Wow, looks like Kobe is going to get off for sure

[ShaneGR]

http://sports.excite.com/news/10152003/v6811.html

It turns out that when the girl showed up at the hospital the next day, she had sperm on her panties from ANOTHER man.

[Paragon]

1. You are SO right

I guess the lesson is: don't ever have consensual sex with anyone, because you never know when you're going to get raped by an NBA player and have your sexual history drudged up in court, despite the Rape Shield Law.

Thanks!

[ShaneGR]

4. Huh?

So the fact that she was running around having sex with a bunch of people doesn't affect your judgement about the case at all? Basically she would have had to do the following:

Put on her panties. Have sex with someone other than Kobe. Fail to change her panties. Have sex with Kobe (Forced or not). Keep panties on the next day on the way to the hospital.

I'm all for prosecuting rapists, but I am not for blindly believing every accusation. Especially when there is evidence to show that the 'victim' isn't exactly a picture of moral conviction.

[Paragon]

5. She was examined the next day

Even I change my underwear after one day -- not the same panties. And "sex with a whole bunch of people"? Where'd you get THAT?

[greyl]

10. Read the article - they tested two pair.

One from the night of the incident, and one she wore to the hospital. None of Bryant's semen was found.

[Paragon]

11. True.

So hard to rape a girl with her panties in the way. :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. The article does NOT say none of Bryant's semen was found

Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the argument might be more of a public relations move.

"The defense may be spinning this more for the public than the court," he said. "It's impressive, but its negative public relations value for the prosecution is more significant than its legal value."

The real intent of this line of questioning was threads like this and to poison the jury pool

[greyl]

20. But you said it was found. Where did you see that? nt

[ET Awful]

73. So you're saying you'd wear semen drenched panties

to a medical exam when you were reporting a rape?

Sorry, I'm all for protecting a woman's rights, and I'm all for prosecuting rapists to the full extent of the law, but when you run across a case that has so much evidence that the woman could be LYING, I don't fall for it.

Kobe's no angel, but to just assume he's guilty because she says so is idiotic.

I always thought people here were in favor of people being innocent until proven guilty.

[Heddi]

90. Could it be possible

that she wore dirty underwear by mistake?

Semen stays in the vaginal canal for quite some time, and can 'leak' even days after a sexual encounter.

It is a probable situation that the panties she wore weren't worn immediately after the sexual incounter with the unknown person. They could have been worn the day after, or the night after, and still become contaminated with semen (even if she washed after the sexual encounter).

IMO, this would be more 'compelling' evidence if the semen of the unknown individual was found in her vagina, in addition to semen of kobe bryant.

But so far, evidence of 2nd semen inside her vagina hasn't been made public (which I'm sure they'd make public if this were the case).

If semen of the unknown sexual encounter were inside her vagina, then it could be reasoned that she had had sex with the unknown person within a day or two of having sex with kobe bryant.

The fact that the semen was ONLY in her underwear (to me) infers that she didn't wear a clean pair, or thought the pair was clean, or what-not.

Also---it would be important to know if she hand-washes her underwear as opposed to washing them in the washing machine.

Hand washing underwear would not ensure removal of all bodily fluids as would be if she washed them in the washing machine--

Women who have their periods, I think, can attest to the fact that many times, if you washed period-stained undewear in the sink vs. in the washer, the washer-washed ones will generally remove all stains of blood BETTER than ones washed in the sink.

It's also nice to know that one must remain virginous and pure in order to be 'really raped'. I mean, by the OP's logic, a prostitute can't really be raped because she's not the paragon of morality :eyes:

And also, I should add that I really don't give one rip about the Kobe case. I don't know if he did it, and I don't know if the girl is lying.

The only reason I have interjected myself into these "semen in panties" conversations as of late is to try to shed some common sense into the conversation. I actively avoid all kobe coverage whenever I possibly can.

[ET Awful]

110. BUT. . .

If you had been raped, and had waited until the next day to go get examined, would you not put on CLEAN underwear?

Would you not feel the overwhelming need to put on something clean?

[Heddi]

111. As the friend of someone who has been raped

I can tell you that the state of cleanliness of her clothing was the last thing on her mind after the rape took place.



And I notice you didn't comment on the fact that the underwear could have been assumed to be clean, or hand-washed which could have left semen on them, or that she mistakenly picked up a dirty pair thinking it's clean, or that she just didn't care what pair of underwear she wore when she went to the police station.

[Skittles]

6. OMG

so girls who don't live up to your "picture of moral conviction" cannot be raped? :puke:

[flamingyouth]

8. Pretty much the common mentality

Sorry to say.

Shit, if Der Gropernator can get "elected" governor, can we expect superstar-hero-basketball god Kobe to actually be *punished*? Surely we jest.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Read your own friggen article

There were TWO sets of panties. The pair she was wearing that had semen (she admitted having sex two days prior) and the pair she BROUGHT with her from the Kobe situation that had Kobe's sperm on them.

I could have sex in my home right now, walk out and get raped. The fact that I had consensual sex would NOT negate the fact that I was raped.

And as far as your fucking sexist post about moral conviction...cram it...if Kobe had two woemen's DNA on his penis you would be high fiving him.

I am really REPULSED at the blatant SEXIST posts made in defense of Kobe.

Fuck you guys..if I CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX I will...if you rape me I will simply kill you to avoid being raped twice at the time of trial.

Winters said the woman told him she had consensual sex with another man on June 28 and used a condom, backing earlier defense suggestions she was sexually active before her encounter with Bryant.

Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested - one from the night of June 30, the other the pair she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day.

You might also notice that it was a detective who made statements about the nature of her injuries which is CLEARLY outside the expertise of a detective. I would NO MORE take a detective's MEDICAL testimony any more seriously than a mechanic's. And in case you are curious, I have TRAINED expert witnesses in matters concerning their field of expertise and NOT crossing those boundaries.

[greyl]

13. Where does it say that?

snip>"She wasted no time getting Detective Doug Winters to say that the yellow underwear the woman wore to her rape exam at a hospital the next day contained sperm from another man, along with Caucasian pubic hair.

The 25-year-old Bryant, who is black, contends he had consensual sex with the woman.

Winters said the woman told him she had consensual sex with another man on June 28 and used a condom, backing earlier defense suggestions she was sexually active before her encounter with Bryant.

Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested - one from the night of June 30, the other the pair she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day.

The latter pair contained blood and semen, Winters said.

"The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else's semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?" Mackey asked. "<snip

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Go back and read...the two days prior quote is from the MSNBC

article however.

