...since Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden asked OJ to try on the glove?" Maybe, maybe no. As long as there is no "white bronco" chase during the NBA finals with this case, the comparisons between this and the OJ trial are only somewhat annoying. http://msnbc.com/news/978469.asp?0cv=CB20 Oct. 9 — After much deliberation, I’ve come to the conclusion that the defense team in the Kobe Bryant case must possess a videotape of the alleged victim bragging to her friends about how she made the whole thing up and is planning to buy a Ferrari and a chateau in the south of France with all the cash she expects to milk from this situation. BECAUSE IF NOT, then the surprising decision by lawyers Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon to go ahead with the preliminary hearing on Thursday might be the stupidest tactic perpetrated by attorneys since Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden asked O.J. to try on the glove. Granted, the proceedings are not finished, so it’s only fair to give Kobe’s mouthpieces an incomplete. The hearing will continue on Wednesday in Eagle, Colo., supposedly because there was so much vitriolic bickering between the prosecution and defense that they almost had to be Maced. Mackey and Haddon might have something up their finely tailored sleeves to try and discredit the woman’s story. But the details revealed Thursday were so lurid and shocking that Kobe Bryant’s image has been forever altered in an ominous way, even if the outcome goes down to the “He said/She said” wire. Detective Doug Winters testified Thursday that the alleged victim told him a flirtation involving kissing and hugging turned into rape in Bryant’s hotel room on the night of June 30. Winters recounted that she said Bryant grabbed her by the neck, bent her over a chair and attacked her, all the while saying, “You’re not going to tell anyone, right?” Allegedly, she told Bryant “No” at least twice, but he continued. She said she cried during the ordeal, which only ended when she finally pried his fingers off her neck. It was also revealed in court that a nurse stated the woman had vaginal injuries that were not consistent with consensual sex, and that she also had a bruise on her jaw. Now again, I’m expecting the other side to counterpunch in some dramatic way. I assume Mackey and Haddon have something so damaging to the credibility of the alleged victim that they were willing to go forth with the preliminary hearing and allow all these horrific claims to be made public. Because if they don’t, then the next several months for Bryant will be the equivalent of buzzards feasting on carrion. Talk shows will rip him apart, or allow their callers to do it. Some fans will look at him with suspicion, others will heckle him mercilessly. Before this, the allegations were cloudy, and Bryant was considered somebody who was an unlikely sexual attacker. Now? Again, who knows, but Thursday’s revelations painted an incredibly ugly and vivid picture, one that did not need to be unveiled and displayed prior to a trial months from now in front of a jury. Why would Mackey and Haddon put their client through this? Why not waive the preliminary hearing and go directly to trial? Since the alleged victim was not compelled to testify at Thursday’s event, and therefore the defense attorneys would not have a chance to cross-examine the “She said” half in this two-person incident, what could possibly be gained by allowing the sordid specifics to be revealed and thus marinate in the public consciousness in the months before the trial? Did they really think that, considering the amount of evidence the prosecution has, the judge would somehow rule that going to trial would be a big waste of everyone’s time? At one point in Thursday’s testimony, it was alleged that after the incident, Bryant asked the woman to kiss his penis. Do Mackey and Haddon believe that fans in opposing arenas are far too sporting and gentlemanly to bring up that bit of business when Kobe Bryant takes to the basketball court? And if the defense’s strategy is to discredit the woman, an approach that makes sense given the circumstances, there is a way to do it and a way not to do it. Speaking not as a legal expert but solely as a citizen who might be called to jury duty someday, I can only conclude that Mackey and Haddon have lost their minds. On Thursday, the judge admonished Mackey after she blurted out the name of the woman at six times. In our society, even though there is spirited debate on the subject, the names of alleged rape victims are shielded. It may have just been repeated slips of the tongue. It’s possible. Mackey has had to deal with a lot of facts in the preparation of this case. She’s aware of the woman’s name daily. Maybe she