Because when you've got a D.A.'s office that has people in it who has shown a pattern of racial harassment while leaking information like a sieve, it's bad for the case.
BTW could you get away from attacking those who disagree with you as encouraging rapists, saying women probably like it, hate women, etc. If you want to debate on ideological grounds I don't mind going debating all day. However the two sentence dismissals with the constant allusions to hating, seeking the debasement, etc of women just isn't where I care to go.
I say a word like groupie and it suddenly becomes gold-digging whore who probably wanted it and enjoys rape. Not really something I said nor do I care to continue to type to defend your constant mischaracterizations.
Because when you've got a D.A.'s office that has people in it who has shown a pattern of racial harassment while leaking information like a sieve, it's bad for the case.
Do you think there is a difference between pulling someone over because they are black and charging them with rape because they are black?
What role has the racial profiler played in this case?
Quote:
BTW could you get away from attacking those who disagree with you as encouraging rapists, saying women probably like it, hate women, etc. If you want to debate on ideological grounds I don't mind going debating all day. However the two sentence dismissals with the constant allusions to hating, seeking the debasement, etc of women just isn't where I care to go.
Two sentences? I posted quite a long and reasonable rebuttal to your piggish ignorance.
Quote:
I say a word like groupie and it suddenly becomes gold-digging whore who probably wanted it and enjoys rape. Not really something I said nor do I care to continue to type to defend your constant mischaracterizations.
Well calling someone a group isn't exactly nice and entails everything gold-digging whore does. What do groupies do? They have sex with rich/famous men. What do gold-digging whores do? They have sex with rich/famous men.
And she is called that all over the place, I don't remember *you* saying it but there are more people than you on this spinning blue ball.
As far as defending yourself, quit saying stupid shit like "if rape is so traumatic..." and you won't have to worry about it.
The fact that you would even question the damage that rape causes reveals quite a bit about your biases.
Do you think there is a difference between pulling someone over because they are black and charging them with rape because they are black?
What role has the racial profiler played in this case?
Two sentences? I posted quite a long and reasonable rebuttal to your piggish ignorance.
Well calling someone a group isn't exactly nice and entails everything gold-digging whore does. What do groupies do? They have sex with rich/famous men. What do gold-digging whores do? They have sex with rich/famous men.
And she is called that all over the place, I don't remember *you* saying it but there are more people than you on this spinning blue ball.
As far as defending yourself, quit saying stupid shit like "if rape is so traumatic..." and you won't have to worry about it.
The fact that you would even question the damage that rape causes reveals quite a bit about your biases.
Yes your long rebuttals basically consist of quoting paragraphs which you then dismiss with two sentences. I quoted your entire last post together this time so you can see the two sentence "rebuttals" all lumped together. Additionally with sharp reasoning like "piggish ignorance" who can't help but agree with you.
As for whether the racial profiling might play a role in this case, who knows. I didn't make it an issue. I just claimed that it was a D.A seeking to make a name for himself, grow his department/budget and use a weak case to do it. You came back with "Yeah but Kobe's got more money than God."
However how much does it cost to prosecute a strong case? (Which you have constant claimed he MUST have) This is likely he said/she said and it is going to get expensive because they are going to have a bunch of experts arguing how a scratch could have occurred etc.
I have no doubt that this case is going to crap out in criminal court and then they will take it to civil court where Kobe will settle out just to get his name out of the news.
As for whether calling someone a groupie is nice or not (and likewise associating it with gold-digging whore (your name not mine)) what the hell is calling someone a rapist? Nice?
As for the "if rape was so traumatic" comment. You twist it for your usual purposes. Typically name calling (hello posting guidelines) acting as reasoning. I didn't say rape wasn't traumatic. Rather I indicated it was and she should have reflected it. I said, gee if rape is traumatic would she really be at a party a few days later trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
You then launch into a tirade about I think women must want it, love it, know nothing about rape, hate women, etc.
Yes your long rebuttals basically consist of quoting paragraphs which you then dismiss with two sentences.
And this is a problem? Isn't that how logical discussion works? Or are you used to two people standing across from each other spewing monologues?
If there's one thing wrong with my posts, it's their brevity.
Quote:
I quoted your entire last post together this time so you can see the two sentence "rebuttals" all lumped together. Additionally with sharp reasoning like "piggish ignorance" who can't help but agree with you.
That wasn't a rebuttal to an argument, it was a comment on your displayed knowledge of rape.
Quote:
I just claimed that it was a D.A seeking to make a name for himself, grow his department/budget and use a weak case to do it. You came back with "Yeah but Kobe's got more money than God."
Here's the problem with your arguments, you make definite statements based on nothing but your own biases. You don't know that he's seeking to make a name for himself. You don't know the case is weak. And yes, Kobe is super rich and that will make the trial process a hell of a lot more expensive as his high-paid lawyers make the prosecution jump through every hoop they can get them to. You have no idea whether or not that extra money request is appropriate, none at all.
Quote:
However how much does it cost to prosecute a strong case? (Which you have constant claimed he MUST have) This is likely he said/she said and it is going to get expensive because they are going to have a bunch of experts arguing how a scratch could have occurred etc.
Likely he said/she said? I suppose we'll see the physical evidence, because there was physical evidence, you know. Actual injuries.
Quote:
I have no doubt that this case is going to crap out in criminal court and then they will take it to civil court where Kobe will settle out just to get his name out of the news.
Do you wonder why there is no civil case against Kobe?
Quote:
As for whether calling someone a groupie is nice or not (and likewise associating it with gold-digging whore (your name not mine)) what the hell is calling someone a rapist? Nice?
Did I call Kobe a rapist?
Quote:
I didn't say rape wasn't traumatic. Rather I indicated it was and she should have reflected it. I said, gee if rape is traumatic would she really be at a party a few days later trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
Was she trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
And if she was, what do you know about rape victims that would indicate this is unexpected behavior?
Ever heard of words like "repression"? "Denial"?
Quote:
You then launch into a tirade about I think women must want it, love it, know nothing about rape, hate women, etc.
The "they must like it" is bitter sarcasm. My assertion that you hate women is, well, merely an observation based on your displayed attitudes and biases. Not that the sight of a woman fills you with murderous rage, but that you instantly doubt their word versus a man's; hence your ludicrous positions on rape. Your painting them as aggressors and men as constant victims leads me to that.
And this is a problem? Isn't that how logical discussion works? Or are you used to two people standing across from each other spewing monologues?
If there's one thing wrong with my posts, it's their brevity.
Discussion yes. Dismissal no.
Quote:
Here's the problem with your arguments, you make definite statements based on nothing but your own biases. You don't know that he's seeking to make a name for himself. You don't know the case is weak. And yes, Kobe is super rich and that will make the trial process a hell of a lot more expensive as his high-paid lawyers make the prosecution jump through every hoop they can get them to. You have no idea whether or not that extra money request is appropriate, none at all.
Ah I see, I suppose you make only suppositions based on objective fact.
First you ask what would show bias with regard to the officers? They sought a warrant without following the normal procedure. They went to the judge without going to the D.A.
What shows the D.A. is seeking attention? Well first it took almost a week to decide whether to prosecute this "very strong" case. Each day of course we would get to read his name yet another time and have folks waiting around for his decision. When it did come it was of course a nice Friday press conference just in time for the evening news reports and insuring it could be a topic for all the Sunday talk shows.
As for jumping through hoops, that is pure speculation. There has been nothing that has shown that Kobe's lawyers have tried to draw this out in anyway. As for whether the funds were appropriate, the D.A. has obviously filed and charged people with sexual assault or rape before. The articles made it clear this was the first time they had requested extra funds EVER. So the D.A. has now gotten something he could never have asked for before and received $105 thousand to start with pretty much an open ended possibility for more. Again it isn't as if much of the case is in doubt. It isn't like they have to prove Kobe was there, that he met the accuser or that they had sex. The only thing they have to prove is that the sex was nonconsentual and both parties have already been to the hospital and provided whatever was needed. Why so much money to prove the word "no."
Quote:
Likely he said/she said? I suppose we'll see the physical evidence, because there was physical evidence, you know. Actual injuries.
Talk about your definite statements....
You know there were injuries how? Because the same folks who claimed she is unstable, an attention seeking groupie, has a dark side, is strong, etc. also claimed they saw evidence of her injury? Because someone "anonymous" in the D.A.'s office leaked it to the media who reported it with no backing? As for physical evidence, sex leaves physical evidence but they aren't trying to prove sex, they are trying to prove rape.
Quote:
That wasn't a rebuttal to an argument, it was a comment on your displayed knowledge of rape.
Comment, more like an attack for no other reason than you don't like my opinion. Her reported behavior didn't reflect someone traumatized by rape. It reflected someone who was a groupie and got what they wanted. You don't like the groupie association nor the evidence backing it so you dismiss it as ignorance. I'm sure you would quote occam's razor when it suits you. Which is the straightest line? Groupie bragging about the sex she had? Or mentally stable person who attempts suicide months prior, seeks celebrity and works at a hotel that caters to rich and celebrities, goes to his room, consents to some acts but not intercourse, leaves, goes in the next morning to report, then goes to a party and brags out of denial, somehow shows some friends physical assault evidence, etc...
To many twists and turns.
Quote:
Do you wonder why there is no civil case against Kobe?
I don't have to wonder. You hit with a case when they are ready to settle. It's already been stated that Kobe Bryant has up to 150 million dollars of endorsements at stake. The burder of proof is lower in a civil case. So you go to the criminal case, let some nasty and embarassing evidence get out there. No conviction occurs, but just about the time the public is ready to forget about it you mention you are going to refresh their memory with a civil case about money. It's been the pattern for a while. Think O.J. Rodney King vs. City of L.A. , etc. The pattern is clear.
Quote:
Was she trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
And if she was, what do you know about rape victims that would indicate this is unexpected behavior?
Ever heard of words like "repression"? "Denial"?
According to published newsreports like this one..
Likewise I would consider repression of the rape or denial of it to be her minimizing that it happened, saying that it didn't really happen, or that she wasn't really hurt from it. If she had claimed on some days she was raped, but not really. Or she was hurt, but not really, or not badly. That would be one thing. She has not appeared to be conflicted about whether she was raped. She just has not acted like someone who was traumatized by being raped.
Quote:
The "they must like it" is bitter sarcasm. My assertion that you hate women is, well, merely an observation based on your displayed attitudes and biases. Not that the sight of a woman fills you with murderous rage, but that you instantly doubt their word versus a man's; hence your ludicrous positions on rape. Your painting them as aggressors and men as constant victims leads me to that.
I don't automatically doubt a woman's word versus a man. However I don't coddle them or assume their innocence when their word is put up against a man's either. I don't paint men as constant victims, I just point out that there are clear areas of imbalance in family courts for example. Likewise I don't automatically award men a status of top dog and women as oppressed if statistics don't bear it out. If I read about women being thrown in jail for not earning enough money or quitting their job, you bet I would post about it.
However statistics like 1000% more suicide, 45% and dropping of college student bodies, 75% of all special ed referrals, drops outs, etc. need a plan of action. Pointing it out doesn't mean men are seeking to have women barefoot and in a kitchen. If women score 10 points lower in math than men it is a nationwide call to action. If men are 75% of all special education referrals it isn't anything. Having a need doesn't denote "victim" status. Sometime folks just need to be served, be they men or women.
First you ask what would show bias with regard to the officers? They sought a warrant without following the normal procedure. They went to the judge without going to the D.A.
Getting arrest warrants from judges is not abnormal at all.
Hurlbert had initially raised questions about the arrest and the sheriff's methods. On Sunday, Hurlbert said Hoy had not followed the standard procedure of asking the district attorney's office for a warrant. Instead, Hoy had shown a local judge the evidence and the judge issued the warrant. But the district attorney backed off a bit Monday.
"What's done is done," he said. "Nothing illegal was done, nothing improper was done. We are looking forward, not backward."
Quote:
What shows the D.A. is seeking attention? Well first it took almost a week to decide whether to prosecute this "very strong" case.
1) Do these types of decisions with regard to such big stars usually not take 'almost a week'? Is the time actually significant?
2) You use quotation marks around "very strong", tell me, where does that quote come from?
Quote:
Each day of course we would get to read his name yet another time and have folks waiting around for his decision.
He's certainly got my vote next time he runs for office in Vail! I'm sure no one there had heard of him before.
And it's certainly not like people wanted to know what was going on. It probably would have been smarter for him to stay in his office and receive calls from 19,000 different media outlets than address them all at once with a press conference.
Quote:
When it did come it was of course a nice Friday press conference just in time for the evening news reports and insuring it could be a topic for all the Sunday talk shows.
It wouldn't have been a topic on the Sunday shows if it were done, say, Wednesday?
It was unwise of him, no doubt, to take time to consult with experts, doctors and other attorneys before deciding to pursue a legal matter. He should've jumped right in!
Quote:
As for jumping through hoops, that is pure speculation. There has been nothing that has shown that Kobe's lawyers have tried to draw this out in anyway.
