Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017
Please change

"Eagle County Sheriff investigators first confronted Bryant with the sexual assault accusation on July 2. During the July 2003 interview with investigators, Bryant stated that the sex was consensual."

to

"Eagle County Sheriff investigators first confronted Bryant with the sexual assault accusation on July 2. During the July 2003 interview, Bryant initially lied about the encounter, telling investigators that he did not have sexual intercourse with [redacted]. When the officers told Bryant that [redacted] had taken an exam that yielded physical evidence, such as semen, Bryant admitted to having sexual intercourse with [redacted], but stated that the sex was consensual. When asked about bruises on [redacted] neck, Bryant admitted to "strangling" her during the encounter, stating that held her "from the back" "around her neck," that strangling during sex was his "thing" and that he had a pattern of strangling a different sex partner (not his wife) during their recurring sexual encounters. When asked how hard he was holding onto her neck, Bryant stated "My hands are strong. I don't know." Bryant stated that he assumed consent for sex because of [redacted]'s body language such as her kissing him, putting her hand on his penis and bending over, but that he did not explicitly ask for her consent during the encounter. Bryant later contradicted that statement saying he believed [redacted] was capable of saying no because during the encounter he asked her if he could "cum on her face" and she said no. "

_______________________________________________________

Explanation for edit:

As currently written, the article cites a secondary source for Bryant's July, 2003 police interview for the section referred to above. However, a primary source for that interview is available and provides relevant information that should be included in this article to give more accuracy and a fuller, more equitable account of the encounter from Bryant's point of view. As written this article states only that Bryant stated the sex was consensual in his interview. However, the interview contained other relevant information regarding both Bryant's credibility and his sexual history.

The article currently points out that [redacted]'s story changed over time. To be consistent and fair to both parties, it should be noted that Bryant also lied to investigators. If the article discusses information related to the credibility of [redacted], it should also include information demonstrating the credibility of Bryant when speaking with investigators. In this case, both [redacted] and Bryant lied to investigators during the investigation.

Second, the article as written gives information on [redacted]'s sex life considered relevant to this incident. Bryant's sexual history of strangling should also be included in this article. Not only for fair and equal treatment of both parties, but also because Bryant's perception about the normalcy of strangling during intercourse goes directly to the issue of how [redacted] and Bryant may have interpreted the encounter differently depending on their sexual norms, providing necessary context for Bryant's apology statement in which he says, "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

Third, Bryant's comments about [redacted]'s ability to say "no" to his explicit requests are relevant to provide context for his belief that the sex was consensual and also to demonstrate that his statements to investigators were inconsistent, varying over time. Rfg3567892 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. per WP:TLDR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I did mention the specific changes in the X to Y format, however, they were after my explanation for the edit. I have edited my request to place the specific X to Y edit at the beginning of the request, rather than at the end. Rfg3567892 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Accuser's name
Do not mention her name here. If it's not appropriate in the article for WP:BLP reasons, it's not appropriate here: the BLP applies throughout, not just in article space. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How does WP:BLP prohibit the accuser's name being here? Her name can be verified though legitimate sources of information, inclusion of it would not violate the NPOV perspective of the article and inclusion of the name would not be original research. Mentioning that the accuser collapsed a few years later of a cocaine overdose might provide a POV for the article, but publishing her name would not. Shabeki (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This victim's name is necessary to understand and record the full scope of the story. It should be included, and does not violate BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.20 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. Her name has nothing to do with an understanding of the scope of the story. What aspect of the story's are you having difficulty understanding without knowing her name, or had difficulty understanding before learning her name? Nightscream (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Accuser's name (again)
The accuser's name was added, the change was reverted. So, let's have a discussion about whether or not the WP article about this sexual assault case should include the accuser's name. This issue has been discussed before (see Archve 1: Name Redacted, Archive 1: Name of accuser & (further up this page) Accuser's name). Shearonink (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If the issue has been discussed before, why does it need another one? Has something about the case changed since it was discussed? Nightscream (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020
217.209.128.243 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC) The man has died please remove the article in full and the refernce links in other articles.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Settlement Amount
"The Los Angeles Times reported that legal experts estimated the settlement was more than $2.5 million."

If you read the cited article, this is an incredible amount of speculation from a random lawyer unconnected to the case in one interview saying it COULD have been higher. In reality, no one knows what the number was. This current written version makes it sound much more certain than it really is that the payment was more than $2.5mm I would slightly modify this to: "While the settlement amount is unknown and has never been disclosed, The Los Angeles Times reported that legal experts estimate the confidential settlement could have been more than $2.5 million." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.202.110 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)