The cruxt of this comes down to reasonable doubt, does it not? That's all that is necessary unless somebody out there has a clear-as-day video of Kobi unmistakably committing rape.
The INSANE nurse said that Kobe didn't do it cause he sells way too much sprite to hurt anyone. She said to forget about the trial and instead the jury could sit around and that she would kill you and slice you up so that the jurors could eat the yummy groverat brownies she is gonna make. All the scrumciousness of groverat's liver that you've come to love in your brownie but now with new artificial guacamole flavor!
SANE = Sexual Assualt Nurse Examiners per page 3 of the smoking gun link.
The ad directly above this post advertises Kobe Bryant artwork for sale. Hooray for spyware.
--
Yes, lovely, the facts.
Rape does not require torn clothing.
Yes but torn clothing would help indicate a lack of consent. Unless she willingly took off her clothes of course.
Quote:
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.
True about promiscuous however the prosecution contends that her injuries were caused by Kobe. To eliminate doubt they have to remove the claims that they could have been caused by other parties. A jury isn't going to convict someone when another suspect is available just on her word alone.
Quote:
No one said it was hard. It's inconsequential.
It is another suspect that the prosecution should investigate as well. It would be like finding a second set of fingerprints at a crime scene and not being willing to investigate to whom they belong. Reasonable doubt must be eliminated. As long as the defense lawyers can point at someone else, there is no way to remove reasonable doubt.
Quote:
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...?
Shows motive on the part of the plaintiff. It also shows a pattern of consent which she has admitted up until the sex act. The prosecution has to show consent was withdrawn. This pattern makes it harder to do that since she took such clear and obvious actions to be alone with him.
Quote:
And other employee(s?) say she told them he raped her. Does she have to tell everyone she sees?
It isn't just that she didn't mention it. The night auditor voluntarily offered additional information that her demeanor and actions indicated no distress of any kind. If the prosecution can offer information that her voice cracked while being interviewed, the defense can offer that while checking out she wasn't upset, crying, downtrodden, or any other such action to affirm their contention of consent in all actions taken.
Quote:
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 argument is obviously doubt or consent. Microscopic tears indicate little trauma. They have to prove that Bryant held her there against her will with force (neck) and raped her. The only physical evidence they have is a small bruise on her chin which is not consistent with their own story. (It was never explained how she would have gotten the bruise) There is no show of resistence. No torn clothing, no cuts, scratches, or bruises. It was mentioned that there was at least a second interview with her before she mentioned that she said no and the question that elicited the information was leading. They had to ask her "Why didn't you ever say no?" and it was then that she affirmed that she did.
The lack of evidence of physical force. The ability to show that the small injuries could have been caused prior and evidence that there is another party involved. The leading by interviewers into a statement of withdrawing consent during sex make this a case riddled with doubt.
Quote:
The girl wore underwear to the medical exam that contained her blood but semen with DNA from someone else.
So what?
If the semen was fresh as Bryant's it indicates someone else could have raped her, could have made sexual intercourse look like rape, and that she could have taken actions that injured herself instead of them being caused by Bryant.
Come on Grove, if you find a second set of prints on a gun or a second caliber of bullet in the body, they don't go "so what!'
Yes but torn clothing would help indicate a lack of consent. Unless she willingly took off her clothes of course.
Read your link, she says he pulled her underwear down and her skirt up. I don't know why they would have to be torn.
Quote:
True about promiscuous however the prosecution contends that her injuries were caused by Kobe. To eliminate doubt they have to remove the claims that they could have been caused by other parties. A jury isn't going to convict someone when another suspect is available just on her word alone.
And according to your link a nurse (a SANE one, no less) judged the injuries consistent with rape and not consistent with consensual sex.
Do you think it makes sense that she was raped earlier and then had consensual sex with Kobe and went to the police and said Kobe raped her?
Remember, it's beyond a *reasonable* doubt.
Quote:
It is another suspect that the prosecution should investigate as well.
Why would this person be a suspect?
Quote:
It would be like finding a second set of fingerprints at a crime scene and not being willing to investigate to whom they belong.
No, it wouldn't be like that at all.