He already tried to get out of the first hearing. click
Quote:
As for whether the funds were appropriate, the D.A. has obviously filed and charged people with sexual assault or rape before. The articles made it clear this was the first time they had requested extra funds EVER.
Has he ever had the need to request extra funds EVER?
Quote:
So the D.A. has now gotten something he could never have asked for before and received $105 thousand to start with pretty much an open ended possibility for more. Again it isn't as if much of the case is in doubt. It isn't like they have to prove Kobe was there, that he met the accuser or that they had sex. The only thing they have to prove is that the sex was nonconsentual and both parties have already been to the hospital and provided whatever was needed. Why so much money to prove the word "no."
Your ignorance of how the process works is no evidence of impropriety.
The OJ case was simple, as well. His gloves and shoes at the place they were butchered. All they had to prove was that he did it, I wonder why that became such an expensive circus... surely it was because Ito wanted a talk show.
Quote:
You know there were injuries how? Because the same folks who claimed she is unstable, an attention seeking groupie, has a dark side, is strong, etc. also claimed they saw evidence of her injury? Because someone "anonymous" in the D.A.'s office leaked it to the media who reported it with no backing?
Actually DA Hulbert discussed how she went to the hospital and received and examination and that he discussed the results with others who agreed the evidence was enough to press charges.
"We're going to treat it like any other sexual assault case, even though I'm saying that while I'm looking at 20 television cameras," said Hurlbert. "In any case you look at everything, physical evidence, testimony, everything."
Hurlbert said he examined all the evidence and conferred with colleagues all over the state before reaching the decision he announced Friday.
Also of interest:
"I have an ethical burden not to prosecute unless I can prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt," Hurlbert told the crowd of several hundred people during a press conference in front of the Eagle County Justice Center. "I believe I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."
How easy is it, do you think, to prosecute a megarich superstar on he said/she said alone?
Quote:
As for physical evidence, sex leaves physical evidence but they aren't trying to prove sex, they are trying to prove rape.
So there isn't a difference between the physical effects of consensual sex and rape? Or do her physical injuries not reflect rape? Have you seen them and if you have would you even know what to look for?
Quote:
Her reported behavior didn't reflect someone traumatized by rape.
False. Reactions to traumatic incidents can take on a very wide scope of action. Denial. Repression.
Quote:
It reflected someone who was a groupie and got what they wanted.
What she wants is a media circus where she is almost universally decried as a whore who got what she wanted?
And if all she wants is attention, why don't I know her name?
Quote:
You don't like the groupie association nor the evidence backing it so you dismiss it as ignorance.
I dismiss it as ignorance because rape victims do not follow a uniform pattern of behavior where they simply go into their rooms and hide under their bed for the rest of their lives. I dismiss your assertion that her going to a party afterwards is "evidence" that she wasn't raped because it is ignorance in the explicit definition of the word.
Quote:
Which is the straightest line? Groupie bragging about the sex she had?
Do groupies usually file rape charges and hide from the media as well?
Quote:
Or mentally stable person who attempts suicide months prior, seeks celebrity and works at a hotel that caters to rich and celebrities, goes to his room, consents to some acts but not intercourse, leaves, goes in the next morning to report, then goes to a party and brags out of denial, somehow shows some friends physical assault evidence, etc...
Shows some friends? She went to the hospital and had a rape kit done. Cops took Bryant to the hospital to run tests on him as well, "early" July 2.
You know who never went to the hospital? Michael Irvin's accuser.
And out comes the American Idol defense again. You're a master!
Quote:
You hit with a case when they are ready to settle. It's already been stated that Kobe Bryant has up to 150 million dollars of endorsements at stake. The burder of proof is lower in a civil case. So you go to the criminal case, let some nasty and embarassing evidence get out there. No conviction occurs, but just about the time the public is ready to forget about it you mention you are going to refresh their memory with a civil case about money. It's been the pattern for a while. Think O.J. Rodney King vs. City of L.A. , etc. The pattern is clear.
That's very true for those cases, but we don't know how this one will play out at all. We haven't had her mother on TV crying like Ron Goldman's dad. There is absolutely nothing behind your assertion that they are just biding their time.
Quote:
According to published newsreports like this one..
Yes, we're all very aware of Mr. Evancho's story. I wonder, though, trumpt, if you believe Mr. Bray's story as well.
Quote:
Likewise I would consider repression of the rape or denial of it to be her minimizing that it happened, saying that it didn't really happen, or that she wasn't really hurt from it.
So bragging about having sex with him wouldn't be a part of "minimizing that it happend" or especially, expressing "that she wasn't really hurt from it."
It seems like you're making my case for me. Thanks.
Quote:
She just has not acted like someone who was traumatized by being raped.
That is 100% false. Even if she "bragged" about it "kinda" (Mr. Evancho's words "she was bragging about it kinda". Watch the video.) that is not an unexpected behavior for a rape victim.
"What's done is done," he said. "Nothing illegal was done, nothing improper was done. We are looking forward, not backward."
Sounds like 100% spin to me. It's not standard procedure, but it's not illegal.
Quote:
1) Do these types of decisions with regard to such big stars usually not take 'almost a week'? Is the time actually significant?
I can't recall anyone else recently where they had them dead to rights and took almost two weeks to decide whether to charge. It may have taken some time if they had circumstancial evidence that could point at the person, but no eye witnesses, etc. However with Kobe they had records of his stay, eye witnesses, his admission of sex, physical evidence, etc.
The strong case has been implied by you and others because the case is obviously strong enough to get past he said/she said in the prosecutors mind and the admission that there was presexual activity that was consentual. Thus the proof of rape must be quite strong, or it could be the circus-type factors at play like I mentioned.
Quote:
He's certainly got my vote next time he runs for office in Vail! I'm sure no one there had heard of him before.
Well and that is the point isn't it? He now has the name recognition to run for much more than D.A. of the little city of Vail doesn't he. He could run for state-wide office rather easily now couldn't he. To get his name as recognized before this likely would have cost millions and now he's gotten that all for free.
Quote:
It wouldn't have been a topic on the Sunday shows if it were done, say, Wednesday?
It was unwise of him, no doubt, to take time to consult with experts, doctors and other attorneys before deciding to pursue a legal matter. He should've jumped right in!
You are right that it could have possible still been the only topic worth discussing by Sunday even if announced earlier in the week. However by putting it off the the last newsworthy hour on Friday, he literally guaranteed it would be the topic of discussion. As for consulting with experts, well then why not consult over the weekend? It's only one more business day, or again why not earlier in the week. This guy obviously knows his news cycles and used them
to his advantage.
Quote:
He already tried to get out of the first hearing. click
You mean the hearing where they advise him of his rights, tell him his charge and ask him his plea?
The hearing is typically skipped by out of state defendents because it lasts less than 30 minutes. I can't think of a single person, NBA superstar or gas station attendent who would want to fly/drive several hours to say yes to two to three questions and enter a plea when your lawyer can just as easily do it for you. It has absolutly no bearing on the case, the timeline for action on the case, or anything else. It is nothing more than not wanting to spend 7-10 hours to deal with a 15-30 minute issue. You or I would do the same, I have no doubt.
Quote:
Has he ever had the need to request extra funds EVER?
It said that the D.A. had tried several sexual assault cases and also two first degree murder cases. This was the first time they had ever requested additional funds. It also said that he had already hired a media consultant.
He also dropped another very solid case a week before deciding on the Bryant case. Maybe he only wanted to fry the big fish that gets the big name recognition. Seems the assistant D.A.'s and the woman assaulted weren't too pleased about his decision.
Quote:
Your ignorance of how the process works is no evidence of impropriety.
The OJ case was simple, as well. His gloves and shoes at the place they were butchered. All they had to prove was that he did it, I wonder why that became such an expensive circus... surely it was because Ito wanted a talk show.
My ignorance huh? They had no one who could prove or any written evidence to prove O.J at the scene or away from home. They had to prove his intent, that he was there, that he committed the murder and arrived back home. They had to do so without a murder weapon, etc. They started from ground zero with what they had to prove.
In Kobe's case they don't have to prove he was at the hotel that night. The have the fact he was checked in there. They have the phone call records from his room. They have his admission that she went to his room and they had sex. They have a rape kit from him and her. The ONLY thing they have to prove with Kobe is lack of consent, everything else is already a given. 99% of everything is already known and proven. The D.A. only has to prove the last 1%, lack of consent.
Quote:
How easy is it, do you think, to prosecute a megarich superstar on he said/she said alone?
I don't think it is very easy. Of course I have said this likely isn't a very good case and is aiming for a civil issue. As for your link, you claimed in a prior post she had injuries. I said that information was based off of leaks from the D.A.'s office, your link did nothing to disprove what I said. The office is leaking information about possible injuries and there is no way to fight back against it. It could be seen as trying a weak case via the media and attempting to bring about a prejudice against the defendent before the case begins.
Quote:
So there isn't a difference between the physical effects of consensual sex and rape? Or do her physical injuries not reflect rape? Have you seen them and if you have would you even know what to look for?
Again find me a solid source that said there were injuries. It is leaked information that the media has reported. No official has said that there were clear injuries that reflected rape from what I have read nor from what you have linked.
Quote:
False. Reactions to traumatic incidents can take on a very wide scope of action. Denial. Repression.
You are correct they can take on wide range of action. However denial/repression is not the same as bravado in my book. She has not denied the rape to others. She is not repressing the fact that it occured. I could see your position if she had made contradicting comments about rape vs. sex or something of that nature. To me bravado is not denial/repression.
Quote:
What she wants is a media circus where she is almost universally decried as a whore who got what she wanted?
This race isn't even half run. We are talking about the end result of what she wants. Did we initially know the name of Clinton's intern? Oh but in the end ol'Monica didn't do to badly for having a dress ruined did she?
Quote:
I dismiss it as ignorance because rape victims do not follow a uniform pattern of behavior where they simply go into their rooms and hide under their bed for the rest of their lives. I dismiss your assertion that her going to a party afterwards is "evidence" that she wasn't raped because it is ignorance in the explicit definition of the word.
Ah cake and eat it too. Under what circumstances could I doubt the rape charge Grove? If I think her not traumatized, then I am piggishly ignorant because I (by your characterization) don't think rape traumatizes. Then if I say she should reflect being traumatized, then I am ignorant because, hey she doesn't have to act traumatized and be an emotional wreck either.
You claim I automatically give men the benefit of the doubt and slam women. You have given no criteria by which anyone could ever doubt her claim and not be "ignorant" in your book. You are the one who makes it so someone is guilty until innocent. There is no way to cast doubt on the accuser with becoming "ignorant" according to you.
Do groupies usually file rape charges and hide from the media as well?
Who knows? There are lots of dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day. Usually nothing comes to light as long as the money is flowing. Did we know about Jesse Jackson's child until the mom was upset about the support? Did we know about Magic's flings until he contracted AIDS? Did we know about Jordan's gambling, extra-martial affair and child until his father was killed and the woman was upset about the support?
The pattern is clear, embarassing things stay hidden while money is flowing.
Who knows this girls motivations? We won't be completely
clear on them until the end.
Quote:
Shows some friends? She went to the hospital and had a rape kit done. Cops took Bryant to the hospital to run tests on him as well, "early" July 2.
You know who never went to the hospital? Michael Irvin's accuser.
And out comes the American Idol defense again. You're a master!
Your own linklink shows that outsiders have seen this "evidence." They claimed it was visable a week after the incident. I call that showing some friends. As for the American Idol defense, I simply said seeking celebrity. I did not say she went out for American Idol.
Lastly think about the way we have seen most guilty people act. Do they just volunteer up information and evidence? You claim on one hand that Bryant is stonewalling but then you link to the story where he free flew back to the state and offered up all that was asked of him. He flew back and turned himself in once he knew there was going to be an arrest. Not a bit of dragging going on there in my book. He also consented to the rape kit before an arrest warrent had even been issued.
Likewise look how even the friends of the accuser describe Bryant.
Quote:
?They were communicating at a friendship level, and it just went too far,? Starlene said. ?He was a really nice guy, sweet and kind of shy. But no means no.?
?She said he was just really down to earth, and that he was acting like a great guy,? Bray told the Vail Daily.
Now this...
Quote:
That's very true for those cases, but we don't know how this one will play out at all. We haven't had her mother on TV crying like Ron Goldman's dad. There is absolutely nothing behind your assertion that they are just biding their time.
The pattern is clear. You are right that I have nothing to prove they are considering a civil matter, but when the hotel and person accused are worth millions it isn't hard to connect the dots.
Quote:
So bragging about having sex with him wouldn't be a part of "minimizing that it happend" or especially, expressing "that she wasn't really hurt from it."
Not in my book, not as traumatizing as the act of rape is in most instances. The friends that claimed injury said that there was jaw dropping proof of rape on a healthy, young woman a week after the incident. This party occured what, 3 days after the incident. If the news hadn't gotten out yet, why would she even mention it? Likewise the type of injuries they are claiming sound like sizable force from a sizable man was used. To me the straightest path is just that she made this claim with the help of her parents, likely due to some remorse and had no idea how out of hand the whole thing would become.
