purist on male-female equality. I am only seizing on this equality thing because it is what liberals and feminists have pushed down our throats in the past 30 years vis-a-vis men and women (forcing open mens clubs to women, etc).

I'm simply calling liberals out on their own putative values. That's why you get so upset. I politely inquire if there is any rationality behind your strong feelings and I find there is not. It is all just a cry for women as victims.

Liberalism is felt through, not thought through. Feminism is feeling. You guys are not primarily concerned that men and women, white and black, are treated equally. You just want to cry for women and minorities and put your feelings into law.

I subscribe to Orthodox Judaism where women and men are treated differently. I believe men and women are inherently different. In general, I believe they should be treated equally in secular law.

Amy Alkon writes: "A woman has a responsibility to act intelligently as far as her safety goes. If you go to the William Kennedy Smith compound late at night with one of the boys, what do you think is on the agenda, checkers in the library? Come on. Again, I'm not saying anybody should be raped, or that it's not horrible when someone is. Just that women need to fight the infantilism of the feminists and expect to look after their own safety by being reasonable and sensible about where they go and with whom."

Releasing Name of Bryant's Accuser Stirs Debate on Online Standards

Mark Glaser writes on ojr.org:

LAObserved's Kevin Roderick, who worked at the Los Angeles Times as a reporter and editor for 20 years, is opposed to naming the accuser or even linking to sites that name her. He pointed out the irony of her information being on the Web while Bryant's e-mail address, phone number and home address are not. Roderick is locked into a heated debate with fellow L.A. blogger Luke Ford, who used to cover the porn business online -- Drudge-style.

Ford argues that times have changed and that women have the power to wreak havoc by bringing charges. He said the name of the accuser should be in the media. "But I was appalled to see her home address and everything online," he added. When I asked Ford how he would feel if the victim was a friend, he admitted that "I wouldn't feel the same. I would want to protect my friend. But I don't expect the world to bend to my will."

Roderick and Ford have differing views of online journalism ethics as well. Ford compares the power of Web sites to offline media as a water gun to a real gun. He thinks instant corrections or deletions online makes standards different.

Kevin Roderick replies on LA Observed from the Olympian heights of a former Los Angeles Timeser who believes in sanitizing the news:

When Mark wrote that I'm locked in a heated debate with Ford, I looked to my left, then my right, and thought: who me? In a post here I tweaked Ford and others for their personal ethics in linking to the woman's email, address and other personal data, and I scoffed at his claim that he was acting in response to 30 years of feminist media. But I posted maybe five comments in the long thread, and one of them announced my early and I thought gracious exit from the blather. That didn't stop Ford from wanking away in that thread and another where he fantasized some Fordian nonsense about me. Debate? Uh-uh. As I told Glaser, you don't debate with fanatics on the Internet. Ford was being given his due -- which is to say, he was being ignored, by me and by others.

I've still taken no position on the big questions being bandied about in the Bryant case...

Notice how Kevin tweaks others for their lack of ethics, scoffs at outrageous claims, deigns to comment only five times, waits to take positions on the weighty questions bandied about by his inferiors, and then makes his early and gracious exit from the frothing rage while poor ol' Luke wanks, fantasizes nonsense, and debates like a fanatic.

7/27/03

More Sordid Details On Kobe Case

Mike writes: Sunday night Matt Drudge reported on his nationally syndicated radio show (heard at 7:15 p.m. Pacific time on KFI-AM in Los Angeles) the most provocative "dirty sex details" of the Kobe Bryant sexual assualt case so far. Excerpt: "I've decided to reveal some of the dirty sex details of the case. I have been told it's anal sex.

"That's why it's going to be controversial when it goes to trial. It's what is causing people a lot of uncomfortable feelings.

"Some of the details (of the case) are explosive. Dateline (NBC) had some of this information and decided not to air it. This speculation is quite solid from where I sit."

Digi writes: The way I've heard is that she was having sex with him and then he wanted to do anal and she didn't want to but he went ahead with it and kind of forced her into going along with it and it resulted in injuries to her and what not.

7/30/03

The case against Kobe Bryant will focus on injuries suffered by the alleged victim and the prosecution's belief that Bryant intentionally deceived law enforcement officials, sources familiar with the prosecution's case have told ESPN and ABC News. Those sources claim that Bryant met his alleged victim when she gave him a tour of the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera, during which he extended an invitation for the woman to come to his room later that evening, which she accepted. The 19-year-old woman did go to Bryant's room the night of June 30, where she spent less than half an hour, according to the sources. ABC News sources claim that the two engaged in some consensual sexual activity in Bryant's room, but that the intercourse that took place was not consensual. Those same sources say that the alleged victim sustained some physical injuries, which Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlburt and his staff plan to say prove that the sex was not consensual.

Kobe Bryant - Kate Faber Rape Case

Randy Wyrick, of The Vail Daily, told the "Today" show that "they (Bryant and the alleged victim) began fooling around, as it were, and that part was consensual. She said 'no' shortly thereafter. She had enough. One of our sources also said she was trying to leave and was not allowed to leave." Wyrick also said that his sources told him that the alleged victim then turned up in the lobby in "a stupor" and with visible physical injuries. He also said that Bryant initially denied even knowing the victim.

