A Review of Jeffrey Scott Shapiro’s Kobe Bryant; The Game of His Life, and an Interview With the Author
An Interview with Jeffrey Scott Shapiro – Author of “Kobe Bryant; The Game of His Life"por el difunto Bill Bickel, antiguo director de la revista Crime, Justice and America. Publicado originalmente en 2004 y reproducido con permiso de la revista Crime, Justice and America.
Did the young woman in Kobe Bryant’s hotel room say “no”? We’ll probably never know. Nobody will ever have to prove she did beyond a reasonable doubt, since criminal charges against Bryant have been dismissed. It’s even very possible that each of the two people in the room that night sincerely believe their respective accounts.
As far as Jeffrey Scott Shapiro’s book is concerned, the truth doesn’t matter: Shapiro is telling the story of how two lives were forever changed on June 30, 2003. Kobe Bryant was Michael Jordan’s heir apparent as NBA superstar, leading the Los Angeles Lakers to a series of championships. He was a role model for his young fans, and the darling of major corporations eager to pay tens of millions of dollars in endorsement money. Today he no longer faces the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, but his image will never recover.
The life of Lilly Fuller (the pseudonym Shapiro gives Bryant’s accuser) has changed even more dramatically: Her anonymity was compromised almost immediately both online and in certain media outlets. The tabloid Globe ran her photograph and her name on their front cover. She’s received hate mail and several death threats from Kobe Bryant fans who blamed her for persecuting their hero. While some friends continued to stand by her, others willingly revealed her secrets in exchange for media attention, a trip to New York or, in one case, the possibility of meeting actress Neve Campbell.
In fact, while this book is the account of how two lives changed after a single encounter, its theme might well be “Two people learn who their friends are.”
On August 10, 2004, less than a month before Bryant’s rape trial was scheduled to begin, Ms. Fuller filed a civil suit against Bryant (for $75,000 in compensatory damages and an undisclosed amount for punitive damages, citing pain, suffering and “public scorn, hatred and ridicule”), a move many people saw as a signal that she might abandon her criminal complaint against Bryant: Judge Ruckriegle had ruled that details of her sexual history could be used by the defense, her name and medical history (which includes mental health issues) had been accidentally made public… she’d had enough.
Or, as some believed, a large civil judgment was what she was after all along.
On September 1, after jury selection had already begun, District Attorney Mark Hurlbert announced, “This motion is to dismiss [the criminal case against Bryant] based on the sole fact that the victim is unable to continue”, followed by Bryant’s statement that “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.”
As I write this in early November, no trial date has been set for the civil trial. Both Bryant and Fuller could end up “losers” here: Bryant because he can be more easily convicted (a criminal case requires a unanimous jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil case requires only a majority of jurors to find that the preponderance of evidence supports the plaintiff’s claim); and Fuller, no longer protected by Colorado’s Rape Shield Law, was ordered by the judge to re-file her complaint to include her name. Her sexual history, medical records and other sensitive information might also now be fair game.
I spoke with Jeffrey Shapiro and asked him his thoughts about why Fuller made this decision and what comes next:
Do you believe Bryant would have been convicted of rape if Ms. Fuller had continued to cooperate with the prosecution?
Yes. I believe that the most damning evidence in this case was Mr. Bryant’s own words. In his tape-recorded police interview, Bryant froze silent for 30 seconds when he was asked whether or not the alleged victim ever said “no” during their sexual encounter. Most prosecutors and law enforcement agents will tell you that it shouldn’t take more than a mere second to answer that question. In fact, most people under interrogation will typically find that question insulting and become hostile. Bryant also waited in the lobby for an extensive amount of time during odd hours of the night after the A.V. [alleged victim] had left the hotel, indicating that he was apparently waiting for her. The totality of the circumstances — the taped interview, his odd behavior and the fact he was still wearing a t-shirt with the A.V.’s blood on it when the police arrived at the hotel are all damning pieces of evidence that would paint a dark and compelling portrait for anyone examining the case.
Do you believe Ms. Fuller filed the civil suit because she didn’t think the criminal case was winnable, or because she didn’t want to be subjected to a trial and was hoping for a settlement, or because she was after the money from the start? And did either the filing of the civil suit or the dropping of the criminal charges surprise you?