Also from your earlier link...
Quote:
Meanwhile, a friend of the alleged victim told the Rocky Mountain News that the woman has had second thoughts about filing charges against Bryant.
?She just didn?t think that it was going to get this big,? said Brigitte Lowry, who told the Rocky Mountain News that was a best friend of the accuser.
Quote:
That is 100% false. Even if she "bragged" about it "kinda" (Mr. Evancho's words "she was bragging about it kinda". Watch the video.) that is not an unexpected behavior for a rape victim.
However his statements were also corroborated by other people at the party.
Quote:
The alleged victim was at a party three days before the charges were filed and appeared to be in a good mood, NBC News reported, citing five party attendees.
?She was bragging about it,? party host Steve Evancho told NBC News.
The victim described Bryant?s anatomy when asked about it at the party, the host said.
I can't recall anyone else recently where they had them dead to rights and took almost two weeks to decide whether to charge.
Robert Blake took almost a week, correct me if I'm wrong. With a case against so big a star taking to long to make that kind of decisions seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Quote:
The strong case has been implied by you and others ... Thus the proof of rape must be quite strong, or it could be the circus-type factors at play like I mentioned.
So implications deserve quotes now, eh? Sounds like you can't keep your lies straight.
The DA has what, exactly, to gain by going after Bryant with a weak case? A $105k budget?
Quote:
Well and that is the point isn't it? ... To get his name as recognized before this likely would have cost millions and now he's gotten that all for free.
And it wouldn't hurt him at all if he was exposed as a publicity whore who falsely accused a beloved national basketball star?
Quote:
You are right that it could have possible still been the only topic worth discussing by Sunday even if announced earlier in the week.
The timing doesn't matter. It's still a topic today; weeks later.
Quote:
As for consulting with experts, well then why not consult over the weekend?
I suppose he felt like he had enough.
Quote:
It's only one more business day, or again why not earlier in the week. This guy obviously knows his news cycles and used them to his advantage.
Are you honestly asserting that there would've been a time at all where the media wouldn't swarm all over his announcement whether or not Kobe would've been charged? Is it his fault everyone wanted to know?
Quote:
I can't think of a single person, NBA superstar or gas station attendent who would want to fly/drive several hours to say yes to two to three questions and enter a plea when your lawyer can just as easily do it for you.
From your article:
"The fact that he is not sloughing this off might be important,"
Oh, and those SECRETIVE Bryant lawyers!
Bryant's attorneys are unlikely to want the alleged victim's allegations detailed in open court,
Quote:
It has absolutly no bearing on the case, ... You or I would do the same, I have no doubt.
Dunno, if I were charged with raping someone I might want to be there to face the accusation. Diffrn't Strokes.
Quote:
This was the first time they had ever requested additional funds. It also said that he had already hired a media consultant.
With the media circus this case would be no matter how it was handled him hiring a media consultant is just smart. Your link says she seems uncomfortable in front of cameras.
From your "Dropped Case" link:
Other prosecutors and defense attorneys say Hurlbert is perhaps a bit wide-eyed and out of his league - especially given the limited resources of the small DA's office.
You honestly love shooting yourself in the foot with your own sources.
Quote:
He also dropped another very solid case a week before deciding on the Bryant case. Maybe he only wanted to fry the big fish that gets the big name recognition.
Seems like you have reading problems:
Just a week before he was to go to trial on another sexual-assault case in January
Or maybe you've never seen a calendar.
He dropped a case in January to prepare for the Kobe Bryant case where the incident in question wouldn't even happen for 6 months?
Quote:
My ignorance huh? They had no one who could prove or any written evidence to prove O.J at the scene or away from home. ... They started from ground zero with what they had to prove.
No murder weapon? Big knife not ring any bells? No blood-soaked gloves? Blood in his truck? Bruno Magli shoes, his size? It was a long time ago, granted, but come on now.
Quote:
The D.A. only has to prove the last 1%, lack of consent.
Consent isn't 1% of a rape case, it's damn near 100% of a rape case. And we don't know what the physical evidence is, we will see.
Quote:
As for your link, you claimed in a prior post she had injuries.
What would you call noticeably physical evidence that may be rape? It's an injury. It doesn't have to be an amputated leg to be an injury.
Quote:
I said that information was based off of leaks from the D.A.'s office, your link did nothing to disprove what I said.
The DA said he examined physical evidence and made the decision to prosecute. Physical evidence in a rape case would certainly qualify as an injury. Women are often injured from consensual sex.
Quote:
The office is leaking information about possible injuries and there is no way to fight back against it. It could be seen as trying a weak case via the media and attempting to bring about a prejudice against the defendent before the case begins.
True enough. So could the American Idol defense.
Quote:
You are correct they can take on wide range of action. However denial/repression is not the same as bravado in my book.
Oh so it's "bravado" now, eh? How you love to ratchet up the rhetoric against this girl with absolutely no real knowledge of what happened.
Quote:
She has not denied the rape to others. She is not repressing the fact that it occured. I could see your position if she had made contradicting comments about rape vs. sex or something of that nature. To me bravado is not denial/repression.
And if she did "brag" about Kobe's penis size that wouldn't be denying the rape aspect? Telling her friends that she had sex with him and that he had a big penis wouldn't be denying rape?
Quote:
Oh but in the end ol'Monica didn't do to badly for having a dress ruined did she?
Monica didn't accuse him of rape. Monica didn't accuse him of anything. And yeah, she's living the good life now, hoo-boy!
Quote:
Ah cake and eat it too. Under what circumstances could I doubt the rape charge Grove?
It's not a matter of doubting it, it's a matter of whether or not one feels the need to lambast and take every opportunity to slander a girl who may very well be a rape victim.
Quote:
If I think her not traumatized, then I am piggishly ignorant because I (by your characterization) don't think rape traumatizes. Then if I say she should reflect being traumatized, then I am ignorant because, hey she doesn't have to act traumatized and be an emotional wreck either.
I think you are ignorant because you are not displaying any knowledge of how rape victims actually respond to their attacks.
Quote:
You have given no criteria by which anyone could ever doubt her claim and not be "ignorant" in your book.
Sure, do what many others have done and say, "Hmm, I don't know what happened, I'll wait to see what happens."
What you did was to assert that she acted in a manner contrasting a rape victim. You were/are wrong and ignorant of that particular subject. Simple.
"I don't like cheese."
"I don't like cheese because it is made by Martians."
::
"I doubt this case."
"I doubt this case because she isn't acting like a rape victim."
[quote]You are the one who makes it so someone is guilty until innocent.
I do? Did I call Kobe a rapist?
Quote:
Who knows? There are lots of dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day.
Well we're not talking about "dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day" now are we? We're talking about a girl who went to the cops 24-48 hours after the arrest and is apparently locked up in her house not talking to anyone.
And if you're right and athletes/rock stars are pulling wool like a New Zealand sheep rancher surely we would know of a few cases.
Quote:
Usually nothing comes to light as long as the money is flowing.
We knew about this before there was any money flow at all. There may be money flow after the trial, and if guilty money flow will be 100% reasonable and expected.
Quote:
I call that showing some friends.
You continue to ignore the fact that she went to a hospital. You call it "showing some friends" which is a misrepresentation and is dishonest.
Quote:
Lastly think about the way we have seen most guilty people act. Do they just volunteer up information and evidence?
If they think doing so helps their case, absolutely. And what "evidence" did he "volunteer"?
Quote:
He also consented to the rape kit before an arrest warrent had even been issued.
And would've been stupid not to. Guilty or not-guilty.
Quote:
Now this...
Is his niceness evidence of guilt? Hell no. Is it evidence of innocence? Hell no.
Simplistic and childlike argument. Ted Bundy was a real sweet guy. A realy lady-killer har har.
Quote:
Not in my book, not as traumatizing as the act of rape is in most instances.
You didn't answer the question.
Would "bragging" about the incident not be a textbook case of denying that it was rape/painful/traumatic? Textbook.
You're denying water is wet here, you can't even keep up with your own bullshit.
Quote:
Likewise the type of injuries they are claiming sound like sizable force from a sizable man was used.
You have absolutely no ****ing clue what the injuries "sound like". You are so full of shit it hurts to even read your tripe.
Quote:
However his statements were also corroborated by other people at the party.
And even if 100% true they could very well be wonderful evidence of post-traumatic stress issues and denial.
And it wouldn't hurt him at all if he was exposed as a publicity whore who falsely accused a beloved national basketball star?
It might hurt him except for the nature of rape charges. Rape charges carry the presumption of guilt. Likewise he won't have falsely accused. I'm sure it would be spun as local hero defends small town girl against superstar millionaire and his army of lawyers.
I mean that's what you've said, so why wouldn't he.
Quote:
The timing doesn't matter. It's still a topic today; weeks later.
Right and what makes it a topic. The motions by the D.A. to insure Bryant has to personally show up for the most mundane court matter that take 5-15 minutes to deal with. The leaks about injuries and type of sex that occured between Bryant and the accuser, etc. (I can't link to it but some stories have popped up saying Drudge mentioned it was anal sex on his radio show) To me it just shows more of the same.
Quote:
Are you honestly asserting that there would've been a time at all where the media wouldn't swarm all over his announcement whether or not Kobe would've been charged? Is it his fault everyone wanted to know?
Likewise I suppose it isn't HIS fault he gave the circus a full two weeks to arrive at the show either.
Quote:
From your article:
"The fact that he is not sloughing this off might be important,"
Oh, and those SECRETIVE Bryant lawyers!
Bryant's attorneys are unlikely to want the alleged victim's allegations detailed in open court,
I don't care about what some talking head filled five minutes of 24 hour cable news with speculation.
As for the secretiveness, you honestly don't understand why they wouldn't want the allegations laid out there at a PRILIMINARY hearing? I mean sure there is just the charges laid out there, no cross examination, no defense, just throw them out there and let them ring around in the cable news echo chamber for a week or two until the real trial begins. No one would understand why that could hurt their case, it must be because they are "secretive" and hiding something.
Quote:
From your "Dropped Case" link:
Other prosecutors and defense attorneys say Hurlbert is perhaps a bit wide-eyed and out of his league - especially given the limited resources of the small DA's office.
You honestly love shooting yourself in the foot with your own sources.
I'm shooting myself in the foot when I claim a motivation of him taking the case would be to grow his budget and his office and his office begins hiring folks and getting extra funds to deal with the case. You are clueless.
Quote:
Seems like you have reading problems:
Just a week before he was to go to trial on another sexual-assault case in January
Or maybe you've never seen a calendar.
He dropped a case in January to prepare for the Kobe Bryant case where the incident in question wouldn't even happen for 6 months?
Sorry for directly linking them. My point was that having a strong case isn't the only consideration to go to trial. He had a strong case and dropped it. You have claimed that the only motivation for going to trial would be a strong case. I have said there are other issues like him growing his name recognition, growing his department and budget etc. He drops a strong case, his budget has gone up over $105,000, he is hiring media consultants and some how this is "shooting my claims in the foot."
I've more than proven what I claimed.
Quote:
No murder weapon? Big knife not ring any bells? No blood-soaked gloves? Blood in his truck? Bruno Magli shoes, his size? It was a long time ago, granted, but come on now.
That circumstancial evidence definately proved to anyone who was unbiased that he was the killer. What I am getting at is that there is no circumstancial evidence to have to prove anything outside of consent regarding Bryants case. You won't hear things like "this evidence would place Bryant at X location even though he claims he was at Y location. They know Bryant was in the room with the girl having sex.
Quote:
Consent isn't 1% of a rape case, it's damn near 100% of a rape case. And we don't know what the physical evidence is, we will see.
No proving someone is at the location of the crime and that they had sexual relations is a big part of proving rape. The prosecution has that part of the trial taken care of already.
Quote:
What would you call noticeably physical evidence that may be rape? It's an injury. It doesn't have to be an amputated leg to be an injury.
Noticable evidence could simply be sperm, body hair, other fluids, etc.
Quote:
The DA said he examined physical evidence and made the decision to prosecute. Physical evidence in a rape case would certainly qualify as an injury. Women are often injured from consensual sex.
See above.
Quote:
Oh so it's "bravado" now, eh? How you love to ratchet up the rhetoric against this girl with absolutely no real knowledge of what happened.
Bravado is just a synonym for being boastful. Sorry if you don't like synonyms.
Quote:
And if she did "brag" about Kobe's penis size that wouldn't be denying the rape aspect? Telling her friends that she had sex with him and that he had a big penis wouldn't be denying rape?
No it would be bragging about sex. Denying rape would be her being certain that what happened was not good, but being unsure if she was raped or if she was blaming herself for bringing it on somehow. That to me would be denying rape.
Quote:
It's not a matter of doubting it, it's a matter of whether or not one feels the need to lambast and take every opportunity to slander a girl who may very well be a rape victim.
Slander? So I've lied about the girl? Or are you just upset that I've given the innocent the benefit of the doubt and examined the accuser just like the defense will do. That is what our court system does. It takes the accusations and attempt to insure there is no reasonable doubt on them. That does not mean I have lied and lambasted this girl.
