Is anyone who had an accusation made against them automatically a sex offender?
Edit: I thought you were referring to Clinton. On rereading your post, I'm guessing you were talking about Kobe. So, my answer is "No", I have not seen sufficient information for me to conclude Kobe is a "sex offender". OTOH, I have seen enough to conclude that Clinton was.
I'll leave the rest of my post since the explanation above would make no sense without it (or perhaps you'll deem it not to make sense anyway <g>)...
Original Response
No. But when there have been a SERIES of accusations, coupled with significant supporting evidence, they do.
The Juanita Broaderrick rape was supported by no fewer than six witnesses who were contemporaneously aware of the event, some of whom witnessed the victim's injury that came from his biting her lip. This story would have been believable without the stream of subsequent offenses; her statements were extremely credible. Had she been willing to take on the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, her case would have been just about as strong as any rape case of the day could be (this was before DNA testing was in broad use).
The Paula Jones incident, while perhaps not a crime, was nonetheless a civil offense by any reasonable standard. There was substantial evidence that it occurred as the victim stated.
We all know the history of the Lewinsky incident; I recognize we disagree about whether there was an abuse of power involved, but it does help to establish a pattern of behavior.
Willey accused him of "unwanted sexual advances" that would certainly seem to be a civil wrong within the meaning of the sexual harrassment code. Again, this accusation was substantiated by at least two witnesses at the time -- although she was not explicit as to what happened, they testified that she seemed clear shaken by whatever occurred.
At some point, all this circumstantial evidence becomes a "case". As you know, there is a ton more that could be presented if someone chose to rehash it.
Clinton cannnot be prosecuted for the Broaderick rape on a technicality (the statute of limitations) just as OJ can't be tried PROPERLY for murdering his wife (double jeapardy). While it makes both legally acquitted of the crime, it in no way suggests that either didn't commit the crime. |
