Bryant Case: Show her the money
Ka-ching!
I think this paragraph pretty much summarizes the story...
Aka, the DA is going to finally drop this weak case and she wants some money to go away.
Nick
I think this paragraph pretty much summarizes the story...
Quote:
``This young woman is not going away. Whether it proceeds criminally or civilly or both, justice is going to be had for this young woman,'' Clune said.
``This young woman is not going away. Whether it proceeds criminally or civilly or both, justice is going to be had for this young woman,'' Clune said.
Aka, the DA is going to finally drop this weak case and she wants some money to go away.
Nick
Comments
That being said, at this point, it seems like it's all about the $$$. The prosecution hasn't even started and the plaintiff's lawyer is already talking about a civil case?
Sounds like another OJ type scenario. Bryant gets off of the criminal charges, but gets nailed for millions anyway. There's a lower standard of proof in civil courts (preponderance of the evidence) and that could work to the plaintiff's advantage.
Oh yeah, IANAL. This is all IMO, YMMV.
And this article pretty much sets the stage for the civil trial....and we all know what civil trials are for. MONEY!
"All psychologically troubled blonds with a fetish for dark meat, preceded and proceded with multiple entrees of white meat, line up right here for your smorgashboard of greens. The queue for the Kobe fund starts right here!"
That being said, at this point, it seems like it's all about the $$$. The prosecution hasn't even started and the plaintiff's lawyer is already talking about a civil case?
Because the state of Colorado has bungled this case horribly. It is nigh impossible to get a rape conviction against a rich person in the first place, no chance at all if the state's courts and prosecution is incompetent.
Funny that this is the first talk of a civil case. Months later and only after it is obvious the state of Colorado is working as hard as it can to make sure Bryant doesn't suffer any criminal convictions.
Originally posted by groverat
Because the state of Colorado has bungled this case horribly. It is nigh impossible to get a rape conviction against a rich person in the first place, no chance at all if the state's courts and prosecution is incompetent.
Funny that this is the first talk of a civil case. Months later and only after it is obvious the state of Colorado is working as hard as it can to make sure Bryant doesn't suffer any criminal convictions.
It's especially hard to get rape conviction when you have three parties involved and only investigated one.
Nick
Mr. X
Johnson said she analyzed swabs taken from the young woman's inner thighs and area of her vagina, finding sperm and a protein found in semen. DNA tests showed the samples belonged to a man identified in court papers only as "Mr. X."
Johnson said she analyzed the purple G-string panties the woman, then 19, was wearing on the night of her encounter with Bryant, finding DNA that came from both Mr. X and Bryant.
That is some pretty reasonable doubt....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Johnson said she analyzed the purple G-string panties the woman, then 19, was wearing on the night of her encounter with Bryant, finding DNA that came from both Mr. X and Bryant.
Hmm, I thought the defense was arguing that she had sex with someone else after Kobe but before the rape exam, which might be strange behavior for a rape victim. But if it was the same panties, that suggests she probably had sex before Kobe, which weakens that argument.
Originally posted by BRussell
Hmm, I thought the defense was arguing that she had sex with someone else after Kobe but before the rape exam, which might be strange behavior for a rape victim. But if it was the same panties, that suggests she probably had sex before Kobe, which weakens that argument.
The thing is, how do they know who came first? There's your reasonable doubt right there. Although Bryant's shirt had some of her blood on it, but who knows how that happened.
Originally posted by BRussell
Hmm, I thought the defense was arguing that she had sex with someone else after Kobe but before the rape exam, which might be strange behavior for a rape victim. But if it was the same panties, that suggests she probably had sex before Kobe, which weakens that argument.
The same "Mr. X" DNA was also found on the panties that she wore to the hospital the next morning. The prosecution had contended that those panties and the DNA from them were from a prior sexual act. However having found the DNA on both sets of panties introduces the possibility they were from an act inbetween instead of from days before.
I'm sure that they must have some manner of measuring the age of the semen or else the judge would not ruled it admissable. However I'm not going to pretend that I have read something that would support that, or even that I would know how to tell .
Nick
Those are three undeniable facts. What is wrong with pointing them out?
I simply do not wish to hold the girl's sexual history or mental issues against her.
Is my unwillingness to label her a money-grubbing whore unreasonable?
The deck is heavily stacked against rape victims, and people hate them. In all cultures rape victims are scorned and ostracized. That is obviously the case here as well. Just look how people rejoice every time the defense gains ground.
Surely you can see his glee through the paper-thin veil of being concerned about the honor of "innocent until proven guilty"?
Originally posted by groverat
I realize that the vast majority of rapists never come to justice and that this victim's pattern of behavior does not fit the general "out for money/fame" pattern of behavior. I also realize that the wealthy rarely pay for their crimes.
Those are three undeniable facts. What is wrong with pointing them out?
I simply do not wish to hold the girl's sexual history or mental issues against her.
Is my unwillingness to label her a money-grubbing whore unreasonable?