[greyl]

16. Read what? nt

[populistmom]

21. No kidding.

Besides, apparently this guy doesn't understand about the evidence or female anatomy anyway. I could have sex tonight and 3 days from now there could be (on clean panties, showered a few times) still some small amounts of semen remaining that could show up under a microscope on my panties. Un-fucking-real?! And these are the "progressive" males? Sex isn't a crime, rape is. No matter what she chose to do with her body before this happened, if she was raped, it's a crime.

Sarah

[greyl]

27. What "guy"? What "males"? Those are more assumptions, eh?

Progressives are aware of the alarming number of minorities that have been sent to jail in this country, and are maybe a bit more critical of the what the prosecution calls "evidence".

[populistmom]

32. Jesus

Guy meaning sgr2, the original poster.
Males meaning the few men here at DU I'm shocked to find still dragging their Cro-Magnon clubs around. (The vast majority however do not fit into this catagory.)

When the big "evidence" being thrown around in Kobe's defense was that maybe she had sex with someone else in the days prior, it brings out the old "she was asking for it" stereotype and she because was a not "innocent" or virginal, so she deserved it. If she wasn't raped, I hope that comes out. I wouldn't want to see an innocent man go to prison, but to use her sexual history as HIS DEFENSE is wrong and inexcusable!!!!!! PERIOD!
I think the best evidence is forensic. If she suffered physical damage as the result, he looks suspect. If there's no evidence of physical trauma, it's pretty hard to prove and he should walk.

Sarah

[greyl]

38. So everyone that doubts the prosecution is male?

Also, shouldn't sexual history and forensic evidence that are both less than 48 hours old be considered?

Are you aware that bleeding can happen during consensual sex? Bruising too, but that's pushing it I know. Point is, we still haven't seen the evidence and won't till the trial, which is one reason why I mostly ignored this story. An accurate judgment of guilt or innocence can't be made by pre-trial news leaks.


Fwiw, I don't see how the defense can truly hope to ever prove Bryant's innocence, barring a retraction of the accusation by the woman. It's just not possible.

If he is innocent though, his only chance of swaying a jury to acquit is to cast doubt on the honesty of the accuser.

So it's lousy all around.

[populistmom]

41. No, to answer your question

What difference does it make? They can sort out the DNA as to who belongs to what and if he raped her, it doesn't matter if she had sex yesterday or a year before.

As for bleeding caused by sex? Look, I have been married 12 years and had sex probably thousands of times. Never, ever have I bled due to trauma caused by sex (and I'm not exactly Miss Timid in the sack). On a couple of occasions, if you must fucking know, I was a bit dry because I had babies under 3 months of age and you know what? It hurt a little, I told him to stop and he did before any damage was done. Real men don't cause women to bruise and bleed during sex. Those are the acts of rapists. I stand by what I have said.

[greyl]

45. Vaginal blood vessels are very close to the surface.

We don't know how much blood evidence the prosecution says exists, but it may be only the tiniest drop.
Penetration doesn't have to hurt beyond a comfortable threshold for some bleeding to occur.
Furthermore, some people do enjoy somewhat painful sex that makes bleeding more likely.

The point is, bleeding doesn't equal rape. Period.

[populistmom]

50. You're hopeless and I've got to go to sleep

The whole point is that IF there is enough evidence to show tissue trauma, in all likelyhood he is probably guilty in my opinion and probably that of any person with common sense unless they want to rationalize the unrational.
Yes, women bleed for all kinds of reasons (perhaps she had a great time with Kobe and was releasing an ovarian follicle), but even with sex that gets a bit rough, you're not talking major tissue trauma (i.e bruises and bleeding).

[greyl]

51. I enjoyed reasoning with you.

Good night. :)


edit:spelling

[Cheswick2.0]

117. that is one lame argument

women don't generally bleed during sex.

[amazona]

92. i am woman and i have to dispute this

I am sure your experience is your experience, and I don't doubt your honesty in this matter, but you should be aware that some women CAN and DO experience occasional bleeding and bruising during consensual sex. There are occasions where your mind takes over and you're into the quick sex, and endorphins are coming into play, and you just don't realize how rough it was until later when you find the blood. I've had this happen on several occasions, and I am just as female as anyone. Real men can cause unintentional minor bleeding and bruising. Even a real vibrator can if you let it get out of hand! Unfortunately, like it or not, if the woman had multiple partners in a short amount of time, I think it has to be relevant, because you can get abraded, you can bleed, you can be bruised, even if it was all in fun. I feel we don't have enough information at this time to make up our minds, so I'm inclined to give Kobe the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.



perhaps this discussion is getting a bit more graphic than needed

[cally]

100. But three days later??

If you are still bleeding three days later than something is wrong IMO. Besides, the bruising should have faded three days later.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. No we share our political beliefs with fucking neanderthals

and it becomes PAINFULLY apparent every time this story appears in the news.

Let me tell you how it will go:

First come the posts about how she had a past history of mental health even though if one google's about RAPE in mental health facilities, they will get about 60,000 hits.

Next, we will see a post that she only wants attention as she tried out on a television program and wasn't picked as though a past history of failure at ANYTHING argues against the fact that she MAY have been raped.

Next will come the posts about how she is a gold-digging bitch (no facts in evidence to support it but I'll bet ten bucks they all think Micheal Jackson is a CHILD molestor even though his "victims" parents DID withhold filing a criminal case in exchange for a wad of cash)

Then we will see the symapthy posts about how poor Kobe has a wife and family and a lot on the line. Something POOR KOBE perhaps COULD and should have considered before he wild thanged a woman whether consensually or NOT in his room that night.

Next will come the cries of ALL THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS of rape based on a faulty study which DOES NOT document that to be true.

Next will be some stupid fucknut claiming she WANTED it.

But look on the bright side...some of them will vote ABB. :eyes:

[greyl]

40. There's none of that in this thread. You're too angry to talk with. nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. If this were the only thread on the subject you would be correct

And yes, I am angry. Comparing the cases where minorites have been convicted without a scintilla of actual evidence and SOLELY on the basis of the testimony of others is a bit different than comparing all the millionaires who are seving time for rape...Andrew Luster is the only one I can think of at the moment..and YES...go back and read the opening poster's remarks on this subject.

Again, if two women's DNA were on Kobe, he'd be getting a high five.

[greyl]

49. Whaaaat kind of logic is that. I AM correct.

My statement was about this thread.
I don't see any neanderthal behavior being exhibited by those that doubt that the prosecution has a strong case.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Hey comeon..maybe we have a slight difference of interpretation

sgr2 (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-15-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. Huh?


