As I stated earlier, medical literature shows that Vaginal tearing can occur with normal intercourse therefore in my mind and in any other physicians mind vaginal tearing alone is not enough evidence, now it lies on the prosecuter and defense to sway the jury to their side.
A few points: Re: screaming; As I tried to point out earlier, studies show that many rape victims, in fact a majority, don't scream. I tried to offer reasons for this, but that was just to broaden the discussion...the fact that we know this is very common, in fact usual, sort of precludes any inference that an objective observer could draw about an alleged victim not screaming casting doubt on her story. Again...it is usual...how can doing what is usual for a rape victim make it less likely that you are a rape victim merely because what is usual seems illogical to a particular observer? I don't thinkt that that's being objective...Objectivity might cause you to raise the question...but once you learned that it was a common occurence, to continue to insist that it raises doubts seems to be less than objecitve. I can see why rape victims don't scream...I can see how easy it is for men not being raped by relative giants to suggest that, well, it's Kobe Bryant, you KNOW he's not going to kill you...just rape you...when the reality would be a much different experience for the victim...but the point is that all of that is besides the point. IF it was common practice for rape victims to leave the scene of the crime and go to a movie...or go out dancing...or whatever...IF that was USUAL...the fact that it makes no sense to me would be irelevent; if it's usual, it's usual, whether or not I get it, and accepting that is objectivity. re; the vaginal bleeding. The nurse stated that the bleeding was not consistent with consensual sex, agreed...but what, exactly, are her qualifications for making this conclusion? I agree that she'd have a much better idea than a layman, but enough upon which to suppose Kobe's guilt? I don't know...It IS odd that there was so much bleeding that it got on his shirt...and I agree that it SUGGESTS something atypical...but not conclusive. Again, we don't know...maybe she was so injured that it was an easy call to make, and even a nurse could decide that, I don't know...I do know that, for now, the judgement of a nurse, until qualified, is not conclusive so much as suggestive to me. An aspect that is, I feel, important is the actions of this girl immediatley upon leaving the room. Her co-worker with whom she has, by all accounts, no more than a professional relationship immediately percieved that something was very wrong with her, and upon being asked, she immediately told him the account of the story that is still the prosecution's allegation. And he immediately said that the police had to be called, and was so concerned about her that he followed her home to make sure she got there ok...That suggests that one of two things is probable; either this was a pre-meditated act on her part, and she was already acting coming out of his room, or she believed that she had been assaulted. As to her belief, that's another story...It is possible that someone with emotional issues could believe that she was violated when she wasn't, or when there would have been no way for the man to know she felt that way...and it is possible that she would have an honest memory of the events which were not, in fact, true, but were an external projection of her internal issues wherein the man becomes responsible in her mind for actions he never actually commited. This is, however, highly unlikely, although this girl does, apparently, have a history of emotional problems. Not to suggest that people with emotional problems are therefore eliminated from their ability to accuse others of crimes against them, it's just a possibility, however remote. re; the defense tactics; Kobe's defense team did things they could never do in trial, and in fact contradict the Rape Victim Shield Laws..and every single trial expert I have seen commenting on this has agreed as to the purpose; to intimidate the alleged victim. No one has suggested any other possible reason for the questionable actions of the defense in the hearing. How you feel about this is a matter of opinion, but it seems to be accepted that that was the intent.
Because there are other remotely plausible reasons for that tearing. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If I am on the jury, even if I really believe Kobe is lying and probably a rapist, and the victim is telling the whole truth, I still have to acquitt in good conscious unless I am absolutely convinced Kobe has to be lying.. It can't just be a matter for Kobe being somewhat less believable than the victim and the victum having a plausible story--has to be a slam dunk obvious case against the perpetraitor. That is the nature of our criminal system--and it does suck for victims quite often as many guilty go free (maybe more than half) but that is a cost for doing the best we can as a society to make sure that as humanly possible innocent people are not convicted. I for one am glad the system is the way it is even if there are some really sucky side effects (on victims) very often. I am not saying the screams have to be present, or damage like for many Bosnia women have to be present, or other injuries (neck) have to be present--but all those things would make it more of a slam dunk case that you need to convict--that is what I am saying.