The deck is heavily stacked against rape victims, and people hate them. In all cultures rape victims are scorned and ostracized. That is obviously the case here as well. Just look how people rejoice every time the defense gains ground.
Surely you can see his glee through the paper-thin veil of being concerned about the honor of "innocent until proven guilty"?
About those three facts...
You don't have to hold the girl's sexual or mental history against her. However at the same time it isn't appropriate to withhold information that could prove reasonable doubt. The judge has been very wise on this issue.
You don't have to label her a money-grubbing whore. But at the same time you shouldn't question those bring up the fact that it could be a motive on her part.
This really gets down to what rape used to be about, which was power, not sex. The reason people find it so unbelieveable that someone like Bryant would rape is because the man is loaded to the gills with power and has no need to "find" some power by taking it out on some 19 year old girl. Especially when, right or wrong, he would have a line of consenting women ready to take her place. She doesn't have to be a whore or a slut. But it rings hollow to claim Bryant would force himself on her when he is in a poweful position that gets as much sex as desired with no force.
As for the "cheers" when the defense gains. Could it be that people prefer the justice system be proven to be working and are happy when that is shown to be true? The top two motivations for women to lie about being raped (and up to 50% of all allegations are false depending upon the study) are guilt/shame and spite/revenge.
Regardless of her previous mental states, we see plenty of opportunity for both of those with this woman. It is easy to imagine guilt after Bryant cast her aside after using her admiration for him to gain sex. It could make him an asshole and a cheating dog of a man, but it doesn't make him a rapist. It is easy to see how the spitefulness could be a motivation there as well. Kobe goes back to a big house, pretty wife, big contract and so forth. She is just a fan, working for near minimum wage who had her desires used against her by someone she wanted to admire.
Again it doesn't make Bryant a good person or any other such nonsense. But it also doesn't make him a rapist.
Nick
Kobe Bryant Accuser Sues, Seeks Monetary Damages
DENVER (Reuters) - The woman who accuses basketball star Kobe Bryant of rape sued the Los Angeles Laker in federal court on Tuesday for an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Denver, the woman under the name of "Jane Doe" claimed Bryant raped her when she was bent over a chair in his hotel room in a Vail-area resort last year -- a claim that matches the criminal charge against him.
Originally posted by Northgate
For all those who still hold out the torch of hope that this "victim" is genuine and wasn't going for the money, well the debate is over...
Kobe Bryant Accuser Sues, Seeks Monetary Damages
DENVER (Reuters) - The woman who accuses basketball star Kobe Bryant of rape sued the Los Angeles Laker in federal court on Tuesday for an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Denver, the woman under the name of "Jane Doe" claimed Bryant raped her when she was bent over a chair in his hotel room in a Vail-area resort last year -- a claim that matches the criminal charge against him.
I'll predict an out of court settlement for around $5 million just so that they don't have to bring out witnesses that Bryant has probably slept with. Of course I wonder about the rape shield law in civil matters. Anyone have any information about how rape shield laws work in civil trials?
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
[B]For all those who still hold out the torch of hope that this "victim" is genuine and wasn't going for the money, well the debate is over...
What an amazing non sequitur.
Just because someone sues doesn't mean they've always been in it for the money. Perhaps she's just (justifiably) annoyed that the criminal justice system probably won't punished this man, and hopes to get him punished through the civil justice system? I certainly would in her position. There's no inconsistency, even given the large sums involved ? suing someone out of financial existence seems a very apt substitute for gaol time. The fact that she would make money out of it is neither here nor there.
On the issue of third party semen, I fail to see the relevance of this. Sexual assault turns on reasonable belief of consent in the particular circumstances? the fact that the woman has sex with other men simply isn't relevant to whether she consents to sex with another man ? the point being that who she chooses to have sex with is entirely her own decision. The only kind of theory in which this could be relevant is if you were basically arguing that she is a slut, and therefore must have been begging for it. This pretty much speaks for itself. The fact that this kind of evidence is even admissible is a pretty damning indictment of the legal system.
Originally posted by staphbaby
The only kind of theory in which this could be relevant is if you were basically arguing that she is a slut, and therefore must have been begging for it.
I think she was having a three-some and had an arugment over her rates.
Originally posted by staphbaby
What an amazing non sequitur.
Just because someone sues doesn't mean they've always been in it for the money. Perhaps she's just (justifiably) annoyed that the criminal justice system probably won't punished this man, and hopes to get him punished through the civil justice system? I certainly would in her position. There's no inconsistency, even given the large sums involved ? suing someone out of financial existence seems a very apt substitute for gaol time. The fact that she would make money out of it is neither here nor there.
On the issue of third party semen, I fail to see the relevance of this. Sexual assault turns on reasonable belief of consent in the particular circumstances? the fact that the woman has sex with other men simply isn't relevant to whether she consents to sex with another man ? the point being that who she chooses to have sex with is entirely her own decision. The only kind of theory in which this could be relevant is if you were basically arguing that she is a slut, and therefore must have been begging for it. This pretty much speaks for itself. The fact that this kind of evidence is even admissible is a pretty damning indictment of the legal system.