So the fact that she was running around having sex with a bunch of people doesn't affect your judgement about the case at all? Basically she would have had to do the following:

Put on her panties. Have sex with someone other than Kobe. Fail to change her panties. Have sex with Kobe (Forced or not). Keep panties on the next day on the way to the hospital.

I'm all for prosecuting rapists, but I am not for blindly believing every accusation. Especially when there is evidence to show that the 'victim' isn't exactly a picture of moral conviction.

Read THAT post..he makes it sound as though she CHEATED on KOBE. I am specifically referring to the line "having sex with someone other than Kobe". According to her she was RAPED by KOBE and admitted having sex PRIOR to. On no, uh uh..nothing NEANDERTHAL about that one.

[greyl]

56. Definitely.

To me, you thinking that the line "having sex with someone other than Kobe" equals "betrayed Kobe" or "cheated on Kobe" is irrational. Procunsul even. ;)

[Skittles]

71. I'M GLAD YOU ARE BACK TEENA

WELL SAID. :thumbsup:

[sendero]

75. The...

... leaps of 'logic' some people can make never cease to amaze me. "There was bird shit on the car so it *couldn't* have been in a crash".

The only real question is whether they are really that thick or if their love of a "sports hero" blinds them to the possiblity he might be a lowlife.

There is a hell of a lot more evidence than panties and it is not looking good for Kobe. We've already seen how low the defense will go, which makes me think they know they are going to have a tough case.

Nobody is going to convict someone like Kobe of rape on the say-so of some young woman. Trust me on this, there is plenty of real evidence or the prosecutor would not be wasting his time.

[Loyal]

114. Being raped

is not justification for murder. You're a lawyer, NSMA, you know that. Unless you are in imminent danger you cannot claim self-defense. Obviously if the guy is beating you up or armed then that is one thing, but if you have already been raped and the guy is walking out you cannot just kill him.

[Maddy McCall]

26. Rape charges aren't about the MORALS OF THE VICTIM...

they are about the VIOLENT ACTIONS of the rapist. Rape isn't about sex, it's about violence.

[Maddy McCall]

25. Thank YOU, Paragon...

you took the words right out of my mouth.

ONly virgins can be raped...surely not someone who has ever had sex 9(gasp!) before.

[liberalnurse]

39. Sperm lives for 48 to 72 hours....

On a good day, ejaculated sperm may hang out for a while.....it's not like she didn't change panties as it could of been from the morning....and drainage does occur.

[greyl]

43. but, She said the previous partner wore a condom.

Is it possible she didn't know that sperm can be traced to a specific male?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Is it possible the condom broke?

[greyl]

47. Is it possible she's lying? nt

[bluestateguy]

2. He'll only get off if they move the trial to Denver

Small town jury, celebrity from LA, local girl. I don't see Kobe walking unless they get a change of venue to a more heterogenous community.

[flamingyouth]

3. Wow, yay for Kobe

He's such an upstanding piece of shit, I mean, man. Go Kobe! Karma's a bitch!

[kanrok]

7. Kobe already got off

[MuseRider]

12. Last time I looked

it was legal for a woman to have sex with as many men in as many days as she wants to. Last time I looked it was illegal to force sex on anyone, no matter how many times they have had sex.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Don't tell that to the beer drinking pool shooting burping farting sports

fan.

[MuseRider]

19. Well, like you

I have no fear of the beer drinking pool shooting farting sports fans. LOL! I don't care if she did a strip tease for him, when she said no that SHOULD have been the end of it. It wouldn't have been a nice thing to do to him but she said NO and apparently has the stitches to show for it.

[greyl]

23. The initial report doesn't say she said "no".

snip> (Detective)Winters also acknowledged the woman didn't tell him she told Bryant "no" when he interviewed her the day after the alleged rape.

"I asked the accuser why she never told Mr. Bryant 'no,"' Winters wrote in his report.

Last week, however, Winters testified the woman told him she told Bryant "no" repeatedly, and that Bryant even forced her to turn around and face him and say it at one point.

It was not clear if that came from a later interview with the woman.<snip

[MuseRider]

24. I will admit

that I have not paid THAT much attention to this. It sickens me. To save myself the anger and grief I will feel when he walks out and continues to make millions of dollars and get worshipped while she lives with the after affects of rape, I have not kept up. I will say this, she was bruised and lacerated. I didn't need that many stiches after having babies. It does not sound like much fun to me and does not sound like something she was doing willingly.

[greyl]

28. I haven't paid much attention either.

But if all of the reasoning why he won't and shouldn't get off are to be found in this thread, well...
I just haven't seen evidence that will lead to a conviction yet.

It's really lousy how those who are speculating that he will be found innocent are shadily accused of being cheerleaders for sexual abuse.
That's the same horrible reasoning that lets the guilty go free, and convicts the innocent.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. here try reading a less biased article

I don't have the article that DID indicate that Kobe's semen was found on the first pair but it was and was NOT the subject of Mackey's cross examination of the DETECTIVE who is NOT a MEDICAL EXPERT.

Point number two, she had marks consistent with bruises where she claimed he held her head down on her jaw. Only an ignoramus would make whether she said NO WHILE SHE IS FACE DOWN WITH HIS HAND BRUISING her jaw an issue. We know she WENT there willingly. We KNOW she kissed him.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=790752&tw=wn_wire_story

Jesus fucking christ, next thing you know someone will be suggesting Kobe should send her the fucking DRYCLEANING bill for the fact that HER BLOOD is on HIS shirt.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. Sex is not the issue

The issue isn't whether "the girl" had sex with anyone else, or even with Kobe. The issue is whether or not it was rape. The semen samples don't have anything to do with rape, though they may cast doubt on any forensic evidence the prosecution has.

It's very difficult to prove rape charges one way or another. Which is one of the reasons we have trials in this country.

Actually, there's a lot of things about this case that I've heard that are "shady". I don't blame the accuser for this; I think it's with the Eagle County, CO, prosecutor's office.

--bkl

[FlemingsGhost]

22. It won't be because of that, however.

There are two legal systems in this country: One for the wealthy, one for the poor.

If Kobe Bryant was just another black man, he'd probably be shooting hoops in a maximum security prison by now.

[pasadenaboy]

30. Rape should have the same standard of proof as any other crime

If it comes down to he said/she said, and she has a history of mental instability, I don't know how you can in good conscience say the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Without significant phsical evidence, I see no way this case can get a conviction.

Part of our system protects the innocent to an extent the guilty go free. I would rather protect the innocent defendent, even if the cost is the guilty go free, than to convict the guilty at the expense of the innocent accused.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. While I FULLY agree with your second paragraph

I completely disagree with your first paragraph on behalf of all the patients in mental hospitals that have ever been raped. Certainly a predator spots weakness and that makes the "kill" all the more fun.

