Kobe Bryant Rape Trial: Stick a fork in it

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Prior (72 hour) sexual history to be admitted



This case has been weak and laughable all along. However with this ruling, you actually have little to no grounds left for prosecution.



This quote sums it up best.



Quote:

``While the defense lost some things it wanted, it has accumulated a massive amount of damaging facts,'' said Larry Pozner, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ``This evidence is as damaging a set of facts as a prosecutor could ever have to contend with and one wonders if at long last the accuser will pull the plug on this case.''



I think the ruling judge made the wisest possible ruling on this case. He didn't rule that her entire sexual history was open for discussion. Just 72 hours worth of it and only because there was actual evidence to support other parties that should be investigated.



Nick
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 68
    She's a whore, and a whore can't possibly be raped.
  • Reply 2 of 68
    ludwigvanludwigvan Posts: 458member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mrtwistor

    She's a whore, and a whore can't possibly be raped.



  • Reply 3 of 68
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mrtwistor

    She's a whore, and a whore can't possibly be raped.



    I am in no way saying she was raped but you are really ignorant! I don't care if a woman screws 150 guys in a row. If number 151 shows up and she says no and he still does it he is a rapist. Yeah I bet she did it for the money or attention or whatever but your statement is full of ignorance.
  • Reply 4 of 68
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    It is the "friendly reasoned arguments" that keep me coming back to AI.



  • Reply 5 of 68
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mrtwistor

    She's a whore, and a whore can't possibly be raped.



    Ha! Brilliant!
  • Reply 6 of 68
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    I think mrtwistor was being sarcastic, right midwinter? I mean, no one is that openly misogynistic (here at least).
  • Reply 7 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Anyone have anything to add about the actual case?



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 68
    If the spooge doesn't fit they must acquit?
  • Reply 9 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GreggWSmith

    I am in no way saying she was raped but you are really ignorant! I don't care if a woman screws 150 guys in a row. If number 151 shows up and she says no and he still does it he is a rapist. Yeah I bet she did it for the money or attention or whatever but your statement is full of ignorance.



    I can't help but think that though mrtwister's post was worded somewhat badly, that it was ironocally and sarcastically put, and was showing that trumptman said that a woman who has lots of sex is a 'whore', and whores can't be raped.



    I thought that it seemed pretty clear, that it was sarcastically pointing out the horrible anti-woman bias and hatred in the typical trumptman post that contains women-issues . . . trumptman: "clearly she has had vigorous sex within 72 hours therefor she's a 'whore', and, therefor it doesn't matter what Bryant did to her . . . she deserved it"



    This kind of thinking (sexual women=whore='deserved it') is completely afraid of the feedoms that women have gained, it despises the fact that women can choose to have lots of sex if they want . . . it is afraid of that power, it is afraid of sex and, in particular, it is afraid of women because they have that sexual power.



    It also is the root of the dispicable anti-woman Taliban, as well as general bigotry, and, I would venture, is actually the root of many aggressive rapes aimed at shutting down the sexual-power of women that a frail man feels he cannot control.
  • Reply 10 of 68
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    This case has been weak and laughable all along.



    How so?
  • Reply 11 of 68
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    I can't help but think that though mrtwister's post was worded somewhat badly, that it was ironocally and sarcastically put, and was showing that trumptman said that a woman who has lots of sex is a 'whore', and whores can't be raped.



    I thought that it seemed pretty clear, that it was sarcastically pointing out the horrible anti-woman bias and hatred in the typical trumptman post that contains women-issues . . . trumptman: "clearly she has had vigorous sex within 72 hours therefor she's a 'whore', and, therefor it doesn't matter what Bryant did to her . . . she deserved it"



    This kind of thinking (sexual women=whore='deserved it') is completely afraid of the feedoms that women have gained, it despises the fact that women can choose to have lots of sex if they want . . . it is afraid of that power, it is afraid of sex and, in particular, it is afraid of women because they have that sexual power.



    It also is the root of the dispicable anti-woman Taliban, as well as general bigotry, and, I would venture, is actually the root of many aggressive rapes aimed at shutting down the sexual-power of women that a frail man feels he cannot control.




    This seems like a wild accusation to me. If trumptman has actually said things of this sort, please link me. But from what I've read in this thread he has said absolutely nothing of the sort.
  • Reply 12 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Her blood was on his t-shirt. A nurse said her injuries were consistent with rape.



    But she has sex, so obviously a filthy whore who wants it from anyone with a penis.
  • Reply 13 of 68
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Her blood was on his t-shirt.



    Sounds weak and laughable to me?
  • Reply 14 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    And rape nurses... also whore bitches looking for money, no idea what they are talking about.



    Women are evil.



    I suppose trumped feels some victory in someone being acquitted of rape. He must walk around puffed with pride because the majority of rapes are never even reported and many other rapists are never found guilty because of juries filled with people who think that a woman who has sex willingly cannot be raped.