Quote:
Reasonable doubt must be eliminated. As long as the defense lawyers can point at someone else, there is no way to remove reasonable doubt.
Point at someone else as what? Are they going to argue that someone else raped her?
The allegations of other partners are nothing more than character assassination. Woman who has sex with more than one man = dirty whore, probably a liar.
Nothing more. Do you think there would have been such an uproar if Kobe had been the target of the "3 sexual partners in 3 days" statement? Of course not. Playa play on.
Woman has sex with men; dirty dirty whore!
Quote:
Shows motive on the part of the plaintiff. It also shows a pattern of consent which she has admitted up until the sex act. The prosecution has to show consent was withdrawn. This pattern makes it harder to do that since she took such clear and obvious actions to be alone with him.
This isn't a kidnapping case so I hardly see why it matters that she chose to be alone with him.
Quote:
It isn't just that she didn't mention it. The night auditor voluntarily offered additional information that her demeanor and actions indicated no distress of any kind. If the prosecution can offer information that her voice cracked while being interviewed, the defense can offer that while checking out she wasn't upset, crying, downtrodden, or any other such action to affirm their contention of consent in all actions taken.
I don't see anything about the night auditor in your link.
Quote:
Microscopic tears indicate little trauma.
The nurse actually trained and experienced in this regard deemed it consistent with forced sex and not consistent with consensual sex.
One centimeter is not microscopic.
Quote:
The only physical evidence they have is a small bruise on her chin which is not consistent with their own story.
No, that's not the only physical evidence they have.
- Vaginal lacerations. (But then again, you probably know more from reading internet sites than trained and experienced nurses who were actually there.)
- Blood on Bryant's t-shirt and blood on her underwear.
Quote:
No torn clothing, no cuts, scratches, or bruises.
No cuts or bruises? Did you even read your link?
Quote:
It was mentioned that there was at least a second interview with her before she mentioned that she said no and the question that elicited was leading. They had to ask her "Why didn't you ever say no?" and it was then that she affirmed that she did.
Did she say she didn't say no in the first interview?
If the semen was fresh as Bryant's it indicates someone else could have raped her, could have made sexual intercourse look like rape, and that she could have taken actions that injured herself instead of them being caused by Bryant.
And to you, this is reasonable?
Quote:
Come on Grove, if you find a second set of prints on a gun or a second caliber of bullet in the body, they don't go "so what!'
That's a horrible analogy. Worse than your usual analogies.
I'm not going to rehash all the points with you again. It's obvious you view the information as you choose to instead of how it was even read by the judge. The judge mentioned that in the decision that if Colorado law hadn't forced him to give every inference to the prosecution (since there were multiple reasonable ways to see that evidence) then there wouldn't have been enough evidence for a finding of probable cause.
When you barely have evidence to justify a case it is highly unlikely you will be able to prove that cause beyond a reasonable doubt. You desire to reverse the process and see him as guilty until innocent. That is fine since you won't be on the jury but it doesn't mean I'm going to keep typing until you decide to actually grant him due process in your own brain.
The judge mentioned that in the decision that if Colorado law hadn't forced him to give every inference to the prosecution (since there were multiple reasonable ways to see that evidence) then there wouldn't have been enough evidence for a finding of probable cause.
So the judge argued that if the law were different then the situation would be different? Astute.
Could you quote the judge instead of providing your interpretation, that would be immensely more helpful.
Quote:
When you barely have evidence to justify a case it is highly unlikely you will be able to prove that cause beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is true. Does it apply to this case?
Quote:
You desire to reverse the process and see him as guilty until innocent.
I do?
I would just like for you to make your arguments and accurately quote your own sources. I know from experience that is asking quite a lot from you but I don't think it is unreasonable for me to expect it.
Quote:
That is fine since you won't be on the jury but it doesn't mean I'm going to keep typing until you decide to actually grant him due process in your own brain.
Due process in my brain? What the hell does that mean?
Obviously the INSANE nurse forgot to tell you that she tattooed the text of the 14th amendment into your cerebellum while you were asleep and dreaming of Antoine Walker bricking another 3 pointer for the Mavs.
