Ah, so it is being ignored in this thread. Too bad.
No, it's not.
I'm not sure what exactly it is you want to hear. I'm certain everyone agrees the victims blood on Kobe's shirt is not good for Kobe and is evidence that would support the prosecution's argument that Kobe raped her.
Do you really need everyone who posts in this thread to state something so obvious every time they post?
Incidentally I've had sex with my girlfriend before and afterwards seen small blood droplets on the sheets and articles of my clothing. I didn't rape her, but there it was. In other words, blood may be relevant, but it's not inherently damning evidence of wrongdoing.
The blood isn't that damaging. I don't think there's a guy on these boards that hasn't had sex at one time and caused a woman to bleed.
Kobe is what 6'7". Truth is he may be a bit more "endowed" than the average man. I'm not making excuses but the blood to me isn't signifant because Kobe isn't denying having sex with her.
No, it's just Trumptman who disappears whenever the going gets rough.
As was mentioned, others have addressed it. If I feel there is something to add, then I add it.
Did this woman who was grabbed by the neck have any scratches, bruises or even marks on her neck? No
Was the nurse able to determine if the thumb bruise on her chin was caused by the rape, or being grabbed? No.
Were they able to determine if the age of the bruise allowed it to be exclusively linked to Bryant? No.
Did the woman need any treatment for any injuries after being examined by the nurse? No.
Did Bryant have any bruises, scratches or even markings that would indicate any sort of fight, tussle or resistance from the woman? No.
Can the prosecution prove that the blood on Bryant's shirt was there because he caused the injury via rape? No.
Did the prosecution collect the clothing of the two other possible rapists and test it for blood stains? No.
Is there physical evidence that the woman had sex with three men within 72 hours? Yes.
Could the other two men have caused these injuries? Yes.
Did the prosecution run kits on them and collect samples to insure they did not in fact, have blood, injuries, or any other evidence that would indicate they actually raped her or caused the injuries? No.
Point blank, the prosecution did not fully investigate the case. They did not investigate all parties who left evidence at the scene of the crime so to speak.
The case is so weak that the judge, who only was able to even send it to trial because the law required he give every benefit to the prosecution, extended the plea negotiations because this thing will be laughed out of court.
This isn't even about the defense pointing out human failings evident in all investigations or creating moutains out of molehills. We are talking about two other parties who are identified as having had sex with the woman who weren't fully investigated. That leaves considerable doubt by any and all standards. The judge is doing the girl a favor because since this sexual history has been declared relevent, you have the media running all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to broadcast to the world what she did with whom, when, how and why.
So the defense hasn't painted her as a slut. They've simply introduced doubt due to other parties being involved.
But let's see what the wonderful 24/7 news channels will do with this girl and their unending "analysis" of her sexual practices all because the DA wants to get his name in lights. They will label her a slut in twenty different ways. They can avoid all that by simply dropping this very weak case that should never have gone to trial.
In the end this girl will have been used and abused, but it won't have been the trist with Bryant that did the damage. It will be the DA who has harmed her because he will have allowed every intimate detail about her to get out there.
"This motion is to dismiss based on the sole fact that the victim is unable to continue," District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told the judge at the onset of a hearing.
Lest, however, further proofs against her should be lacking, the Commissioner has his own creatures, often depraved and notorious, who question into all her past life. This, of course, cannot be done without coming upon some saying or doing of hers which evil-minded men can easily twist or distort into grounds for suspicion of witchcraft.
...........
Then when Gaia . . . is tortured that she may confess the truth, that is to say, that she may simply declare herself guilty; for whatever else she may say will not be the truth and cannot be. . . .Without any scruples, therefore, after this confession she is executed. Yet she would have been executed, nevertheless, even though she had not confessed; for, when once a beginning has been made with the torture, the die is already cast ? she cannot escape, she must die.
Written in 1631 by a Jesuit priest, Friedrich Spee, who acted as confessor to those sentenced to death in Würzburg during the witch hunts.
Everyone knows if he wasn't a celebrity, if he didn't have lots of money, if he was just a some shmo, he'd be getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit months ago...
BUT...soooooo many people that we probably dont even know about have such a HUGE stake in the money making machine that is Kobe, there's no way he'd get close to getting convicted...
