I wonder if Kobe Bryant is being FALSELY accused for this reason:

[glarius]

I've been listening to the facts being reported about the Kobe Bryant case....According to what was just said on CNN, the alleged victim had multiple sexual contacts before the alleged rape and more sexual episodes after the alleged rape episode.....If this is true there is something that does not ring true to me, as a female.....I KNOW that if I had been raped (especially in the violent way being claimed here, with vaginal tears etc.) I would NOT want to have sex after the rape....I just believe that a woman would NOT want to voluntarily engage in sex right after a violent rape....It would be almost repugnant to her at that time....Watching this case as it has gone along, I find it odd that other women who have known him have said he was gentle with them and took no for an answer.....I don't know the truth here of course and could be wrong, but I just have a feeling about this.:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

1. Those are accusations by Kobe Bryant against his accuser.

Those are accusations by Kobe Bryant against his accuser.

There is no proof yet presented that his victim had sex with someone else later that night.

[glarius]

2. Didn't they find semen not his in her underwear that she wore that night?

I'm sure I heard that said.
edit--Oh I see ....you said no proof of sex later that night....Okay that is different...I thought there was proof..

[shanti]

4. semen AND

pubic hair from a wm...

[Eric J in MN]

5. yes, but that could have been from long before

When she went for a medical exam the next morning they found a semen stain in her underwear from another man, but that could have been from weeks earlier for all we kow.

[democratreformed]

6. Weeks earlier??

Yuk! Now, that is nasty. Who would wear soiled underwear from weeks earlier?

On edit: Even days earlier is nasty. Hours earlier is nasty unless they were the ones that continued to be worn throughout the whole ordeal.

[itcfish]

74. MY Exact Thoughts

Yucky Yucky

:puke:

[CatWoman]

8. Clinton's dick at it again???

damn!!!!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Sorry, but the defense lawyers wouldn't be pursuing this evidence if...

...it was from weeks earlier and had no bearing on the case.

[salin]

23. if they had nothing else

*and I have no clue whether or not they do - so my statement is particular to this condition - if they have nothing else...* then o course they would pursue it. Any avenue to create a doubt. That is their job (defense attys.)

[ecstatic]

13. except for the panties with blond pubic hair? nt

[LiberalFighter]

36. I don't believe the defense has been able to have the evidence tested

Prosecution had been ordered to turn over all evidence and they failed to turn over the panties.

[RapidCreek]

45. From what I heard that is not the case.

She had semen in here underwear on her thigh and on her neck that did not belong to Bryant. In addition she had pubic hair, not her own or Bryants on her body.

It is not an accusation it is fact established by evidence techinicians which the defense is attempting to enter into evidence....at least that is how the scenario was presented on the news.

RC

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. My take..

They had consensual sex, but it turned rough as Kobe was used to getting his way in the bedroom. It was a little over the top, she talked to an attorney at which time she was told she could settle the case.

I think the girl really believes she was raped, but Kobe never intended to rape her. I think he is used to rough sex.

Just my opinion.

[seabeyond]

7. i dont know

but i am not going to guess cause this girl has gotten the raw deal all the way around on this, if she was forced. i hear sex twice in a period, that is not multiple.........once before like 48 hours and after. i dont have specifics and cant guess

what bothers me, besides cheering bryant on the courts and blind support without knowledge,. is that they are looking at opening her medical records. cant look at rush limbaughs who was breaking the law, yet we dont seem to have the same issue with this gal. all the ones saying leave rush alone, dont have issue here.

anyway, i dont know, not on either side. just has been disgusting regardless cause of who he is

[lolly]

9. Isn't judge supposed to decide on records?

I can imagine some cases in which selected portions of her medical records may be found relevant--it's not supposed to be carte blanche, look at everything from her entire life.

What are they asking to look at--or more specifically, what are they looking for? Is it a fishing expedition, or do they have a real cause to look at something problematic?

[seabeyond]

10. she has

attempted a couple times, once i dont know to take her life and had a psychiatrist. i think that is where they are going. so if we rape the depressed or basic teenage years of mess, then it is permissible to rape cause she has to be lieing

i was raped twice. once at a party with older adults, i was 17. followed me in the bathroom, raped, though he probably didnt consider it so, and i left. no hysterics, no drama just left. and said pig. a decade later, one of two men put the unknown yet date rape drug in a drink i assume, cause i was in and out and remember at one point two guys fighting about taking me home. in and out of sex, and woke up in the morning thinking what the f........and i got dressed and went home. no hysterics, no drama, just what the f........cause at that point i didnt know what that was about

i just feel that before anyone decides to judge what her behavior should be in a situation like this, they think twice if not having experienced.

[Djinn]

12. you can't spak for another woman

there are a few standard responses in and out of courtroom that people throw up to "proove" a woman wasn't raped:

"she's had sex with lots of blokes" - ie she's a tart
"she had consensual sex after" - ie she couldn't be THAT traumatised
"she had a short skirt on" - ie she asked for it

ALL of these are myths, being raped does not mean you can't have consesual sex again, it doesn't mean there's an acceptable timeframe you ahve to wait before having sex again.