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.
That would be true if there was doubt about them having sex, but that won't be contested, so I don't think that will be an issue. It's also possible that the prosecution won't use that kind of evidence at all to make their case, because they know that could allow this evidence of other sex, which might, however unfairly, influence the jury into thinking she's a slut and therefore probably consented to sex with Kobe. They have the blood evidence on Kobe and the hotel employee. That should be enough.
And I wonder if there is usually physical evidence of that type after a rape. Why would the penis be more likely to damage the vagina? If the woman isn't aroused I could see how there could be more damage than usual, but being aroused doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a rape, especially in this kind of "date rape" situation. Maybe she was aroused by making out. That doesn't mean she consented to sex. And I'm sure consensual sex often results in some tissue tears, and I'm sure there are plenty of rape cases where there was no actual vaginal damage, but there are bruises and marks on other parts of the body.
I guess I'm wondering what kind of evidence would ever prove a rape of this type? Physically, how different does it really look from consensual sex?
I say we here in AO just try this case, and send our decision on over to Colorado. We've all watched Law and Order: SVU. I mean, they have People Magazine at the library, and we have MSNBC on cable, really, how hard can it be?
About the weakness of the case: It's true that the standards for going to trial and for getting a conviction are different. However, the prosecution knows this as well, and so they may not have presented all of their evidence - just enough to go to trial.
Physically, how different does it really look from consensual sex?
There are those who will try to answer the question using their vast Law & Order knowledge and others who will defer to the experts.
From the document linked to by he who apparently didn't bother to read it...
The SANE nurse concluded that the lacerations were consistent with "penetrating genital trauma" and were not consistent with consensual sex.
...
He (the detective) did ask the SANE nurse whether prior acts could cause the lacerations and was told it was unlikely if it occurred over two to three days. The SANE nurse also opined the the injuries had occurred within the last 24 hours.
So the judge argued that if the law were different then the situation would be different? Astute.
No the judge was likely mentioning why he had to move to trial even with such weak evidence. The law is specific to rape. Any other case would have been dismissed with such weak evidence. Rape is the exception and he noted it.
Quote:
Could you quote the judge instead of providing your interpretation, that would be immensely more helpful.
Sure page 7, and thanks for making me type it out
Quote:
Almost all of the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing permits multiple inferences which, when viewed either independently or collectively, and upon reasonable inference, do not support a finding of probably cause. Simply put, this Court could not make a finding of probably cause in the instant matter absent reliance upon those inferences support of the People's case.
A bit more on page 9...
Quote:
The People contend Defendant's own statements are direct evidence and corroborate other evidence supportive of probably cause. In fact, the corroboration offered by Defendant's statements pertains only to two specific facts (presented at the bench), and which offer corroboration only when viewed in the light most favorable to the People.
Although Defendant offered evidence which suggested factual alternatives as to the cause of the alleged injuries, the photographs demonstrate some injury to the genital area and a bruise to the cheek. This demonstrative evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the People, are evidence of submission and force.
I know there maybe something you think I didn't hit. Bring it up for discussion, I'm not going to type of 9 pages.
However this, to me, shows what I was speaking about.
Quote:
That is true. Does it apply to this case?
Well I suppose we will find out in the trial right? In the meantime if they don't date and determine who and when she had sex with the other party, the defense will be able to plausably suggest that the rape could have occured before or after the sex/assault with Bryant.
Quote:
I do?
I would just like for you to make your arguments and accurately quote your own sources. I know from experience that is asking quite a lot from you but I don't think it is unreasonable for me to expect it.
I quoted as you asked. You know that text can't really be selected. I'll tell you what. Pull a reverse for a second and tell me what you consider the weaknesses of the prosecution's case.
Quote:
Due process in my brain? What the hell does that mean?
It means that I argue to make a point, not just to type a dozen pages to you. Although I have done that in the past, I won't this time. If you don't want to be convinced then it will be a difference of opinion decided by reality rather than us arguing.
There are those who will try to answer the question using their vast Law & Order knowledge and others who will defer to the experts.
From the document linked to by he who apparently didn't bother to read it...
