I'm really glad to see this. I never felt that the prosecution had a leg to stand on. I

Originally posted by Echo2
I'm really glad to see this. I never felt that the prosecution had a leg to stand on. I Yeah its always great to see a rich man get the best justice money can buy. :rolleyes:

I particularly enjoyed the way they bent the Colorado rape shield law and allowed the alleged victims sexual past into the court room for the first time in Colorado history.

You probably root for the house in black jack dont ya?

Ther tresated this woman terribly, they released her identity, released private investigation papers and all sorts of dirty tricks.

Normally I would side on the womans side, especially against a high profile athlete. But this woman had sex with another man within 24 hours of being raped. That just doesn't add up to me. I've been through it, and sex is the last thing a woman wants after being raped.

I'm gonna agree with you there echo....

Originally posted by Echo2
Ther tresated this woman terribly, they released her identity, released private investigation papers and all sorts of dirty tricks.

Normally I would side on the womans side, especially against a high profile athlete. But this woman had sex with another man within 24 hours of being raped. That just doesn't add up to me. I've been through it, and sex is the last thing a woman wants after being raped. So i guess using your logic, a prostitute cannot be raped. Right?

I really dont see how her sex life post or prior to the incident should have any affect on this case. We are supposed to be finding out whether the case she brought against Kobe was true or not. Not whether she was promiscuous or not. Lets face it, if Kobe's money hadnt been able to buy the Colorado judicial system, her sexual history would have never been entered into this equation. A poor man would have never had this ruling in his favor.

Her past history is completely irrevelant. But the fact that she had sex with someone else, less than 24 hours after allegedly being raped makes me VERY suspicious. It is NOT normal behavior for a woman who has been rape. In fact, it is the last thing on their minds.

Now what makes it even weirder is that the panties she was supposedly wearing when she got raped had two sets of DNA on them. Neither of which was Kobe's.

Just doesn't add up. I am a pretty active feminist and I normally side with women on the he-said-she-said stuff. But I have big doubts about this womans story.

What's "normal" behavior for a rape victim?

Guide to how a true rape victim acts.

She will flee all forms of sexual contact on the grounds that they cause flashbacks. Or she will welcome sexual contact in an attempt to desensitise herself. Or anything in between.

She will cover herself up and hide all references to her sexuality out of shame. Or she will flaunt her sexuality like she never dared before in an attmept to reclaim the sexual agency her rapist took from her. Or anything in between.

She will avoid all men because she can no longer trust them. Or she will seek out the company of men in an attempt to convince herself they're not all bad. Or anything in between.

Now make sure to check this Normal Rape Victims Behavior list if you are ever raped to make sure you don't inadvertently do something that your rapists's lawyers can use against you.

The notion that she wore the same, unwashed pair of cum-encrusted underwear for days on end is a little bizarre, no? I mean, what kind of woman would do such a nasty thing? Exactly the kind the defense wants you to think she is.

She was raped - or not - based on whether or not force, threat of force, or drugs were used to force her to have sex against her will on the particular night of discussion.. That's the only thing that determines if she was raped or not.

All I know is that when it happened to me, having sex was not on my mind just 24 hours later and not with two separate guys.

Echo once again i'm with you. She acted like a sl** and she is paying for it now. Rather he raped her or not, which i just dont believe, if you are going to sue for justice then make sure all your ducks are in a row before you do something like that, especially against arguably the best basketball player in the game

I usually side with the victim of these things, BUT, in this case I agree with echo.

I have an extremely hard time accepting that this woman was raped, then finished her shift, counted down the cash drawers, went out and did the horizontal mambo with someone else and THEN remembered, "Hey, that rich NBA guy raped me a few hours ago."

What am I supposed to think?

Some people will think me naive. No, I don't think Kobe's money bought his way out. I think this is the way it should have happened anyway. It's not like he was accused of killing someone and he and all his belongings were drenched in that persons blood. If that were the case, yeah money will get you out of it. This situation is different. True, her prior sexual history probably shouldn't be a factor, BUT her actions after the alleged rape should be.

Kobe's money went for a purple diamond to keep his wife from taking everything else he owns.

Yes, a prostitute can be raped, unfortunately it's usually just when someone doesn't want to pay for services rendered.

Additionally, no one said anyone was a prostitute. Remember, prostitutes do it for money, sluts do it because they like it.

