PDA

View Full Version : kobe's hearing - accuser's side of story


superheadcat
10-09-2003, 05:33 PM
don't want to bump an old thread already too long. guess today's hearing is worth some discussion, especially opinions from some lawyers in this forum.


EAGLE, Colo. -- The 19-year-old resort worker accusing Kobe Bryant of rape told investigators the NBA superstar attacked her from behind, grabbing her by the neck and forcing himself on her despite repeated protests, according to testimony Thursday.


The woman described a consensual sexual encounter that spiraled suddenly out of her control, Eagle County Sheriff's Detective Doug Winters said at a hearing to determine whether Bryant stands trial.


According to Winters, the Los Angeles Lakers star was joined by the front desk worker on a tour of the posh mountain resort last June. After some flirting, Bryant asked her back to his suite.


The woman showed Bryant a tattoo on her back but turned down his request to join him in the hot tub, Winters said.


Her shift was ending and she "wanted to go home," he said. "She stated she was starting to feel a bit uncomfortable."


She stood up to leave and Bryant gave her a hug that led to some consensual kissing, Winters said.


When she turned around to leave, Bryant grabbed her by the neck, pulled up her skirt and raped her against a chair, Winters said. She told investigators she told Bryant "no" at least twice, before bursting into tears as the five-minute attack went on.


During and after the attack, he said, Bryant kept asking, "You are not going to tell anyone, right?" She said she agreed at one point.

"She said the reason she told him no was for fear of -- she didn't want him to commit more physical harm to her," Winters said.


He also said a nurse who examined the woman later at a hospital found injuries consistent with a sexual assault.


Bryant faces up to life in prison if he stands trial and is convicted of the single felony charge of sexual assault.

That testimony came after, in a surprising move, Bryant's lawyers went ahead with the hearing to determine whether the NBA superstar should stand trial for rape.


Legal experts had expected the defense to waive the hearing and head straight to trial rather than allow prosecutors to lay out their case publicly for the first time.

"The only reason the defense would choose to go ahead with a preliminary hearing when it doesn't have to is it believes, given the minimal amount of evidence the prosecution is going to be putting on, it may gain more by cross-examining those witnesses," said Stan Goldman, a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, when the decision to hold the hearing was announced.

Goldman suggested the defense may call witnesses to testify -- a list that could include Bryant himself.


The judge had already rejected defense requests to have the woman testify in person and to see her medical records.

Earlier in the afternoon, Bryant arrived at the courthouse, ignoring a throng of reporters and spectators gathered outside. He had to take off a necklace and was checked with a metal-detecting security wand before walking through a metal detector and into the courtroom.

Thursday morning, people began lining up at the courthouse to get into the hearing. Security for the hearing was beefed up after dozens of threats have been made against the prosecutor, the judge and Bryant's accuser. Judge Frederick Gannett has acknowledged receiving letters containing death threats, and two men have been charged with threatening Bryant's accuser.

Court officers examined photo identifications before issuing passes to the handful of people. Among them was George Zinn of Salt Lake City, who arrived on a Greyhound bus to watch the spectacle.

"I don't consider Kobe a role model," he said.

Virginia Ricke, an Ames, Iowa, retiree sightseeing in Colorado, drove to Eagle from nearby Glenwood Springs to watch. She said she believes the justice system will work but her intuition tells her something went awry between Bryant and the woman in a room at a nearby resort last June.

"I kind of believe that what happened in that room was dumb, whether it was rape or not, because he had such a good, clean image before," she said.

Nearby, a group of University of Colorado students handed out packages of condoms and legal contracts that both parties would sign to agree to consensual sex.

The case against Bryant could lead to a celebrity trial the likes of which have not been seen since O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges eight years ago.

Since Monday, about 300 television, print and radio reporters and camera crews have been arriving in Eagle, filling motel rooms and parking TV satellite trucks in a vacant lot across from the courthouse that normally is a lumber dealer's back yard.

At Bryant's initial court appearance on Aug. 6, he said just two words: "No, sir," when Gannett asked if he objected to giving up his right to have a preliminary hearing within 30 days. Unlike that appearance, cameras were banned from the courtroom this time.

Prosecutors planned to put a sheriff's detective on the witness stand to describe some details of what allegedly happened between Bryant and his accuser.


Bryant needed to appear for a bail hearing regardless of whether his lawyers waived the preliminary hearing. There also is a possibility he could enter a plea during an arraignment before another judge.

Two district judges were on notice they might be called to preside over an arraignment if the defense asks, state courts spokeswoman Karen Salaz said. By agreeing to an immediate arraignment, Bryant would not have to come back to Eagle again in the next 30 days to answer the charge.

Under Colorado law, Bryant must be arraigned within 30 days of the preliminary hearing or the decision to waive the hearing. After that, he is guaranteed the right to go to trial within six months, but he could waive that right as well.

Drbio
10-09-2003, 05:40 PM
It just keeps getting worse and worse for showbe.

Shaq Attack2
10-09-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
It just keeps getting worse and worse for showbe.