The SANE nurse concluded that the lacerations were consistent with "penetrating genital trauma" and were not consistent with consensual sex.
...
He (the detective) did ask the SANE nurse whether prior acts could cause the lacerations and was told it was unlikely if it occurred over two to three days. The SANE nurse also opined the the injuries had occurred within the last 24 hours.
From pages 5 and 6.
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
yeah, i'm sorry but based on the purly physical trauma in this case i'd say it's not looking great for Kobe.
even if the sex started off as consenual, the fact that she has 1cm tears in her and is bleeding would be enough to make most woman want to stop.
if she's bleeding/tearing and tells him to stop, and he doesn't, that's rape too, no matter how it might have started off.
You two did make note that there was additional semen collected from her the next morning that has not been tested even with requests to do so. The sex being mentioned is not from 3 or 4 days prior and would appear to have occured within the last 24 hours which would be within the timeframe of the Bryant assault/sex encounter.
Ummm, duh...the vaginal injuries could have been caused by having sex with others and the Kobe encounter simply re-opening them.
lol I don't envy you Trumpt for having to explain and re-explain the obvious in this discussion. This case is weak to say the least.
I find it very strange that she claimed to have had sex with someone who used a condom a couple days earlier and then a couple days later she shows up with panties stained with someone else's semen and pubic hair.
By the way, isn't it strange that a rape victim would be bragging to people about the size of the rapists schlong? MSNBC confirmed that with 5 different guys.
Quote:
He (the detective) did ask the SANE nurse whether prior acts could cause the lacerations and was told it was unlikely if it occurred over two to three days. The SANE nurse also opined the the injuries had occurred within the last 24 hours.
Over 2 to 3 days....she admitted to having sex 3 days earlier I believe. Then the nurse gave her OPINION on injuries that COULD have been caused earlier (re-opened by having sex with a 6-6 man) or after the Kobe incident(caucasian man's semen and pubic hair in her panties the day of the testing).
fine. pretend for your case the wounds already existed and were reopened by Kobe.
she was bleeding on him on way or another. if she wants him to stop then and he doesn't that's still rape. i'm sorry, but if i'm ****ing a woman and she starts bleeding, i'm going to ask what the hell is wrong, and if she's ok. (i'm going to go out on a limb and guess this wasn't her first time)
Ummm, duh...the vaginal injuries could have been caused by having sex with others and the Kobe encounter simply re-opening them.
lol I don't envy you Trumpt for having to explain and re-explain the obvious in this discussion. This case is weak to say the least.
I find it very strange that she claimed to have had sex with someone who used a condom a couple days earlier and then a couple days later she shows up with panties stained with someone else's semen and pubic hair.
By the way, isn't it strange that a rape victim would be bragging to people about the size of the rapists schlong? MSNBC confirmed that with 5 different guys.
Over 2 to 3 days....she admitted to having sex 3 days earlier I believe. Then the nurse gave her OPINION on injuries that COULD have been caused earlier (re-opened by having sex with a 6-6 man) or after the Kobe incident(caucasian man's semen and pubic hair in her panties the day of the testing).
Gilsh,
You and I have read the MSNBC info, but that doesn't mean it would be admitted into trial.
You are correct though that she did state that she had sex with her boyfriend while he was wearing a condom. Yet she shows up with semen from supposedly him in her panties which the defense has requested be tested and they won't.
she was bleeding on him on way or another. if she wants him to stop then and he doesn't that's still rape. i'm sorry, but if i'm ****ing a woman and she starts bleeding, i'm going to ask what the hell is wrong, and if she's ok. (i'm going to go out on a limb and guess this wasn't her first time)
Whoah, let's back up a second. I could be wrong, but the reports I've heard suggest that it is NOT like she was gushing blood from the incident. This was a SPECK of blood deposited on the shirt...not visible to the naked eye, but detected using that neato UV glow-stuff. That could happen just as easily in any normal sexual encounter, let alone it not being enough blood to be visually obvious to a man to the effect of causing alarm.