Sex and rape are two totally seperate things.


Edit: you can't speak for her either - damn typo's

[ecstatic]

14. that's true but...

As glarius stated, I can't imagine a woman volunteering to have sex after a violent rape. I mean, that just seems like a universal to me. Maybe she was raped later on by someone else or she has a problem saying "no."

[Djinn]

22. it's an assumption

whatever you can or can't imagine - it's not a fact and there's no behaviour pattern that would ever relate to ALL women.

How long would you say someone should/would wait?

[iverglas]

34. and it's an extraordinarily offensive one

Maybe all us women who have been sexually assaulted should just become nuns. Obviously there's no future for us in which we can both live normal lives *and* have been telling the truth about the rape.

I wonder whether all these speculators realize that they are talking about women who are reading their posts. Like me.

.

[Pithlet]

38. It's been a bad day

here at DU. Between this, the discrimination thread, and the thread in the lounge about the evil gynocracy, I'm feeling pretty disgusted.

[smirkymonkey]

47. I second that....

[sendero]

46. I tend...

... to give the accuser the slight benefit of the doubt.

Folks who think she did it "for the money" are too dumb to discuss anything with. If she wanted money this is not the way she'll get it.

If it is true that she is sexually promiscuous, so freaking what. Even a promiscuous woman has the right to not be raped.

All of the character smears that have come out about her ring less than true to me. Semen on her underwear? SO FUCKING WHAT! WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Was she supposed to abstain from sex a few days before being raped?

Lots of people seem to think that women bring frivolous rape charges frequently. Maybe so. But I have no trouble at all believing a professional athlete acted this way, because they are the most spoiled people on Earth.

[abbyhoffman]

15. Sorry

But the "multiple sexual contact" could have been 6mo or two years before she could have washed the underwear 1000 times and the sperm still would have turned up in test.

[ecstatic]

17. Thats not true... nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lindacooks]

31. What about her blood on his shirt?

That fact speaks volumes.

[PVnRT]

18. By all accounts

this girl had been suffering from depression for a while, and that might have affected her sexual behavior before and after the alleged rape.

Regardless, it should be irrelevant - whether or not she was sleeping around has no bearing on whether or not she was raped by Bryant.

[ecstatic]

19. true, but then how would the jury know where the bruising came from

If she had sex with other men that night, as implied by the foreign pubic hairs/semen/etc., then the bruising could have come from someone else besides Bryant.

[PVnRT]

27. True

That's why prosecuors get investigators to look into these things.

[seabeyond]

20. and for just a little fairness

you havent heard much at all from prosecution. all these things i am hearing about her, are little pieces the defense wants out. and we know it isnt to make her look good

again i say, we need to listen to the case, instead of a one sided trial in the press with pieces

[Bake]

21. Prosecutors REQUIRED to turn over exculpatory evidence

But of course they didn't in this case! Prosecutorial misconduct.

And CNN is reporting there are two pairs of underwear with three semen samples which are not Kobe's. Now, does that mean three different men? Three samples from the same, not-Kobe, man? Some combination?

I'm all for rape shield laws. But in these particular circumstances, the law doesn't apply. She is alleging vaginal injuries caused by KB; but what if she had recently had sex with somebody else with a monster tool? (I know what you're thinking: White guy? Yeah, RIGHT!)That evidence is directly relevant. The rape shield law is designed to prevent the "she was a slut so she was asking for it" defense. I don't think the defense here is going for that (although they'll gladly take it if the jurors decide the vic was a little too promiscuous!).

Moreover, her medical records are relevant (and so are Limbaugh's in his case!) -- not all of them, but some of them. The judge can sort it out "in camera."

Bake, Esq.

[Djinn]

24. all of these opinions

are why I'd never ever suggest a friend report a rape unless it was the very unlikely "stranger" attack. Rape is undescribibly hideous - what you're made to put up with in the police station/hospital/court and social situations is even worse.

I know all the "but he'll get away with again" arguments but seriously IF you report your chances of getting to court are very small, if you get to court your chances of a conviction are small and even if you beat the odds and get a conviction your attacker will do maybe a couple of years, I understand why sometimes women (and men) feel it's not worth the effort.

Try having a smarmy lawyer ask you how often you've had sex, when you first had sex, where you "giving him a little come on" - even though those question are not allowed and the judge will tell the jury to suck the knowledge of the question out of their heads - while the guy who raped you sits right in front of you.

I don't think it's impossible to lie about rape I just think you'd be fucking mad to do it and it happens WAY more often than people lie about it

Edit: And to glarius a point on your original post unless you've been there you have NO idea how you'd react or what you would or wouldn't do - many victims will tell you they way they reacted was NOT the way they'd always assumed they would.