    Hooray for the teflon rich!
  • Reply 15 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    I can't help but think that though mrtwister's post was worded somewhat badly, that it was ironocally and sarcastically put, and was showing that trumptman said that a woman who has lots of sex is a 'whore', and whores can't be raped.



    I thought that it seemed pretty clear, that it was sarcastically pointing out the horrible anti-woman bias and hatred in the typical trumptman post that contains women-issues . . . trumptman: "clearly she has had vigorous sex within 72 hours therefor she's a 'whore', and, therefor it doesn't matter what Bryant did to her . . . she deserved it"



    This kind of thinking (sexual women=whore='deserved it') is completely afraid of the feedoms that women have gained, it despises the fact that women can choose to have lots of sex if they want . . . it is afraid of that power, it is afraid of sex and, in particular, it is afraid of women because they have that sexual power.



    It also is the root of the dispicable anti-woman Taliban, as well as general bigotry, and, I would venture, is actually the root of many aggressive rapes aimed at shutting down the sexual-power of women that a frail man feels he cannot control.




    Dude... pass some of that around.



    It has nothing to do with being a whore, and everything to do with being able to prove reasonable doubt.



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    How so?



    Multiple interviews where she never mentioned that she told him no. She finally had to be asked outright, "You did tell him no right?" To which she finally replied yes.



    When the rape kit was run on her, it turned up another two other men's sperm. The sperm was not just reported on her underwear, it was reported in her body.



    Kobe Trial



    Those two right off the top make me say reasonable doubt.



    But the point really isn't that she had sex, but that the injuries she sustained are claimed to prove rape from Bryant and also be linked exclusively with Bryant.



    The fact that the main proof cannot linked exclusively with Bryant makes the case very, very weak.



    Take the whole, "someone's calling her a slut" thought out of your mind for a second and think about this rationally. If someone were on trial for murder and there were two other sets of prints on the murder weapon, you don't think that would seriously weaken the case and cause doubt? I'm not judging this girl's sexual practices. However the point remains that unless you can prove that one person exclusively caused those injuries, there is reasonable doubt about the rape claim.



    Nick
  • Reply 17 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Trumptman is the one being really ignorant here.



    It's clear to anyone that's been following the case that the defense's case is based on the idea that this woman had vigorous sex deliberately, with the intention of making it look like she had been raped. It's not about whether she was promiscuous or not. It's about whether she was exploitative of Kobe's celebrity status for her own financial gain. Evidently the defense has plenty of evidence that points to this possibility, including the vigorous sex with her "boyfriend" and (I bet) the SMS messages.



    All I know is that if I were a celebrity and had women throwing their panties for the chance to get laid by me, I'd only have sex with the ones who would let me keep the encounter on video. For my own protection. Like a condom against extortion.




    Where the hell are you coming from? I never said she was a slut. I never even judged her. I simply said that being able to point at two other parties likely brings about reasonable doubt.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 68
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    The entire crux of the defense's argument is that the injuries to the body of the victim, while consistent with forced sex, are injuries that can be sustained through multiple sex acts over a short period of time.



    This doesn't inherently mean multiple partners, but obviously in this case nobody is claiming the victim and Kobe had more than one encounter. So the defense, in order to reinforce their claim that these injuries can be sustained by sex with multiple people, they must also be able to show evidence that the victim indeed had sex with more than one person in a short time span.



    While I do have the opinion the defense is indeed trying to paint her as a slut, that is not what trumpt is trying to say. He's merely pointing out, and correctly so, what the defense is doing and why (to raise doubt as to the legitimacy of her injuries.)



    Quit beating trumpt down for making an accurate analysis of the situation. While the defense tactics (that I find deplorable) should certainly be questioned, it's not like Nick is advocating their actions nor making any claims about the victim. He said the case is weak and laughable. Explain to me how that means he said the victim is a slut who couldn't have been raped, and I'll call you the king of AO and pay homage to your greatness in my sig for eternity.



    Could we please keep the bitterness we harbor towards each other to a thread by thread basis? Too often is some piled onto in a thread where legitimate points are made simply because of disagreements in other threads. It's lame, and counterproductive.
  • Reply 19 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    You miss the obviouse rabid glee in his written voice when he points out that they only needed 72 hours of her [ *spit* ] sexual history . . . from him it is too obvious



    besides, if the defense tactic is 'deplorable' and someone adoringly posts about how brilliant it is . . . then their glowing praise for a deplorable tactic is deplorable



    I'll grant it that he has learned to not wear his gynophobia on his arm the way he usually does . . . but still
  • Reply 20 of 68
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I think it's the right decision - it would have been ridiculous to use laws meant to protect the victim to not allow evidence that her injuries could have been caused by someone else. On the other hand, her blood was apparently on Kobe's shirt, and it's going to be tough for them to explain that.
Sign In or Register to comment.