Whoah, let's back up a second. I could be wrong, but the reports I've heard suggest that it is NOT like she was gushing blood from the incident. This was a SPECK of blood deposited on the shirt...not visible to the naked eye, but detected using that neato UV glow-stuff. That could happen just as easily in any normal sexual encounter, let alone it not being enough blood to be visually obvious to a man to the effect of causing alarm.
Thank you Randycat. It really isn't that complicated.
Trump: you're right in that it will probably not be admitted into trial. I just don't think a rape victim would say something as dumb as that in public. cough BS cough
Comments
What did the INSANE nurse have to say?
SANE = Sexual Assualt Nurse Examiners per page 3 of the smoking gun link.
Originally posted by groverat
Irony:
The ad directly above this post advertises Kobe Bryant artwork for sale. Hooray for spyware.
--
Yes, lovely, the facts.
Rape does not require torn clothing.
Yes but torn clothing would help indicate a lack of consent. Unless she willingly took off her clothes of course.
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.
True about promiscuous however the prosecution contends that her injuries were caused by Kobe. To eliminate doubt they have to remove the claims that they could have been caused by other parties. A jury isn't going to convict someone when another suspect is available just on her word alone.
No one said it was hard. It's inconsequential.
It is another suspect that the prosecution should investigate as well. It would be like finding a second set of fingerprints at a crime scene and not being willing to investigate to whom they belong. Reasonable doubt must be eliminated. As long as the defense lawyers can point at someone else, there is no way to remove reasonable doubt.
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...?
Shows motive on the part of the plaintiff. It also shows a pattern of consent which she has admitted up until the sex act. The prosecution has to show consent was withdrawn. This pattern makes it harder to do that since she took such clear and obvious actions to be alone with him.
And other employee(s?) say she told them he raped her. Does she have to tell everyone she sees?
It isn't just that she didn't mention it. The night auditor voluntarily offered additional information that her demeanor and actions indicated no distress of any kind. If the prosecution can offer information that her voice cracked while being interviewed, the defense can offer that while checking out she wasn't upset, crying, downtrodden, or any other such action to affirm their contention of consent in all actions taken.
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 argument is obviously doubt or consent. Microscopic tears indicate little trauma. They have to prove that Bryant held her there against her will with force (neck) and raped her. The only physical evidence they have is a small bruise on her chin which is not consistent with their own story. (It was never explained how she would have gotten the bruise) There is no show of resistence. No torn clothing, no cuts, scratches, or bruises. It was mentioned that there was at least a second interview with her before she mentioned that she said no and the question that elicited the information was leading. They had to ask her "Why didn't you ever say no?" and it was then that she affirmed that she did.
The lack of evidence of physical force. The ability to show that the small injuries could have been caused prior and evidence that there is another party involved. The leading by interviewers into a statement of withdrawing consent during sex make this a case riddled with doubt.
The girl wore underwear to the medical exam that contained her blood but semen with DNA from someone else.
So what?
If the semen was fresh as Bryant's it indicates someone else could have raped her, could have made sexual intercourse look like rape, and that she could have taken actions that injured herself instead of them being caused by Bryant.
Come on Grove, if you find a second set of prints on a gun or a second caliber of bullet in the body, they don't go "so what!'
Nick
Yes but torn clothing would help indicate a lack of consent. Unless she willingly took off her clothes of course.
Read your link, she says he pulled her underwear down and her skirt up. I don't know why they would have to be torn.
True about promiscuous however the prosecution contends that her injuries were caused by Kobe. To eliminate doubt they have to remove the claims that they could have been caused by other parties. A jury isn't going to convict someone when another suspect is available just on her word alone.
And according to your link a nurse (a SANE one, no less) judged the injuries consistent with rape and not consistent with consensual sex.
Do you think it makes sense that she was raped earlier and then had consensual sex with Kobe and went to the police and said Kobe raped her?
Remember, it's beyond a *reasonable* doubt.
It is another suspect that the prosecution should investigate as well.
Why would this person be a suspect?
It would be like finding a second set of fingerprints at a crime scene and not being willing to investigate to whom they belong.
No, it wouldn't be like that at all.
Reasonable doubt must be eliminated. As long as the defense lawyers can point at someone else, there is no way to remove reasonable doubt.
