Kobe Bryant going to trial, but it's already decided
Stick a fork in it..and it goes poof
I'm going to go out on not much of a limb and say this trial is going to pretty much set Kobe Bryant free. Regardless of how much of a good or bad guy he is going to be made out to be the evidence in this case is just horribly week.
This court doc describes the vaginal lacerations as "microscopic." The girl wore underwear to the medical exam that contained her blood but semen with DNA from someone else. When you get to the defense side of the argument it is just so destructive with regard to creating doubt that it makes me wonder why this was brought to court.
Among the most damaging aspects of the defense case...
No rips or tears on any clothing...
No attempts to identify the DNA that is not Bryant's. (How hard is it to just DNA test the boyfriend?)
She stayed well past her shift to meet Bryant.
She scheduled the reservation and knew it was Bryant, when scheduling the rooms she placed at opposite ends of the lodge.
She took an alternative employee only path to Bryant to avoid detection by the bodyguards.
The night auditor indicates she returned to the front desk after incident, didn't give any indication of a problem, filled out her cash sheet and left.
If the threshhold for guilt were lower the prosecution, as for example in oh... a civil liability case... Bryant might have some problems. However to my untrained legal eye, there are huge doubt issues introduced in this case. It also seems that the woman has given inconsistent interview information because there are several mentions of information being disclosed in one interview but not in the other, or not without leading questioning. (Like gee why didn't you say no?)
Anyone setting odds or taking bets?
Nick
I'm going to go out on not much of a limb and say this trial is going to pretty much set Kobe Bryant free. Regardless of how much of a good or bad guy he is going to be made out to be the evidence in this case is just horribly week.
This court doc describes the vaginal lacerations as "microscopic." The girl wore underwear to the medical exam that contained her blood but semen with DNA from someone else. When you get to the defense side of the argument it is just so destructive with regard to creating doubt that it makes me wonder why this was brought to court.
Among the most damaging aspects of the defense case...
No rips or tears on any clothing...
No attempts to identify the DNA that is not Bryant's. (How hard is it to just DNA test the boyfriend?)
She stayed well past her shift to meet Bryant.
She scheduled the reservation and knew it was Bryant, when scheduling the rooms she placed at opposite ends of the lodge.
She took an alternative employee only path to Bryant to avoid detection by the bodyguards.
The night auditor indicates she returned to the front desk after incident, didn't give any indication of a problem, filled out her cash sheet and left.
If the threshhold for guilt were lower the prosecution, as for example in oh... a civil liability case... Bryant might have some problems. However to my untrained legal eye, there are huge doubt issues introduced in this case. It also seems that the woman has given inconsistent interview information because there are several mentions of information being disclosed in one interview but not in the other, or not without leading questioning. (Like gee why didn't you say no?)
Anyone setting odds or taking bets?
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
here's another tip. if you're married, keep your dick in your pants unless it's your wife.
Originally posted by alcimedes
here's another tip. if you're married, keep your dick in your pants unless it's your wife.
especially when your wife is like his..... what the **** was he thinking
Originally posted by alcimedes
here's another tip. if you're married, keep your dick in your pants unless it's your wife.
Or your pet.
Wait.
...
But if he does what you say, how do we benefit?
I was listening to 710am sports today and the lawyers that ventured an opinion said the same thing. The judge HAD to go for a trial BUT, he made it clear in his 8 page order that the case was very weak. And he wasn't very complimentary to the prosecution.
Trump. you forgot to add that she was seen at a party a week or so later and she was actually bragging about Kobe's manhood in front of at least 5 witnesses(msnbc).
From what is currently known...the only real question is what's the story behind her blood in Kobe's shirt.
About Kobe all I can say is he's a ******** idiot. If he was so horny, he could've got one of his bodyguards to get him a $2000 a night model/call girl instead of doing that ugly gold digger.
Hurlbert: I hope he bloody regrets going for his 15 minutes of fame.
Well maybe not that extreme but I used to think he did it and if the above is true it would be hard not to find him "innocent".
Originally posted by murbot
Maybe she was all into it until inch #12. THEN the "noooo" started.
It did mention some redness on the cervix.
Nick
Originally posted by Gilsch
I agree with Trump
I was listening to 710am sports today and the lawyers that ventured an opinion said the same thing. The judge HAD to go for a trial BUT, he made it clear in his 8 page order that the case was very weak. And he wasn't very complimentary to the prosecution.
Trump. you forgot to add that she was seen at a party a week or so later and she was actually bragging about Kobe's manhood in front of at least 5 witnesses(msnbc).
From what is currently known...the only real question is what's the story behind her blood in Kobe's shirt.