Quote:
I think you are ignorant because you are not displaying any knowledge of how rape victims actually respond to their attacks.
I've explained how I think bragging isn't a coping mechanism. I've explained what my definition of denial regarding rape. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I am ignorant.
Quote:
Repression, denial:
--Survivor may express denial through minimizing the assault (e.g., assault results in slight or no physical injury: "He didn't really hurt me.")
Repression - Forcing of unacceptable ideas and impulses into the unconscious (amnesia, selective loss of memory). A rape victim may not be able to remember particular parts of a rape incident.
Denial - The unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
Quote:
Sure, do what many others have done and say, "Hmm, I don't know what happened, I'll wait to see what happens."
I've done exactly what our court system demands. I've given Bryant the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The D.A., accuser, etc are being challenged because they have made an accusation.
If the girl had slept with Bryant and made no accusation or if other girls have slept with Bryant it isn't like I have doubted them, questioned them or judged them. The reason these actions occur is to insure there is no doubt and that innocent folks don't go to jail.
Quote:
Well we're not talking about "dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day" now are we? We're talking about a girl who went to the cops 24-48 hours after the arrest and is apparently locked up in her house not talking to anyone.
And if you're right and athletes/rock stars are pulling wool like a New Zealand sheep rancher surely we would know of a few cases.
Locked up in her house except for when she is boasting at parties. I have no doubt that the reason she is locked up is to avoid the media circus going on around there.
As for the wool comment, I mentioned a few cases. The money stopped the cases started. The Jordan case involved her wanting 5 million dollars for hush money for example.
Quote:
We knew about this before there was any money flow at all. There may be money flow after the trial, and if guilty money flow will be 100% reasonable and expected.
And if not guilty money flow will be pretty much expected as well as to avoid lurid details sinking millions in endorsement deals.
Quote:
You continue to ignore the fact that she went to a hospital. You call it "showing some friends" which is a misrepresentation and is dishonest.
They are two seperate actions.
a) She went to the hospital and they examined her and filled a rape kit with evidence.
b) Close friends who had seen the evidence claimed it was "jaw dropping" and visible a week later.
The two are not related. I call the second action showing some friends. I do not call the first one that so move on now that your confusion is cleared up.
Quote:
If they think doing so helps their case, absolutely. And what "evidence" did he "volunteer"?
He went to the hospital and gave them a full examination which included his filling of a rape kit as well which included swabs of saliva, other body fluids, physical examination, etc. That in my book is called full disclosure.
Is his niceness evidence of guilt? Hell no. Is it evidence of innocence? Hell no.
Except they are the accusers description of him. Remember they need evidence of guilt. Being innocent is presumed.
Likewise I like the association with Ted Bundy. Nice to know that a rape accusation gets you associated in sentences with serial killers nowadays.
Quote:
You didn't answer the question.
Would "bragging" about the incident not be a textbook case of denying that it was rape/painful/traumatic? Textbook.
You're denying water is wet here, you can't even keep up with your own bullshit.
Isn't bullshit. I've defined what I consider denial to be and now I have linked to rape related websites that define it as well. None of the links defined denial as associated with bragging, bravado or even being willing to use innuendo. They defined it as someone who tries to deny the rape occured to themselves. Why don't you link and support your own contention since it is so "textbook."
I think it's more accurate to say that embarassing things stay hidden while the father is being responsible.
I'm sure if you look into the matters regarding Jordan, Jackson and others, they were already getting money and the responsibilities were being met. It became a court matter when the money given was ratcheted up or declared to be not enough.
It might hurt him except for the nature of rape charges. Rape charges carry the presumption of guilt. Likewise he won't have falsely accused. I'm sure it would be spun as local hero defends small town girl against superstar millionaire and his army of lawyers.
So you?re saying that even if Kobe is found not guilty he will still be seen as a rapist? Should we look at Michael Irvin again?
The case has to come to a conclusion. If Kobe is found guilty then the DA deserves all the credit he gets. If he is found not-guilty he will be seen as an attention-seeker which is not good. Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Right and what makes it a topic. The motions by the D.A. to insure Bryant has to personally show up for the most mundane court matter that take 5-15 minutes to deal with.
Kobe Bryant being accused of rape makes it a story, not anything the DA does. Anything Hurlbert does is incidental WRT media coverage.
Quote:
Likewise I suppose it isn't HIS fault he gave the circus a full two weeks to arrive at the show either.
What the hell does that mean? Why would ?the circus? need two weeks? It would take maybe a day at the absolute most to get every interested major network at his press conference, if not a few hours. We don?t live in the 1900s anymore.
Quote:
As for the secretiveness, you honestly don't understand why they wouldn't want the allegations laid out there at a PRILIMINARY hearing?
Rolling eyes smiley. Sarcasm.
Quote:
I'm shooting myself in the foot when I claim a motivation of him taking the case would be to grow his budget and his office and his office begins hiring folks and getting extra funds to deal with the case. You are clueless.
What does he have to gain by falsely accusing a very popular and well-loved athlete with his ?motivation? being to grow his budget. Honestly, I can?t believe you even continue with such a stupid argument.
Should DA?s not take cases that require larger budgets?
Quote:
My point was that having a strong case isn't the only consideration to go to trial. He had a strong case and dropped it. You have claimed that the only motivation for going to trial would be a strong case.
Did the DA say he had a strong case with the one he dropped?
Again, you?re full of shit.
Quote:
No proving someone is at the location of the crime and that they had sexual relations is a big part of proving rape. The prosecution has that part of the trial taken care of already.
Proving proximity in rape cases is nothing, especially when there is physical evidence that they had sex. Proving the location of the accused is nothing. Consent is the entire issue.
Quote:
Bravado is just a synonym for being boastful. Sorry if you don't like synonyms.
Dishonest synonyms, no.
Quote:
Denying rape would be her being certain that what happened was not good, but being unsure if she was raped or if she was blaming herself for bringing it on somehow.
Not even to acknowledge how ridiculously singular and narrow your definition is, how do you know she didn?t go through that?
Quote:
I've explained what my definition of denial regarding rape. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I am ignorant.
It?s not a matter of simply determining what one?s definition is and then simply disagreeing. It?s not like picking a favorite color.
Quote:
*definitions*
Thanks for helping my point.
A part of denying one was raped could very well be telling your friends that it was consensual sex and even ?bragging?. You know, unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
She doesn?t want to acknowledge rape so she describes it as consensual and brags about it. That is exactly what you just posted.
So you?re saying that even if Kobe is found not guilty he will still be seen as a rapist? Should we look at Michael Irvin again?
The case has to come to a conclusion. If Kobe is found guilty then the DA deserves all the credit he gets. If he is found not-guilty he will be seen as an attention-seeker which is not good. Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with it.
Well you mention Michael Irvin and that is all good and fine, but things don't always work out that well. I suppose everyone thinks O.J. is innocent because he wasn't convicted right? Michael Jackson wasn't convicted and surely no one thinks him capable of doing something sexual with a child. I could go on but the point is made. Kobe can easily be seen as a rapist without a conviction.
The D.A. could end not getting a conviction but be seen as someone who just could not overcome the amount of money and power Bryant would have brought to the trial. They are already setting up the anchor points for that already. In that instance he would still get all the benefits, and pretty much none of the problems. He would just be seen as a good (electable) guy who couldn't make a broken system beat a wealthy and powerful man.
Quote:
Kobe Bryant being accused of rape makes it a story, not anything the DA does. Anything Hurlbert does is incidental WRT media coverage.
Again this pattern will likely be even easier to spot over time. How just enough information seems to leak out to keep the talking heads talking.
Quote:
What the hell does that mean? Why would ?the circus? need two weeks? It would take maybe a day at the absolute most to get every interested major network at his press conference, if not a few hours. We don?t live in the 1900s anymore.
You are correct that within a few hours the local network news people could get there. You could have a reporter who contributes to an AP story that everyone then pics up. That groups is much smaller. The circus that I see in the press photos is there because they had the time to get there.
Quote:
What does he have to gain by falsely accusing a very popular and well-loved athlete with his ?motivation? being to grow his budget. Honestly, I can?t believe you even continue with such a stupid argument.
Look this issue isn't black and white. You see it as a losing proposition if he loses. I see him as winning regardless of what he does. Regardless of what he does he has more money and more people and some clear arguments that he should keep them. He has a lot more folks know who he is and that helps his career. If he wins, it's like hitting a grand slam in the World Series. If he loses, well their small town office was just a farm team trying to beat the Yankees and he pitched his best. All I am trying to get at is that there was more to the decision making process than guilt and innocence.
Quote:
Did the DA say he had a strong case with the one he dropped?
The assistant DA's who were working on it classified it as a strong case.
Quote:
Proving proximity in rape cases is nothing, especially when there is physical evidence that they had sex. Proving the location of the accused is nothing. Consent is the entire issue.
Thanks for basically repeating my point. Hey 99% of everything they need to prove is already proven. Duh!!
Quote:
Not even to acknowledge how ridiculously singular and narrow your definition is, how do you know she didn?t go through that?
I don't know that she hasn't gone through that. I haven't read any reports saying she has. However I did say that I wouldn't have lowered her credibility because of that.
I suppose I have improved. My definition has moved from "ignorant" to "ridiculously narrow."
Quote:
It?s not a matter of simply determining what one?s definition is and then simply disagreeing. It?s not like picking a favorite color.
Well my definitions came from rape crisis websites. You are welcome to cite your own.
Quote:
Thanks for helping my point.
A part of denying one was raped could very well be telling your friends that it was consensual sex and even ?bragging?. You know, unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
She doesn?t want to acknowledge rape so she describes it as consensual and brags about it. That is exactly what you just posted.
Again the definitions dealt with the woman blaming herself and wavering between knowing it was wrong and rape, or knowing it was wrong, but maybe the "deserved it" or "I brought this one myself." This example doesn't sound like anything that could even be remotely associated with those terms. You are doing some serious stretching. Rather than repeating yourself why don't you find some links that educate and put them in the thread.
Well you mention Michael Irvin and that is all good and fine, but things don't always work out that well.
Give me some other cases of athletes accused of sexual assault, then.
Quote:
I suppose everyone thinks O.J. is innocent because he wasn't convicted right?
Quite a bit more against OJ than there was against Kobe. And I don't remember anyone going after Nicole/Ron's character the way people are rabidly attacking Kobe's accuser.
Quote:
Michael Jackson wasn't convicted and surely no one thinks him capable of doing something sexual with a child.
Michael Jackson might be an alien, he isn't comparable to anyone anywhere ever. Also, Jackson settled out of court and paid to keep everything hush-hush.
Quote:
Kobe can easily be seen as a rapist without a conviction.
Can, yes. Is that the way things are right now? No, not even close.
Quote:
The D.A. could end not getting a conviction but be seen as someone who just could not overcome the amount of money and power Bryant would have brought to the trial. They are already setting up the anchor points for that already.
It's possible, but how are they setting it up? Given how non-media-savvy this DA has proven to be, I wonder how he'll manage against Kobe in a media war.
Quote:
In that instance he would still get all the benefits, and pretty much none of the problems. He would just be seen as a good (electable) guy who couldn't make a broken system beat a wealthy and powerful man.
We'll see the circumstances if it happens. If the evidence fries Kobe in the court of public opinion that has nothing to do with the DA.
Quote:
Again this pattern will likely be even easier to spot over time. How just enough information seems to leak out to keep the talking heads talking.
That works both ways; in this case it is working even harder against the accuser.
Quote:
You are correct that within a few hours the local network news people could get there. You could have a reporter who contributes to an AP story that everyone then pics up. That groups is much smaller. The circus that I see in the press photos is there because they had the time to get there.
The local affiliates to major networks feed the majors anyway and if that isn't good enough Vail is ~100 miles from Denver and Boulder. Satellite crews from ABC to CNN to FOX would be there for the announcement within a couple of hours. Two weeks has nothing to do with setting up a media circus, nothing at all. If anything it might cool the story down.
Quote:
Regardless of what he does he has more money and more people and some clear arguments that he should keep them. He has a lot more folks know who he is and that helps his career.
The fact that he is getting exposure indicates nothing about his motivation. You are starting with a weak point and providing nothing to reinforce it.
Quote:
All I am trying to get at is that there was more to the decision making process than guilt and innocence.
You can't prove that at all. Not even close. Of course you believe it, you want to believe it.
Quote:
The assistant DA's who were working on it classified it as a strong case.
He obviously disagreed. Since you got called on a lie on this point I suggest you move on.
Quote:
Hey 99% of everything they need to prove is already proven.
So you think, in rape cases, 99% of the time is spent on determining whether or not the accused and the accuser were actually together at the time in question? Do you think it actually gets this far if that is not set in concrete?
Consent is the case. Consent is the issue in rape, not proximity.
Quote:
Again the definitions dealt with the woman blaming herself and wavering between knowing it was wrong and rape, or knowing it was wrong, but maybe the "deserved it" or "I brought this one myself."
Bullshit!
