Kobe Bryant Rape Trial: Stick a fork in it

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 68
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    It does seem that what pfflam says has an element of truth. And it's unreasonable to assume bad faith on pfflam's part when looking at just how the thread began:



    Kobe Bryant Rape Trial:



    (what about it?)



    Stick a fork in it.



    (why?)



    Prior (72 hour) sexual history to be admitted.



    (IT'S OVER!)



  • Reply 22 of 68
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    It does seem that what pfflam says has an element of truth. And it's unreasonable to assume bad faith on pfflam's part when looking at just how the thread began:



    Kobe Bryant Rape Trial:



    (what about it?)



    Stick a fork in it.



    (why?)



    Prior (72 hour) sexual history to be admitted.



    (IT'S OVER!)







    While it may be bad taste, it's a far cry from assigning the following comment to him:

    Quote:

    originally posted by pfflam

    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"



  • Reply 23 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    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




    You know pfflam, your hate has pretty much made you blind. You try so desperately to twist my words and declare my motivations for me since you having nothing else to contribute.



    My praise was for the judge. I said he made the wisest decision possible since it allows the presumption of innocence with regard to the defendant while not making the accuser go through her entire sexual history. The judge permitted questioning only about the time frame related to the rape. Of course that time frame happens to implicate two other people as possible causes for the circumstancial evidence. That doesn't mean I've declared her a whore. It just means that when you can point a finger a three possible people, that it definately leaves doubt.



    Nick
  • Reply 24 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    ok . . . my bad
  • Reply 25 of 68
    crazychestercrazychester Posts: 1,339member
    What a bunch o' champs! You done good guys. Except you jwri004. You know what they say. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.



    Oh yeah and BRussell probably said it best. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.



    I feel a Billy Bragg quote coming on......



    'I said "There is no justice!" as they led me out the door

    The judge said "This isn't a court of justice, son, this is a court of law."

    [Rotting On Remand]



    Unfortunate sometimes. But that's the way it's got to be.



    Damn. I'll be a conservative before I know it.
  • Reply 26 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    On the other hand, her blood was apparently on Kobe's shirt, and it's going to be tough for them to explain that.



    No need to explain it, reasonable doubt is that she is sexually active to a shitload of the populace, apparently a good bit of present company included.



    For all the posturing otherwise, the defense is built on social fear of sexual women.

    So what if she had semen inside her... what does that mean? (Answer this, please.)



    There was blood on his t-shirt and a rape nurse said her injuries were consistent with rape. Maybe there is other evidence but for those saying her wounds were consistent with vigorous sex I would love to see a quote from someone who examined her; because without that it sounds a lot more like some perverse male fantasy.



    Innocent until proven guilty, sure, but with the huge uphill climb rape victims have it would be nice to see the woman not threatened with murder and slandered at every turn.
  • Reply 27 of 68
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Maybe there is other evidence but for those saying her wounds were consistent with vigorous sex I would love to see a quote from someone who examined her; because without that it sounds a lot more like some perverse male fantasy.



    Well it's not perverse male fantasy, as you'd like to believe. It's the defense's argument that vigorous sex AND multiple sex acts over a short period of time (number of partners is irrelevant) could have caused the same injuries. I can't produce quotes as to the legitimacy of this claim, because I simply know of none that exist. It is merely what the defense is claiming. However, given the fact that the judge allowed the 72 hours sexual history of the victim to be admissible, I'm inclined to believe there is some validity to that argument, else the judge would have said "no way."



    Quote:

    Innocent until proven guilty, sure, but with the huge uphill climb rape victims have it would be nice to see the woman not threatened with murder and slandered at every turn.