[glarius]

25. I DO know how I would react....You don't know me and have no right to

judge how I would react....As I said in my original post I don't know the truth here, as we all don't....We'll have to wait and see....BUT I DO KNOW MY OWN REACTIONS!!!!

[Djinn]

26. But surely you are judging her

Whatever you may or may not do after a rape is irrelevant - it wasn't you.

I wasn't judging you I was just saying that one never knows how one might react in any given situation and to say that this woman's story "doesn't ring true" just because she MAY have had CONSENSUAL sex after a rape is unfair.

[lolly]

28. But it IS the court's job to judge

Obviously, no one here has all the facts. That's why we have courts.

The law, however, requires more than a claim from a victim to convict someone.

Yes, false rape claims are rare--but they do happen. It's the court's job to determine which side is more convincing, and there MAY be relevant items in the medical history (Please note I said MAY) and the judge should be able to determine whether those items are relevant. The shield law is designed to keep whatever can't be tied directly to the defense's case private.

The question of multiple sexual partners is NOT just one of branding her a "tart." It is, as one poster mentioned, a question of determining who was responsible for the woman's injuries. If the prosecution is using those injuries as proof sex was forced, then the lack of certainty over who caused the injuries is important.

That being said, I do feel horrible for the woman involved. If the defense is right, she deserves our pity and needs help. And if the prosecution is right, she's being dragged through hell here.

The only hope of something good coming out of this is maybe some athletic superstars will be a little more likely to keep it zipped up, if not out of a sense of decency, then out of fear of rape charges. But then, judging from what's going on just around the corner from the Kobe trial at University of Colorado, maybe not.

[iverglas]

35. can you cite that "law"?

The law, however, requires more than a claim from a victim to convict someone.

That certainly was the case in Canada when I was raped 30 years ago. Well, not quite the case -- the judge was required to tell the jury that it was DANGEROUS to convict on the victim's uncorroborated, sworn testimony alone.

That bit of medieval misogyny has now been wiped from our law books. Which ones are you reading?

Criminal trials very often come down to credibility. A victim or witness says "s/he did X", an accused says "no I didn't". Is there some reason why the credibility of a woman complaining of a sexual assault should be automatically viewed as lower than the credibility of, oh, a man complaining of a robbery? No requirement ever existed that a jury be instructed that it was dangerous to convict on his uncorroborated word alone, as far as I know.

Yes, false rape claims are rare--but they do happen.

Gee, so do false insurance claims. And so do false accusations of all sorts of other crimes, crimes in which victims are not required to come up with some evidence other than their word, or subjected to degrading investigations into aspects of their personal life that have nothing to do with their credibility.

.

[lolly]

93. And we need evidence to convict on those crimes, too

I don't believe that any courts are allowed, much less required, to use the old "rape is a charge easily made and not easily disproven blah blah" crap that used to be standard.

However, if someone makes a claim of ANY crime, both sides need to be prepared to gather evidence for their own side and refute evidence from the other side. Juries use whatever evidence they can to try to determine the credibility of the two stories given them.

The presence of Kobe's semen is one piece of evidence; so are the records of bruising (which none of us has seen, so I don't know how severe it was or what it indicated).

But, frankly, the presence of other men's semen is ALSO evidence; it should be up to the jury to decide what that evidence says about her testimony.

I'm pretty confident in saying that false insurance claims happen far more often than false rape charges--and I'm sure insurance companies ask for more than the victim's claim before settling. And if such a claim made it to court, I can think of at least a few cases where the victim's past actions might bear on his credibility.

[Djinn]

39. I still don't really see the relevance

to tell you the truth - it's not that often that consensual sex produces tearing and injuries.

[Disturbed]

29. Trial by TV Soundbytes.

How important is this case compared to America's real problems?

[regnaD kciN]

30. Is it the same reason that O.J. Simpson was FALSELY accused...?

:eyes:

To me, what has been significant has been the behavior of the defense -- not only resorting to the standard "she's a slut" tactic, but also making a point of feeding her name to the press so that her name, photo, etc., were all over the tabloids and the Internet. In short, her life is destroyed already, no matter what happens at the trial.

It seems to me that, if the defense had such a strong case for innocence, they wouldn't go for this sort of "scortched earth" strategy.

:puke:

[NicoleM]

32. What?

They're supposed to mount a half-assed defense out of concern for the accuser? That's not how it works. Further, do you have any evidence that the defense gave her name and picture to the press?

I have no opinion as to KB's guilt or innocence, but I do believe he has the right to present a vigorous defense. If there is *evidence* that the accuser had sex with someone else proximate enough to their encounter that her injuries may have been caused by someone else, that is relevant to his defense.

[Pithlet]

48. So,

refraining from using the "she's a slut" defense would be half-assed? It just isn't a defense without smearing the victim?

I think the poster you were just responding to was pointing out that if the defense had a strong case, they wouldn't have to shout "slut!" quite so loudly.