This is what you quoted:
Repression - Forcing of unacceptable ideas and impulses into the unconscious (amnesia, selective loss of memory). A rape victim may not be able to remember particular parts of a rape incident.
Denial - The unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
You are a liar and a bad one at that. You are completely dishonest intellectually and you repeatedly wrap yourself up in your own spinning.
"Bragging" fits both of the definitions that YOU posted.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Why whoops?
It might hurt the prosecution's case.
Originally posted by groverat
Why whoops?
Because when you've got a D.A.'s office that has people in it who has shown a pattern of racial harassment while leaking information like a sieve, it's bad for the case.
BTW could you get away from attacking those who disagree with you as encouraging rapists, saying women probably like it, hate women, etc. If you want to debate on ideological grounds I don't mind going debating all day. However the two sentence dismissals with the constant allusions to hating, seeking the debasement, etc of women just isn't where I care to go.
I say a word like groupie and it suddenly becomes gold-digging whore who probably wanted it and enjoys rape. Not really something I said nor do I care to continue to type to defend your constant mischaracterizations.
Nick
Because when you've got a D.A.'s office that has people in it who has shown a pattern of racial harassment while leaking information like a sieve, it's bad for the case.
Do you think there is a difference between pulling someone over because they are black and charging them with rape because they are black?
What role has the racial profiler played in this case?
BTW could you get away from attacking those who disagree with you as encouraging rapists, saying women probably like it, hate women, etc. If you want to debate on ideological grounds I don't mind going debating all day. However the two sentence dismissals with the constant allusions to hating, seeking the debasement, etc of women just isn't where I care to go.
Two sentences? I posted quite a long and reasonable rebuttal to your piggish ignorance.
I say a word like groupie and it suddenly becomes gold-digging whore who probably wanted it and enjoys rape. Not really something I said nor do I care to continue to type to defend your constant mischaracterizations.
Well calling someone a group isn't exactly nice and entails everything gold-digging whore does. What do groupies do? They have sex with rich/famous men. What do gold-digging whores do? They have sex with rich/famous men.
And she is called that all over the place, I don't remember *you* saying it but there are more people than you on this spinning blue ball.
As far as defending yourself, quit saying stupid shit like "if rape is so traumatic..." and you won't have to worry about it.
The fact that you would even question the damage that rape causes reveals quite a bit about your biases.
It might hurt the prosecution's case.
If it did that would be a shame if it wasn't shown that the racial profiler(s?) actually did anything inappropriate.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Do you think there is a difference between pulling someone over because they are black and charging them with rape because they are black?
What role has the racial profiler played in this case?
Two sentences? I posted quite a long and reasonable rebuttal to your piggish ignorance.
Well calling someone a group isn't exactly nice and entails everything gold-digging whore does. What do groupies do? They have sex with rich/famous men. What do gold-digging whores do? They have sex with rich/famous men.
And she is called that all over the place, I don't remember *you* saying it but there are more people than you on this spinning blue ball.
As far as defending yourself, quit saying stupid shit like "if rape is so traumatic..." and you won't have to worry about it.
The fact that you would even question the damage that rape causes reveals quite a bit about your biases.
Yes your long rebuttals basically consist of quoting paragraphs which you then dismiss with two sentences. I quoted your entire last post together this time so you can see the two sentence "rebuttals" all lumped together. Additionally with sharp reasoning like "piggish ignorance" who can't help but agree with you.
As for whether the racial profiling might play a role in this case, who knows. I didn't make it an issue. I just claimed that it was a D.A seeking to make a name for himself, grow his department/budget and use a weak case to do it. You came back with "Yeah but Kobe's got more money than God."
However how much does it cost to prosecute a strong case? (Which you have constant claimed he MUST have) This is likely he said/she said and it is going to get expensive because they are going to have a bunch of experts arguing how a scratch could have occurred etc.
I have no doubt that this case is going to crap out in criminal court and then they will take it to civil court where Kobe will settle out just to get his name out of the news.
As for whether calling someone a groupie is nice or not (and likewise associating it with gold-digging whore (your name not mine)) what the hell is calling someone a rapist? Nice?
As for the "if rape was so traumatic" comment. You twist it for your usual purposes. Typically name calling (hello posting guidelines) acting as reasoning. I didn't say rape wasn't traumatic. Rather I indicated it was and she should have reflected it. I said, gee if rape is traumatic would she really be at a party a few days later trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
You then launch into a tirade about I think women must want it, love it, know nothing about rape, hate women, etc.
Yep, the ends justify the means there. NOT!
Nick
Yes your long rebuttals basically consist of quoting paragraphs which you then dismiss with two sentences.
And this is a problem? Isn't that how logical discussion works? Or are you used to two people standing across from each other spewing monologues?
If there's one thing wrong with my posts, it's their brevity.
I quoted your entire last post together this time so you can see the two sentence "rebuttals" all lumped together. Additionally with sharp reasoning like "piggish ignorance" who can't help but agree with you.
That wasn't a rebuttal to an argument, it was a comment on your displayed knowledge of rape.
I just claimed that it was a D.A seeking to make a name for himself, grow his department/budget and use a weak case to do it. You came back with "Yeah but Kobe's got more money than God."
Here's the problem with your arguments, you make definite statements based on nothing but your own biases. You don't know that he's seeking to make a name for himself. You don't know the case is weak. And yes, Kobe is super rich and that will make the trial process a hell of a lot more expensive as his high-paid lawyers make the prosecution jump through every hoop they can get them to. You have no idea whether or not that extra money request is appropriate, none at all.
However how much does it cost to prosecute a strong case? (Which you have constant claimed he MUST have) This is likely he said/she said and it is going to get expensive because they are going to have a bunch of experts arguing how a scratch could have occurred etc.
Likely he said/she said? I suppose we'll see the physical evidence, because there was physical evidence, you know. Actual injuries.
I have no doubt that this case is going to crap out in criminal court and then they will take it to civil court where Kobe will settle out just to get his name out of the news.
Do you wonder why there is no civil case against Kobe?
As for whether calling someone a groupie is nice or not (and likewise associating it with gold-digging whore (your name not mine)) what the hell is calling someone a rapist? Nice?
Did I call Kobe a rapist?
I didn't say rape wasn't traumatic. Rather I indicated it was and she should have reflected it. I said, gee if rape is traumatic would she really be at a party a few days later trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
Was she trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
And if she was, what do you know about rape victims that would indicate this is unexpected behavior?
Ever heard of words like "repression"? "Denial"?
You then launch into a tirade about I think women must want it, love it, know nothing about rape, hate women, etc.
The "they must like it" is bitter sarcasm. My assertion that you hate women is, well, merely an observation based on your displayed attitudes and biases. Not that the sight of a woman fills you with murderous rage, but that you instantly doubt their word versus a man's; hence your ludicrous positions on rape. Your painting them as aggressors and men as constant victims leads me to that.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
If it did that would be a shame if it wasn't shown that the racial profiler(s?) actually did anything inappropriate.
Don't shoot the messenger....
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
And this is a problem? Isn't that how logical discussion works? Or are you used to two people standing across from each other spewing monologues?
If there's one thing wrong with my posts, it's their brevity.
Discussion yes. Dismissal no.
Here's the problem with your arguments, you make definite statements based on nothing but your own biases. You don't know that he's seeking to make a name for himself. You don't know the case is weak. And yes, Kobe is super rich and that will make the trial process a hell of a lot more expensive as his high-paid lawyers make the prosecution jump through every hoop they can get them to. You have no idea whether or not that extra money request is appropriate, none at all.
Ah I see, I suppose you make only suppositions based on objective fact.
First you ask what would show bias with regard to the officers? They sought a warrant without following the normal procedure. They went to the judge without going to the D.A.
What shows the D.A. is seeking attention? Well first it took almost a week to decide whether to prosecute this "very strong" case. Each day of course we would get to read his name yet another time and have folks waiting around for his decision. When it did come it was of course a nice Friday press conference just in time for the evening news reports and insuring it could be a topic for all the Sunday talk shows.
As for jumping through hoops, that is pure speculation. There has been nothing that has shown that Kobe's lawyers have tried to draw this out in anyway. As for whether the funds were appropriate, the D.A. has obviously filed and charged people with sexual assault or rape before. The articles made it clear this was the first time they had requested extra funds EVER. So the D.A. has now gotten something he could never have asked for before and received $105 thousand to start with pretty much an open ended possibility for more. Again it isn't as if much of the case is in doubt. It isn't like they have to prove Kobe was there, that he met the accuser or that they had sex. The only thing they have to prove is that the sex was nonconsentual and both parties have already been to the hospital and provided whatever was needed. Why so much money to prove the word "no."
Likely he said/she said? I suppose we'll see the physical evidence, because there was physical evidence, you know. Actual injuries.
Talk about your definite statements....
You know there were injuries how? Because the same folks who claimed she is unstable, an attention seeking groupie, has a dark side, is strong, etc. also claimed they saw evidence of her injury? Because someone "anonymous" in the D.A.'s office leaked it to the media who reported it with no backing? As for physical evidence, sex leaves physical evidence but they aren't trying to prove sex, they are trying to prove rape.
That wasn't a rebuttal to an argument, it was a comment on your displayed knowledge of rape.
Comment, more like an attack for no other reason than you don't like my opinion. Her reported behavior didn't reflect someone traumatized by rape. It reflected someone who was a groupie and got what they wanted. You don't like the groupie association nor the evidence backing it so you dismiss it as ignorance. I'm sure you would quote occam's razor when it suits you. Which is the straightest line? Groupie bragging about the sex she had? Or mentally stable person who attempts suicide months prior, seeks celebrity and works at a hotel that caters to rich and celebrities, goes to his room, consents to some acts but not intercourse, leaves, goes in the next morning to report, then goes to a party and brags out of denial, somehow shows some friends physical assault evidence, etc...
To many twists and turns.
Do you wonder why there is no civil case against Kobe?
I don't have to wonder. You hit with a case when they are ready to settle. It's already been stated that Kobe Bryant has up to 150 million dollars of endorsements at stake. The burder of proof is lower in a civil case. So you go to the criminal case, let some nasty and embarassing evidence get out there. No conviction occurs, but just about the time the public is ready to forget about it you mention you are going to refresh their memory with a civil case about money. It's been the pattern for a while. Think O.J. Rodney King vs. City of L.A. , etc. The pattern is clear.
Was she trading innuendo and suggestions about the size of Kobe's member?
And if she was, what do you know about rape victims that would indicate this is unexpected behavior?
Ever heard of words like "repression"? "Denial"?
According to published newsreports like this one..
Bragged
Likewise I would consider repression of the rape or denial of it to be her minimizing that it happened, saying that it didn't really happen, or that she wasn't really hurt from it. If she had claimed on some days she was raped, but not really. Or she was hurt, but not really, or not badly. That would be one thing. She has not appeared to be conflicted about whether she was raped. She just has not acted like someone who was traumatized by being raped.
The "they must like it" is bitter sarcasm. My assertion that you hate women is, well, merely an observation based on your displayed attitudes and biases. Not that the sight of a woman fills you with murderous rage, but that you instantly doubt their word versus a man's; hence your ludicrous positions on rape. Your painting them as aggressors and men as constant victims leads me to that.
I don't automatically doubt a woman's word versus a man. However I don't coddle them or assume their innocence when their word is put up against a man's either. I don't paint men as constant victims, I just point out that there are clear areas of imbalance in family courts for example. Likewise I don't automatically award men a status of top dog and women as oppressed if statistics don't bear it out. If I read about women being thrown in jail for not earning enough money or quitting their job, you bet I would post about it.
However statistics like 1000% more suicide, 45% and dropping of college student bodies, 75% of all special ed referrals, drops outs, etc. need a plan of action. Pointing it out doesn't mean men are seeking to have women barefoot and in a kitchen. If women score 10 points lower in math than men it is a nationwide call to action. If men are 75% of all special education referrals it isn't anything. Having a need doesn't denote "victim" status. Sometime folks just need to be served, be they men or women.
Nick
First you ask what would show bias with regard to the officers? They sought a warrant without following the normal procedure. They went to the judge without going to the D.A.
Getting arrest warrants from judges is not abnormal at all.
click
Hurlbert had initially raised questions about the arrest and the sheriff's methods. On Sunday, Hurlbert said Hoy had not followed the standard procedure of asking the district attorney's office for a warrant. Instead, Hoy had shown a local judge the evidence and the judge issued the warrant. But the district attorney backed off a bit Monday.
"What's done is done," he said. "Nothing illegal was done, nothing improper was done. We are looking forward, not backward."
What shows the D.A. is seeking attention? Well first it took almost a week to decide whether to prosecute this "very strong" case.
1) Do these types of decisions with regard to such big stars usually not take 'almost a week'? Is the time actually significant?
2) You use quotation marks around "very strong", tell me, where does that quote come from?
Each day of course we would get to read his name yet another time and have folks waiting around for his decision.
He's certainly got my vote next time he runs for office in Vail! I'm sure no one there had heard of him before.
And it's certainly not like people wanted to know what was going on. It probably would have been smarter for him to stay in his office and receive calls from 19,000 different media outlets than address them all at once with a press conference.