You should follow the case more. Nothing new was said here.

dirno2000
10-09-2003, 05:56 PM
That's not true. Today was the 1st time actual accounts of the events as told by both parties was reveled.

LRB
10-09-2003, 06:21 PM
Maybe Kobe will realize that he shouldn't have obeyed his thirst. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif

ocelot_ark
10-09-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Maybe Kobe will realize that he shouldn't have obeyed his thirst. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif

Sooo...wrong. Yet, so hilarious!

Shaq Attack2
10-09-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Maybe Kobe will realize that he shouldn't have obeyed his thirst. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif

OMG, you are on a roll with the Kobe jokes! i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif


Originally posted by: dirno2000
That's not true. Today was the 1st time actual accounts of the events as told by both parties was reveled.

This info was leaked out weeks/months ago. This article merely made it "official".

Drbio
10-09-2003, 11:42 PM
SA2- yo ushould follow the case more. Until it becomes official record, it is nothing more than speculation and inuendo.

Many here have tried to put aside Kobe-bias until facts arise. Today...facts were presented.

superheadcat
10-10-2003, 03:39 AM
i am a bit hesitant posting the following article, mostly concerning the graphic details provided in the article.

two reasons make me decide to post:
1. i have reasonable confidence in the professional ethic of the author and outlet of the article;
2. more importantly, i am highly confident about the quality of the readers here.

here u go:

Rocky Mountain News
Drama in courtroom
Bryant lawyer's line of questioning halts preliminary hearing

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
October 10, 2003

EAGLE - The sexual assault case against Los Angeles Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant exploded into courtroom drama Thursday, as a defense lawyer's question to the lead detective drew the preliminary hearing to a screeching halt.

First, however, Eagle County Sheriff's Detective Doug Winters testified that the young woman who has accused Bryant of rape, a hotel concierge, had tried to leave his room when he grabbed her by the neck, pulled up her black dress and raped her against a chair.

Winters said the woman told investigators she said "no" to Bryant at least twice before bursting into tears as the five-minute attack continued.

But defense attorney Pamela Mackey appeared to cast aspersions on the truthfulness of the alleged victim's version of events by repeatedly calling it the woman's "story."

Then, 30 minutes into her cross-examination of Winters, the lone state witness to appear Thursday, Mackey dropped a bombshell as she asked about the nature of pinpoint lacerations near the alleged victim's genitals.

In verifying that a nurse trained in handling sexual-assault victims had told Winters that the injuries were consistent with "penetrating genital trauma," Mackey asked, "You didn't ask her if it was consistent with a person who had sex with three different men in three days?"

Deputy District Attorney Greg Crittenden, who had led Winters on direct examination earlier in the afternoon, erupted from his chair to object.

Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett promptly ordered the lawyers and Bryant - who had sat impassively through much of the hearing, his hands folded before him, periodically scowling or pursing his lips - into a private room adjoining the court.

The parties emerged about 65 minutes later and court reconvened at 6:20 p.m., at which point the judge announced the hearing was over for the day.

"Things did not progress as we had expected," he told the packed courtroom, his words carrying electronically down the hall to a second, larger courtroom, where many others were listening.

Gannett confirmed that Mackey's line of questioning - and Crittenden's cry of foul - had triggered the abrupt interruption in the proceedings.

'Despicable, sleazy' tactic

The preliminary hearing in the case against Bryant, accused of class 3 felony sexual assault but free on $25,000 bond, is scheduled to resume Wednesday morning.

But Gannett said from the bench that Eagle District Attorney Mark Hurlbert has asked the judge to ban the public and the media from the rest of the hearing.

It was the defense that had previously requested a closed hearing, only to be denied.

Mackey's stunning final question to Winters drew a heated reaction moments later from former Denver District Attorney Norm Early, one of several legal observers from the metro area who are following the case.

"It was contemptible, despicable, and sleazy," Early nearly shouted, as he stormed down a hallway choked with curious members of the public and reporters from across the country, and from as far away as Italy.

Many students of the case had theorized that the defense, having lost its bid to close the hearing, and having been rebuffed in its effort to subpoena the 19-year-old alleged victim, would waive its right to the preliminary hearing and proceed straight to trial.

Early said Mackey's question revealed the defense team's motive for going ahead with the hearing, with a rapt public watching.

"The only reason they had the preliminary hearing was to smear the victim," said Early, clearly enraged.

Indeed, Colorado's rape shield law says an alleged victim's prior conduct can't be brought into an existing case.

So was Mackey in violation of that law? No, said Dan Recht, a Denver defense attorney. She may pose the question, then the judge will determine if the prosecutor's objection will be honored, he said.

"To ask the question is not some ethical violation on Pam's part," -Recht said.

In his direct testimony, Winters said the alleged victim stated that Bryant repeatedly sought her assurances that she would tell no one of what had occurred.

At one point, Winters said the woman told him, "He made her turn her head (so he could see her face) and tell him" she would stay quiet.