[iverglas]

33. ah, feelings

I KNOW that if I had been raped (especially in the violent way being claimed here, with vaginal tears etc.) I would NOT want to have sex after the rape....I just believe that a woman would NOT want to voluntarily engage in sex right after a violent rape....

I take it from this that you have not only never been raped, but have not done any study of the effects of rape on women. This is a place where, really, "feelings" don't cut it. I'd doubt that you know what you would do about something you have never experienced, and you have absolutely no basis for projecting what you think you would do onto other women, let alone judging them by it if they don't conform.

I was violently raped about 30 years ago. (If you're interested in the details of the experience, I happen to have just recounted them in another thread today, in this thread. In short, I was abducted, choked and raped and would undoubtedly have been killed had I not escaped.)

I returned to my home town the next day, and later that week went out for dinner with a friend of a friend. We had not been close friends, and had not had a sexual relationsihp. We did have sex that night. It was a very lovely experience. I thanked him, and he said he had wanted to do something to make me feel good.

I continued to have sex (sometimes with him) in my regular way after that. I had no difficulty distinguishing between the violent and repulsive thing that had been done to me, and the man who had done it, and the pleasant things I chose to do and the men I chose to do them with.

I was lucky, largely because I was smart and well-informed, and a feminist of course. I didn't feel ashamed or dirty or unworthy because of what had happened to me.

Many women do. And people who feel shame and unworthiness not infrequently do things that are not in their best interests, precisely because they think they are shameful and unworthy and do not deserve good things. One of the things that some women who have been sexually assaulted do is become "promiscuous".

Of course, others were just "promiscuous" to start with -- they like sex, and they engage in it when they choose and with whomever they choose. And they are entitled not to engage in it when they don't choose, and with whomever they don't choose to have it, for whatever reason they might have.

I think it is hugely presumptuous for you to claim even to have "a feeling" about what other women, or another woman, would feel or do after being sexually assaulted. I guess I have to be glad that nobody on the jury hearing my evidence knew what I'd got up to later that same week, or a man who had raped three women (that we knew of) might have been walking the streets ... and driving the backroads ... and raping and possibly killing a few more women.

I find it odd that other women who have known him have said he was gentle with them and took no for an answer

Oh yeah. The man in question in my case was married, and had three daughters, and a wife who sat in court throughout the trial. I wonder what she might have said about him if asked. Of course, I'd be just as inclined to wonder what her motivation -- and that of those "other women" in the Bryant case -- might be, as to wonder at the complainant's motivation.

.

[seabeyond]

37. she isnt claiming she had sex

i dont believe, if that makes any difference to anyone. not that we have heard much from her. but, i could also see a psychological on wanting to have sex with someone i cared about to wipe the other memory out, whether one can or not or whether it is pleasurable or not. i mean i dont know i dont care we dont have the info

supposedly the little i heard today, and that it is just a motion, not anything more than that. she is saying she put on old underwear on a floor and jammies, (a messy room) and got into bed. that there was a transfer of flake on upperest part of thigh of another male and pubic hair of nother male.

from previous sex a while ago

now who is to know, we have no info, but the extra male sperm was said to be miniscule amount and flake form.

so does that maybe lead anyone to think, maybe they may not have info, and maybe we ought to wait to hear before judging this girl,

since we seem so focused on creating her slut, yet kobe gets to be a man, stud

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

42. you'd have to remove

a shitload of woman - not to mention men unfortunately

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

50. Gee

Someone reveals that they've been raped on a public forum, and you think an appropriate response is to to tell them that you wouldn't have them on a jury? Never mind how pedantic that is; I would say that's just a tad insensitive.

[seabeyond]

51. then along those lines

every man should be asked if he had date raped..........or raped, or drugged or forced a girl when he knew she didnt want, cause he cant be objective. and really this is in a bit of humor.

[Djinn]

52. I thought so to

I thought it was pulled by mistake maybe??

seemed a fair enough comment - although like I said unless the woman (or man) TOLD you she'd been a victim which most wont - how would you know, you might just be pissing off the victim next to her who you let stay.

I actually doubt many lawyers would go for this strategy or atleast they go on more than "have you been raped" that question alone isn't particularly demonstrative - as evidence above different people have different experiences and emotions after being sexually assaulted.

[Bake]

53. Here's how you ask it:

"Do you know anyone who has ever been a victim of rape?"

That question is unlikely to offend anyone. Then, if anyone answers affirmatively, you question that individual a little more closely. If you think maybe it was the juror herself, you spend a peremptory strike.

My apologies for being insensitive.

Bake

[iverglas]

55. here's the good news

I was in law school at the time, and I was called to the bar in 1979, so I believe I am permanently ineligible to be a juror. Not that I'd said anything about being one, anyhow.

Damn, that was one wasted rape -- a woman who was already on the road to being disqualified. He should have thought twice and used in on some other woman he could have kept from participating as a full citizen in the criminal justice system.