When it did come it was of course a nice Friday press conference just in time for the evening news reports and insuring it could be a topic for all the Sunday talk shows.
It wouldn't have been a topic on the Sunday shows if it were done, say, Wednesday?
It was unwise of him, no doubt, to take time to consult with experts, doctors and other attorneys before deciding to pursue a legal matter. He should've jumped right in!
As for jumping through hoops, that is pure speculation. There has been nothing that has shown that Kobe's lawyers have tried to draw this out in anyway.
He already tried to get out of the first hearing. click
As for whether the funds were appropriate, the D.A. has obviously filed and charged people with sexual assault or rape before. The articles made it clear this was the first time they had requested extra funds EVER.
Has he ever had the need to request extra funds EVER?
So the D.A. has now gotten something he could never have asked for before and received $105 thousand to start with pretty much an open ended possibility for more. Again it isn't as if much of the case is in doubt. It isn't like they have to prove Kobe was there, that he met the accuser or that they had sex. The only thing they have to prove is that the sex was nonconsentual and both parties have already been to the hospital and provided whatever was needed. Why so much money to prove the word "no."
Your ignorance of how the process works is no evidence of impropriety.
The OJ case was simple, as well. His gloves and shoes at the place they were butchered. All they had to prove was that he did it, I wonder why that became such an expensive circus... surely it was because Ito wanted a talk show.
You know there were injuries how? Because the same folks who claimed she is unstable, an attention seeking groupie, has a dark side, is strong, etc. also claimed they saw evidence of her injury? Because someone "anonymous" in the D.A.'s office leaked it to the media who reported it with no backing?
Actually DA Hulbert discussed how she went to the hospital and received and examination and that he discussed the results with others who agreed the evidence was enough to press charges.
click
"We're going to treat it like any other sexual assault case, even though I'm saying that while I'm looking at 20 television cameras," said Hurlbert. "In any case you look at everything, physical evidence, testimony, everything."
Hurlbert said he examined all the evidence and conferred with colleagues all over the state before reaching the decision he announced Friday.
Also of interest:
"I have an ethical burden not to prosecute unless I can prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt," Hurlbert told the crowd of several hundred people during a press conference in front of the Eagle County Justice Center. "I believe I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."
How easy is it, do you think, to prosecute a megarich superstar on he said/she said alone?
As for physical evidence, sex leaves physical evidence but they aren't trying to prove sex, they are trying to prove rape.
So there isn't a difference between the physical effects of consensual sex and rape? Or do her physical injuries not reflect rape? Have you seen them and if you have would you even know what to look for?
Her reported behavior didn't reflect someone traumatized by rape.
False. Reactions to traumatic incidents can take on a very wide scope of action. Denial. Repression.
It reflected someone who was a groupie and got what they wanted.
What she wants is a media circus where she is almost universally decried as a whore who got what she wanted?
And if all she wants is attention, why don't I know her name?
You don't like the groupie association nor the evidence backing it so you dismiss it as ignorance.
I dismiss it as ignorance because rape victims do not follow a uniform pattern of behavior where they simply go into their rooms and hide under their bed for the rest of their lives. I dismiss your assertion that her going to a party afterwards is "evidence" that she wasn't raped because it is ignorance in the explicit definition of the word.
Which is the straightest line? Groupie bragging about the sex she had?
Do groupies usually file rape charges and hide from the media as well?
Or mentally stable person who attempts suicide months prior, seeks celebrity and works at a hotel that caters to rich and celebrities, goes to his room, consents to some acts but not intercourse, leaves, goes in the next morning to report, then goes to a party and brags out of denial, somehow shows some friends physical assault evidence, etc...
Shows some friends? She went to the hospital and had a rape kit done. Cops took Bryant to the hospital to run tests on him as well, "early" July 2.
You know who never went to the hospital? Michael Irvin's accuser.
And out comes the American Idol defense again. You're a master!
You hit with a case when they are ready to settle. It's already been stated that Kobe Bryant has up to 150 million dollars of endorsements at stake. The burder of proof is lower in a civil case. So you go to the criminal case, let some nasty and embarassing evidence get out there. No conviction occurs, but just about the time the public is ready to forget about it you mention you are going to refresh their memory with a civil case about money. It's been the pattern for a while. Think O.J. Rodney King vs. City of L.A. , etc. The pattern is clear.
That's very true for those cases, but we don't know how this one will play out at all. We haven't had her mother on TV crying like Ron Goldman's dad. There is absolutely nothing behind your assertion that they are just biding their time.
According to published newsreports like this one..
Bragged
Yes, we're all very aware of Mr. Evancho's story. I wonder, though, trumpt, if you believe Mr. Bray's story as well.
Likewise I would consider repression of the rape or denial of it to be her minimizing that it happened, saying that it didn't really happen, or that she wasn't really hurt from it.
So bragging about having sex with him wouldn't be a part of "minimizing that it happend" or especially, expressing "that she wasn't really hurt from it."
It seems like you're making my case for me. Thanks.
She just has not acted like someone who was traumatized by being raped.
That is 100% false. Even if she "bragged" about it "kinda" (Mr. Evancho's words "she was bragging about it kinda". Watch the video.) that is not an unexpected behavior for a rape victim.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
"What's done is done," he said. "Nothing illegal was done, nothing improper was done. We are looking forward, not backward."
Sounds like 100% spin to me. It's not standard procedure, but it's not illegal.
1) Do these types of decisions with regard to such big stars usually not take 'almost a week'? Is the time actually significant?
I can't recall anyone else recently where they had them dead to rights and took almost two weeks to decide whether to charge. It may have taken some time if they had circumstancial evidence that could point at the person, but no eye witnesses, etc. However with Kobe they had records of his stay, eye witnesses, his admission of sex, physical evidence, etc.
The strong case has been implied by you and others because the case is obviously strong enough to get past he said/she said in the prosecutors mind and the admission that there was presexual activity that was consentual. Thus the proof of rape must be quite strong, or it could be the circus-type factors at play like I mentioned.
He's certainly got my vote next time he runs for office in Vail! I'm sure no one there had heard of him before.
Well and that is the point isn't it? He now has the name recognition to run for much more than D.A. of the little city of Vail doesn't he. He could run for state-wide office rather easily now couldn't he. To get his name as recognized before this likely would have cost millions and now he's gotten that all for free.
It wouldn't have been a topic on the Sunday shows if it were done, say, Wednesday?
It was unwise of him, no doubt, to take time to consult with experts, doctors and other attorneys before deciding to pursue a legal matter. He should've jumped right in!
You are right that it could have possible still been the only topic worth discussing by Sunday even if announced earlier in the week. However by putting it off the the last newsworthy hour on Friday, he literally guaranteed it would be the topic of discussion. As for consulting with experts, well then why not consult over the weekend? It's only one more business day, or again why not earlier in the week. This guy obviously knows his news cycles and used them
to his advantage.
He already tried to get out of the first hearing. click
You mean the hearing where they advise him of his rights, tell him his charge and ask him his plea?
Different take on that
The hearing is typically skipped by out of state defendents because it lasts less than 30 minutes. I can't think of a single person, NBA superstar or gas station attendent who would want to fly/drive several hours to say yes to two to three questions and enter a plea when your lawyer can just as easily do it for you. It has absolutly no bearing on the case, the timeline for action on the case, or anything else. It is nothing more than not wanting to spend 7-10 hours to deal with a 15-30 minute issue. You or I would do the same, I have no doubt.
Has he ever had the need to request extra funds EVER?
It said that the D.A. had tried several sexual assault cases and also two first degree murder cases. This was the first time they had ever requested additional funds. It also said that he had already hired a media consultant.
Dropped case
He also dropped another very solid case a week before deciding on the Bryant case. Maybe he only wanted to fry the big fish that gets the big name recognition. Seems the assistant D.A.'s and the woman assaulted weren't too pleased about his decision.
Your ignorance of how the process works is no evidence of impropriety.
The OJ case was simple, as well. His gloves and shoes at the place they were butchered. All they had to prove was that he did it, I wonder why that became such an expensive circus... surely it was because Ito wanted a talk show.
My ignorance huh? They had no one who could prove or any written evidence to prove O.J at the scene or away from home. They had to prove his intent, that he was there, that he committed the murder and arrived back home. They had to do so without a murder weapon, etc. They started from ground zero with what they had to prove.
In Kobe's case they don't have to prove he was at the hotel that night. The have the fact he was checked in there. They have the phone call records from his room. They have his admission that she went to his room and they had sex. They have a rape kit from him and her. The ONLY thing they have to prove with Kobe is lack of consent, everything else is already a given. 99% of everything is already known and proven. The D.A. only has to prove the last 1%, lack of consent.
How easy is it, do you think, to prosecute a megarich superstar on he said/she said alone?
I don't think it is very easy. Of course I have said this likely isn't a very good case and is aiming for a civil issue. As for your link, you claimed in a prior post she had injuries. I said that information was based off of leaks from the D.A.'s office, your link did nothing to disprove what I said. The office is leaking information about possible injuries and there is no way to fight back against it. It could be seen as trying a weak case via the media and attempting to bring about a prejudice against the defendent before the case begins.
So there isn't a difference between the physical effects of consensual sex and rape? Or do her physical injuries not reflect rape? Have you seen them and if you have would you even know what to look for?
Again find me a solid source that said there were injuries. It is leaked information that the media has reported. No official has said that there were clear injuries that reflected rape from what I have read nor from what you have linked.
False. Reactions to traumatic incidents can take on a very wide scope of action. Denial. Repression.
You are correct they can take on wide range of action. However denial/repression is not the same as bravado in my book. She has not denied the rape to others. She is not repressing the fact that it occured. I could see your position if she had made contradicting comments about rape vs. sex or something of that nature. To me bravado is not denial/repression.
What she wants is a media circus where she is almost universally decried as a whore who got what she wanted?
This race isn't even half run. We are talking about the end result of what she wants. Did we initially know the name of Clinton's intern? Oh but in the end ol'Monica didn't do to badly for having a dress ruined did she?
I dismiss it as ignorance because rape victims do not follow a uniform pattern of behavior where they simply go into their rooms and hide under their bed for the rest of their lives. I dismiss your assertion that her going to a party afterwards is "evidence" that she wasn't raped because it is ignorance in the explicit definition of the word.
Ah cake and eat it too. Under what circumstances could I doubt the rape charge Grove? If I think her not traumatized, then I am piggishly ignorant because I (by your characterization) don't think rape traumatizes. Then if I say she should reflect being traumatized, then I am ignorant because, hey she doesn't have to act traumatized and be an emotional wreck either.
You claim I automatically give men the benefit of the doubt and slam women. You have given no criteria by which anyone could ever doubt her claim and not be "ignorant" in your book. You are the one who makes it so someone is guilty until innocent. There is no way to cast doubt on the accuser with becoming "ignorant" according to you.
Do groupies usually file rape charges and hide from the media as well?
Who knows? There are lots of dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day. Usually nothing comes to light as long as the money is flowing. Did we know about Jesse Jackson's child until the mom was upset about the support? Did we know about Magic's flings until he contracted AIDS? Did we know about Jordan's gambling, extra-martial affair and child until his father was killed and the woman was upset about the support?
The pattern is clear, embarassing things stay hidden while money is flowing.
Who knows this girls motivations? We won't be completely
clear on them until the end.
Shows some friends? She went to the hospital and had a rape kit done. Cops took Bryant to the hospital to run tests on him as well, "early" July 2.
You know who never went to the hospital? Michael Irvin's accuser.
And out comes the American Idol defense again. You're a master!
Your own linklink shows that outsiders have seen this "evidence." They claimed it was visable a week after the incident. I call that showing some friends. As for the American Idol defense, I simply said seeking celebrity. I did not say she went out for American Idol.
Lastly think about the way we have seen most guilty people act. Do they just volunteer up information and evidence? You claim on one hand that Bryant is stonewalling but then you link to the story where he free flew back to the state and offered up all that was asked of him. He flew back and turned himself in once he knew there was going to be an arrest. Not a bit of dragging going on there in my book. He also consented to the rape kit before an arrest warrent had even been issued.
Likewise look how even the friends of the accuser describe Bryant.
?They were communicating at a friendship level, and it just went too far,? Starlene said. ?He was a really nice guy, sweet and kind of shy. But no means no.?
?She said he was just really down to earth, and that he was acting like a great guy,? Bray told the Vail Daily.
Now this...
That's very true for those cases, but we don't know how this one will play out at all. We haven't had her mother on TV crying like Ron Goldman's dad. There is absolutely nothing behind your assertion that they are just biding their time.
The pattern is clear. You are right that I have nothing to prove they are considering a civil matter, but when the hotel and person accused are worth millions it isn't hard to connect the dots.
So bragging about having sex with him wouldn't be a part of "minimizing that it happend" or especially, expressing "that she wasn't really hurt from it."