    Indeed. It's a shame. This prevents many legitimate rape cases from ever being reported. But while it is a must that we respect and protect the rights of the accuser, we should also respect the rights and presumed innocence of the accused. Let's not pretend that the victim's character is the only one getting slammed here. Kobe is already considered a rapist amongst a lot of people, likewise the victim is looked down on as a slut to many others. Everyone's got to immediately pick a side on every issue in this country, well informed or not.
  • Reply 28 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    No need to explain it, reasonable doubt is that she is sexually active to a shitload of the populace, apparently a good bit of present company included.



    For all the posturing otherwise, the defense is built on social fear of sexual women.

    So what if she had semen inside her... what does that mean? (Answer this, please.)



    There was blood on his t-shirt and a rape nurse said her injuries were consistent with rape. Maybe there is other evidence but for those saying her wounds were consistent with vigorous sex I would love to see a quote from someone who examined her; because without that it sounds a lot more like some perverse male fantasy.



    Innocent until proven guilty, sure, but with the huge uphill climb rape victims have it would be nice to see the woman not threatened with murder and slandered at every turn.




    Social fear? What about the social mores that say all men must want it, will do anything to get it and are lying if they don't admit that? What about the stigma that says that Bryant MUST have been the aggressor for no other reason than he is a man?



    As for the so what about the semen? It doesn't mean we have to judge her, but it does force us to consider other parties besides Bryant. Especially when the physical force evidence is weak and consistant with other actions that can be proven happened.



    As for the injuries, they consist of a small vaginal tear and a bruise on her chin. The bruise did not show up in photographs and was claimed to be made by Bryant's thumb. There is nothing that ties either to Bryant exclusively.



    Nick
  • Reply 29 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    However, given the fact that the judge allowed the 72 hours sexual history of the victim to be admissible, I'm inclined to believe there is some validity to that argument, else the judge would have said "no way."



    Perhaps, but we have not seen anything from anyone who would know whether or not that could be this "vigorous sex" defense could actually mean anything. Yet everyone assumes it is so.



    Quote:

    Let's not pretend that the victim's character is the only one getting slammed here. Kobe is already considered a rapist amongst a lot of people, likewise the victim is looked down on as a slut to many others.



    Kobe just signed a contract with the LA Lakers worth $136 million over 7 years.

    The alleged victim gets death threats.



    There is no equivalency in the effect this case has had on their lives.





    trumped:



    Quote:

    What about the stigma that says that Bryant MUST have been the aggressor for no other reason than he is a man?



    Who has said that? No one. Her blood was on his shirt. A rape nurse said her injuries were consistent with rape.



    Quote:

    Especially when the physical force evidence is weak and consistant with other actions that can be proven happened.



    How is the blood to have gotten on his shirt? Mark Furman?



    Quote:

    As for the injuries, they consist of a small vaginal tear and a bruise on her chin. The bruise did not show up in photographs and was claimed to be made by Bryant's thumb. There is nothing that ties either to Bryant exclusively.



    Yet you ignore the rape nurse.

    Yet you ignore the blood on his shirt.



    Typical.
  • Reply 30 of 68
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Social fear? What about the social mores that say all men must want it, will do anything to get it and are lying if they don't admit that? What about the stigma that says that Bryant MUST have been the aggressor for no other reason than he is a man?



    That is, by definition, a highly reactionary worldview.
  • Reply 31 of 68
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    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




    Well put Trumpt. I agree with completely on this.
  • Reply 32 of 68
    jmoneyjmoney Posts: 133member
    I think this is just all one big unfortunate circumstance. No one's life is going to be improved by proceeding with this trial. Those who idolize Kobe Bryant will continue to do so, those who think that he didn't.. Ugh, just a bad situation..
  • Reply 33 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JMoney

    I think this is just all one big unfortunate circumstance. No one's life is going to be improved by proceeding with this trial. Those who idolize Kobe Bryant will continue to do so, those who think that he didn't.. Ugh, just a bad situation..



    What? and those raped by him, -if that was the case- what is she supposed to do?



    pretend that nothing happened?

    say that it all was just an unfortunate situation?