I already knew a lot of ways that sexual assault, and the fear of sexual assault, was a social control on women and a way of excluding women from the agora ... I just hadn't thought of this particular angle before.

.

[Bake]

64. Lawyers are not ineligible for dury service, per se

At least not in most states that I know of. Your state may be different. Personally, I'd LOVE to sit on a jury. As a trial lawyer, it would give me considerable firsthand insight that I don't have now into the process and dynamics of juries. Having said that, most lawyers will be struck from a jury by one side or the other. Since I do civil litigation, it is possible that I might one day NOT be struck from a criminal jury. But I'll never get to do a civil jury.

Bake

[iverglas]

68. really

"Your state may be different."

Had you bothered to know anything about me before talking about me, you'd have known that I don't have a state.

Under section 626 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the laws of the province where a trial is held govern the eligibility of jurors in criminal trials. The Ontario Juries Act, for instance, says:

http://www.canlii.org/on/sta/cson/20040128/j-3/whole.html

3. (1) The following persons are ineligible to serve as jurors:

1. Every member of the Privy Council of Canada or the Executive Council of Ontario.

2. Every member of the Senate, the House of Commons of Canada or the Assembly.

3. Every judge and every justice of the peace.

4. Every barrister and solicitor and every student-at-law.

5. Every legally qualified medical practitioner and veterinary surgeon who is actively engaged in practice and every coroner.

6. Every person engaged in the enforcement of law including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, sheriffs, wardens of any penitentiary, superintendents, jailers or keepers of prisons, correctional institutions or lockups, sheriff's officers, police officers, firefighters who are regularly employed by a fire department for the purposes of subsection 41(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and officers of a court of justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s. 3 (1); 1994, c. 27, s. 48 (1); 1997, c. 4, s. 82.

Amazing how I know what I'm talking about before I put finger to keyboard. Saves on things like apologizing.

.

[Bake]

69. That was uncalled for

I'm sorry for assuming you were a U.S. resident. But there was no need to get snotty about it. Many people HERE assume lawyers are ineligible for jury duty, including some lawyers. I thought you Canadians were supposed to be an amiable lot. All the folks I met in Toronto were.

Bake

[glarius]

41. I was only giving my opinion..I didn't expect to get all the abuse

I received here....For heaven's sake I said nobody knows the truth here....IT WAS JUST MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!

[Djinn]

43. who's abusing you?

most people have just replied with their opinions...I even PM'ed you to say sorry for being rude if it came across that way, but you can understand it's a touchy subject surely?

[glarius]

44. I answered your PM

In the PM I told you who....It seems like thhis person only comes on DU to find someone to lecture and talk down to....

[iverglas]

56. edited nm

edited

[leesa]

54. Kobe Bryant is strictly a 'shark story' to cover up the stink in DC

[ecstatic]

57. It'd be interesting to learn which of you bashed Al Sharpton

For believing the young black girl when she said she was gang raped, but now support Kobe's accuser, even though her story is full of holes.

[iverglas]

58. I'd be interested in knowing

... who they are who "now support Kobe's accuser".

I'm sure you weren't referring to me, since I have expressed no opinion whatsoever on the merits of the Kobe Byant case, and I don't intend to. I don't bother having opinions about things I can't possibly have enough information about to have an opinion, let alone one worth expressing.

And I suspect that if certain elements with profits to be made (or lost) weren't busy trying to generate and inflame opinion in this case, a lot of other people might not have bothered having one either, or expressing it.

There are lots of reasons for people to be persuaded that they need to have and express opinions about such things.

One is, of course, so they won't focus their energies on more important things about which it would be very worth having informed opinions, things where their opinions might actually matter, i.e. have an effect, for themselves and others. And it is indeed in the interest of people like the corporate media controllers and their political partners for everybody not to do that.

But it's very definitely also in the interest of those same people for women to be discredited and disempowered as agents in society. Certainly they are going to ensure that a good archetype for that purpose never goes unflayed in the public marketplace, as an example to us all.

And heck, if they manage to toss in another archetype while they're at it -- the irresponsible black athlete -- and discredit his broader group, African-Americans, too, then so much the better.

But this case is not a soap opera, and it is not a showdown between women's liberation and African-American liberation. These two people are not archetypes, they are individuals, and either or both of them could be angel or devil without it having the slightest relevance to the legitimacy of women's and African-Americans' demands.

Me, I'd be resisting the urge to either negatively stereotype or beatify either of them, since nothing I believe in or care about hinges on which of them is "right", or which of them "wins", or can possibly be advanced by denigrating or eulogizing either of them. I'd just be demanding fairness in how they're both treated in the public arena, and of course objecting to unfairness when I thought it wise or necessary.

Kinda like I think I did.

.

[Solomon]

60. Damn you hit the nail on the head. Your screen name is very

apt, Truth Hurts A Lot.