Point at someone else as what? Are they going to argue that someone else raped her?
The allegations of other partners are nothing more than character assassination. Woman who has sex with more than one man = dirty whore, probably a liar.
Nothing more. Do you think there would have been such an uproar if Kobe had been the target of the "3 sexual partners in 3 days" statement? Of course not. Playa play on.
Woman has sex with men; dirty dirty whore!
Shows motive on the part of the plaintiff. It also shows a pattern of consent which she has admitted up until the sex act. The prosecution has to show consent was withdrawn. This pattern makes it harder to do that since she took such clear and obvious actions to be alone with him.
This isn't a kidnapping case so I hardly see why it matters that she chose to be alone with him.
It isn't just that she didn't mention it. The night auditor voluntarily offered additional information that her demeanor and actions indicated no distress of any kind. If the prosecution can offer information that her voice cracked while being interviewed, the defense can offer that while checking out she wasn't upset, crying, downtrodden, or any other such action to affirm their contention of consent in all actions taken.
I don't see anything about the night auditor in your link.
Microscopic tears indicate little trauma.
The nurse actually trained and experienced in this regard deemed it consistent with forced sex and not consistent with consensual sex.
One centimeter is not microscopic.
The only physical evidence they have is a small bruise on her chin which is not consistent with their own story.
No, that's not the only physical evidence they have.
- Vaginal lacerations. (But then again, you probably know more from reading internet sites than trained and experienced nurses who were actually there.)
- Blood on Bryant's t-shirt and blood on her underwear.
No torn clothing, no cuts, scratches, or bruises.
No cuts or bruises? Did you even read your link?
It was mentioned that there was at least a second interview with her before she mentioned that she said no and the question that elicited was leading. They had to ask her "Why didn't you ever say no?" and it was then that she affirmed that she did.
Did she say she didn't say no in the first interview?
The lack of evidence of physical force.
Page 9, paragraph starting "Although Defendant offered evidence...".
Your own link.
Read your own links when you post them.
If the semen was fresh as Bryant's it indicates someone else could have raped her, could have made sexual intercourse look like rape, and that she could have taken actions that injured herself instead of them being caused by Bryant.
And to you, this is reasonable?
Come on Grove, if you find a second set of prints on a gun or a second caliber of bullet in the body, they don't go "so what!'
That's a horrible analogy. Worse than your usual analogies.
When you barely have evidence to justify a case it is highly unlikely you will be able to prove that cause beyond a reasonable doubt. You desire to reverse the process and see him as guilty until innocent. That is fine since you won't be on the jury but it doesn't mean I'm going to keep typing until you decide to actually grant him due process in your own brain.
Nick
The judge mentioned that in the decision that if Colorado law hadn't forced him to give every inference to the prosecution (since there were multiple reasonable ways to see that evidence) then there wouldn't have been enough evidence for a finding of probable cause.
So the judge argued that if the law were different then the situation would be different? Astute.
Could you quote the judge instead of providing your interpretation, that would be immensely more helpful.
When you barely have evidence to justify a case it is highly unlikely you will be able to prove that cause beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is true. Does it apply to this case?
You desire to reverse the process and see him as guilty until innocent.
I do?
I would just like for you to make your arguments and accurately quote your own sources. I know from experience that is asking quite a lot from you but I don't think it is unreasonable for me to expect it.
That is fine since you won't be on the jury but it doesn't mean I'm going to keep typing until you decide to actually grant him due process in your own brain.
Due process in my brain? What the hell does that mean?
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
That would be true if there was doubt about them having sex, but that won't be contested, so I don't think that will be an issue. It's also possible that the prosecution won't use that kind of evidence at all to make their case, because they know that could allow this evidence of other sex, which might, however unfairly, influence the jury into thinking she's a slut and therefore probably consented to sex with Kobe. They have the blood evidence on Kobe and the hotel employee. That should be enough.
