i don't think this is necessarily so. before we make statements like this, let's get a look at the physical evidence first.
"Some of the details (of the case) are explosive. Dateline (NBC) had some of this information and decided not to air it. ... This speculation is quite solid from where I sit." Good for Dateline. I hate the damn media. So now I guess parents will have to explain to their little kids what anal sex is. They already know all about oral sex thanks to the Clinton stuff. I hope nobody is wondering why we have kids getting blown on school buses.
<b>knifejc</b> Supreme court recently ruled against the sodomy law in Texas and made all other sodomy laws, defacto, unconstitutional.
I think it happened like this.....He invites her to his room, they have vaginal sex. Kobe wants some anal, she refuses, he does it against her will. I think it is reasonable and I don't give a damn about all the means (like her supposed o/d) to tar and feather her. That said, what are the chances of conviction? About the same as Johnny Cochrane taking the case pro bono.
i don't think that's necessarily unfortunate...that's just how our justice system works through the jury system. not sure there's a better way to do it. both sides will eliminate people they deem to be threats to their case...what you get in between is hopefully a fair and impartial jury. hopefully.
But you have to remember who has final say on the makeup of the jury.......the defense team. What a big plus for them.
I've heard this frequently, but peope who criticize do not offer a suggestion for an improvement. It's the classic situation: Honey, where do you want to go for dinner? Oh, I don't care. Ok. How about Outback Steakhouse? No, not there. Ok. How about Chilis? No, I don't feel like Chilis. Ok. How about Pao's Mandarin House? No, I don't feel like chinese tonight . . .