Kobe trial starts. It's ugly.
Not that this was going to be a beautiful process, but this thing has the potential to get extremely bad before it gets resolved.
Accuser's story is told in court. click
Testifying in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to take the case to trial, Eagle County Detective Doug Winters said DNA testing showed blood found on the T-shirt Bryant was wearing the night of the alleged assault was that of Bryant's accuser.
If this is true, I don't see how you get around it if you're Kobe's defense team.
I won't go through the other details of the actual attack, you are welcome to read them in the article, I find them quite disturbing.
But we get a sneak preview of the defense's plan of action.
(defense attorney Pamela) Mackey asked Winters if the accuser's injuries would be consistent with someone who had had sex with three different men in three days.
Do they have information that she had sex with three different men in three days or is Kobe's defense just trying to scuttle the issue?
And if they do have information that she did, what does it even mean?
This is going to get worse before it gets better. Yikes.
Accuser's story is told in court. click
Testifying in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to take the case to trial, Eagle County Detective Doug Winters said DNA testing showed blood found on the T-shirt Bryant was wearing the night of the alleged assault was that of Bryant's accuser.
If this is true, I don't see how you get around it if you're Kobe's defense team.
I won't go through the other details of the actual attack, you are welcome to read them in the article, I find them quite disturbing.
But we get a sneak preview of the defense's plan of action.
(defense attorney Pamela) Mackey asked Winters if the accuser's injuries would be consistent with someone who had had sex with three different men in three days.
Do they have information that she had sex with three different men in three days or is Kobe's defense just trying to scuttle the issue?
And if they do have information that she did, what does it even mean?
This is going to get worse before it gets better. Yikes.
Comments
Gannett was also upset earlier when defense attorney Pamela Mackey said the woman's name four times when asking questions.
She apologized, saying she would write herself a big note not to say it.
"Or I could get you a big muzzle," Gannett said.
I'm sure the defense will claim the blood and corresponding cuts were initiated during her previous recent sex and were simply reopened while she was with Kobe. Tough case to sell. But I still think they'll find a way to get a hung jury. All it takes is one guy with a yellow number 8 jersey. He is a Laker after all. Stern will pull something out of his ass. Or maybe I'm just becoming even more cynical.
It means they'll try to portray her as a slut when they get to trial. Not all appeals to the jury have to involve the law. He can dunk and she's a ho, so to jail Kobe must not go!
Well of course, but surely you have to have something to prove she's a freaky slut aside from just "SHE IS!".
The case will have to develop, of course, but I just can't imagine going in without anything more than smart-ass quips.
I'm not a defense attorney so I don't really know. Maybe there is a better tact. Maybe going Slut Defense alienates the jury if victim comes across as sympathetic. But if she has physical wounds then that seems the best I can come up with. If it is just he said she said that is one thing but if Kobe didn't hit up the laundry in time and now he's done up Lady MacBeth styles. That blood evidence is making him look guiltys. So yeah, Slut Defense is about as good as anything else I can come up with. It's not like the slut defense has never worked before. Or maybe I've watched too many episodes of Law and Order.
You imply slut indirectly. You hope juror #8, only need one of twelve, thinks to himself that this girl who was having willing sex with two different guys the previous two nights must be easy.
Surely you'll have to bring up guys who will say they had sex with her the previous nights, at the very least. You can't just say "Oh she sleeps around" and have nothing other than those words. Surely not.
Motive for her screaming rape is obvious from there to explain what she gets out of going through all this, she's a golddigger.
She hasn't made any move to get money yet, though.
Or am I getting too cynical again?
I certainly hope so.
Maybe going Slut Defense alienates the jury if victim comes across as sympathetic.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. This can't be smart.
Or maybe I've watched too many episodes of Law and Order.
I think the defense attorney has watched too many episodes as well.
By claiming that she perhaps engaged in frequent casual sex, it would discredit her claim that she was in fact raped. They don't have to show that she was a golddigger, but they can suggest it if the facts could reasonably indicate it.
You can't lie as a defense lawyer, but you can articulate a presentation of the facts that contradicts that which is given by the prosecution enough that a jury cannot be reasonablly sure that it's more likely than not that she was raped.
Surely you'll have to bring up guys who will say they had sex with her the previous nights, at the very least. You can't just say "Oh she sleeps around" and have nothing other than those words. Surely not.
I'm sure they'll do as much, assuming they can get it in, as a response when the same testimony is given by the detective/rape nurse during the actual trial. Not sure if you'd want to go at the victim with it, might seem cruel, but that won't be a problem if they challenge the source of the wounds when discussing the blood/cuts with detective/nurse.
The other way you bring it up is what they achieved today. You use the press to get that fact across to the jury indirectly. Maybe they don't read the papers. Or maybe they do. The story is now out there and they didn't even have to substantiate it. It's in the media and it's now a part of the story, she is a reputed slut. Maybe that hooks a juror.
She hasn't made any move to get money yet, though.
No but the probability that she would has occured to just about everyone and probably would to a jury. I'm sure they can figure out a way to suggest as much. And they'll point out that the reason that she hasn't yet sued is because then that would make it seem like the money is the reason behind the criminal complaint. Therefore the lack of a suit at present doesn't negate the possibility it is about Kobe's bling bling.
I certainly hope so.
I know so.
I think the defense attorney has watched too many episodes as well.
Well it is a good show. But I mean really, what other defenses are there? The victim could just come across as looney or unbelievable. That's an iffy chance to take. He's admitted they had sex. The physical evidence seems to lean towards violence to her. I'll assume that the prior sex partners did nto see blood/cuts. Though if they did that would be a grand slam for the defense getting in the slut thing and that somebody else was rough with her in the same time span. What other defense is there? In all seriousness I think slut is as likely a defense as any to snag a hung jury if the prosecution has blood/cut type stuff and she seems credible. It might not seem like good law but it seems like good jury psychology to me.