Can't you pull out anything else besides that sorry excuse of an argument?
You must not have read this thread.
No one has to call her a slut, or even portray her as one. Maybe we just assume she is a regular enlightened, sexually liberated woman of the modern age because what you have pictured in your brain is the stone age. Oh, she must be virginal, and innocent, would never lie, would never falsely accuse someone, would never be spiteful, seek revenge or to harm someone. She is just that sweet, innocent, perfect, virginal daughter next door who needs all the protection and care in the world because they are so weak
Bullshit. When we realize that women truly are the equal of men, it goes both ways. It goes with the bad traits as well as the good.
Nick
This means that chick had sex with someone else (or was in fact raped by someone else) after she had sex with mr. X. It would be a responsible act by the DA and police to find out who Mr. X is.
Furhermore, the DA was attempting to say that the vaginal bruising was consistent with rape. Ok. Well if the plaintiff was raped <b> after</b> her encounter with Bryant then she would have bruising and could be blaming bryant because..well for any number of reasons.
But lets say that Bryant did cause the vaginal bruising. She was bent over a chair, it was possible that Mr. Bryant is "well endowed" and in his eagerness to get off was being rough. So what? All that proves is what Bryant already admited to: having sex.
What of the blood? It is not unusual for premature penetration, even between consenting adults to result in tears in the vaginal wall and resultant bleeding.
These considerations alone are grounds for reasonable doubt. Assuming these pieces of evidence hold up in court Kobe will be aquitted. This is why the "semen' is relevent.
I have already commented in this thread. Read my first goddam post again.
trumpt:
However at the same time it isn't appropriate to withhold information that could prove reasonable doubt.
I do not see how previous sexual activity "proves" reasonable doubt in a rape case.
The rape nurse says the injuries were consistent with rape, you say it could be that way because she had sex with multiple partners... but are there any experts agreeing with that assessment? Did the nurse throw in a "multiple partners" caveat?
Sondjata:
The Issue with the "third party semen" is clear. If Mr. X had ejaculated on or in her vagina prior to the woman's encounter with Bryant. then bryant would have had Mr. X semen on his person ( shirt pants, pubic hair). He did not have any "foreign" semen on him. Thus we can conclude that semen from Mr. X was deposited <b> after</b> the encounter with Bryant.
President Bush's "prove to me you don't have something" logic in full effect.
What of the blood? It is not unusual for premature penetration, even between consenting adults to result in tears in the vaginal wall and resultant bleeding.
These considerations alone are grounds for reasonable doubt. Assuming these pieces of evidence hold up in court Kobe will be aquitted. This is why the "semen' is relevent.
How, then, can any rape case ever be "proved" without a videotape?
I have heard nothing about the doctors who examined her say that her injuries were consistent with multiple consensual partners, only that the injuries were consistent with rape.
And still... it took over one year and constant bungling from Eagle County for a civil trial to come out... but let's keep ignoring that, too.
a) assumed innocent for purposes of a trial.
and
b) It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not the burden of the defence to establish innocence.
given the above, I completely disagree with rape shield laws. They implicitly give more rights to the complainant and take away rights of the accused ( who legally is as innocent as anybody else in the courtroom).
given the above, let's look at the doctors statements ( which have not been tested under cross-examination):
"The injuries are consistent with rape."
Is that all? Was he asked by the DA or anyone else if the injuries could have caused by multiple partners? Has he been asked by the DA if the injuries could have been caused by rought consenual sex? Has the DA inquired as to whether the injuries could have been cause by a man with an above average size penis? I have had women tell me that men with overly large penises can be very uncomfortable, including internal bleeding. Has the doctor excluded the possibilty that Mr. X may have been the one to have caused the injuries since it is very likely he was the last person inside her vagina? lastly if someone is "date raped" what exactly do their injuries look like? Is the doctor implying that there are injuries that are sustained to a vagina that can medically be proven to only come from rape?
I've seen no documentation that shows that these questions have been asked and answered. All of these questions are relevant and must be established by the prosecution to show that it could only be Bryant.
The bungling of the Eagle County courts is really irrelevant to the facts in the case (which no one outside the court actually has). The only bungling that would be relevant would be those relative to forensic evidence. it seems to me that the forensic evidence is sinking the DA's case and they know it.
Is this a court of law? Why does "innocent until proven guilty" apply here?
"Is that all?"
That's all I've read. I am trying to work with the information given me and I have read a rape nurse say the injuries were consistent with rape.
If I were to read testimony from a doctor or rape nurse who examined her say the injuries were consistent with consensual sex I would take that into account.
My most unpardonable sin, it seems, is the insistence that she be treated fairly by the law and by the public. Dispute that as my motive all you like, but as the post above mine proves (and in every damned thread about this), our society hates rape victims.