[Maddy McCall]

60. and easier.

[Cheswick2.0]

118. yes, because God knows mentally unstable women can't be raped

:eyes:

[JackSwift]

31. I have heard that during the first interview she did not say she

told Bryant "no", and in subsequent interviews she said "no" to Bryant several times. If that is true, he will probably not be found guilty because she will lack credibity. And that's putting it gently.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. IF that is true then maybe, he can get reimbursed for the drycleaning bill

to get her blood off his shirt.

If my jaw were being bruised, I'd have a hard time saying no too...I'll need to chew my food in the hospital later.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. So how do we know that Kobe bruised her jaw? Because the...

...prosecutor said so? IMHO, both the DA and the prosecutor have already said way too much.

Additionally, the girl's boss said in a sworn statement that she didn't notice anything out of the ordinary when the girl returned to the front desk. Her hair was not out of place and she wasn't disheveled. No comment at all about any bruising. That totally conflicts with the bellman's testimony.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. Hmm..maybe the girl's boss wants other celebrities to stay at the hotel

There is enough evidence against Kobe Bryant -- from a bruise on his accuser's jaw to her blood on his shirt -- for the basketball star to go on trial for rape and be convicted, prosecutors said on Wednesday at the end of a tense two-day preliminary hearing.


But Bryant's high-powered attorney told the judge the 19-year-old woman was "not worthy of your belief" and that there was compelling evidence of his innocence.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=790752&tw=wn_wire_story


The prosecutor apparently said this in closing I would presume although the article does not specifically state so. I am also certain the prosecutor will have time to see if any witnesses were tainted.

Have you ever banged your leg? Does a bruise occur immediately or after the capilaries begin to heal and form scar tissue?

[ForrestGump]

46. I thought Kobe was a kind of beef. I don't

follow sports. I haven't followed this story.

But I am extremely disturbed by some of the male contributions to this thread. If the women of DU weren't already doing such a stellar job of tearing you new orifices, I'd express that disturbance a little more forcefully.

[flamingyouth]

48. I'm sick of Bartcop's blind defense of Kobe

It really irritates me - and whenever anyone calls him on it, he starts lambasting them. Gee, too bad Kobe Bryant's not a Limbaugh-esque radio host. For sure, we'd all be calling for prison time.

[maveric]

54. Almost like your Blind Conviction of him.

The trial isnt over yet and you allready have him painted as a monster. If he's guilty he deserves to rot in jail but lets knock off the reactionary shit and the all men are guilty until proven innocent!

[ShaneGR]

65. It is weird

All defendents are innocent until proven guilty. They don't seem to comprehend that.

[maveric]

53. So is everyone here convinced that Kobe is guilty? It seems that way.

Maybe the woman is lieing? Or have you convicted the guy allready?
All that we know for sure right now is that he cheated on his wife and there were allegations of rape.
Why is the man always guilty before he is convicted?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. I don't think I SAID he was guilty. There seem to be many on DU that

automatically suggest that the alleged VICTIM is lying based on HER credibility, but when one brings up that MINOR stain on Kobe's credibility (fucking around on his wife and newly born child), then we are all convicting him before the fact.

Guess what, so far the only person who is ACTUALLY caught lying or CHEATING about ANYTHING is Kobe.

Again, I DO NOT ONCE say that he is gulty, I simply REJECT the NOTION that the victim is LYING simply because his attorneys say she is or simply because she HAD consensual sex prior to the time she was in his room either getting raped OR having sex.


All the threads on DU about this subject have read like good old witch hunt scarlet letter laws.

Guess what fellas...sometimes we have sex because we actually WANT TO. We forgot to put GET RAPED TODAY on our TO DO list so that the physical evidence wouldn't overlap.

[maveric]

57. The victim could be lieing and Kobe could also be, but why do people..

always take the side of the poor white girl over the rich black guy. I beleive that they both are hiding something. BTW the night auditor testified that a few minutes after the alleged rape the victim was back at her work station, showing no signs of distress, no marks or bruises, and she went about her job as she normally would and as cheery as she normally was.
Do you think that there is a chance that she is lieing?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. Anything is possible

At the risk of repeating myself, please read my other posts. She DOES have physical evidence. She MAY be lying. So might the night auditor (doubt that an employee reporting a celebrity rape is good for business in an upscale hotel) So might the detective be lying (does the name Mark Furhman ring a bell?)

Seems to me that the PRESUMPTION around DU has NOT been about Kobe's innocence (which is a principle I believe in) but that SHE IS LYING.

It sets the tone for most threads on the matter.

I simply will argue against that PREJUDICE as much as I would ARGUE against anyone who AUTOMATICALLY suggests he is guilty.

[Shrek]

78. I think you HAVE to presume she's lying.

It's an unfortunate side effect of the presumption of innocence. Follow the logic:

The accuser alleges that Bryant committed a crime.
I presume Bryant is innocent.
Therefore, I presume that the accuser must be lying.

Note that I'm not saying I BELIEVE she's lying; but I if I presume Bryant's innocence then I necessarily have to presume that the accuser is lying.

[bloom]

79. I generally believe that there is a reason that someone is charged

with a crime - or else I would have to presume that the prosecutor is lying. Unless there is a reason for THAT - I don't really presume that the defendent is innocent.

That doesn't mean that he doesn't have to be proven gulity. But it does mean there is some assumption of possible guilt or he wouldn't be in court to begin with.

[Shrek]

80. Fair enough.

If you don't agree with the presumption of innocence then my argument falls apart. But "innocent until proven guilty" has long been a part of our legal system and many still find it to be a wise course.

[GAspnes]

94. actually, no, you don't

by presuming the innocence of the accused, you are prevented from punishing him immediately. You are holding your judgement in abeyance.

The accuser's claim is evidence. When taken into account and accepted by a jury, the 'presumption of innocence' departs and the accused is convicted.

You're mixing up the timeline here, and deliberately too, I might add.

[Cheswick2.0]

119. you are living up to your name tonight

You pressume someone is innocent and that means the witness is a liar? Nah, that's not right.

[Maddy McCall]

59. NO. Who would throw themself into this maelstrom on purpose???

Look at what she has been through? NO amount of money is worth it--seems like most of you think she's "in it for the money."

I would not sell my future happiness and safety for any amount of money; however, I would to see that someone who raped me was prosecuted.

[VermontDem2004]

69. If she is lying then what for?

Up to this point they she is not looking for an out-of-court settlement. So it can't be for the money, media attention, I highly doubt it.