And I wonder if there is usually physical evidence of that type after a rape. Why would the penis be more likely to damage the vagina? If the woman isn't aroused I could see how there could be more damage than usual, but being aroused doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a rape, especially in this kind of "date rape" situation. Maybe she was aroused by making out. That doesn't mean she consented to sex. And I'm sure consensual sex often results in some tissue tears, and I'm sure there are plenty of rape cases where there was no actual vaginal damage, but there are bruises and marks on other parts of the body.
I guess I'm wondering what kind of evidence would ever prove a rape of this type? Physically, how different does it really look from consensual sex?
I say we here in AO just try this case, and send our decision on over to Colorado. We've all watched Law and Order: SVU. I mean, they have People Magazine at the library, and we have MSNBC on cable, really, how hard can it be?
About the weakness of the case: It's true that the standards for going to trial and for getting a conviction are different. However, the prosecution knows this as well, and so they may not have presented all of their evidence - just enough to go to trial.
Physically, how different does it really look from consensual sex?
There are those who will try to answer the question using their vast Law & Order knowledge and others who will defer to the experts.
From the document linked to by he who apparently didn't bother to read it...
The SANE nurse concluded that the lacerations were consistent with "penetrating genital trauma" and were not consistent with consensual sex.
...
He (the detective) did ask the SANE nurse whether prior acts could cause the lacerations and was told it was unlikely if it occurred over two to three days. The SANE nurse also opined the the injuries had occurred within the last 24 hours.
From pages 5 and 6.
even if the sex started off as consenual, the fact that she has 1cm tears in her and is bleeding would be enough to make most woman want to stop.
if she's bleeding/tearing and tells him to stop, and he doesn't, that's rape too, no matter how it might have started off.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
So the judge argued that if the law were different then the situation would be different? Astute.
No the judge was likely mentioning why he had to move to trial even with such weak evidence. The law is specific to rape. Any other case would have been dismissed with such weak evidence. Rape is the exception and he noted it.
Could you quote the judge instead of providing your interpretation, that would be immensely more helpful.
Sure page 7, and thanks for making me type it out
Almost all of the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing permits multiple inferences which, when viewed either independently or collectively, and upon reasonable inference, do not support a finding of probably cause. Simply put, this Court could not make a finding of probably cause in the instant matter absent reliance upon those inferences support of the People's case.
A bit more on page 9...
The People contend Defendant's own statements are direct evidence and corroborate other evidence supportive of probably cause. In fact, the corroboration offered by Defendant's statements pertains only to two specific facts (presented at the bench), and which offer corroboration only when viewed in the light most favorable to the People.
Although Defendant offered evidence which suggested factual alternatives as to the cause of the alleged injuries, the photographs demonstrate some injury to the genital area and a bruise to the cheek. This demonstrative evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the People, are evidence of submission and force.
I know there maybe something you think I didn't hit. Bring it up for discussion, I'm not going to type of 9 pages.
However this, to me, shows what I was speaking about.
That is true. Does it apply to this case?
Well I suppose we will find out in the trial right? In the meantime if they don't date and determine who and when she had sex with the other party, the defense will be able to plausably suggest that the rape could have occured before or after the sex/assault with Bryant.
I do?
I would just like for you to make your arguments and accurately quote your own sources. I know from experience that is asking quite a lot from you but I don't think it is unreasonable for me to expect it.
I quoted as you asked. You know that text can't really be selected. I'll tell you what. Pull a reverse for a second and tell me what you consider the weaknesses of the prosecution's case.
Due process in my brain? What the hell does that mean?
It means that I argue to make a point, not just to type a dozen pages to you. Although I have done that in the past, I won't this time. If you don't want to be convinced then it will be a difference of opinion decided by reality rather than us arguing.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
There are those who will try to answer the question using their vast Law & Order knowledge and others who will defer to the experts.
From the document linked to by he who apparently didn't bother to read it...
The SANE nurse concluded that the lacerations were consistent with "penetrating genital trauma" and were not consistent with consensual sex.
...
He (the detective) did ask the SANE nurse whether prior acts could cause the lacerations and was told it was unlikely if it occurred over two to three days. The SANE nurse also opined the the injuries had occurred within the last 24 hours.
From pages 5 and 6.