Echo, nice picture.

007.

So you think Kobe didn't rape her because she a slut. Nice.

BUT her actions after the alleged rape should be.

I thought it was what took place on the night in question that mattered to prove if a rape happened, not questioning the moral purity of how a woman may respond afterwards to such a horrific violation of her female sexuality.

Again, there is no established "true" post-rape behavior of all rape victims, it varies greatly and rape research has many examples of victims aggressively trying to regain control of their sexuality after having it taken away from them so brutally.

What motive could she have for falsely saying Bryant raped her? She wasn't seeking a monetary reward from this man who tried unsuccessfully to lie to everyone about cheating on his wife and engaging in at least some sort of sexual behavior with her. Can someone give a good motive for why she would lie about this like Bryant has a very, very good motive to keep trying to lie to everyone about what happened?

I haven't followed this case closely and I can't argue details of evidence claimed or real, nor can I say I know for sure if there was a rape or not, but when I think about this in a common sense way to feel out what I believe these are the thoughts that occur to me. What is her motive, and why should I believe a proven liar and adulterer?

Originally posted by Thalia

Again, there is no established "true" post-rape behavior of all rape victims.

Oh contrare. There is a documented paturns of behavior that rape victims go through.

Rape trauma syndrom - http://members.tripod.com/Sandra_McCoy/ptsd.html

There are lots of other sites also that show the paturns of behavior that victims of rape trauma go through. NOne of them mentions getting it on with a variety of other men.

Being an adulterer does not make one a rapist. It shows a lack of integrity and poor judgement but does not speak twords rape. Rape is a crime of power, not sex.

What this woman did or how she lived BEFORE the alleged incident has no bearing on the case. Her actions AFTER the incident speak to state of mind, i.e. trauma. I know for a fact that after being traumatized by a rape, women do not go out and get cozy with men. And this woman did it with more than one within 24 hours of being supposedly raped.

Echo2, I seriously don't intend this to sound condescending, but did you really read what's posted at that link?

Here's some of it:

Rape represents a disruption of the lifestyle of the victim, not only during the immediate days and weeks following the incident, but possibly well beyond to many weeks and months. A woman's initial reactions to rape is generally either shock, anxiety, anger or all three. She might respond by crying, hysteria, remaining calm or becoming unusually calm.

The long-range effects consist of resolution of these problems and an attempt to return to normal life. The victim will often try to justify to herself that everything is alright and by doing this she often suppresses her feelings. One way of relieving these suppressed feelings is by daydreaming. Another way of assuring herself and others she is Ok is by adopting a dangerous lifestyle. She may do things that she would not ordinarily do, just to prove to herself that she is not afraid and can still do whatever she wants.

Eventually, a woman realizes that she cannot go on without facing these feelings and dealing with the reality of the situation. She may drastically change her lifestyle at this point by moving, getting a dog, acquiring a roommate or lover, or by limiting her physical activity.

Victims of aquaintance rape or "date rape" can be even more psychologically damaged than with other types of sexual assault because feelings or shame, guilt, fear, disbelief, and lowered self esteem are often very strong. The trauma of being deceived by a trusted person may cause the victim to initially deny the experience as if nothing happened.

I see nothing in there suggesting your conclusion that having consensual sex after being raped is just not done and a whole lot that confirms such hypersexual activity is within normal behavior for rape victims. This is as I've read elsewhere.

Being an adulterer does not make one a rapist.

No, but lying about your sexual behaviors does make one a person who lies about their sexual behaviors.

And her motive?

MONEY

Criminal cases are not monetary cases.

Criminal cases require a higher standard of proof to convict -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- and punishment can involve prison time. A civil case has a lower standard of proof -- a preponderance of evidence -- and punishment is usually a monetary award.

The criminal case was filed first, and like Nicole Brown Simpson's family, turned to a civil case only afterwards.

She did not file the criminal case, the DA did. She has recently backed out of being a voluntary witness in the criminal case so if they decide to continue she will have to be subpeoned and be sworn in as a hostile witness.

I am a strong feminist and almost always come down on the side of the woman in these cases. BUt this gal just hasn't been able to keep her story straight and her actions don't add up.

I saw that peccadillo and edited my post right afterwards.