Associated Press EAGLE, Colo. -- In what analysts say is an abrupt shift in strategy, prosecutors in the Kobe Bryant case asked the judge to close at least a portion of the preliminary hearing when it resumes next week. Prosecutors made the request in private after defense attorneys, during the hearing on Thursday, questioned the sexual history of the woman who accused the NBA star of rape. Prosecution spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said Friday the request involved a portion of the hearing. She declined to provide additional details. Tom Kelley, a Denver attorney who represents several media organizations including The Associated Press, said he was told prosecutors sought to close the balance of the hearing. Earlier, prosecutors had supported a public hearing, and Kelley called the move a "flip-flop." "They got in all the stuff that is harmful to Kobe. When the witness started taking a beating on cross-examination, they move to close," Kelley said. Larry Pozner, former president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, said it appeared to be a defensive action. "I think yesterday's move was a snap move where they said this is getting even worse than we envisioned," he said. The preliminary hearing, which began Thursday, was expected to be an easy victory for prosecutors. But it ran more than six hours and ended with a suggestion from defense attorney Pamela Mackey that the woman's injuries might be "consistent with a person who has had sex with three different men in three days." Bryant, a guard for the Los Angeles Lakers, showed no emotion as the woman's story emerged: a flirtatious encounter that got out of control. Eagle County sheriff's Detective Doug Winters related the woman's account with graphic details of Bryant grabbing her by the neck and attacking her. Pozner said prosecutors made a tactical error by introducing photographs of the woman's injuries and allowing Winters to describe the nurse's conclusions. That gave the defense an opening to bring up the woman's sexual history. Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett took the prosecution request to close the hearing under advisement and allowed defense attorneys to question Winters behind closed doors about statements Bryant made to police before he was arrested. The prosecution was hurt by the defense's actions Thursday, said Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. "It's not going to be a piece of cake to get a conviction against Kobe Bryant," Pugsley said. Bryant faces up to life in prison if convicted of the single count of felony sexual assault against him. He has said he and the 19-year-old Eagle woman had consensual sex while he stayed at the mountain resort where she worked. Bryant, who returned to practice with the Lakers on Friday, is free on $25,000 bond and must return to Eagle on Wednesday when the hearing resumes. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1635261
An ordinary rapist means rapists with typical and negative characteristics in rape, of which some aren't present in Kobe's case, which also makes it easier to defend Kobe, in terms of rendering him innocent or results in lighter sentence. It's rather stupid to assume all rapists are exactly the same and distinction shouldn't've been made from a legal point.
When are you posters that are talking about vaginal tearing admit that what we are really talking about here is package size, and not height differential. Some guys that are 6'6 might be small in the pants. Really short guys might cause tearing if they are well endowed. I don't think bringing up height difference is any kind of proof of anything in regards to the vaginal tearing. It makes me wonder, though, if the size of Kobe's member would be brought up as evidence in this case, for either side of the case. Crude and disturbing, sure, but a possibility? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Has that ever happened before?
It's rather stupid to misconstrue my point without clarifying to retrofit your previous statment in this thread. I said RAPE is RAPE, not rapists are rapists. HUGE difference. I also said in my post that certainly the degree of violence and the trauma associated should have a bearing on the severity of the sentence or punishment.
Not sure if it is only package size, I could imagine (AND NO, THIS IS NOT FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE ) that even with an average or smaller sized member, damage could be done if it is against the will of the woman and very vigorous.
Sure it isn't based on your experience I can see it now, the defense saying, "Look see, there is no possible way this here could be responsible for any tearing. Kobe could be responsible for cuts or puncture wounds maybe, but not tearing."
So why did you complain about making a distinction between ordinary rapists and not so ordinary rapists in the court, and said the concept of ordinary rapists or the mentioning it as being asinine? What the hell is your point?I feel like going in circles following your ambiguous drift.
Certainly it could be. I never said otherwise. But what some are saying in this thread is that, even if the sex was consensual, vaginal tearing might have occured if he was very tall (which I read as him being well endowed). I'm just saying that just because he is a tall guy, doesn't mean he's big in the pants...and I was curious as to whether or not something like that might be brought up in the court case.
Probably too private a question to ask, but here goes: Has anybody here ever had sex so "vigorous" that there was enough bleeding for you to get blood on your own clothes? I've had my share of vigorous sex, and that has never happened, ever, unless the girl was near her period. Excellent post by Macbeth.
that's exactly what my previous post addressed. never has happened, even with my current girlfriend, who is a very small woman.
Just watched ESPNEWS. The girl's boss said that he saw her after her encounter with Kobe. He said that she seemed normal and her attitude was no different than it had always been. She went about her job until her shift ended, like always. Mix that with the fact that there are multiple semen stains in the girls underwear. Not saying that this concludes that she wasnt raped, but definitely damages the prosecutions position. Kobe also had no scratches, bruises, cuts, or marks on his body after he was taken to get checked out. The defense also has other evidence that will jeopardize the prosecution's claims. Kobe will be a free man.
One questions: 1. How old were the semen stains? If you are saying there are multiple stains from that day (or the couple days before) then it shows the vaginal damage may have been done to someone else and mor eimportantly damages her case as an "innocent" victim since from all accounts she has no boyfried (or at least shows her being permiscuious sp?)
