What Is In The Accuser's Best Interest?

Q: Let us assume for a moment that Kobe Bryant did rape the accuser. If this is true, does it make more sense for her to settle with him anyway for a lot of money (more than a lot) or have him convicted and try to seek financial gain through a civil trial? I am curious. My gut tells me that even if she really was raped she is probably better off in the end settling out of court. I probably would. What do others think?

A: "I filed these charges against Mr. Bryant because I am interested in some ultimate financial compensation and not in justice." Hard to imagine the young woman making *that* statement, wouldn't you agree? Reports? Define reports. I've read no "reports" from the accuser, only statements from her "friends."

Not exactly "reports," imho. Also Hurt/Angry-Calculating/Greedy? Not mutually exclusive feelings/motives. They can all peacefully and profitably co-exist in the same mental patient (no offense intended the mental patients on asbnll). Or, do you think it for no reason there persists the popular adage: "Hell hath no fury..." No, actually, it is not. Except, perhaps, to those who may wish fervently it were. To others it is nowhere near objectively clear. Yes, perhaps the kind of justice the personal injury attorney portrayed by Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia" sought for his clients: Cash Justice. Criminal charges, prosecuted or not, will help pave the path to payoff.