If you read the Newsweek article well publicized on this board you may have less difficulty believing this was Kobe. The author points out that Kobe was a maladjusted loner, who possibly suffered from arrested social development at the adolescent level. This act is IMHO, consistant with an adolescent approach to seduction. Listening to his team mates descriptions of easy conquests available to athletes on the road, maybe he felt he found one. Because of his inexperience the alledged event is a perfect description of an imagined conquest gone sour. And, that friends is called sexual assault and it is a felony.
and in voir dire, the prosecutor will ask something along the lines of, "victims in helpless situations do strange things sometimes...for example, did you know that most experts say that most rape victims don't scream during this traumatic event. do you think that if someone doesn't scream that it means it was likely consensual?" strike potential juror for cause.
always go with your first instinct! this is a criminal case...there will be no monetary settlement. the case is being brought by the county prosecutors, not the girl. there is no amount of money that can buy him out of this in a settlement mode (might be different if it were in Louisiana ) the girl may decide to file civil charges at some point...but she has not, as of yet.
Mackey is a b****. I'm sorry, but saying the girl's name 4 times during the hearing was classless. It's not that hard to say "alleged victim". Crap, everyone else has been saying it for a couple of months now. Ugh. This whole thing makes me sick.
I don't see any reason to believe that Kobe is innocent. The more I hear, the more the girl's story sounds consinstent and reasonable. There are no holes. Kobe is the one who initially lied, changed his story, and is now having his lawyers throw dirt. The only thing Kobe's defenders can say right now is "innocent until proven guilty" and "she could be lying." I see no evidence she is lying, though.
Exactly. Mentioning her name 6 times and then bringing up the ridiculously false suggestion that she slept w/ 3 guys in 3 days (if that was the case we would have heard testimony from these guys yesterday and the trial would have been dismissed altogether) are just malicioius acts of intimidation by the defense team. But I would think the defense team would be a little more wary of using these tactics. The prosecution can just as easily smear Kobe's reputation as well. Who knows, maybe he slept w/ 3 different chicks that same day. The prosecution could bring up all sorts of suggestions to light which would still hurt his public rep long after he was not found guilty.
Haven't you made it clear that you don't practice criminal law? Isn't that implication one thing that bothers you? Why not scream, or say that you're going to scream? Because she didn't doesn't make the sex consenual, but as a juror I'd have to view the case, the evidence or the lack thereof as objectively as possible, right counselor?
Just out of curiosity. What vaginal injuries are caused by rape and how are they distinguished from normal sex. Are they caused because she is thrashing around? Does the guy keep missing and cause damage. Just trying to figure out why that type of evidence is reliable and why a jury could use it.
Weren't there witnesses that said she was bragging about having sex with Kobe Bryant at a party later that evening? If that is the case, 3 guys in 3 days may not be so ridiculous.
And you better believe that when Kobe's story comes out it's going to make the accuser look like a money chasing skank. Also, I think it was a good move on Kobe's part to get a female lawyer.
Well, usually it's because of.....errrrr....... How the hell should we know? Any resident rapists here that can comment??
But it doesn't conflict with what the people on the scene- the bellboy, the detective who came- are saying. At leat not yet.
Panda, in your original post, you state that Kobe’s behavior, according to the accuser, makes him look better than an ordinary rapist. I argue that Kobe, if he behaved this way, does not look better or worse than an ordinary rapist. The points that I “throw away as excuses” are different interpretations between yourself and I. IMO, there was no consensuality. A kiss does not mean it is OK to have sex. No means no. There was both verbal intimidation and violence if he had his hand on her neck and asked if she would keep it a secret. But you argue that no may mean yes and there may have been a misinterpretation about his hand on her neck. If Kobe did behave as the accuser stated and the defense argues the way you have, then Kobe would‘ve used the ordinary excuse of an ordinary rapist. This is why it would make me feel sick. If Kobe did grab her neck in a forceful manner, I would argue that he did use a weapon. Regardless, a weapon would not result in a lighter sentence if the weapon was only used as intimidation. Rape is rape. I do not have any judgment on Kobe. I am not his defense team so I will not try to enlighten this forum on how I would defend Kobe. If Kobe did rape her, maybe I would wave a white flag and ask for leniency. I am only here to say that Kobe’s behavior, according to the accuser, does make him look like a rapist.
Can I ask a naive question? What the F*&K is an "ordinary rapist?" "Your honor, this is merely a case of ordinary rape by my client, an ordinary rapist. He should be tried as such. The prosecution would have you believe that he's an extraordinary rapist. That's a blatant lie, and the evidence will prove that." Damn that's just asinine. Rape is rape. The level of violence that goes alojng with it certainly could and should have a bearing on how sever the punishment is....however. If the girl said no, whether whispered, yelled, screamed, whatever.....IT MEANS F*&^KING NO. Damn.
Man, some of the posts in this thread made me do a And, on both sides of the aisle, so to speak. My best contribution to this thread would be this: this was a preliminary hearing and, it is my understanding, that these things are heavily weighted toward the prosecution which needs to convince the judge that a trial should proceed. I don't think this is supposed to be any kind of forum for Kobe to defend himself. So, I expect that he won't look much worse than he does right now (maybe a little when they correspond the testimony with the physical evidence). When Kobe gives his side, I think things will get much murkier. (Though I'm still leaning toward guilty.) Whoever said that Mackey is a b**** is right. Continual use of the girl's name and dropping this 3 men in 3 days bit (Bryant had her blood on his t-shirt, btw, so it wasn't some other man that caused the vaginal tearing, it was him) which was obviously out of bounds established by the judge is just bush. I'd have made her spend the night in jail. When I was a juror, the defense attorney was this very sleazy lawyer (good, but sleazy) who dropped a bomb on us right at the conclusion, hoping to stir some rage in the jury. But, it was obvious that the judge had already told him it was out of bounds. It pissed me off so bad, I wanted to vote for the plaintiff just to get at the lawyer (I didn't in the end; the jerk won). On the other side, I think Bryant should play this season. Someone asked what kind of message it would send if the NBA let Bryant play with this case in the courts (guilty or not). What kind of message would they send if they abandoned a player in his hour of need because he's facing charges that may or may not be true. I think the message of disloyalty would be more objectionable than any implied support of rapists. Besides that, I don't know if it'd even be legal for them to exile him for charges he hasn't yet been convicted of. Who's#1, McGrady and Bryant had much the same reputation last season. Clean cut guys and good citizens. Is it any more than blind luck that your the fan of the guy who wasn't tried for rape? And, finally my own impression of what happened (if you're still reading). I don't Bryant thought of it as rape at the time and, had it occured to him it was rape, he may well have stopped. But, he knew she was not willing and he willingfully had sex with her anyway.
What Max was saying is that your opinion on this (difficulty accepting why she didn't scream) would preclude you from ever becoming a juror. If you even suggested the feelings you've outlined in this thread, you'd immediately be stricken for cause during the selection process.
Objection Your Honor!. Move to strike. You do know that DaDakota was voted the 2nd most respectable poster on the BBS right???