Fox News: Two hotel workers will give supporting testimony to the the claims of a 19-year-old Colorado woman that she was raped by Kobe Bryant. Fox News' Rita Cosby reported on her weekend "Big Story" program Saturday night that two hotel employees of the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera have given Eagle County, Colo., police investigators accounts that are consistent with claims made by her accuser. One hotel employee reportedly saw the girl moments after she left Bryant's room and describer her as "shocked and upset." Shortly after, the girl was driven home by a hotel bellman. Cosby reports that the bellman said the girl told him she was "forced to have sex with Kobe Bryant." The bellman also noted that the woman's clothing had been torn.

The N.Y. Daily News: They have Kobe Bryant's DNA and his admission that he had sex with the 19-year-old Colorado woman who accused him of rape.

They have the rape kit that was administered to the woman shortly after the alleged attack to analyze any bodily fluids, bruises and fibers for clues, although the results have not been made public.

They have the woman's sworn statement and the clothes she and Bryant wore that night. And, the betting is, there is a lot more.

But what has emerged so far is a string of statements - sometimes contradictory - by friends of the ostensible victim and anonymous sources that is producing a growing body of potential evidence against him that includes:

Reports that the woman suffered "vaginal trauma" from her encounter with Bryant.

An employee of the resort who found her shortly after the attack crying, wearing torn clothing and saying she had been forced to have sex with Bryant.

Friends of the woman who stated that she had "clearly visible" bruises weeks after the encounter.

Other guests at the hotel who reportedly called the front desk to complain about a ruckus coming from Bryant's room.

Changes in his story by Bryant, who allegedly denied anything happened between him and the girl - but later said they had consensual sex.

Her reliability will be tested by her two alleged suicide attempts in recent months, her reputation among friends as a celebrity chaser and what those friends say were her boasts that she had sex with a Justin Timberlake look-alike during an unsuccessful "American Idol" tryout.

From THE VAIL DAILY:

Two more reports regarding the Kobe Bryant case circulating among part of the national media were debunked Monday. Media reports that the 19-year-old woman who Bryant allegedly assaulted received a ride home is not the case, sources said Monday.

Reports that her clothing was torn are also untrue, sources also. Sources told the Daily that the alleged victim managed to get herself home by 11:50 p.m., June 30, after ending the shift at the Lodge at Cordillera at around 11:10 p.m. They also said that while her clothing was disheveled and showed signs that something had occurred, it wasn't torn or ripped, as some reports indicated.

"Some of the reports made it sound like something out of a bad movie," said one source. "It wasn't like that."

The reports are part of a larger set of rumors and gossip that have been circulating across the country about the case. Among them: - That the alleged victim was in the room two hours. It was only about 20 minutes.

- When she came down, she was hysterical. She was not. Sources said she was in a stupor and a state of shock.

- A few days before the incident, the alleged victim had accused another hotel worker of sexual harassment, getting him fired. Not true, said the man who was terminated. It was not the alleged victim.

Aug. 6— ABCNEWS has been told that examiners found evidence that the woman accusing NBA superstar Kobe Bryant of sexual assault had "vaginal tearing."

10/15/03

Better To Marry And Cheat...

Dennis Prager says he prefers men like Kobe Bryant who commit to marriage and children, and commit adultery, to single men who go from woman to woman.

I prefer a guy who drives for years and then has an accident to a guy who has never driven a car.

If a 19 year old girl starts in with a macho basketball player, then decides to not go further, the guy should stop. But we live in an age where the concept of female responsibility for sex is zero. Women can start the motors running and then leave. And she's innocent and he's a brute.

Maybe, darling, you should learn a lesson that you don't start in with a sports star at his hotel room if you don't plan to go through with sex. Five minutes of doing stuff is a lot of time.

There's no relation between a stranger who rapes a woman and a man who starts in with a woman and doesn't stop when she asks him. You can't call both rape. The second isn't rape.

From MSNBC.com:

The defense said the tests found “substances” — later described by the lead investigator as semen — from a man other than the Los Angeles Lakers’ guard. The lawyers argue that injuries to the woman may have been caused by previous sexual partners.

NBC News also said the alleged victim told detectives that she was expecting for Bryant “to make a move on her” when going to the star’s room.

Other evidence brought forward was the fact that the hotel’s night auditor was the first person the alleged victim saw after the attack — not a bellman. The defense said the night auditor said the alleged victim didn’t appear upset and finished her shift.

The hearing then resumed with the defense questioning of the lead investigator, sheriff’s Detective Doug Winters.

Winters said the Eagle woman told him she had consensual sex on June 27 or June 28 and used a condom, backing earlier defense suggestions she was sexually active before her encounter with Bryant.

Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested - one from the night of June 30, the other being the one she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day. The latter pair contained blood and semen, Winters said.

“The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else’s semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?” defense attorney Pamela Mackey asked. “That’s correct,” Winters responded.

Pubic hair samples from the woman also turned up Caucasian hairs that could not have come from Bryant, who is black, Winters said.

In Wednesday’s court filing, defense attorney Hal Haddon said prosecutors misrepresented blood evidence found on the underpants. “The clear implication of this testimony was that the accuser was bleeding due to the alleged sexual assault,” he said. The prosecution deliberately failed to “put before the court all of the evidence concerning those panties.”

The defense said that evidence had been given to Gannett, under seal, and it provided “compelling evidence of innocence.”

Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said: “It’s a very strong bit of evidence for the defense to argue that the victim’s injuries may have been caused by someone else.”

BigFish writes: So what exactly was she doing, as part of her job, sneaking up to his room voluntarily?

POV guy writes: By flirting with him, accepting an invitation to his room, visiting his room and making out with him? Then f--king him? What hotels have this on the room service menues? I want a room for life.