Plus, if you really think she's a scheming, slutty bitch out for money, wouldn't she have taken more care with the 'evidence' so as not to have other men's DNA possibly ruin her manipulative plot to seduce Bryant and then lie about how he raped her?

The only person I know for a fact who has changed his story is Bryant. I don't recall the woman ever saying she didn't have sex with other men after the rape and then retracting it later.

Her actions do indeed add up as understandable for a rape victim. Your own link shows this to be true.

That's just it. If she was raped, she would have run home and taken a shower. 99% of rape victims do that. Instead, she finished her shift, counted the money, closed up the office and went out partying with another man, and then another one. Then, she comes home. Days later she claims rape. Rape victims also throw the clothing away that they were wearing. (I did both, ran home and took a shower and threw away the clothing). THis woman not only kept the clothing, but she continue to wear it for another day. She had no bruises, no scrappings under her fingernails, no scratches, no torn clothing. SHe didn't react like a victim or someone who was traumitized. SHe didn't react like she was hurt or scared or in fear. She didnt even go home and cry alone by herself. She went out partying with another man.

I don't think she is a scheaming, slutty, bitch. I have no oppinion of her personality one way or the other. I just don't believe that the incident went down the way she says it did. I wouldn't care if it was a poor white guy or a wealthy black guy, her responses and actions do not support her accusations.

You're making a lot of speculations based on what Bryant's defense has immorally released to the public specifically to screw with how people think of the accuser.

You're wrong about the lack of physical evidence. Remember the defense attorney suggesting the bruises and tearings were caused by the victim's penchance for rough sex with numerous partners in a short period? There were indeed marks that had to be accounted for, and that was their excuse.

No torn clothing? I'd have hoped we've moved past the days when a rape victim being choked into submission can't be proven because of a lack of torn clothes. A judge in Italy said in 1999 that a woman wearing jeans can't possibly be raped because jeans can't be torn off and have to have the woman's willing consent to be removed, as if being beaten or threatened with violence into submission equals consent.

I think you are projecting your own rape experiences on all rape victims and that's not fair.

If she was raped, she would have run home and taken a shower. 99% of rape victims do that.

This is not true. Please don't pluck numbers out of the air.

Rape victims also throw the clothing away that they were wearing.

Again, this is not universal for all rape victims and you shouldn't project your own experience onto others.

SHe didn't react like a victim or someone who was traumitized.

According to your link, she did.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Read up on the trauma that rape victims have. You will find out that indeed, almost every rape victim takes a shower afterwards. It is a psychological atempt to wash the creap off of them.

While you are at it, read some of the transcripts of the trial and follow it in the news (not the shock rags).

Then I will be moe than willing to discuss this with you.

When trying to find out if someone is guilty of a crime, the first thing you have to do is put your emotions aside. You haven't done this. Your statement "...speculations based on what Bryant's defense has immorally released to the public ." Says it all.

I have no doubt that they had sex, But I am not convinced that she was raped.

You're ignoring some of the very valid points I have raised, such as the truth about the physical marks, the criminal case not being monitarily based, Bryant changing his story while she hasn't changed hers...

I already told you I haven't followed the case closely but am trying to think it through using common sense and what I know.

Your assertion that 99% of rape victims "run home and take showers" automatically excludes all rape victims who go to the hospital or the police precinct first without showering. It is a made up number, and while I believe it is probably true of most rape victims, it's abundantly clear there is no universal reaction to being raped and to suggest that there is isn't fair.

When trying to find out if someone is guilty of a crime, the first thing you have to do is put your emotions aside

Good advice.

007, you wrote that prostitutes do it for money and sluts do it because they like it.

Well I quess I am a male-slut, because I do it because I like it. :D

So a prostitute that likes it has the best of both worlds.

Get paid to do the work you love.

:rolleyes:

We really pissed her off with the jokes about prostitutes. She just sent me a VERY nasty slam about what a bitch I am and how insensitive I am to this poor girls feelings.

Actually, the pm was about what a sad and totally lame attempt to try and piss me off that was when everyone knows you don't even believe it yourself and are obviously just being petty and mean because I'm a good debator.

And I wouldn't call another woman a bitch, but if you want to make up lies to make yourself feel better, whatever.

To refresh your memory of a few minutes ago, I ended my pm to you with, It takes a more clever person than you let loose my passions and that's still true.

jeez

You get angry much too easy. Unclench.