[Nevernose]

83. Sad but true -- Rape is the most falsely reported of all crimes

And civil cases are rarely filed until the criminal case is decided. A defense attorney can always say "look, jurors, she just wants money -- she's already suing him for 85 gazillion dollars." And in the event of a "guilty" verdict, all the ground waork has already been laid, making it much easier and cheaper to get a "liable" verdict later.

I don't know why a woman would falsely report a rape. Beyond being a tragedy, it's just plain sick. A false rape allegation might be worse than an actual rape, because then you've not only sullied a man's reputation, but you've dishonored the thousands of women who really ARE raped and abused everyday in every city across the world. It's sick, sick shit, and women admit to doing it all the time.

Note: I'm not saying that Kobe's accuser is lying, just trying to answer your question, and maybe ask some questions of my own.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. There are NO MORE incidents of falsely reported rapes than

falsely reported car thefts. That is an internet rumor made possible by MEN'S RIGHTS sites and a faulty study by Eugene Kanin which even HE DISMISSED as PROOF of false claims.

The only thing it proves is that the INTERNET IS SHIT.

http://www.internetisshit.org/

[Nevernose]

87. I don't get my info (on this) from the internet

And I agree with you that those "men's rights" sites are shit, and are probably the same sort of people who bemoan the lack of "caucasian's rights."

BUT: I work in the D.A.'s office. :-) I've seen it happen with my own two eyes, and seen it happen more times than the average person would be comfortable with -- and I've yet to see anyone falsely report a stolen car. This doesn't mean it's not possible, mind you, just that I haven't seen it.

What I HAVE seen is teenage girls breakdown and admit they're lying while FEMALE District Attorneys, who are trying to HELP them, try and figure out how to deal with the holes in her story (and ALL victim's stories, regardless of crime, have holes in them; it's human nature). It happens, and while it's not a regular occurance, it's frequent enough that any DA prosecuting a rape charge will tell you the same thing; they're always paranoid about whether the victim is telling the truth.

Of course, I've watched many times as the bailiffs escort a shackled young man to prison for ten years or so (and experience first hand the joys of being raped), and see this happen FAR more often than I see girl lying about it. And there's really not many better feelings than watching a rapist go to prison -- in fact, I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it.

[VermontDem2004]

61. So?

It turns out that when the girl showed up at the hospital the next day, she had sperm on her panties from ANOTHER man.

[Frederic Bastiat]

62. She's toast

Nobody is going to believe her, the only way she can win this case is if they take it to Eagle county, (small white surburb - black dude rapes "innocent" blonde). This is f*cked up on so many levels.

[VermontDem2004]

68. You assume

prodimently white communities are automatically racist? I believe he can get a fair trial in Eagle County.

[HornBuckler]

63. I Agree

Despite What Little We Know - I'll Bet Top Dollar Kobe Walks Free -

Evidence Is Irrlevent - The Case Is Bigger Than That.

[ShaneGR]

64. Wow, talk about a vicious crowd around here, I say you're blind

All these people accusing me of not caring about rape victims and being some kind of bad person. Let me tell you something, if this girl was raped, then I hope Kobe goes to jail for it.

But, that doesn't mean I can't be objective about the whole situation and the 'victim' involved.

It has now been confirmed that this woman has done the following:

1. Attempted to commit suicide, not once, but twice as confirmed by 9/11 calls from her college dorm. this was before Kobe.

2. Bragged about having sex with Bryant at a party following the event, at least three kids have come forward to say as much.

3. Wore panties to her medical exam with someone other than Kobe's semen and pubic hair in them.


Where I come from in America, defendents are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and conviction requires the case to be proven WITH NO DOUBT.

I'm just not seeing that here, and I'm offended by all these people who accuse me of being anti-woman or pro-rape. GIVE ME A BREAK.

[DemExpat]

66. I agree with you, sgr2......

This is a discussion about reasonable doubt, and that's how I took your post too.

DemEx

[VermontDem2004]

67. 1 and 3 are pointless

Just because someone attempted to commit suicide doesn't mean they imagined a rape or whatever, depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain which leads you to be depressed and depressed people don't imagine stuff or make up stuff usually.

3. So?

[ShaneGR]

70. He said she said

He says it was consentual sex, she says it was rape. But now, she's saying to ignore the semen from that other guy, that was consentual. But not Kobe. That was rape.

Obviously it is a very big deal.

[bloom]

76. It is only a big deal because people such as yourself think it is.

It is actually quite meaningless.

[amazona]

95. some kinds of depressives do imagine stuff

If she's bipolar, then making up stuff and imagining it's true is par for the course. And it is very difficult to deal with, because often the bipolar person can never be convinced that some of their "best" stories started off as just that, stories. We're going through it with a friend right now. Unfortunately, memory and rational thought also need the proper brain chemistry to work correctly. It is well known that depressives take a less optimistic view of a situation than "normal" people do -- sometimes to the point of completely distorting an event and taking something in completely the wrong manner. I'm not saying that this happened here, to this girl. I know very little about her other than the fact that her depression was apparently severe enough to cause her to put on a dirty pair of panties, a level of depression I can hardly imagine (which in turn just reflects on my programming as a woman, I suppose).

But when we pretend that one's mental state has no influence on what one sees and experiences...we are not doing our cause any good because we are stating a clear untruth.


unfortunately, simple clearcut cases do no need to be decided in a court of law, it is the conflicting stories that need this sort of testing

[bloom]

72. "WITH NO DOUBT" - not true - it is reasonable doubt.

Of course that is what all the brou-ha-ha is - trying to create doubt.

Sounds like it's working.

Too bad more people don't see the doubt-creating tactics for what they are.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Pretend she's Mother Theresa

Apparently some folks have it on good evidence that she was lying too, but as I recall you would have none of that.

[ender]

113. it isnt "WITH NO DOUBT"

its beyond a reasonable doubt.

i.e. if i walk outside and everything is wet, i can assume that it rained. i mean... maybe some nut was out with a hose and sprayed everything, but that isnt *reasonable*.

[joeybee12]

74. All I'm gonna say is, Why did she do that?

I'm not saying it proves anything.

But what was she thinking??????

[Redbear]

77. Putting aside the emotional issues

The defense is certainly trying to affect the jury pool.

The part about the panties she wore to the hospital may not even come into evidence at trial. Since there is a gag order, the only way to get out this "evidence" was at this hearing.

[demgurl]

82. Maybe I am wrong here, but.......

here is how I read the article:

Winters said the woman told him she had consensual sex with another man on June 28 and used a condom, backing earlier defense suggestions she was sexually active before her encounter with Bryant.

Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested - one from the night of June 30, the other the pair she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day.

The latter pair contained blood and semen, Winters said.