[sendero]

62. I hate to break the news to you...

... but any evidence or "facts" not brought before a jury and belived by a jury are meaningless.

Someone like Kobe has millions of dollars to shape a PR campaign. If you believe everything you read in print right now about the accuser, why don't you send me a couple thousand dollars and I'll send you a magic decoder ring.

Please do not claim that the plaintiff in this case has the same resource or motivation, that is simply not true.

I don't necessarily believe the accuser but I DAMN SURE don't believe all the smears coming out against her. And IMHO, a good judge would force this to trial ASAP just to shorten the amount of time the defense has to pollute the jury pool with meaningless bullshit "information" like "she had semen in her panties".

[glarius]

63. Her story does seem to fall apart...a point nobody has mentioned is:

For instance in the beginning we heard about the woman fellow worker who saw her right after she left Kobe's room where she was allegedly raped....This woman said the accuser seemed quite calm and untroubled, even though the accuser a little later told a male fellow employee she had been assaulted.....I never hear about this woman witness on TV since the very beginning....What happened to her and her story?.....I don't know what happened in that room ....neither does anyone else...But these inconsistencies make me wonder?....:shrug:

P.S....I'm willing to accept that this girl may have been raped just as she claims...But the thing is WE DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH!

[Djinn]

95. doesn't sound like you're willing to accept it

you don't think it's possible that a woman would want to have consensual sex after rape, you have a view on what she should "look" like immediately afterwards.

Maybe the other staff member who saw her looking "calm" was a moralistic judgemental prude and she didn't feel like telling her what happened??? maybe anything.

You simply can not make a judgement based on how she (alledgedly remember it's a key word on BOTH sides) reacted at the time

[glarius]

96. I'm not making a judgement.....I'M JUST WONDERING!

Isn't that allowed?....I can't just pretend I don't wonder....I do...I wonder about it....I don't know who is telling the truth....Neither do you or anyone else who has posted...We are all speculating and questioning....I'm definitely not saying anything more about this subject....No hard feelings, but I've had it....

[Djinn]

94. not knowing the case to which you refer

I can't comment on that (not a US citizen) but this isn't about "supporting" anyone. It's about fairness and disputing the widely held MYTH that women never have consensual sex after a rape or atleast wait for some "acceptable" time

[GabysPoppy]

59. Holy Shit!

Which part of NO is hard to understand?

I don't give a shit if she had sex with the entire football team of the University of Colorado, that is nobody's fucking business.

I don't give a shit if she flashed that asshole a look at her ass.

What part of NO is beyond someone's intelligence?

[Solomon]

61. She never said No, before engaging and when she did, Kobe stopped.

So what's the problem?

[GabysPoppy]

66. You were there?

Quick the defense team is looking for a witness like yourself.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PVnRT]

89. You need to testify - NOW!!!!

An eyewitness like yourself needs to get to Colorado and offer testimony for the defense. Quickly, now!

[Bake]

65. Well, if she made it with the whole football team, as you say,

I'm willing to bet there was some vaginal tearing involved. And since she alleges Kobe caused those injuries, that makes it RELEVANT that she did the football team. Simple as that. You may not like it, but I'm willing to bet the court sees it that way.

Bake

[GabysPoppy]

67. Thank you too

for missing the point.

[Djinn]

97. Beyond the pale dbaker

I think Gabbyspoppy made it abundantly clear what he/she meant - and you've twisted it rather severely. the point was EVEN IF she slept with the whole team all she had to do was say NO to Kobe and it's rape - I amazed and greatly saddened that alot of people on this site don't seem to grasp that.

BTW - you can "do the whole football team" and generally NOT have tearing - consensual sex rarely ends in injury.

[Ripley]

99. You absolutely won't believe this.

There was a Kobe thread here a few months ago where a couple of guys were saying it was "normal" to have vaginal tearing or bleeding during intercourse. :wow:

There are some sick fricks here. Criminals too, I think.

[Djinn]

100. makes you wonder

about their poor girlfriends/wives.

[Ripley]

70. If it was Mike Tyson instead of cute little Kobe would you still feel the

same way? Why do you print the word "FALSELY" (accused) in capitals? You may have your opinion, but you clearly seem to be on a campaign to discredit the accuser. Why on Earth would you do that? What's in it for you?

Every time one of these rape threads pop up it inevitable turns into a tortured analysis of what the woman's life is like and wow, she was a slut once so there! ends up being the punch line.

Do you people not believe that any woman was ever raped? They're all just gold diggers?

One more female misogynist I see.

[glarius]

71. I write as I speak....capitalizing words I would emphasize..... and.......

I'm not on any campaign....What right have you to decide that...I expressed an OPINION for heavean's sake...I'm a white, Canadian grandmother and have nothing to gain by the outcome of any court case in the United States....I've just been noticing things that made me wonder....For instance the woman fellow worker of the accuser, we heard about in the beginning ...She said the accuser came out of the room and she seemed calm and as if nothing was amiss...A short time later the accuser told a male fellow worker that she had been assaulted.....I wonder about the fact we have heard no more on TV about this inconsistency....There could be a good explanation....The thing is NONE OF US KNOW THE TRUTH!....