Originally posted by Echo2
Her past history is completely irrevelant. But the fact that she had sex with someone else, less than 24 hours after allegedly being raped makes me VERY suspicious. It is NOT normal behavior for a woman who has been rape. In fact, it is the last thing on their minds.

Now what makes it even weirder is that the panties she was supposedly wearing when she got raped had two sets of DNA on them. Neither of which was Kobe's.

Just doesn't add up. I am a pretty active feminist and I normally side with women on the he-said-she-said stuff. But I have big doubts about this womans story. So can a prostitute be raped? Or does her past and future sex liasons make it impossible?

Oh yes, a prostitute can be raped. Supposedly, the past history of a victim is not supposed to be relevent.

Echo, if she gets pissed so easy she is not going to like the forum very much.
Its not for the thin skinned.
There are some very intelligent people here with a good sence of humor.
Hope she sticks around and learns to give and take.
No enemies here.

Kobe Bryant is skuz, the victim is skuz and the whole deal is nothing more than entertainment to enrich CNN, Fox and MsRnc.

Do you think for a minute either, or both of them wouldn't appear on talk shows every day to garner the riches of being the subjects of a modern day drama? Think again. Heck, don't be surprised if they appear together. ROTF.

Now excuse me while I wax my surfboard for tomorrow and get some clothes ready for my yoga class -- important things in life.

Dop

I understand the need to be careful of others feelings concerning a topic such as rape. Even if I try to ignore the victims morals before or after, I still just don't buy it. If there any evidence of rape other than the alleged victims word? I understand Thalia's remarks that a rape victim is basically unstable about their action following a rape, and I can accept that, different people may react in different ways.

However, is it not true that there will be definite evidence to support the claim. Skin under the nails of a victim, torn clothes, chaffing, bruising, tearing, abrasions, or something that dictates a forced approach?

There has to be more proof of a rape than just the use of the word. Otherwise, its just "she said, he said". As much as Thalia believes the alleged vitim, others of us can believe the accused.

Oddly enough, we must ignore the victims prior and post actions, but if a rapist were a repeat offender, that would surely get mentioned in court, would it not? Three strikes and your out and such. That would seem to be a double standard. Even if such information were used only in the sentencing part of a trial, it would still be looking at the accused persons past acts.

What I find distressing, is that people actually watch this stuff and then try to form an opinion of someone's guilt or innocence based on what they see on TV...scary.

Vile, I don't watch the tv for news, I read. (not the Enquirer, either) This is what the media is for, they present information for the public to base their opinions on. Otherwise, our government could just tell us what was correct and as loyal subjects we would accept that information as factual. That's sounds like a bad idea.

Why else do these boards exist? We talk out our opinions, what we believe, and how we feel. I don't think this is scary. Scary would be telling me I am NOT allowed to do this. As Americans, we are allowed free thought and I have seen nothing damaging in this discussion.

As far as I know, none of us work for the prosecution or defense. I don't feel anything I or anyone else on this thread will think will change the actual outcome of the case.


Dirty Harry: Opinions are like assholes, everybodies got one.

Originally posted by 007
Vile, I don't watch the tv for news, I read. (not the Enquirer, either) This is what the media is for, they present information for the public to base their opinions on. Otherwise, our government could just tell us what was correct and as loyal subjects we would accept that information as factual. That's sounds like a bad idea.

Why else do these boards exist? We talk out our opinions, what we believe, and how we feel. I don't think this is scary. Scary would be telling me I am NOT allowed to do this. As Americans, we are allowed free thought and I have seen nothing damaging in this discussion.

As far as I know, none of us work for the prosecution or defense. I don't feel anything I or anyone else on this thread will think will change the actual outcome of the case.


I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the case, but I see nothing good coming from the fact that our media is allowed to cover the blow-by-blow events of criminal trials. Justice is not served by this practice, it only serves to sate the publics thirst for sordid gossip.

I believe that the British have a better set of rules for media coverage of trials. They aren't allowed to print the events of the trial until after the trial is over. The public gets the information it needs to insure that no secret trials are taking place, and the accused stands a much better chance of receiving a fair verdict. Not to mention that it frees the accuser from fears of having to endure a media circus simply by bringing charges against a high-profile defendant.