Enough with this Kobe thing already. He's free, he gets to go on vacation till training camp. he'll move on and play basketball, everyone will love him, and he'll make more millions...
Celebrity status, Lots of money...that's all you need...
When Loya told Bryant the woman had experienced some bleeding, he said he was surprised because he hadn't noticed any blood. The shirt he was wearing, which he gave to the investigators, was later found to be stained with the woman's blood.
This is the same rape-shame culture that existed years ago. Blame the victim. Hate the victim. Threaten to kill the victim.
No amount of truth matters to these people.
I think the only thing she wanted was justice, and that was certainly never going to come.
What the heck does that transcript there prove except for innocence?
/Kobe: Hey, I'm a rapist, but I'm surprised she bled and freely offer up all my clothing and items from the room.
Hey, I'm a rapist, but questioning why this girl's motives from step one because I thought it was consentual.
It's one thing for a defense attorney to know about and bring up the money motive. It's another for a guy, being questioned by police in the middle of the night to suddenly just perfectly question her motive from the very first second as well.
On and the last one...
Hey, I'm a rapist, but let me and my whole group not contact lawyer, allow ourselves to be freely questioned, allow any items to be taken from the room they want, and also let's just jump in a couple cars and go run down and give everything necessary for a rape kit.
With jury selection less than two weeks away, the two attorneys who would seek to put Bryant in prison ? possibly for life ? were not speaking.
And most notably:
Quote:
Going in, Bakke and Easter expected the woman to do well on the stand. Months earlier, she had testified for nearly four hours under direct questioning by Mackey at a hearing in which the defense sought an exception to the state's rape shield law, which prevents most information about a victim's sexual history from being allowed into evidence. Despite a barrage of embarrassing questions, the woman held up well, according to prosecutors and Clune.
"She spoke confidently, clearly, and was very revealing. Jurors would have liked her," Bakke said.
But the mock exam was the first time she had been cross-examined and challenged about her statements regarding her encounter with Bryant.
The lawyer who conducted the cross-examination, Jefferson County prosecutor George Brauchler, was as harsh as Mackey would have been.
"Maybe we shouldn't have gone to the wall on that one," Hurlbert said. "When you are preparing a victim for trial, sometimes it's better to use baby steps. But we felt that because she had already testified [at the rape shield hearing], we would give her the worst-case scenario."
Wood was incensed over what he viewed as the failure of prosecutors to prepare the woman, saying she did not seem familiar even with her own statements to police.
"She was spontaneously trying to answer questions she had never considered," he said. "You can't teach a witness how to deal with cross-examination unless you show her how her answers on direct are going to be used against her.
"They tore down her confidence in an exercise that should be designed to build up her confidence."
"Wood also represented John Ramsey, father of JonBenet Ramsey, and former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit."
Niiice. Just the kind of attorney an honest person would hire.
Oh for heaven's sake. Now you're clutching at straws. No wonder we need rape shield laws. Who she hires to represent her says nothing about what type of person she is. Nor what type of person the attorney is, for that matter. A lawyer's job is to represent their client to the best of their ability, not to make judgments.
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
It's not being ignored.
Ah, so it is being ignored in this thread. Too bad.
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, so it is being ignored in this thread. Too bad.
No, it's not.
I'm not sure what exactly it is you want to hear. I'm certain everyone agrees the victims blood on Kobe's shirt is not good for Kobe and is evidence that would support the prosecution's argument that Kobe raped her.
Do you really need everyone who posts in this thread to state something so obvious every time they post?
Incidentally I've had sex with my girlfriend before and afterwards seen small blood droplets on the sheets and articles of my clothing. I didn't rape her, but there it was. In other words, blood may be relevant, but it's not inherently damning evidence of wrongdoing.
Kobe is what 6'7". Truth is he may be a bit more "endowed" than the average man. I'm not making excuses but the blood to me isn't signifant because Kobe isn't denying having sex with her.
Originally posted by rageous
Do you really need everyone who posts in this thread to state something so obvious every time they post?
No, it's just Trumptman who disappears whenever the going gets rough.
Originally posted by bunge
No, it's just Trumptman who disappears whenever the going gets rough.