By claiming that she perhaps engaged in frequent casual sex, it would discredit her claim that she was in fact raped. They don't have to show that she was a golddigger, but they can suggest it if the facts could reasonably indicate it.
Well I mention golddigger because it's the likely [practical but perhaps non-legal] corellary to consensual sex in this case. Why say else say rape and go through this if it was not rape? There is no relationship, no need for vengeance. The only logical thing that she would have to gain from a false rape allegation is cash. You need to establish consensual sex so that it is not rape. So in my opinion the implication of consensual sex and a false allegation of rape has to be associated with golddigging because that would be the primary motivation for her to go through this circus. That would be what I would want to express to the jury, through court or the papers. It's all good as long as it is in their heads whether or not it is part of the actual case. Newspaper is just about as good as testimony as long as you get the juror thinking about what you want them to think about.
The only logical thing that she would have to gain from a false rape allegation is cash.
And for your troubles you get death threats, break-ins and European hitmen offering Kobe their services. If she's a golddigger, she's a really really bad one.
Anyway, I'm not sayin this shit is how it is or anything cause of course I have no idea what happened but that's the most obvious defense to C.O.D.J.D. Plus it may be their strategy. Seems the slut thing was the only thing they got out of the preliminary hearing. Why not waive it and go to trial without people havin to read and think about for the next year how Kobe bent her over, pulled up her skirt and raped. That's not good stuff to get out there. They must have felt they really wanted to get it out that she was a slut. Or maybe they're incompetent but it seems unlikely. Or maybe they're just stuck with a bad case cause he really did rape her. Or maybe there is a better defense they got in the pipeline that I'm not thinking of.
Originally posted by groverat
And for your troubles you get death threats, break-ins and European hitmen offering Kobe their services. If she's a golddigger, she's a really really bad one.
Lots of people do lots of really, really stupid shit.
You could look at it from the other angle and see how incredibly stupid bryant would have to be to rape this girl. So either way, someone is a complete moron.
That said, I can't tell at all who is lying.
Her story that came out seems very plausible. She gave him a tour, they were both flirting, they kissed consensually, and then when he bent her over a chair and pulled down her panties, she said no but he didn't stop. Then she got free, immediately went down to the desk and told one of her friends she'd been raped.
I think he's going to be the best basketball player in the recreation yard of the Colorado State Penitentiary next year. "Mr. Bryant,, this here is a penile plethysmograph."
I will say this though, I thought they would have had a much stronger case than what has been presented so far. I read Grove's links. (Thanks for posting them.) I also went and found a few others and they were all pretty much rehashes of the same thing.
I personally think though that Kobe is going to go free on this one. Let me tell you why I think he would go free even if he were 100% guilty.
First we were led to believe the evidence on this case was much, much stronger. There was talk of anal rape, stitches, massive bruising, etc.
Instead based off what we have heard so far, we have some vaginal cuts that were a couple millimeters long, a bruise on her chin that can't really even be seen from a photograph and fluid evidence that they had sex. (blood and semen don't prove consent or lack thereof) I do think that her telling the bellhop (assuming he proves credible) adds strength to the case though.
However what is likely to happen looks like just he said, she said with the difference being the story of what happened in the room. That to me is not a strong case. That isn't saying Kobe is innocent, but it isn't a strong case.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
First we were led to believe the evidence on this case was much, much stronger. There was talk of anal rape, stitches, massive bruising, etc.
Instead based off what we have heard so far, we have some vaginal cuts that were a couple millimeters long, a bruise on her chin that can't really even be seen from a photograph and fluid evidence that they had sex. (blood and semen don't prove consent or lack thereof) I do think that her telling the bellhop (assuming he proves credible) adds strength to the case though.
However what is likely to happen looks like just he said, she said with the difference being the story of what happened in the room. That to me is not a strong case. That isn't saying Kobe is innocent, but it isn't a strong case.
Nick
I hadn't heard any of that, and although I admit I haven't really been following the case, I strongly doubt that any of the jurors had heard the evidence was supposed to be "much, much stronger."
I think in the end a case like this is decided more by the plausibility of the stories than any direct evidence, and, at least to me, her story seems more plausible than his.
Originally posted by BRussell
I thought there were rape shield laws to make evidence relating to the slut defense inadmissible. Perhaps not.
Her story that came out seems very plausible. She gave him a tour, they were both flirting, they kissed consensually, and then when he bent her over a chair and pulled down her panties, she said no but he didn't stop. Then she got free, immediately went down to the desk and told one of her friends she'd been raped.
I think he's going to be the best basketball player in the recreation yard of the Colorado State Penitentiary next year. "Mr. Bryant,, this here is a penile plethysmograph."
Apparently, from what I read she was allowed to bring up the sexual episode because the prosecution brough the subject of injuries. The shield law has an exception for injuries that may have been caused before the actual act of rape.
NY Daily News
According to that article, which I wouldn't say is really more than gossip at this point, there was the semen of at least one other man found in her panties.
Originally posted by BRussell
I hadn't heard any of that, and although I admit I haven't really been following the case, I strongly doubt that any of the jurors had heard the evidence was supposed to be "much, much stronger."
I think in the end a case like this is decided more by the plausibility of the stories than any direct evidence, and, at least to me, her story seems more plausible than his.
I don't think they call it innocent until could be plausable. It is innocent until proven guilty. They have to prove that Bryant's character changed suddenly and almost violently within even their own story.
Nick