[Pithlet]

73. We don't know the truth.

I don't know if Kobe is guilty or not. But, you're interpretation of "evidence" is what is being taken to task. In just this post, for example, you use her demeanor as somehow revealing. Because she "seemed calm". You state that that is an inconsistency. I think that is a bit presumptive. It's an opinion, to be sure, but so are the responses to your opinions.

[glarius]

75. We are all expressing opinions....the difference is in the nastiness of

some replies....I don't know ANYTHING about what happened in this case...I'm just speculating....Isn't that what we are all doing?...It just seems to me that some people just look for an excuse to jump on another poster...That's all....Lord, I wish I had never brought the subject up....One poster actually called me a female misogynist!....Sheeesh!

[iverglas]

76. this poster

this one right here, pointed out that what you said, you said about ME. *I* am the woman who said I was raped, and who had consensual sex with someone a few days later who was not the same person I'd had consensual sex with a few days earlier.

You said that no woman would do this, and that the word of a woman who did this should not be trusted. That is your famous "opinion", and that's what I and others had a problem and still have a problem with.

Your "opinion" about the particular case in question is based on nothing (that I can see) but prejudice and stereotyping. You stereotyped women, and expressed a negative opinion of one particular woman whom you do not know, based on that stereotype. Your stereotype is FALSE. I WAS raped -- no jury needed, he pleaded guilty -- and I did NOT behave according to your stereotype. Your opinion INSULTED and DISCREDITED **ME**.

If I had had to testify, and if evidence of my sexual history had been introduced, and if there had been people on the jury who thought like you possibly in part because people like you had propagated and legitimized the stereotype you employed here, that man might not have been convicted. And he might well have done it again.

And if I, and the several other women who made complaints about that man's actions, had been so afraid of having our personal lives exposed and condemned, and our selves trashed in public, that we chose not to make the complaints, then there is no doubt in my mind that he would have continued to abduct and rape women, and that the next one who couldn't escape as I had would have been dead.

And then you thought it wise to talk about me as someone who just likes to lecture people. Well you may take this as a lecture. Your words are offensive to me and women like me, and irresponsible in the extreme to any woman who might some day be at risk of assault and/or death because someone chose not to report what had happened to her for fear of being treated the way you and so many others have chosen to treat the complainant in the Kobe Bryant case.

I have spent years saying that it is worth coming forward, that assisting the prosecution in a rape case is *not* as bad as it is made out to be, that we women owe it to one another to stand up to the crap sometimes thrown at us when we do that -- and you sit there throwing crap.

And I take it very personally, both because you are saying that I, a person who doesn't conform to your stereotype, am not to be believed -- and because I am one of the women who will always be at risk as long as other women can't take the crap they'd have to take if they report what happens to them.

Speech is an action, actions can have consequences; if speech never had consequences, nobody would bother speaking. "I was just stating my opinion" does not relieve anyone of responsibilitiy for those consequences.

.

[glarius]

77. I'm sorry I can't finish reading your ravings...You give me a head ache!

I KNOW MANY WOMEN ARE RAPED...SOMEONE IN MY FAMILY WAS...BUT SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CASE DOESN'T RING TRUE TO ME....That is just my opion and was all I wanted to say....good bye...

[iverglas]

81. let me simplify it

If I had not gone immediately to the police when I was raped, the man who did it would have found another victim AND KILLED HER, just as he was planning to kill me.

If I had been so afraid of people dragging my name and reputation through the mud, causing me shame and ruining my future, that I did not go to the police, ANOTHER WOMAN WOULD HAVE DIED. Maybe more than one.

Even if the next woman or women had only been assaulted and not killed, that would still have been one woman too many.

Anyone who calls another woman untrustworthy when she complains of a sexual assault, based on no knowledge of the facts or the woman, and on nothing but prejudice and stereotype, makes it harder for every woman to make the decision to report a sexual assault.

And every time one woman does not report a sexual assault, all women are endangered.

So I will never sit quiet when someone, for no valid reason, trashes a woman who has made a complaint of sexual assault. Even if the trashing didn't affect me personally, which yours did.

.

[glarius]

84. I was talking about the Kobe Bryant case ONLY....Is that simple enough?

You chose to take it personally....I'm very sorry about what happened to you....Rape happened in my family and I know it is a terrible thing...This forum is about people expressing their opinions...That is what I did....I did not trash someone as you put it...I said what I thought about the case from the things I had gleaned from TV....

[glarius]

78. Opinions are opinions but nastiness is nastiness!

I see no reason for nasty accusations being cast my way because I posted MY OPINION...Lord, I know I could be wrong...but that's my OPINION...which I'm entitled to....You said "In just this post, for example, you use her demeanor as somehow revealing."...Yes I did...isn't that what most people do?....When we are proven wrong we admit it and perhaps that will be the case here..