    Say, 'oh nothing will be gained by charging my rapist with rape'? (if)



    Given the fact that she has not asked for monetary compensation of any sort and has received death threats and probably has taken a majjor nose-dive in the 'quality-of-life' department, I would question the immediate assumption that the superstar is innocent because he is a superstar.



    I, for one, am not certain that he is guilty, and I am also not certain that he is innocent . . . perhaps that is one thing that will come from the trail. It worked out for OJ . . . now we know he was innocent
  • Reply 34 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Given the fact that she has not asked for monetary compensation of any sort and has received death threats and probably has taken a majjor nose-dive in the 'quality-of-life' department, I would question the immediate assumption that the superstar is innocent because he is a superstar.



    Yet another logical lapse in the women-haters' logic.



    If she was after money... why hasn't she asked for it?

    If she was after fame... why has she been fighting her identity release?





    I ask these questions, but I guess I cannot get blood from rocks.
  • Reply 35 of 68
    Quote:

    _I think mrtwistor was being sarcastic



    For the record I was. I would also like to point out that when a woman becomes excited the vaginal opening becomes large and very soft, when a woman is not amenable to sex the vagina tenses up - that is why injurieas to said area are considered to be consistent with rape.
  • Reply 36 of 68
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    So wait, why has the evidence of the nurse and the blood on the shirt been ignored in this thread?
  • Reply 37 of 68
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    It's not being ignored. It is undoubtedly evidence that supports the prosecution's case. This thread is about the judge allowing other evidence that clearly supports the defense's case. And this evidence is supposedly of such a nature that virtually guarantees reasonable doubt, thus calling into question the likelihood that any prosecution could be successful, and wether or not the odds are even good enough for the victim to want to submit herself to the broadened scrutiny.
  • Reply 38 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Kobe will not be convicted, that's a foregone conclusion as far as I am concerned. The rich are rarely punished for their actions.
  • Reply 39 of 68
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Kobe will not be convicted, that's a foregone conclusion as far as I am concerned. The rich are rarely punished for their actions.



    Unless those rich people are named Martha Stewart. =/



    PS - I realize you said rarely and not never...
  • Reply 40 of 68
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Unless those rich people are named Martha Stewart.



    I guess I should have said rich men.





    tonton:



    Quote:

    Hey, when she offers to donate any money awarded to rape crisis centers and agrees not to profit through books and interviews, I'm with you there.



    So, you will not acknowledge the fact that she has not used this to acquire fame until she is dead?



    People who do this for money would have at least filed civil suit by now. That's the usual. She may be playing year-long, death-threat-filled possum, but it would surprise me.



    Quote:

    Grover, how would you suggest to best protect any men wrongly accused of rape, for either revenge or extortion? Or do you think that never happens?



    Of course it happens.

    I do not see what prior sexual history has to do with anything, though.



    The way we have done it since the beginning of man was to essentially ignore it or actively discourage women from speaking out.



    Quote:

    One is that celebrity status leads to favorable treatment under the law, and the other is that celebrity status leads to a higher risk of extortion.



    I think both can be true.

    I think in this case it is quite clear that she has not extorted him thus far. We have seen absolutely no evidence of it and a pile of evidence to the contrary.



    Quote:

    As to the first... Martha Stewart? Mike Tyson? OJ? Two out of those three examples clearly did not receive preferential treatment.



    OJ is walking the streets, what the hell are you talking about?



    Quote:

    In my opinion, the risk of a celebrity receiving harsher punishment as a sort of deterrent definitely offsets the risk of them being favored by judge or jury.



    In theory, maybe, but there is absolutely nothing at all to back that theory up while there is a mountain of evidence to show preferential treatment.



    Quote:

    But you cannot ignore the fact that celebrities are a target for those who want to profit off of them. There is no offsetting that factor.



    So...

    Kobe = innocent until proven guilty.

    Accuser = guilty until proven innocent.



    Excellent.
Sign In or Register to comment.