As was mentioned, others have addressed it. If I feel there is something to add, then I add it.
Did this woman who was grabbed by the neck have any scratches, bruises or even marks on her neck? No
Was the nurse able to determine if the thumb bruise on her chin was caused by the rape, or being grabbed? No.
Were they able to determine if the age of the bruise allowed it to be exclusively linked to Bryant? No.
Did the woman need any treatment for any injuries after being examined by the nurse? No.
Did Bryant have any bruises, scratches or even markings that would indicate any sort of fight, tussle or resistance from the woman? No.
Can the prosecution prove that the blood on Bryant's shirt was there because he caused the injury via rape? No.
Did the prosecution collect the clothing of the two other possible rapists and test it for blood stains? No.
Is there physical evidence that the woman had sex with three men within 72 hours? Yes.
Could the other two men have caused these injuries? Yes.
Did the prosecution run kits on them and collect samples to insure they did not in fact, have blood, injuries, or any other evidence that would indicate they actually raped her or caused the injuries? No.
Point blank, the prosecution did not fully investigate the case. They did not investigate all parties who left evidence at the scene of the crime so to speak.
The case is so weak that the judge, who only was able to even send it to trial because the law required he give every benefit to the prosecution, extended the plea negotiations because this thing will be laughed out of court.
Endgame
This isn't even about the defense pointing out human failings evident in all investigations or creating moutains out of molehills. We are talking about two other parties who are identified as having had sex with the woman who weren't fully investigated. That leaves considerable doubt by any and all standards. The judge is doing the girl a favor because since this sexual history has been declared relevent, you have the media running all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to broadcast to the world what she did with whom, when, how and why.
So the defense hasn't painted her as a slut. They've simply introduced doubt due to other parties being involved.
But let's see what the wonderful 24/7 news channels will do with this girl and their unending "analysis" of her sexual practices all because the DA wants to get his name in lights. They will label her a slut in twenty different ways. They can avoid all that by simply dropping this very weak case that should never have gone to trial.
In the end this girl will have been used and abused, but it won't have been the trist with Bryant that did the damage. It will be the DA who has harmed her because he will have allowed every intimate detail about her to get out there.
Nick
All charges Dropped?
just saw it on TV, going Googling
edit:from 2 hours ago
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6128692
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6129384
"This motion is to dismiss based on the sole fact that the victim is unable to continue," District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told the judge at the onset of a hearing.
Step 1: Stop pursuing the charges.
Step 2: .....
Step 3: Profit.
There is no end to her diabolical genius!
Originally posted by groverat
What, did the Kobelovers finally kill her?
Nope her own shame did.
Nick
Lest, however, further proofs against her should be lacking, the Commissioner has his own creatures, often depraved and notorious, who question into all her past life. This, of course, cannot be done without coming upon some saying or doing of hers which evil-minded men can easily twist or distort into grounds for suspicion of witchcraft.
...........
Then when Gaia . . . is tortured that she may confess the truth, that is to say, that she may simply declare herself guilty; for whatever else she may say will not be the truth and cannot be. . . .Without any scruples, therefore, after this confession she is executed. Yet she would have been executed, nevertheless, even though she had not confessed; for, when once a beginning has been made with the torture, the die is already cast ? she cannot escape, she must die.
Written in 1631 by a Jesuit priest, Friedrich Spee, who acted as confessor to those sentenced to death in Würzburg during the witch hunts.
Everyone knows if he wasn't a celebrity, if he didn't have lots of money, if he was just a some shmo, he'd be getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit months ago...
BUT...soooooo many people that we probably dont even know about have such a HUGE stake in the money making machine that is Kobe, there's no way he'd get close to getting convicted...
Enough with this Kobe thing already. He's free, he gets to go on vacation till training camp. he'll move on and play basketball, everyone will love him, and he'll make more millions...
Celebrity status, Lots of money...that's all you need...
When Loya told Bryant the woman had experienced some bleeding, he said he was surprised because he hadn't noticed any blood. The shirt he was wearing, which he gave to the investigators, was later found to be stained with the woman's blood.
From here.
This is the same rape-shame culture that existed years ago. Blame the victim. Hate the victim. Threaten to kill the victim.