did blurt it out accidentally and repeatedly, although given her experience, that’s a tough one to swallow. But if Mackey did this intentionally, then she has taken an almost insurmountable lead in the Sleazebag Lawyer of the Year race, because the only reason to do so would be to invite more outside pressure on the woman and therefore hope she flips out and changes her mind about cooperating. Keep in mind that one creep has already been arrested and jailed for conspiring to murder her. Also, the proceedings Thursday ended after one of Bryant’s attorneys suggested that the woman’s injuries would also be “consistent with a person who has had sex with three different men in three days.” That’s low, even for legal eagles. The defense had better have testimony and physical evidence from three different sexual partners of that woman to prove that charge. If not, I believe that sympathies among the jury pool will have shifted toward the alleged victim and away from a defense team willing to throw just about anything against someone’s character in the desperate hope to make something stick. Advertisement One of the recurring themes in this case is the contention that Kobe Bryant should be treated like anyone else accused of these crimes. Yet he’s a public figure, a globally famous basketball player, and therefore unlike most people. Certainly he should get no special treatment from the judicial process, but he should get it from his own attorneys. They should have understood that he will have to exist in the public eye, and this disturbing chapter in this increasingly seamy saga will make that more difficult than ever. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Ventre writes regularly for NBCSports.com and is a freelance writer in Los Angeles.
Can everyone not make judgements till Kobe gets to present his case. As far as going ahead with this hearing, I heard a lawyer on the radio say Kobe's strategy might be to guage public opinion by getting it out in the open.
I don't think the writer is making any judgements. I felt as though he was bringing an interesting and very possible point of view to light.....the fact that they'd (the defense) better have something strong and shocking up their sleeve, otherwise they should not have put Kobe through that. Get it out in the open? Guage public opinion? Maybe...but certainly it would not be favorable in any way having done this. If anything, if even mildly, public opinion of him will worsen. I think this statement from the article puts it best: "Because if they don’t, then the next several months for Bryant will be the equivalent of buzzards feasting on carrion. Talk shows will rip him apart, or allow their callers to do it. Some fans will look at him with suspicion, others will heckle him mercilessly. Before this, the allegations were cloudy, and Bryant was considered somebody who was an unlikely sexual attacker. Now? Again, who knows, but Thursday’s revelations painted an incredibly ugly and vivid picture, one that did not need to be unveiled and displayed prior to a trial months from now in front of a jury. "
I can't help but to have visions fo Kobe shooting free throws and seeing Clutch the Bear holding a sign up behind the basket reading, "Kiss it!" That's terible, but you know its going to happen somewhere...
I know, this was the wrong thread to make that comment. Why hasn't R Kelly's case gone to trial yet. That sex tape of his started appearing a year ago and we haven't heard anything about it?
Here's what I don't get in these she-said-he-said cases: how do you prove them "beyound reasonable doubt"? So far you have a compelling case for the prosecution: You have a girl coming out with injuries, you've got her blood on Kobe's t-shirt, you've got her story to be consistent, specific, and full of detail. I don't know how she would hold up in court, but from the police account you don't get the the feeling of vagueness that you get from made-up stories. And yet, is that enough? You can always make cases like the defense here, that she had sex with three guys in three days, hence the injuries, that many women bleed even in consentual sex, hence the blood etc. And if you can't convict with this type of evidence, what do you need to convict in a situation like this?Plus, it's not really a he-said-she-said situation, it more like she-said-he-denied case. If Kobe takes the Fifth which is the most likely thing to happen, then you can't poke holes in his story, you can only discredit the accuser's story. And if there is no way to convict a guy in a she-said-he-said situation, does that mean that once a guy gets into a room with a girl with no witnesses he can have his way with her and walk off free, regardless of what she says, injuries, blood, etc... I just don't know...