About Kobe all I can say is he's a ******** idiot. If he was so horny, he could've got one of his bodyguards to get him a $2000 a night model/call girl instead of doing that ugly gold digger.
Hurlbert: I hope he bloody regrets going for his 15 minutes of fame.
Oh I had heard about that but Grove and I had a rather long thread about all the rumor and innuendo. This one I figured would focus on the actual evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.
Upon reading some analysis of others it looks like this wouldn't have even been bound over to trial if the law didn't force the judge to view every inference in the most favorable light for the prosecution. The jury has to do basically the opposite of that which means this case is profoundly weak.
Nick
He's just another basketball player who made the decision to forego the process of growing up, in favor of entering the NBA at age 18 to get his millions and his fame. Which of course is a bad thing to give to a person who is not mentally and emotionally mature yet.
Once people recognize that's the problem with the NBA in particular, we won't see as much of this crap.
The fact that she had sex with someone else a few days earlier is completely irrelevant and probably won't make it to trial anyway. I don't understand why you say it creates doubt about the rape.
And I'm surprised that you left out what is really the key piece of exonerating evidence: The accused is a rich celebrity.
Originally posted by BRussell
Trumptman, how come you left out two critical facts: The girl's blood on Kobe's shirt, and the fact that she told an employee of the hotel that she was raped immediately after it happened. And talk about changing stories - Kobe initially denied having sex with her at all.
The fact that she had sex with someone else a few days earlier is completely irrelevant and probably won't make it to trial anyway. I don't understand why you say it creates doubt about the rape.
And I'm surprised that you left out what is really the key piece of exonerating evidence: The accused is a rich celebrity.
I didn't leave them out. I linked to them. Likewise I didn't say that prosecution had no evidence or no case. Just a very weak one since they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
It usually helps in a rape case to not have competing semen, sperm and hair in the two pairs of underwear. His defense team is obviously going to contend the injuries were from a prior encounter and they have evidence to prove this. It is likely that they will contend that Bryant did not cause the injuries but merely reopened them during the assault/sex. The blood was not initially detected on the shirt and apparently is not viewable by the detective. It had to be detected with forensics.
The case is going to primarily about hearsay and in that regard she has to be consistent and credible because her story has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It really appears that she has acted very inconsistently and shown a different face to different people. Perhaps even to different interviewers who would be sympathetic to different types of facts and information. A cross examination rips apart those sorts of inconsistencies. That is why I think the case is especially weak.
Nick
See, libeals can openly agree with conservatives.
The ad directly above this post advertises Kobe Bryant artwork for sale. Hooray for spyware.
--
Yes, lovely, the facts.
No rips or tears on any clothing...
Rape does not require torn clothing.
No attempts to identify the DNA that is not Bryant's.
Because it's inconsequential. Being sexually promiscuous has nothing to do with whether or not you were raped.
It doesn't matter if the day before she ****ed every guy she saw and even some women and hermaphrodites. Makes ZERO difference.
(How hard is it to just DNA test the boyfriend?)
No one said it was hard. It's inconsequential.
She stayed well past her shift to meet Bryant.
So...?
She scheduled the reservation and knew it was Bryant, when scheduling the rooms she placed at opposite ends of the lodge.
So...?
She took an alternative employee only path to Bryant to avoid detection by the bodyguards.
So...?
The night auditor indicates she returned to the front desk after incident, didn't give any indication of a problem, filled out her cash sheet and left.
And other employee(s?) say she told them he raped her. Does she have to tell everyone she sees?
This court doc describes the vaginal lacerations as "microscopic."
So...?
You have lots of statements that you assume make an argument, but they don't. Draw the lines. "X happened so Y must be true." You just have X.
The girl wore underwear to the medical exam that contained her blood but semen with DNA from someone else.
So what?
It bring nowhere to comment trial at the advance. We have not all the elements and not the time required to do an deep analysis.
The court document says that the vaginal lacerations were up to a centimeter in length. I'm not sure that that is microscopic, in fact I'd say it isn't. The SANE nurse also states that the vaginal trauma was consistent with forced sex rather than consensual.
As regards her staying late to meet Kobe, the document says that while she stayed in part to meet Kobe, she also was staying in part to make up missed hours at work because she arrived 3.5 hours late for work that morning due to car trouble, arriving at 2:30PM rather htan 10AM. The amount that she stayed from 7PM when she had been scheduled to leave until 10-11 also yields a shift of about the same length as her original scheduled shift thus supporting or at least allowing the contention that she was more interested in making up work than in meeting or even being out to get Kobe.
I'm not saying he did it or didn't or that she's lying or not. Just logically if she's saying her body part was injured by Kobe only to find out that someone else was down there too very recently then you can't be 100% sure that the physical evidence is from Kobe's actions.