No amount of truth matters to these people.
Bryant: "... I can't believe this girl. What does she want from me?"
Loya: "Do you want me to carry those for you, Kobe?" (Apparently referring to Bryant's crutches.)
Bryant: "Yeah. What does she want, what does she want?"
Winters: "I don't think she wants anything."
Bryant: "Are you kidding me?"
Loya: "What are you willing to give her?"
Bryant: "She has to want, she has to want something (inaudible) she has to want something."
Winters: "What do you mean she has to want something? I don't understand."
Bryant: "She has to have a, she has to have a motive, to do, she has to have a motive to do this."
Winters: "What would be, what do you think her motive is then?"
Loya: "Are you willing to pay that if she is?"
Bryant: "I got to. I got to. I'm in the worst (edited) situation."
I think the only thing she wanted was justice, and that was certainly never going to come.
That sounds worse than I imagined.
Originally posted by groverat
Do you think it matters?
This is the same rape-shame culture that existed years ago. Blame the victim. Hate the victim. Threaten to kill the victim.
No amount of truth matters to these people.
I think the only thing she wanted was justice, and that was certainly never going to come.
What the heck does that transcript there prove except for innocence?
/Kobe: Hey, I'm a rapist, but I'm surprised she bled and freely offer up all my clothing and items from the room.
Hey, I'm a rapist, but questioning why this girl's motives from step one because I thought it was consentual.
It's one thing for a defense attorney to know about and bring up the money motive. It's another for a guy, being questioned by police in the middle of the night to suddenly just perfectly question her motive from the very first second as well.
On and the last one...
Hey, I'm a rapist, but let me and my whole group not contact lawyer, allow ourselves to be freely questioned, allow any items to be taken from the room they want, and also let's just jump in a couple cars and go run down and give everything necessary for a rape kit.
Nick
The Case Against Kobe Bryant Unraveled in a Mock Trial (LA Times via Talk Left)
With jury selection less than two weeks away, the two attorneys who would seek to put Bryant in prison ? possibly for life ? were not speaking.
And most notably:
Going in, Bakke and Easter expected the woman to do well on the stand. Months earlier, she had testified for nearly four hours under direct questioning by Mackey at a hearing in which the defense sought an exception to the state's rape shield law, which prevents most information about a victim's sexual history from being allowed into evidence. Despite a barrage of embarrassing questions, the woman held up well, according to prosecutors and Clune.
"She spoke confidently, clearly, and was very revealing. Jurors would have liked her," Bakke said.
But the mock exam was the first time she had been cross-examined and challenged about her statements regarding her encounter with Bryant.
The lawyer who conducted the cross-examination, Jefferson County prosecutor George Brauchler, was as harsh as Mackey would have been.
"Maybe we shouldn't have gone to the wall on that one," Hurlbert said. "When you are preparing a victim for trial, sometimes it's better to use baby steps. But we felt that because she had already testified [at the rape shield hearing], we would give her the worst-case scenario."
Wood was incensed over what he viewed as the failure of prosecutors to prepare the woman, saying she did not seem familiar even with her own statements to police.
"She was spontaneously trying to answer questions she had never considered," he said. "You can't teach a witness how to deal with cross-examination unless you show her how her answers on direct are going to be used against her.
"They tore down her confidence in an exercise that should be designed to build up her confidence."
Originally posted by tonton
"Wood also represented John Ramsey, father of JonBenet Ramsey, and former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit."
Niiice. Just the kind of attorney an honest person would hire.
Oh for heaven's sake. Now you're clutching at straws. No wonder we need rape shield laws. Who she hires to represent her says nothing about what type of person she is. Nor what type of person the attorney is, for that matter. A lawyer's job is to represent their client to the best of their ability, not to make judgments.
That's supposed to be up to the jury, remember?
Originally posted by tonton
"But she's not after money, she wants justice!!!"
Uh. HELLO! She's moving her trial to ANOTHER STATE because it's too difficult in Colorado to receive a settlement of more than $733,000.
It was always about money. She's an opportunist and this proves it. $733,000 is not enough "justice" for her.
If this is true, I think most people would agree with you. I wonder if Koala bears make nice pets.