In short, when it comes to a criminal trial, the only people who should be forming an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused during the trial, is the jury.

i have a problem with the bloody shirt. i would need an explaination for that. i think he needs to go through this for being arrogant enough to just meet this woman and do her without a rubber. this is what bothers me, your a high profile millionaire sports guy. you met a girl who supposedly let you have that ass the first day you meet her, and you dont wear protection ? either he is the dumbest man in the world or he did rape her. now, on her end. you meet an athlete. you know that they screw around alot. so you let him screw you without protection ? either she is the dumbest woman in the world, or she was raped. the thing about her sleeping around right after bothers me, but, like someone here said, being a slut is not against the law, but rape is.............echo, i know you survived your ordeal, and from what i read, your a very successful woman. my hats off to you, i hate the bastard that raped you , and my heart goes out to women because it happens so often that we find ourselves questioning everything, thus the woman has to carry that scar for the rest of her life. i know a woman who was raped by her uncle, brother, and a host of cousins, she calls me for support because although that happened years ago, its like yesterday for her .......and no one wants to hear it......although i have my doubts either way about this trial, i dont think i could ever be a juror on a rape trial.

Vile, your absolutely right, the media makes it harder for everyone involved to do their job. It is what is destroying the prosecutions case. Perhaps the British have a good idea concerning post-trial reporting.

Korg, good call on being a fool for not using protection. But it's not a good enough reason to be accused of rape. Since she didn't use protection, maybe she raped him. I think they're both idiots on the point about protection. Obviously, neither participant was all that smart, he married and high profile, her appearing to be a gold digger/party girl.

I'll guess we'll just have to see what a jury says. Do you think they will be able to find a jury of their peers?

007

Originally posted by 007
Vile, your absolutely right, the media makes it harder for everyone involved to do their job. It is what is destroying the prosecutions case. Perhaps the British have a good idea concerning post-trial reporting.

Korg, good call on being a fool for not using protection. But it's not a good enough reason to be accused of rape. Since she didn't use protection, maybe she raped him. I think they're both idiots on the point about protection. Obviously, neither participant was all that smart, he married and high profile, her appearing to be a gold digger/party girl.

I'll guess we'll just have to see what a jury says. Do you think they will be able to find a jury of their peers?

007 sluts and rich rapists..?........no problem

More details are emerging about this case:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/magazine/08/31/scorecard0906/index.html?cnn=yes

According to your article there Karan, its only the defense' DNA "expert" who contends the victim had sex AFTER her encounter with Kobe. Which, we all know he/she is being paid a large sum of money to come to that conclusion in the first place. I dont see how certain people here can take that opinion and form their conclusions that she is a whore, or slut.

Seems to me that most 19 year old girls these days have active sex lives and most people dont call them sluts and whores. I guess you have to have the misfortune of getting raped by an NBA superstar to earn that moniker.

Outside of the legal issues in this case I think one point everyone should be able to come up with, using common sense, is that Kobe Bryant would not have been stupid enough to "force" some room service girl to have sex with him. If the girl clearly objects, and you are rich and famous, it takes a lot of stupidity to still decide to force her to have sex. Even with no evidence from either side, it was most likely consesus sex, just because no one is that stupid.

This might have been on the mind of the jury when the decision was made.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
Outside of the legal issues in this case I think one point everyone should be able to come up with, using common sense, is that Kobe Bryant would not have been stupid enough to "force" some room service girl to have sex with him. If the girl clearly objects, and you are rich and famous, it takes a lot of stupidity to still decide to force her to have sex. Even with no evidence from either side, it was most likely consesus sex, just because no one is that stupid.

This might have been on the mind of the jury when the decision was made.

Being as though we cant go in Kobe's mind, how do we not know that because of his wealth and massive fame he thought he could do what he pleases and get away with it?

Its not that difficult to imagine at all, really.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
Outside of the legal issues in this case I think one point everyone should be able to come up with, using common sense, is that Kobe Bryant would not have been stupid enough to "force" some room service girl to have sex with him. If the girl clearly objects, and you are rich and famous, it takes a lot of stupidity to still decide to force her to have sex. Even with no evidence from either side, it was most likely consesus sex, just because no one is that stupid.

This might have been on the mind of the jury when the decision was made. So its "common sense" that Kobe wouldnt be stupid enough to "force" some room service girl to have sex with him? Sometimes sense really isnt all that common.