Not in my book, not as traumatizing as the act of rape is in most instances. The friends that claimed injury said that there was jaw dropping proof of rape on a healthy, young woman a week after the incident. This party occured what, 3 days after the incident. If the news hadn't gotten out yet, why would she even mention it? Likewise the type of injuries they are claiming sound like sizable force from a sizable man was used. To me the straightest path is just that she made this claim with the help of her parents, likely due to some remorse and had no idea how out of hand the whole thing would become.
Also from your earlier link...
Meanwhile, a friend of the alleged victim told the Rocky Mountain News that the woman has had second thoughts about filing charges against Bryant.
?She just didn?t think that it was going to get this big,? said Brigitte Lowry, who told the Rocky Mountain News that was a best friend of the accuser.
That is 100% false. Even if she "bragged" about it "kinda" (Mr. Evancho's words "she was bragging about it kinda". Watch the video.) that is not an unexpected behavior for a rape victim.
However his statements were also corroborated by other people at the party.
The alleged victim was at a party three days before the charges were filed and appeared to be in a good mood, NBC News reported, citing five party attendees.
?She was bragging about it,? party host Steve Evancho told NBC News.
The victim described Bryant?s anatomy when asked about it at the party, the host said.
Nick
I can't recall anyone else recently where they had them dead to rights and took almost two weeks to decide whether to charge.
Robert Blake took almost a week, correct me if I'm wrong. With a case against so big a star taking to long to make that kind of decisions seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The strong case has been implied by you and others ... Thus the proof of rape must be quite strong, or it could be the circus-type factors at play like I mentioned.
So implications deserve quotes now, eh? Sounds like you can't keep your lies straight.
The DA has what, exactly, to gain by going after Bryant with a weak case? A $105k budget?
Well and that is the point isn't it? ... To get his name as recognized before this likely would have cost millions and now he's gotten that all for free.
And it wouldn't hurt him at all if he was exposed as a publicity whore who falsely accused a beloved national basketball star?
You are right that it could have possible still been the only topic worth discussing by Sunday even if announced earlier in the week.
The timing doesn't matter. It's still a topic today; weeks later.
As for consulting with experts, well then why not consult over the weekend?
I suppose he felt like he had enough.
It's only one more business day, or again why not earlier in the week. This guy obviously knows his news cycles and used them to his advantage.
Are you honestly asserting that there would've been a time at all where the media wouldn't swarm all over his announcement whether or not Kobe would've been charged? Is it his fault everyone wanted to know?
I can't think of a single person, NBA superstar or gas station attendent who would want to fly/drive several hours to say yes to two to three questions and enter a plea when your lawyer can just as easily do it for you.
From your article:
"The fact that he is not sloughing this off might be important,"
Oh, and those SECRETIVE Bryant lawyers!
Bryant's attorneys are unlikely to want the alleged victim's allegations detailed in open court,
It has absolutly no bearing on the case, ... You or I would do the same, I have no doubt.
Dunno, if I were charged with raping someone I might want to be there to face the accusation. Diffrn't Strokes.
This was the first time they had ever requested additional funds. It also said that he had already hired a media consultant.
With the media circus this case would be no matter how it was handled him hiring a media consultant is just smart. Your link says she seems uncomfortable in front of cameras.
From your "Dropped Case" link:
Other prosecutors and defense attorneys say Hurlbert is perhaps a bit wide-eyed and out of his league - especially given the limited resources of the small DA's office.
You honestly love shooting yourself in the foot with your own sources.
He also dropped another very solid case a week before deciding on the Bryant case. Maybe he only wanted to fry the big fish that gets the big name recognition.
Seems like you have reading problems:
Just a week before he was to go to trial on another sexual-assault case in January
Or maybe you've never seen a calendar.
He dropped a case in January to prepare for the Kobe Bryant case where the incident in question wouldn't even happen for 6 months?
My ignorance huh? They had no one who could prove or any written evidence to prove O.J at the scene or away from home. ... They started from ground zero with what they had to prove.
No murder weapon? Big knife not ring any bells? No blood-soaked gloves? Blood in his truck? Bruno Magli shoes, his size? It was a long time ago, granted, but come on now.
The D.A. only has to prove the last 1%, lack of consent.
Consent isn't 1% of a rape case, it's damn near 100% of a rape case. And we don't know what the physical evidence is, we will see.
As for your link, you claimed in a prior post she had injuries.
What would you call noticeably physical evidence that may be rape? It's an injury. It doesn't have to be an amputated leg to be an injury.
I said that information was based off of leaks from the D.A.'s office, your link did nothing to disprove what I said.
The DA said he examined physical evidence and made the decision to prosecute. Physical evidence in a rape case would certainly qualify as an injury. Women are often injured from consensual sex.
The office is leaking information about possible injuries and there is no way to fight back against it. It could be seen as trying a weak case via the media and attempting to bring about a prejudice against the defendent before the case begins.
True enough. So could the American Idol defense.
You are correct they can take on wide range of action. However denial/repression is not the same as bravado in my book.
Oh so it's "bravado" now, eh? How you love to ratchet up the rhetoric against this girl with absolutely no real knowledge of what happened.
She has not denied the rape to others. She is not repressing the fact that it occured. I could see your position if she had made contradicting comments about rape vs. sex or something of that nature. To me bravado is not denial/repression.
And if she did "brag" about Kobe's penis size that wouldn't be denying the rape aspect? Telling her friends that she had sex with him and that he had a big penis wouldn't be denying rape?
Oh but in the end ol'Monica didn't do to badly for having a dress ruined did she?
Monica didn't accuse him of rape. Monica didn't accuse him of anything. And yeah, she's living the good life now, hoo-boy!
Ah cake and eat it too. Under what circumstances could I doubt the rape charge Grove?
It's not a matter of doubting it, it's a matter of whether or not one feels the need to lambast and take every opportunity to slander a girl who may very well be a rape victim.
If I think her not traumatized, then I am piggishly ignorant because I (by your characterization) don't think rape traumatizes. Then if I say she should reflect being traumatized, then I am ignorant because, hey she doesn't have to act traumatized and be an emotional wreck either.
I think you are ignorant because you are not displaying any knowledge of how rape victims actually respond to their attacks.
You have given no criteria by which anyone could ever doubt her claim and not be "ignorant" in your book.
Sure, do what many others have done and say, "Hmm, I don't know what happened, I'll wait to see what happens."
What you did was to assert that she acted in a manner contrasting a rape victim. You were/are wrong and ignorant of that particular subject. Simple.
"I don't like cheese."
"I don't like cheese because it is made by Martians."
::
"I doubt this case."
"I doubt this case because she isn't acting like a rape victim."
[quote]You are the one who makes it so someone is guilty until innocent.
I do? Did I call Kobe a rapist?
Who knows? There are lots of dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day.
Well we're not talking about "dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day" now are we? We're talking about a girl who went to the cops 24-48 hours after the arrest and is apparently locked up in her house not talking to anyone.
And if you're right and athletes/rock stars are pulling wool like a New Zealand sheep rancher surely we would know of a few cases.
Usually nothing comes to light as long as the money is flowing.
We knew about this before there was any money flow at all. There may be money flow after the trial, and if guilty money flow will be 100% reasonable and expected.
I call that showing some friends.
You continue to ignore the fact that she went to a hospital. You call it "showing some friends" which is a misrepresentation and is dishonest.
Lastly think about the way we have seen most guilty people act. Do they just volunteer up information and evidence?
If they think doing so helps their case, absolutely. And what "evidence" did he "volunteer"?
He also consented to the rape kit before an arrest warrent had even been issued.
And would've been stupid not to. Guilty or not-guilty.
Now this...
Is his niceness evidence of guilt? Hell no. Is it evidence of innocence? Hell no.
Simplistic and childlike argument. Ted Bundy was a real sweet guy. A realy lady-killer har har.
Not in my book, not as traumatizing as the act of rape is in most instances.
You didn't answer the question.
Would "bragging" about the incident not be a textbook case of denying that it was rape/painful/traumatic? Textbook.
You're denying water is wet here, you can't even keep up with your own bullshit.
Likewise the type of injuries they are claiming sound like sizable force from a sizable man was used.
You have absolutely no ****ing clue what the injuries "sound like". You are so full of shit it hurts to even read your tripe.
However his statements were also corroborated by other people at the party.
And even if 100% true they could very well be wonderful evidence of post-traumatic stress issues and denial.
Originally posted by trumptman
The pattern is clear, embarassing things stay hidden while money is flowing.
I think it's more accurate to say that embarassing things stay hidden while the father is being responsible.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
And it wouldn't hurt him at all if he was exposed as a publicity whore who falsely accused a beloved national basketball star?
It might hurt him except for the nature of rape charges. Rape charges carry the presumption of guilt. Likewise he won't have falsely accused. I'm sure it would be spun as local hero defends small town girl against superstar millionaire and his army of lawyers.
I mean that's what you've said, so why wouldn't he.
The timing doesn't matter. It's still a topic today; weeks later.
Right and what makes it a topic. The motions by the D.A. to insure Bryant has to personally show up for the most mundane court matter that take 5-15 minutes to deal with. The leaks about injuries and type of sex that occured between Bryant and the accuser, etc. (I can't link to it but some stories have popped up saying Drudge mentioned it was anal sex on his radio show) To me it just shows more of the same.
Are you honestly asserting that there would've been a time at all where the media wouldn't swarm all over his announcement whether or not Kobe would've been charged? Is it his fault everyone wanted to know?
Likewise I suppose it isn't HIS fault he gave the circus a full two weeks to arrive at the show either.
From your article:
"The fact that he is not sloughing this off might be important,"
Oh, and those SECRETIVE Bryant lawyers!
Bryant's attorneys are unlikely to want the alleged victim's allegations detailed in open court,
I don't care about what some talking head filled five minutes of 24 hour cable news with speculation.
As for the secretiveness, you honestly don't understand why they wouldn't want the allegations laid out there at a PRILIMINARY hearing? I mean sure there is just the charges laid out there, no cross examination, no defense, just throw them out there and let them ring around in the cable news echo chamber for a week or two until the real trial begins. No one would understand why that could hurt their case, it must be because they are "secretive" and hiding something.
From your "Dropped Case" link:
Other prosecutors and defense attorneys say Hurlbert is perhaps a bit wide-eyed and out of his league - especially given the limited resources of the small DA's office.
You honestly love shooting yourself in the foot with your own sources.
I'm shooting myself in the foot when I claim a motivation of him taking the case would be to grow his budget and his office and his office begins hiring folks and getting extra funds to deal with the case. You are clueless.
Seems like you have reading problems:
Just a week before he was to go to trial on another sexual-assault case in January
Or maybe you've never seen a calendar.
He dropped a case in January to prepare for the Kobe Bryant case where the incident in question wouldn't even happen for 6 months?
Sorry for directly linking them. My point was that having a strong case isn't the only consideration to go to trial. He had a strong case and dropped it. You have claimed that the only motivation for going to trial would be a strong case. I have said there are other issues like him growing his name recognition, growing his department and budget etc. He drops a strong case, his budget has gone up over $105,000, he is hiring media consultants and some how this is "shooting my claims in the foot."
I've more than proven what I claimed.
No murder weapon? Big knife not ring any bells? No blood-soaked gloves? Blood in his truck? Bruno Magli shoes, his size? It was a long time ago, granted, but come on now.
That circumstancial evidence definately proved to anyone who was unbiased that he was the killer. What I am getting at is that there is no circumstancial evidence to have to prove anything outside of consent regarding Bryants case. You won't hear things like "this evidence would place Bryant at X location even though he claims he was at Y location. They know Bryant was in the room with the girl having sex.
Consent isn't 1% of a rape case, it's damn near 100% of a rape case. And we don't know what the physical evidence is, we will see.
No proving someone is at the location of the crime and that they had sexual relations is a big part of proving rape. The prosecution has that part of the trial taken care of already.
What would you call noticeably physical evidence that may be rape? It's an injury. It doesn't have to be an amputated leg to be an injury.
Noticable evidence could simply be sperm, body hair, other fluids, etc.
The DA said he examined physical evidence and made the decision to prosecute. Physical evidence in a rape case would certainly qualify as an injury. Women are often injured from consensual sex.
See above.
Oh so it's "bravado" now, eh? How you love to ratchet up the rhetoric against this girl with absolutely no real knowledge of what happened.
Bravado is just a synonym for being boastful. Sorry if you don't like synonyms.
And if she did "brag" about Kobe's penis size that wouldn't be denying the rape aspect? Telling her friends that she had sex with him and that he had a big penis wouldn't be denying rape?
No it would be bragging about sex. Denying rape would be her being certain that what happened was not good, but being unsure if she was raped or if she was blaming herself for bringing it on somehow. That to me would be denying rape.
It's not a matter of doubting it, it's a matter of whether or not one feels the need to lambast and take every opportunity to slander a girl who may very well be a rape victim.
Slander? So I've lied about the girl? Or are you just upset that I've given the innocent the benefit of the doubt and examined the accuser just like the defense will do. That is what our court system does. It takes the accusations and attempt to insure there is no reasonable doubt on them. That does not mean I have lied and lambasted this girl.