"The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else's semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?" Mackey asked.

"That's correct," Winters responded.

The way I read it, is that she had sex before Kobe. She had sex (consensual or not) with Kobe. She brought two pairs of panties to the hospital. One was from the night with Kobe and one she wore. It said that the pair she wore that day had the blood, not the pair from the night with Kobe. If she was bleeding, I would think that she would have also bled on the pair she wore the night of the alleged rape, yes? The pair with the blood also had the semen. This, of course, was not Kobe's semen.

I understand that they say she was sexually active before the rape. There is nothing illegal about being sexually active, she is an adult. I did not read and now have I heard that these panties are from before the encounter with Kobe.

I am forced to look at this from a woman's perspective. I sit here imagining that I have been raped. I decide to go to the cops the next day. I have been through a traumatic experience. I am getting dressed to go to the precinct. Of course I do not want to wear panties I was raped in, I am too traumatized. This is where I have a problem. Wouldn't I wear clean panties? I have been raped and do not want to think of sex with a man for quite a while. Do I wear dirty underwear, that I had sex in, a few days before? Or do I wear clean underwear?

Here is the deal, in reality, I actually was raped about fifteen years ago. Any time a woman may make up an accusation, it takes away from real cases. Cases like mine. It took me six years before I could even say the word raped. I would say the guy forced himself on me, but I could not say that word. I know what it is like from the victim's perspective. I have to say that before I go on to what I hope is a wrong conclusion.

What really happened? How many of us go out each day in dirty underwear? There has been much speculation about Kobe's guilt or innocence. There have been witnesses that say that she acted like nothing was wrong (I immediately went to a friend for help and could not have acted normal even if I had tried)and that she even boasted about having sex with Kobe.(I would never have boasted about having sex with my rapist, in fact, I tried to find ways to destroy his life!) This brings me to what I think may have happened, but I hope not.

I contend that she had consensual sex with Kobe. Maybe she decided that she would cash in on his celebrity. Maybe she has problems. Maybe she did not realize how rough it would get for her being in the press and scrutinized. Whatever the case may be, I believe she got dressed that morning. Maybe she likes sex or maybe she has a boyfriend. I contend she had sex that morning with whoever she was with and then she went to the police station. Maybe she did not realize that they would want her current panties. Then she had to make up something quick. I mean, what rape vic would have sex the very next day after being raped. I wouldn't!

My hypothesis is that the second pair of panties seems to support this theory. I am betting she is on the pill and thus the panties had a semen stain and blood. A lot of celebrities use condoms to protect themselves from a lot of different things from disease to unwanted pregnancies. Where is Kobe's semen? How could he have had time to put on a condom and then rape her? That would take a few extra hands I would think. I have not heard anything about any traces of his sperm.

I am a woman and I hope I am wrong. I am trying to keep an open mind until the trial is over, if there is a trial. We shall see how it all turns out. I hope I am wrong and that there are not women out there as vindictive as this.

Christina

[cally]

102. Perhaps she had not done her laundry?

What does dirty panties have to do with anything.

We do not know why she did that but wearing dirty underwear or having consensual sex has nothing to do with whether she was raped. Some of your other information has not been proved in court. I have heard differently about how she acted so it's up to the jury to decide with evidence.

[joeybee12]

109. I would assume she knew she was gonna have tests done

You would think she would know that she should not have anything on that might interfere with those tests.

If nothing else, it's a really stupid thing to do.

[cally]

112. Considering that

some on this thread think it means she was lying because she wore dirty underwear, yeah it was a stupid thing to do. Maybe she was emotionally distraught over what had happened the night before and was not thinking correctly. Or spent the night crying and did not do her laundry.

I have no idea why, just that it seems to have little to do with her credibility. And again, the jury has to decide. I am not saying he is guilty.

[joeybee12]

116. Hey, I'm not on the jury either

Not sure how this would affect me, because quite frankly, unless you're on that jury, you're not going to hear everything, just what has been filtered down through the media.

All I'm gonna say for this is that this thread ain't gonna die soon!

Almost as long the Pedro-Zimmer threads!

[Nevernose]

85. REAONABLE DOUBT

Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested - one from the night of June 30, the other the pair she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day.

The latter pair contained blood and semen, Winters said.

"The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else's semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?" Mackey asked.

"That's correct," Winters responded.


How do we know for CERTAIN which sexual encounter led to the vaginal tearing/abrasion? This is what's known as REASONABLE DOUBT.

If the panties she was wearing the night she was with Kobe did not contain blood and semen, and the panties she wore to the hospital the next day contained someone else's semen, then how do we know FOR CERTAIN whose semen got where and when? This isn't about her sexual history, it's about REASONABLE DOUBT.

Winters also acknowledged the woman didn't tell him she told Bryant "no" when he interviewed her the day after the alleged rape.

"I asked the accuser why she never told Mr. Bryant 'no,"' Winters wrote in his report.

Last week, however, Winters testified the woman told him she told Bryant "no" repeatedly, and that Bryant even forced her to turn around and face him and say it at one point.

It was not clear if that came from a later interview with the woman.


Does the fact that she gave the investigating detective different stories at different times raise questions as to her credibility, and make it difficult to dtermine FOR CERTAIN which of her version of events is accurate? This is a REASONBLE DOUBT.

Again, this isn't about who is more believable, it's about what can be PROVEN, and there are (judging by what's public information) some serious issues concerning the prosecution's ability to prove Bryant's guilt beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

86. Reasonable doubt is for a JURY to decide

A preliminary hearing is where a judge decides if there is compelling evidence to send it to a trial where the shit the defense pulled might not be admissible under Colorado law.

[Nevernose]

88. But most DUers have already made up their mind, haven't they?

My fault for not making myself more clear, and I apologize:

THE NEW THESIS SENTENCE:
The evidence regarding the accuser's recent sexual history, semen found in her underpants, and potentially-varying stories to the investigating police are not about slandering her name, they are instead very valid points which cast a very reasonable doubt on the accuser's claims.

As far as this being a preliminary hearing, you're right, of course. I wasn't under the impression that reasonable doubt NOW is an issue, but that the evidence presented now WILL make a good case for reasonable doubt.

I also think that we haven't seen everything the prosecution's got. I just can't believe they'd take evidence this flimsy to trial --against a wealthy, famous person with unlimited resources -- without something a hell of a lot better.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. Yes they have made up their minds and we HAVE to consider THAT

which they relied upon.

1) Internet rumors started by the FREE KOBE sites.

2) His off court persona.

3) A line of interrogation of a DETECTIVE concerning MEDICAL evidence ( clearly outside his field of expertise) and mostly NOT acceptable at the time of trial based on Colorado's OWN rape shield laws.