But there is a way. A jury can decide that one witness is more credible than the other and rule that way. They are allowed to believe whatever story presented to them that they want to believe and weigh the evidence however they choose. The fact that there will be more than one story told to the jury does not mean that the jurors cannot choose one story to believe. The fact that more than one story is presented is not, in and of itself, reasonable doubt. Clearly there is a way to convict people in he-said/she-said situations because it happens every day. Every trial has some level of conflicting stories. That's why there's a trial.
What you get is a story full of question marks. 1. If no other women come out of the woodworks attesting that Kobe doesn't know what NO means, how believable is it that he all of a sudden rapes someone? As of now, his former girlfriends are acting as character witnesses as to his gentlemanly relations with women. 2. There was consensual interaction between the two after she went up to his room voluntarily (via a private route). They kiss, she decides to leave within 5 minutes to clock out, and he suddenly grabs her by the back of the neck and rapes her. Pretty coarse flow of events in such a short time frame and considering that you'd have to believe Kobe was sexually frustrated to the point of raping her after she withdrew from kissing. 3. Kobe forces her to a chair and restrains her around the throat. In such a position, Kobe wouldn't be able to restrain her legs and both arms. He is also a foot taller than her which would make for a difficult sexual position with his arm outstretched to her throat and his knees probably bent. He has her by the throat hard enough to restrain her, yet there were no detectable bruises on her neck. 4. Kobe turns her head around by the jaw to demand that she "not tell". She has a small bruise on her chin. That's the extent of what was supposed to be noticeable and unmistakable bruising. 5. She says NO more than once and is crying throughout the ordeal which indicates that Kobe wasn't smart enough to realize that the sex wasn't consensual. 6. Afterwards, he commands her repeatedly not "to tell anyone", indicating that he knew full well that he raped her. How likely is it that Kobe would actually incriminate himself to her and imply guilt? When he secures her compliance, he then tells her to kneel down and kiss it? If Kobe had just gotten her to promise that she wasn't going "to tell" after she was crying thru the whole thing, how likely is it that he would mess it up by demeaning her even further? Why didn't the woman initially tell that part of the story to the detectives? 7. The vaginal lacerations had to be blown up in photographs from areas measuring a mere 1-2 millimeters and needed to be dyed to be detectable to the human eye. Det Winters couldn't say whether or not the pictures were right side up and he further corroborated that he never saw bruises on her throat. 8. No mention of how much blood was on Kobe's shirt (could've been a speck) or if it was menses blood (which can be differentiated from "regular" blood in lab tests). Was that the source of DNA or was it semen? 9. After just being brutally raped, the victim stays until the end of her shift and counts the money in the register before clocking out. She tells the bellman, but the bellman curiously doesn't call the cops. Kobe, having just knowingly raped her (as evidenced by his "don't tell" comments), stays at the hotel and plays checkers with his bodyguards in the lobby afterwards. 10. If there is proof for the 3-in-3 comment, then it might fit an exception to the Colo rape shield statute which states that evidence which shows the true source of semen or injuries is allowable. Despite the media criticizing Mackey for bringing it up, such evidence would not be attesting to her promiscuity, but to how she got those 1 millimeter injuries.
And those are all questions of fact for the jury to decide. And they will decide them when it gets to that point. You don't decide them right now before the case has even been presented. This case is going to go to trial. The premlimiary hearing will find enough evidence to go to trial, as the standard is very low. I imagine we'll see some answers to those questions during the proceedings, and I'm sure we'll see some more questions raised. In the end, if any questions brought up in the case are not answered to the jury's satisfaction, then a conviction is probably not in the offing. But people have been convicted of rape on less than what we've thus far seen. But I don't think you can critique a case (either way) before the case has been presented in toto.
mrpaige: But I don't think you can critique a case (either way) before the case has been presented in toto. As opposed to the other multi-page thread where most posters are convinced he did it before hearing his side?
No, I think that's the wrong way to go, too. That's kind of why there's the (either way) in my post. I mean, we'll never really know what happened, but I think we should wait to hear the facts of the case before forming any conclusions about it. (Of course, in the end, it doesn't really matter what any of us think anyway).