I think you are ignorant because you are not displaying any knowledge of how rape victims actually respond to their attacks.
I've explained how I think bragging isn't a coping mechanism. I've explained what my definition of denial regarding rape. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I am ignorant.
Repression, denial:
--Survivor may express denial through minimizing the assault (e.g., assault results in slight or no physical injury: "He didn't really hurt me.")
Rapecrisisonline
More
Repression - Forcing of unacceptable ideas and impulses into the unconscious (amnesia, selective loss of memory). A rape victim may not be able to remember particular parts of a rape incident.
Denial - The unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
Sure, do what many others have done and say, "Hmm, I don't know what happened, I'll wait to see what happens."
I've done exactly what our court system demands. I've given Bryant the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The D.A., accuser, etc are being challenged because they have made an accusation.
If the girl had slept with Bryant and made no accusation or if other girls have slept with Bryant it isn't like I have doubted them, questioned them or judged them. The reason these actions occur is to insure there is no doubt and that innocent folks don't go to jail.
Well we're not talking about "dealings with rich folks that never see the light of day" now are we? We're talking about a girl who went to the cops 24-48 hours after the arrest and is apparently locked up in her house not talking to anyone.
And if you're right and athletes/rock stars are pulling wool like a New Zealand sheep rancher surely we would know of a few cases.
Locked up in her house except for when she is boasting at parties. I have no doubt that the reason she is locked up is to avoid the media circus going on around there.
As for the wool comment, I mentioned a few cases. The money stopped the cases started. The Jordan case involved her wanting 5 million dollars for hush money for example.
We knew about this before there was any money flow at all. There may be money flow after the trial, and if guilty money flow will be 100% reasonable and expected.
And if not guilty money flow will be pretty much expected as well as to avoid lurid details sinking millions in endorsement deals.
You continue to ignore the fact that she went to a hospital. You call it "showing some friends" which is a misrepresentation and is dishonest.
They are two seperate actions.
a) She went to the hospital and they examined her and filled a rape kit with evidence.
b) Close friends who had seen the evidence claimed it was "jaw dropping" and visible a week later.
The two are not related. I call the second action showing some friends. I do not call the first one that so move on now that your confusion is cleared up.
If they think doing so helps their case, absolutely. And what "evidence" did he "volunteer"?
He went to the hospital and gave them a full examination which included his filling of a rape kit as well which included swabs of saliva, other body fluids, physical examination, etc. That in my book is called full disclosure.
Is his niceness evidence of guilt? Hell no. Is it evidence of innocence? Hell no.
Except they are the accusers description of him. Remember they need evidence of guilt. Being innocent is presumed.
Likewise I like the association with Ted Bundy. Nice to know that a rape accusation gets you associated in sentences with serial killers nowadays.
You didn't answer the question.
Would "bragging" about the incident not be a textbook case of denying that it was rape/painful/traumatic? Textbook.
You're denying water is wet here, you can't even keep up with your own bullshit.
Isn't bullshit. I've defined what I consider denial to be and now I have linked to rape related websites that define it as well. None of the links defined denial as associated with bragging, bravado or even being willing to use innuendo. They defined it as someone who tries to deny the rape occured to themselves. Why don't you link and support your own contention since it is so "textbook."
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I think it's more accurate to say that embarassing things stay hidden while the father is being responsible.
I'm sure if you look into the matters regarding Jordan, Jackson and others, they were already getting money and the responsibilities were being met. It became a court matter when the money given was ratcheted up or declared to be not enough.
Nick
It might hurt him except for the nature of rape charges. Rape charges carry the presumption of guilt. Likewise he won't have falsely accused. I'm sure it would be spun as local hero defends small town girl against superstar millionaire and his army of lawyers.
So you?re saying that even if Kobe is found not guilty he will still be seen as a rapist? Should we look at Michael Irvin again?
The case has to come to a conclusion. If Kobe is found guilty then the DA deserves all the credit he gets. If he is found not-guilty he will be seen as an attention-seeker which is not good. Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with it.
Right and what makes it a topic. The motions by the D.A. to insure Bryant has to personally show up for the most mundane court matter that take 5-15 minutes to deal with.
Kobe Bryant being accused of rape makes it a story, not anything the DA does. Anything Hurlbert does is incidental WRT media coverage.
Likewise I suppose it isn't HIS fault he gave the circus a full two weeks to arrive at the show either.
What the hell does that mean? Why would ?the circus? need two weeks? It would take maybe a day at the absolute most to get every interested major network at his press conference, if not a few hours. We don?t live in the 1900s anymore.
As for the secretiveness, you honestly don't understand why they wouldn't want the allegations laid out there at a PRILIMINARY hearing?
Rolling eyes smiley. Sarcasm.
I'm shooting myself in the foot when I claim a motivation of him taking the case would be to grow his budget and his office and his office begins hiring folks and getting extra funds to deal with the case. You are clueless.
What does he have to gain by falsely accusing a very popular and well-loved athlete with his ?motivation? being to grow his budget. Honestly, I can?t believe you even continue with such a stupid argument.
Should DA?s not take cases that require larger budgets?
My point was that having a strong case isn't the only consideration to go to trial. He had a strong case and dropped it. You have claimed that the only motivation for going to trial would be a strong case.
Did the DA say he had a strong case with the one he dropped?
Again, you?re full of shit.
No proving someone is at the location of the crime and that they had sexual relations is a big part of proving rape. The prosecution has that part of the trial taken care of already.
Proving proximity in rape cases is nothing, especially when there is physical evidence that they had sex. Proving the location of the accused is nothing. Consent is the entire issue.
Bravado is just a synonym for being boastful. Sorry if you don't like synonyms.
Dishonest synonyms, no.
Denying rape would be her being certain that what happened was not good, but being unsure if she was raped or if she was blaming herself for bringing it on somehow.
Not even to acknowledge how ridiculously singular and narrow your definition is, how do you know she didn?t go through that?
I've explained what my definition of denial regarding rape. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I am ignorant.
It?s not a matter of simply determining what one?s definition is and then simply disagreeing. It?s not like picking a favorite color.
*definitions*
Thanks for helping my point.
A part of denying one was raped could very well be telling your friends that it was consensual sex and even ?bragging?. You know, unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
She doesn?t want to acknowledge rape so she describes it as consensual and brags about it. That is exactly what you just posted.
As for the wool comment, I mentioned a few cases.
That have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
So you?re saying that even if Kobe is found not guilty he will still be seen as a rapist? Should we look at Michael Irvin again?
The case has to come to a conclusion. If Kobe is found guilty then the DA deserves all the credit he gets. If he is found not-guilty he will be seen as an attention-seeker which is not good. Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with it.
Well you mention Michael Irvin and that is all good and fine, but things don't always work out that well. I suppose everyone thinks O.J. is innocent because he wasn't convicted right? Michael Jackson wasn't convicted and surely no one thinks him capable of doing something sexual with a child. I could go on but the point is made. Kobe can easily be seen as a rapist without a conviction.
The D.A. could end not getting a conviction but be seen as someone who just could not overcome the amount of money and power Bryant would have brought to the trial. They are already setting up the anchor points for that already. In that instance he would still get all the benefits, and pretty much none of the problems. He would just be seen as a good (electable) guy who couldn't make a broken system beat a wealthy and powerful man.
Kobe Bryant being accused of rape makes it a story, not anything the DA does. Anything Hurlbert does is incidental WRT media coverage.
Again this pattern will likely be even easier to spot over time. How just enough information seems to leak out to keep the talking heads talking.
What the hell does that mean? Why would ?the circus? need two weeks? It would take maybe a day at the absolute most to get every interested major network at his press conference, if not a few hours. We don?t live in the 1900s anymore.
You are correct that within a few hours the local network news people could get there. You could have a reporter who contributes to an AP story that everyone then pics up. That groups is much smaller. The circus that I see in the press photos is there because they had the time to get there.
What does he have to gain by falsely accusing a very popular and well-loved athlete with his ?motivation? being to grow his budget. Honestly, I can?t believe you even continue with such a stupid argument.
Look this issue isn't black and white. You see it as a losing proposition if he loses. I see him as winning regardless of what he does. Regardless of what he does he has more money and more people and some clear arguments that he should keep them. He has a lot more folks know who he is and that helps his career. If he wins, it's like hitting a grand slam in the World Series. If he loses, well their small town office was just a farm team trying to beat the Yankees and he pitched his best. All I am trying to get at is that there was more to the decision making process than guilt and innocence.
Did the DA say he had a strong case with the one he dropped?
The assistant DA's who were working on it classified it as a strong case.
Proving proximity in rape cases is nothing, especially when there is physical evidence that they had sex. Proving the location of the accused is nothing. Consent is the entire issue.
Thanks for basically repeating my point. Hey 99% of everything they need to prove is already proven. Duh!!
Not even to acknowledge how ridiculously singular and narrow your definition is, how do you know she didn?t go through that?
I don't know that she hasn't gone through that. I haven't read any reports saying she has. However I did say that I wouldn't have lowered her credibility because of that.
I suppose I have improved. My definition has moved from "ignorant" to "ridiculously narrow."
It?s not a matter of simply determining what one?s definition is and then simply disagreeing. It?s not like picking a favorite color.
Well my definitions came from rape crisis websites. You are welcome to cite your own.
Thanks for helping my point.
A part of denying one was raped could very well be telling your friends that it was consensual sex and even ?bragging?. You know, unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
She doesn?t want to acknowledge rape so she describes it as consensual and brags about it. That is exactly what you just posted.
Again the definitions dealt with the woman blaming herself and wavering between knowing it was wrong and rape, or knowing it was wrong, but maybe the "deserved it" or "I brought this one myself." This example doesn't sound like anything that could even be remotely associated with those terms. You are doing some serious stretching. Rather than repeating yourself why don't you find some links that educate and put them in the thread.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sure if you look into the matters....
I was just going by the examples you listed.
Well you mention Michael Irvin and that is all good and fine, but things don't always work out that well.
Give me some other cases of athletes accused of sexual assault, then.
I suppose everyone thinks O.J. is innocent because he wasn't convicted right?
Quite a bit more against OJ than there was against Kobe. And I don't remember anyone going after Nicole/Ron's character the way people are rabidly attacking Kobe's accuser.
Michael Jackson wasn't convicted and surely no one thinks him capable of doing something sexual with a child.
Michael Jackson might be an alien, he isn't comparable to anyone anywhere ever. Also, Jackson settled out of court and paid to keep everything hush-hush.
Kobe can easily be seen as a rapist without a conviction.
Can, yes. Is that the way things are right now? No, not even close.
The D.A. could end not getting a conviction but be seen as someone who just could not overcome the amount of money and power Bryant would have brought to the trial. They are already setting up the anchor points for that already.
It's possible, but how are they setting it up? Given how non-media-savvy this DA has proven to be, I wonder how he'll manage against Kobe in a media war.
In that instance he would still get all the benefits, and pretty much none of the problems. He would just be seen as a good (electable) guy who couldn't make a broken system beat a wealthy and powerful man.
We'll see the circumstances if it happens. If the evidence fries Kobe in the court of public opinion that has nothing to do with the DA.
Again this pattern will likely be even easier to spot over time. How just enough information seems to leak out to keep the talking heads talking.
That works both ways; in this case it is working even harder against the accuser.
You are correct that within a few hours the local network news people could get there. You could have a reporter who contributes to an AP story that everyone then pics up. That groups is much smaller. The circus that I see in the press photos is there because they had the time to get there.
The local affiliates to major networks feed the majors anyway and if that isn't good enough Vail is ~100 miles from Denver and Boulder. Satellite crews from ABC to CNN to FOX would be there for the announcement within a couple of hours. Two weeks has nothing to do with setting up a media circus, nothing at all. If anything it might cool the story down.
Regardless of what he does he has more money and more people and some clear arguments that he should keep them. He has a lot more folks know who he is and that helps his career.
The fact that he is getting exposure indicates nothing about his motivation. You are starting with a weak point and providing nothing to reinforce it.
All I am trying to get at is that there was more to the decision making process than guilt and innocence.
You can't prove that at all. Not even close. Of course you believe it, you want to believe it.
The assistant DA's who were working on it classified it as a strong case.
He obviously disagreed. Since you got called on a lie on this point I suggest you move on.
Hey 99% of everything they need to prove is already proven.
So you think, in rape cases, 99% of the time is spent on determining whether or not the accused and the accuser were actually together at the time in question? Do you think it actually gets this far if that is not set in concrete?
Consent is the case. Consent is the issue in rape, not proximity.
Again the definitions dealt with the woman blaming herself and wavering between knowing it was wrong and rape, or knowing it was wrong, but maybe the "deserved it" or "I brought this one myself."
Bullshit!
This is what you quoted:
Repression - Forcing of unacceptable ideas and impulses into the unconscious (amnesia, selective loss of memory). A rape victim may not be able to remember particular parts of a rape incident.
Denial - The unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
You are a liar and a bad one at that. You are completely dishonest intellectually and you repeatedly wrap yourself up in your own spinning.
"Bragging" fits both of the definitions that YOU posted.