I agree that the prosecution MAY have bungled, but I DO get a sense the judge will hold it over for trial since the threshold of a preliminary hearing is actually quite low comparatively.

That said, I doubt this trial can occur in America since the only person they could get to assess it without the prejudice the MEDIA has planted is Ted Kazinski and he is in dispose.

BTW on edit...I read your response above to me and since it is based on your experience, I will take you at your word in the matter and obviously can't rebut it since I am not in a DA's office.

[NicoleM]

91. You're making some pretty big assumptions there.

Besides, there are also plenty of people who have their minds made up that he did it, because she said he did.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

93. Which assumptions are too big for you?

That the media has incredible influence in our lives? Ask the focus study groups that McDonald's conducts.

That the intent of the evidence was to poison the jury pool? It is a reasonable assumption since this defense attorney is rather famous for that.

That it will get held over for trial? Cases have been held over for trial with FAR less evidence.

BTW, people who are already decided that he DID do it are just as UNCURIOUS as people who are convinced he didn't.

I do believe one should be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. I just don't think that anything has been persuasively PROVEN yet and KNOW that there is MUCH more evidence than what is presented at a preliminary hearing.

I also consider that while evidence that one cheated on their wife is NOT evidence that they raped anyone, it certainly DOES go to THEIR credibility in the matter.

[NicoleM]

96. 1 and 2.

I feel like you're talking to me like I'm stupid. I'm not. I know the media has an incredible influence on our lives. I'm sure his attorney had her eye on the jury pool during the prelim. I'm sure it will get held over for trial.

I am what some people might call a "Kobe defender." I'm not, particularly, but people jump to conclusions. The way I look at it is, 1) I don't know all of the evidence. I'm not going to get it at a preliminary hearing.
2) If she had sex with somebody right before Kobe, it doesn't mean she wasn't raped. It does mean that it's POSSIBLE that she was injured by someone other than Kobe. In my opinion.
3) If Kobe is innocent, he has a right to present whatever evidence he has to show that.

As far as the adultery is concerned, Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. America voted for him anyway. Furthermore, according to Newsweek, he consulted a divorce attorney in March. They were having "problems" it seems, and as far as any of us know they were separated at the time.

[amazona]

99. i haven't made up my mind

I feel we simply don't know enough to decide the rights and wrongs of this case. It is a difficult matter, and rumors keep flying.

I do have to comment on this:

"I also consider that while evidence that one cheated on their wife is NOT evidence that they raped anyone, it certainly DOES go to THEIR credibility in the matter"

I just can't agree. This is the logic used against Clinton, for just one example. The logic used against Condit, loudly convicted in the press and then page 32nd when they found the guy who actually killed Levy. So on and so forth. Men cheat. Women cheat. Fact of the matter is, primates were not intended to be monogamous and while marriage is a noble experiment, I would say that damn few can honestly claim that they have never cheated on a partner. That doesn't make you a liar in my book. It is just being respectful to your partner not to put it in their face that occasionally you get something strange; being "honest" in such matters is a form of cruelty and self-congratulations, not honesty. I can't see where having cheated on his wife has the slightest effect on Kobe's credibility; we may rest assured that virtually all athletes, politicians, movie stars, etc. cheat on their partners, it comes with the territory.


just my opinion however

[Nevernose]

97. The story in question isn't an "internet rumor"

1. It's the Associated Press. That still might not be worth much, but it has more credibility that "internet rumor."

2. His off-court persona is mostly irrelevant (except for what they are allowed to ask Kobe on the stand), except at the sentencing phase. The sentencing phase is my favorite part: it's where the guilty person's mother gets up in front of the judge and/or jury and says "but he's such a good boy" before the drag her little boy off to prison because he committed some heinous act against both God and man. :evilgrin:

3. The line of questioning that is in question here doesn't concern medical evidence. It concerns whether or not she said "no" to Kobe. The detective said that she said "no multiple times, but his written resords (according to the defense) indicate otherwise. In larger jurisdictions, the detective handling a rape investigation has a great deal of knowledge about rape, since that's specifically one of the things he's trained to do. Even tiny little counties like the one Eagleton is in is bound to have at least one or two detectives assigned to a Sexual Assualt Crimes unit.


CO's rape shield laws don't apply to this evidence. Her sexual history is not what's being questioned, it's whether or not Kobe caused the alleged injuries or whether someone else did. Whether or not she was intimate with her boyfriend or not is irrelevant; whether or not har boyfriend caused the injury IS.

Rape trials are NEVER fair, because the jurors always come with such preconceived notions, in favor of both sides.

Interesting fact: Did you know that D.A.'s prefer MALE jurors in rape trials? Apparently many women come armed with a bias against what the perceive as "slutty" women, while men come with a "protect the woman at all costs" mindset. That's what the prosecutors I know beieve, at any rate -- I'm kind of inclined to doubt it, since you can't really categorize people effectively based solely on gender.

You also wrote: BTW on edit...I read your response above to me and since it is based on your experience, I will take you at your word in the matter and obviously can't rebut it since I am not in a DA's office.

In all fairness, those were purely anecdotal observations. Actual statistics (besides being impossible to keep accurately) might be totally different; I'm only working off of what my own, personal experience had taught me. I should point out that they RARELY lie, but it does happen more than you'd guess.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. No issue with any of that

I was commenting on the interent rumors PRIOR to this news story and in fact, if you take a look there are TWO news stories in this thread. One from a SPORTS NEWS site that makes it look like an acquittal is a slam dunk (no pun intended) and one from a Colorado area newsservice that is a bit less tilted in either direction.

His off court persona is irrelevent at trial but we were talking about whether people had their minds made up already.

If you read the line of questioning in the article there are a couple occasions where the detective answered questions that, had I been present,( although I do cross examinations in injury cases) I would have objected to.

I agree with the fact that he has a right to allege the injuries may have been caused elsewhere and a right to plant that doubt as to his INNOCENCE in the matter but also find that her blood inside his shirt weighs equally in the equation of whether he should be held over for trial. But I also know there is a HUGE push to repeal rape shield laws and have NO doubt that this plays into that as well.

I think most trials where a defendant (especially a minority defendant) doesn't have a pot to piss in have significant fairness issues notwithstanding the fact that IIRC Batson is still an issue (although Batson became an issue AFTER I graduated and I never did crim following and didn't follow up on last year's case)

I would imagine jury consultants have convinced DA's about the paternal instincts of males where rape is concerned so I am not surprised and would imagine there are very specific voire dire lines of questioning to appeal to that instinct.