I was surprised by both, but I can say with full confidence that none of those decisions were really made by the A.V. as much as they were the attorneys who represented her. As a law student, I’m very understanding as to why they took that course of action since the criminal case was such a debacle as a result of the defense team’s repeated accusatory pre-trial motions, the lax attitude of Judge Ruckriegle and the prosecutors’ inability to invoke an assertive, winning strategy. What that team needed was a Vincent Bugliosi with heart, passion and enough strategy to compete with Hal Haddon and Pamela Mackey. At the end of the day, Lin Wood knew that the criminal case would have only damaged the evidence and potential testimony as it did in the O.J. Simpson case. Wood was clever enough to avoid poisoning the evidence and testimony by simply expediting the matter to a civil suit where he could monitor the circumstances more carefully and deal with a lower burden of proof.
Once Ruckriegle dismissed the case WITH PREJUDICE, Bryant lost his Fifth Amendment Constitutional right to not incriminate himself since there’s no chance of the charges being re-filed. The result? Bryant MUST testify in the civil suit whereas he would not have had to in the criminal case. All in all, it was in many ways, a very brilliant, strategic move.
You mention a defense strategy often used in rape cases called “nuts or sluts”, in which the defense tries to discredit the accuser by suggesting she either imagined the attack or was a willing participant. Do you consider this a legitimate tactic?
No. I think it’s completely dishonorable. In my opinion, I think the defense team in this case has acted with total disregard for ethics, compassion or fairness. Many reporters and lawyers who were present for some of Pamela Mackey’s methods considered reporting her to the Colorado Bar Association, particularly for the repeated use of the A.V.’s name in court after Judge Gannett strictly forbade it. No one actually reported her however — to my knowledge.
By journalistic convention, the names of alleged rape victims are shielded. Do you consider this fair, when the name of the accused is immediately made public? And do you think this convention will fall to the wayside now that anybody with 30 seconds and an Internet connection can easily learn the alleged victim’s name?
I do think it’s fair, but perhaps we should consider the possibility that sexual assault is such a unique and disturbing crime that defendants’ names should be kept confidential as well unless they are convicted. This idea was suggested to me by someone associated with the Bryant team at one time, and I actually thought it was an interesting one. It’s never fair to destroy someone’s life with allegations. Obviously, we can’t keep all criminal charges confidential until a conviction, but I think it’s safe to say that because we consider sexual crimes so abhorrent in our society they take a special tone and perhaps deserve special consideration. The A.V. never had any intention of disrupting Mr. Bryant’s life — and, ironically, in the end, it was she who suffered the most ridicule even thought she was an alleged victim while Bryant walked away practically untarnished in the court of public opinion.
In the book’s final chapter, you describe an incident where Bryant hits on another woman in circumstances similar to how his encounter with Ms. Fuller began. You call this chapter “Smoke”, alluding to “Where there’s smoke there’s fire”, but… Doesn’t the fact that Bryant backed off after this woman said “no” SUPPORT his claim that Ms. Fuller was a willing participant?
No. According to sources close to the Portland woman, who has now identified herself as Tara Vilhauer and virtually confirmed everything in my book on ABC’s Good Morning America several months ago, she had to say “no” three times to Bryant and still he refused to back off. It was only by bolting from the sofa where the two were sitting in his hotel suite toward the door was she able to escape his continued advances.
In her [current] account, however, Bryant stopped immediately when she told him to. I believe she has changed her story dramatically in this one area, since she originally relayed it to people close to her at the time it happened. I have strong reason to believe she has been in close contact with both Bryant defense team members and Kobe Bryant himself.
Do you expect Ms. Fuller to win her civil case?
I have no doubt in my mind she will win and most likely as a result of a settlement — unless because of procedural or personal reasons the case is dropped.
Update in late 2004: On November 8, Lin Wood, Lilly Fuller’s attorney, announced that she might re-file her civil suit in California. She has the option of filing either in the state where the alleged offense took place (Colorado) or the state in which the defendant lives (California). Colorado law caps her possible award at $2.5 million, while California law has no limit.
Español de México 
English