Originally posted by HaVoK
According to your article there Karan, its only the defense' DNA "expert" who contends the victim had sex AFTER her encounter with Kobe. Which, we all know he/she is being paid a large sum of money to come to that conclusion in the first place. I dont see how certain people here can take that opinion and form their conclusions that she is a whore, or slut.

Seems to me that most 19 year old girls these days have active sex lives and most people dont call them sluts and whores. I guess you have to have the misfortune of getting raped by an NBA superstar to earn that moniker.


Ok, she has an active sex life, possibly multiple partners on the same evening; this doesn't make her a slut. All the kids are doing it. That's fine, I don't like stereotypes anyway.

However, he's an NBA superstar. By your statements, it logically follows that he is a Rapist? Amazing.

007:cool:

On tonights news it was reported that the charges against Kobe have been dropped by the prosecution because the victim in the case has decided not to testify. The charges were dropped 'with prejudice'. (I think that was the word they used on the report) It means that they cannot bring the charges against Kobe again.

The charges in the civil case are still pending.

On an odd note, Kobe apologized and said he thought the sex was consensual. That seems to be a strange statement to make when charges are still pending. But of course, the whole things been a circus anyway.



007:cool:

So its "common sense" that Kobe wouldnt be stupid enough to "force" some room service girl to have sex with him? Sometimes sense really isnt all that common.

That's why common sense is not used in sociological research. Objectiveness is most important in my opinion. But there wasn't enough evidence here for either side so all we can do is talk about our opinions on the matter. It's from my common sense that Kobe wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. If I were rich and famous, I would certainly have used safe, paid services for sex--there are huge networks of those, very expensive but the girls are very nice, whose clients are movie stars, athelets, CEOs, doctors...etc. Anyway, without concrete evidence (NOT analysts hired by either side, "eye witnesses", testimony...etc.), it's just he says she says. And I was just giving my immediate opinion on this--that consentual sex took place, whether or not the girl planned ahead is murky, but in any case after the incidence she saw a chance to make a lot of money and went for it. I do think it's not fair that the side with the most money is almost always able to manipulate the jury or even the entire process, change rules...etc., but if I were Kobe I wouldn't have taken such risk even if I know there is good chance I can walk away.

Obviously from this logic it wasn't all that smart to have even consentual sex with the girl. So I must rephrase myself and say that Kobe has indeed not been smart enough, careful enough, to get himself into this situation.

Rather or not the event was consentual or rape....my jury is still out. I dont know enough of the evidence to make a rulling.

However, I do not doubt for a second, that raping this woman would be beyond him, just on the grounds of commen intelligence.

After all....he didnt even go to college.:D

Not meaning to rip dop off, but ROTFL.

The prosecution's case ended with the Judge's statement of "... case dismissed ... " earlier this evening. What's left is the civil court drama.

I see....lack of evidence?

However, I do not doubt for a second, that raping this woman would be beyond him, just on the grounds of commen intelligence. After all....he didnt even go to college.

Ew. Yeah like rapists are well bred college educated masterminds.

i think that his statement almost sounds like a confession....what kind of lawyer does he have to have him making a convicting statement like that ? this sets up real well for the civil suit, which i think at this point has already been settled..........he may have been guilty......if you listen to that statement.

Originally posted by korg
i think that his statement almost sounds like a confession....what kind of lawyer does he have to have him making a convicting statement like that ? this sets up real well for the civil suit, which i think at this point has already been settled..........he may have been guilty......if you listen to that statement. Yeah it was a damning admission IMO. But now that he has been convicted of no crime and can never be convicted of this particular crime, i think it is bullshit that he can be tried in a civil case. It just goes to show you what this country is all about. "Show me the money" has become our national quote.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yeah it was a damning admission IMO. But now that he has been convicted of no crime and can never be convicted of this particular crime, i think it is bullshit that he can be tried in a civil case. It just goes to show you what this country is all about. "Show me the money" has become our national quote. your right havok !

I listened to the tape of his first interview with the cops after being arrested. He lied about having sex with the woman. Then when confronted with the evidence he changed his story and said it was consensual. Pretty damning statements.

I originally felt that the woman might be lieing. Now I am not sure.

Have you ever been hit by a car?For a long time you are afried to cross the street.Raped? Why do you think husband leave their wives after arape?Theydon't want sex.