You presented your anecdotal evidence quite honestly and I am inclined to trust both your presentation and qualification of what you stated.

I DO realize people lie....I simply realize that that is true of claimants, defendents, detectives (Fuhrman ?) and expert witnesses (my particular field of expertise :-) even judges...we had a VERY famous case in San Diego a few years back)

[Nevernose]

105. POSTS LIKE YOURS

Are why I come to DU. Elegant and informed, you have responded in a courteous manner to all of my posts, and I believe we may have had what's known as a "discussion" -- in which ideas are presented, analyzed, and agreed to and/or refuted -- a term which is unfamiliar to many here these days.

While I don't think the rape shield law applies in this case, I guess I hadn't really considered the effects that this case might have on rape shield laws in general.

While EVERYBODY lies, I think it's particularly tragic when a woman lies in the matter of being raped. It's just so shocking. "Why, WHY would she do it?" we ask. It's something particularly vile, so that many people automatically tend to think that the alleged victim is telling the truth, without any regards for what that truth may be (like some Holocaust deniers, not anti-Semitic, but simply unable to beleive that something so horrible could actually have happened).

"but also find that her blood inside his shirt weighs equally in the equation of whether he should be held over for trial"

Without that blood, IMO, there would BE no trial, at least not on the evidence as presented in the article. Do we know how MUCH blood there is? Was it a spot, a drop, or a microscopic amount? As I said before, I don't think the DA in Eagle would have broguht it this far or have gotten this far if he didn't have some other, more damning, evidence up his sleeve.

I say again: it has been a pleasure talking with you, nothingshocks..., and I look forward to agreeing (and disagreeing) with you in the future.

As for me, I'm off to work, another afternoon spent being ground under the wheels of justice. :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

107. I gotta get my butt back to work as well or I won't have any clients left

but agree that the conversation was very worthwhile and very much appreciated your insights.

my first concerns about the rape shield laws being on the chopping block came when Tom Leykis the talk show host revealed the woman's identity and many op eds followed.

I completely agree that women who DO lie about rape are as much of an offense as priests who molest alter boys...it's just ONE of those types of betrayals that is so damning.

When people debate with facts or at least well reasoned anecdotal info it is easy for me to remain civil as there is no hidden prejudice coloring the conversation (which is where I tend to get a bit miffed.)


I'll do the debate dance with you any day of the week.

[geniph]

104. Most DUer's aren't posting on these threads

so you can't assume most of us have made up our minds. I'm not privy to the actual evidence of the case, just the trials (of both defendant and accused) in the media. Since I am adamantly opposed to trial in the media, and don't know the facts, I do not have an opinion about guilt or innocence of the defendant, except insofar as our system presumes innocence until guilt is proven.

I do, however, take serious issue with anyone that thinks that a person who's attempted suicide should be automatically disbelieved (I've attempted suicide. I've also been raped). I also take issue with anyone that believes prior sexual activity means a person couldn't have been raped. Both those ideas are nonsense. And as to having consensual sex after a rape - yes, it does (rarely) happen - some people try to exorcise the rape in that manner (get back on the horse that threw you). It doesn't generally work, but having tried it doesn't mean the person wasn't raped.

Rape is a hard crime to convict, because there's usually no witness to the alleged crime itself. That is why there is so much weight given to the physical evidence of harm to the alleged victim.

And I agree with the poster who stated that this is just another Laci/Condit distraction story to keep our minds off the VERY REAL and NOT CONSENSUAL screwing of all of us by the junta.

[Nevernose]

108. I didn't think I saw anyone here that crass

As to suggest that because someone attempted suicide that they should automatically be disbelieved, or that a person't prior sexual history means that they couldn't have been raped. If someone DID say that on these boards and I just didn't see it (quite likely), then they are ASSHOLES and probably don't have any business being at DU or calling themselves "liberals." We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than those at Freeperville.

I am so very sorry that you had to endure tragedies like that in your life, Geniph. You must be the definition of the word "survivor."

And I agree with the poster who stated that this is just another Laci/Condit distraction story to keep our minds off the VERY REAL and NOT CONSENSUAL screwing of all of us by the junta.

This may be true for some people, or even most of them, but not for me at least. There's plenty of time in the day to follow useless crap like Kobe and still keep up with the latest abuses of our government.

I guess that's why we're discussing this in the lounge. I, for one, work at the courthouse, in the prosecutor's office... Discussing cases like this, and ten thousand other cases you've never heard of, is what I do all day anyway. For many of the people I know, crime and the criminal justice system is more than a job, it's a hobby and an obsession.

Some people follow the Red Sox, I read reports on the effects of truancy on daytime burglary rates. It's just what I do.

[chiburb]

98. The thing I don't get is...

Why we're so eager to even discuss this here. Aren't we always screaming about the "media" distracting us with "All Kobe, All The Time"? Or "Where's Laci"?
I know this is the Lounge, a place for some silliness and a break from the Clark/Dean/Kerry bashing, and a place I'm grateful exists. But the OP isn't something silly, a poll, a break from GD (or baseball!)... it's something else that I can't put my finger on.
I guess what bothers me is that the OP was serious and discomfiting in the assuredness of the title; that it wasn't even an invitation to discussion. And THAT leads to anger and flames...
JMHO, put me on ignore if you want to.

[MUAD_DIB]

101. It doesn't matter if he is innocent or guilty.

The richer, powerful and well known you are only proves that you can beat the rap.


Regardless give that man a (r) govenorship somewhere. He's earned it, but not before Rush gets his.

</sarcasm>

[KFC]

106. OJ is the prime example

Rich, powerful, well known, and guilty. Playing golf.

[Parche]

115. Dobe

He already "Got off" that night
He is lying, he should be jailed
He is so arrogant

[Padraig18]

120. Can we separate *emotions* from the law here?

Regardless of what any of us *feel* about this case, the *law* is what applies; none of here feel that it's right that * is in the WH, but he is there, last time I looked.

This is an adversary hearing; the Constitution and 800 years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence set it up to happen that way. By definition, it's not going to be pretty and nice--- it's just not the way it works, folks, whether it's rape, car theft, muder or whatever. Kobe Bryant is facing a Class 1 felony charge that, if he is convicted, could cause him to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison--- a long time for someone 25 years-old. Regardless of how much sympathy we may feel for the victim here, we cannot lose sight of the fact that even rape shield laws do not abrogate the guarantees the US Constitution makes to criminal defendants.

This is a drama that will be played out according to the US Constitution and the laws regarding evidence and trial procedure of the State of Colorado.

It's just the way it is, regardless of how we 'feel' about it.

[Cush]

121. oops

wrong thread