Originally posted by alcimedes
yeah, i'm sorry but based on the purly physical trauma in this case i'd say it's not looking great for Kobe.
even if the sex started off as consenual, the fact that she has 1cm tears in her and is bleeding would be enough to make most woman want to stop.
if she's bleeding/tearing and tells him to stop, and he doesn't, that's rape too, no matter how it might have started off.
You two did make note that there was additional semen collected from her the next morning that has not been tested even with requests to do so. The sex being mentioned is not from 3 or 4 days prior and would appear to have occured within the last 24 hours which would be within the timeframe of the Bryant assault/sex encounter.
Nick
lol I don't envy you Trumpt for having to explain and re-explain the obvious in this discussion. This case is weak to say the least.
I find it very strange that she claimed to have had sex with someone who used a condom a couple days earlier and then a couple days later she shows up with panties stained with someone else's semen and pubic hair.
By the way, isn't it strange that a rape victim would be bragging to people about the size of the rapists schlong? MSNBC confirmed that with 5 different guys.
He (the detective) did ask the SANE nurse whether prior acts could cause the lacerations and was told it was unlikely if it occurred over two to three days. The SANE nurse also opined the the injuries had occurred within the last 24 hours.
Over 2 to 3 days....she admitted to having sex 3 days earlier I believe. Then the nurse gave her OPINION on injuries that COULD have been caused earlier (re-opened by having sex with a 6-6 man) or after the Kobe incident(caucasian man's semen and pubic hair in her panties the day of the testing).
she was bleeding on him on way or another. if she wants him to stop then and he doesn't that's still rape. i'm sorry, but if i'm ****ing a woman and she starts bleeding, i'm going to ask what the hell is wrong, and if she's ok. (i'm going to go out on a limb and guess this wasn't her first time)
Originally posted by Gilsch
Ummm, duh...the vaginal injuries could have been caused by having sex with others and the Kobe encounter simply re-opening them.
lol I don't envy you Trumpt for having to explain and re-explain the obvious in this discussion. This case is weak to say the least.
I find it very strange that she claimed to have had sex with someone who used a condom a couple days earlier and then a couple days later she shows up with panties stained with someone else's semen and pubic hair.
By the way, isn't it strange that a rape victim would be bragging to people about the size of the rapists schlong? MSNBC confirmed that with 5 different guys.
Over 2 to 3 days....she admitted to having sex 3 days earlier I believe. Then the nurse gave her OPINION on injuries that COULD have been caused earlier (re-opened by having sex with a 6-6 man) or after the Kobe incident(caucasian man's semen and pubic hair in her panties the day of the testing).
Gilsh,
You and I have read the MSNBC info, but that doesn't mean it would be admitted into trial.
You are correct though that she did state that she had sex with her boyfriend while he was wearing a condom. Yet she shows up with semen from supposedly him in her panties which the defense has requested be tested and they won't.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
she was bleeding on him on way or another. if she wants him to stop then and he doesn't that's still rape. i'm sorry, but if i'm ****ing a woman and she starts bleeding, i'm going to ask what the hell is wrong, and if she's ok. (i'm going to go out on a limb and guess this wasn't her first time)
Whoah, let's back up a second. I could be wrong, but the reports I've heard suggest that it is NOT like she was gushing blood from the incident. This was a SPECK of blood deposited on the shirt...not visible to the naked eye, but detected using that neato UV glow-stuff. That could happen just as easily in any normal sexual encounter, let alone it not being enough blood to be visually obvious to a man to the effect of causing alarm.
maybe not, but in either case, if that's her body, i can't believe she never told him to stop.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Whoah, let's back up a second. I could be wrong, but the reports I've heard suggest that it is NOT like she was gushing blood from the incident. This was a SPECK of blood deposited on the shirt...not visible to the naked eye, but detected using that neato UV glow-stuff. That could happen just as easily in any normal sexual encounter, let alone it not being enough blood to be visually obvious to a man to the effect of causing alarm.
Thank you Randycat. It really isn't that complicated.
Trump: you're right in that it will probably not be admitted into trial. I just don't think a rape victim would say something as dumb as that in public. cough BS cough