[Pithlet]

80. You are entitled to an opinion.

People who read an opinion that hurts and insults them are also entitled to react. You may call it nastiness. But, I think those responses were justified. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to hurt. You may not have realized that what you said could be hurtful to many people. But it was. No one is entitled to post their opinions without the consequences of doing so.

[glarius]

82. What I posted was about the Kobe Bryant case and NOBODY ELSE

That's a phony line to say I was insulting others who have been raped...I was talking only about this one case...I KNOW many have been raped...Someone in my own family was raped...This thread is about Kobe Bryant and his accuser ONLY as far as I, the poster am concerned....

[Pithlet]

83. You were commenting on a public case

that you have no personal knowledge of (or if you have, you didn't make that clear). The comments you made can very easily be offensive to anyone who's been through a rape, even if you weren't specifically talking about their case. Stating that they have no reason to be offended because you weren't talking about them specifically is a cop out.

[glarius]

85. This is YOUR opinion

Most of what is posted in this forum is opinion....We all throw out our opinions and comments on EVERYTHING...Going by your reasoning, we must never say we think anyone in the public eye is possibly innocent, for fear we will offend someone who is or has suffered a crime similar to what is being charged....That's not reasonable....

[iverglas]

86. and the *fact* is

that the opinion you expressed was this (with my emphasis):

.If this is true there is something that does not ring true to me, as a female.....I KNOW that if I had been raped (especially in the violent way being claimed here, with vaginal tears etc.) I would NOT want to have sex after the rape....I just believe that a woman would NOT want to voluntarily engage in sex right after a violent rape....It would be almost repugnant to her at that time....

I am a woman.
I was violently raped.
I did want to voluntarily engage in sex right after it.

Either I'm lying about something, or your belief is crap. No other option.

I know I'm not lying, that makes your belief crap. Specifically, it is a stereotype based on prejudice and nothing else. You have negatively judged someone else's (alleged) behaviour based only on what you think your behaviour would be, and said that other women *should* behave the way you *think* you would behave ... if they want to be believed.

Since your belief is crap, and since it is the only basis you gave for your opinion that there was something that "does not ring true to" you about the Kobe Bryant complainant, your opinion about the Kobe Bryant complainant is not worth very much.

And I wouldn't care whether you expressed it, except for the harm that expressions of opinion can do.

Speech is free of constraint, but not free of consequences. Responsible people do not express opinions that have no basis in anything and that can cause harm.

And I'm bloody sick of this "nastiness" epithet being thrown at me.

Bah. I'm the one who was portrayed as untrustworthy by your post. I'll take just as much exception to that as I choose.

.

[glarius]

87. I have one last thing to say to you

I posted an opinion.....I didn't expect it to start world war 3.....From reading previous postings of yours in this forum, on other subjects, you scare me....You seem always to be angry and looking for a reason to rage at someone....This time it was me....When I posted this I was talking only about Kobe Brant's case....I have no idea what you mean by "I'm the one who was portrayed as untrustworthy by your post" and frankly I DON'T CARE.....Now I think I'll have a nice cup of hot tea.....

[Pithlet]

88. No, that is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if you're going to post opinions on a message board, you should be prepared for people to react to them especially if they are controversial or potentially hurtful in any way. And when someone is offended, rather than screaming IT'S JUST MY OPINION, and accusing the person of ranting, maybe you should consider what you said and how other's might view it. You can either come to the conclusion that it was hurtful and apologize, or stand by what you said. But, don't think that just because it is your opinion, it shields you from the consequences of what you say.

[glarius]

90. Of course you expect differing opinions......I accept those

I'm talking about being accused of having an ulterior motive or something to gain and oh, you know what....I don't give a damn...I can't be bothered trying to explain...I'm tired of this...

[Djinn]

98. so why do think the accuser is lying

if she's lying you must think there's a reason behind it? surely you are doing the exact thing to her that you accuse iverglas of doing to you?

The only motivation I can think of in this case for the accuser to lie is to gain financial benefit - she does not have to go through a criminal hearing to do that, apart from the obvious option of private blackmail, she could simply have sued him - as the OJ drama proved you don't need to be found GUILTY to be found liable for damages, it would have been far easier than submitting to a public thrashing of her actions. I really don't see what see has to gain by this.

But either way to say "a woman wouldn't have consensual sex after rape" isn't an opinion is an easilly and readilly refutable fact - that's all anyone's been arguing

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. well i would have had sex

i would sought comfort from my gf and we would probably have had sex. its what i often do when i am distraught.

[jeanmarc]

91. Ladies and Gentlemen

I have read almost none of the evidence and would like to render a verdict....

[glarius]

92. By jove ....you've got it jeanmarc.....

I for one agree with you...:D