Other than the vaginal trauma the alleged victim suffered, Winters testified that the only visible physical injury to the woman was a bruise about half the size of a penny on her left jawline.

On cross examination by Mackey, Winters said he saw no bruising or discoloration on the woman's neck, where she said Bryant had gripped her.

Winters also testified that forensic investigators found some of the woman's blood on the inside of Bryant's Nike T-shirt, at the waistline.

Bryant asked her to return

Mackey, the junior member of Bryant's high-powered legal team anchored by JonBenet Ramsey case veteran Hal Haddon, already had raised eyebrows - and the fury of the victim's advocates on hand - by referring to the alleged victim by name not once, or twice, but six times in about 20 minutes. Mackey said she had done so by accident.

All the other participants in Thursday's hearing had alluded to the woman's initials, "K.F."

"This is very hard for me," Mackey said in apology on one occasion. "I don't think of her as 'K.F.' "

"I could just go get the muzzle," cautioned Gannett, who had issued an order to the media against naming the young woman.

Steve Siegel, chairman of the Denver Sex Assault Interagency Council, wasn't placated by Mackey's assurances that she'd uttered the alleged victim's name by accident.

"Considering the commitment that everybody made, and given the judge's order (not to publish the name), I think it was inexcusable," said Siegel. "And I think her minimizing her behavior was inappropriate."

Even before it ran off the rails, the Bryant hearing already had proved more than memorable.

Winters, a seven-year veteran of the sheriff's department and a detective for 4 ½ years, recounted the statement he'd taken from the alleged victim - and recorded on videotape - the afternoon of July 1, the day following the alleged assault.

Bryant has admitted to committing adultery with his alleged victim, but said it was consensual. The young woman, who lived in Eagle at the time of the alleged assault, was not in court Thursday, although John Clune, an attorney retained by her family, sat in the first row behind the prosecutors' table

Winters said the woman, who had started her shift at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera in Edwards late that day due to car trouble, had taken a call the evening of June 30 from a travel agent to confirm reservations for three men, including a "Javier Rodriguez."

When the young concierge said she had no such reservation, the caller told her Javier Rodriguez was, in fact, Kobe Bryant. She recognized the name.

Winters said the woman had shown Bryant to his room - No. 35, at the end of the hall on the ground floor. While in the room, she told the detective, Bryant allegedly pulled her aside, out of the earshot of his two male companions, and asked her to return later to give him a tour of the upscale resort.

Kissing was consensual

She did so about 15 minutes later, the detective recounted, and the young woman admitted "there was mutual flirting going back and forth" as she showed him the pool, the Jacuzzi, the spa, and ended up on a first-floor balcony, where they were briefly joined by a hotel bellman.

During the tour, Winters said, "He asked her if she had a boyfriend. I believe she stated that she didn't at that time."

Bryant, Winters said, then asked the woman to show him back to his room. Once there, Winters said, "She showed him where the bears come up to the window."

Soon, she seated herself on a couch, he took a seat in a nearby chair, and, "She stated that they were just chit-chatting," Winters testified.

The talk turned to tattoos, he said. Winters initially testified that she mentioned a tattoo on her back, and that Bryant asked her to raise the back of her dress to show him. However, later in the hearing, Winters admitted he was confusing statements that had been made, and that he believed the discussion at that time between Bryant and the woman concerned a tattoo on her ankle.

Bryant, the detective said, asked the woman to join him in a Jacuzzi. She declined. She'd brought markers and some paper to the room, in hopes of getting his autograph.

"He stated that he would do it later. He didn't want to do it then because he wanted her to come back later," Winters said the young woman told him.

Although she had started to feel uncomfortable, the detective said, when Bryant asked her for a hug, she agreed.

"He began kissing her, kissing her neck, which she agreed to," Winters said the young woman told him. "She stated that she was fine with that.

"She was excited that he was showing interest in her (during the earlier flirtations), which is why she agreed to the hugging and the kissing."

But after five minutes of that, Winters testified that the woman said Bryant put his hand under her dress and rubbed her groin area, over her underwear. The woman said he also was touching her breasts and buttocks, the detective testified.

"She didn't want to do that" and told Bryant so, said Winters. "She stated to me that she did tell him that she needed to leave," the detective said.

Some testimony in secret

At that point, he testified, the 6-foot-6, 220-pound Bryant placed his hands around the woman's neck.

As she was trying to move around Bryant to head for the door, Bryant moved with her, "trying to block her movements," Winters said.

Winters testified the woman said Bryant did not grab her tightly.

"She could still breathe. (It was) more of a controlling nature," the detective testified. Still, he said, the alleged victim told him she "was afraid that he was going to choke her."

And, said the investigator, "She was scared at that point."

The woman then said Bryant turned her away from him and forced her to bend over a chair, Winters testified.

Bryant allegedly took one hand from her neck and used it to pull down her underwear.

"After he pulled down her panties, he proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her," Winters testified the woman told him. "I believe at that point, she didn't really say anything. She started crying. She was upset."

The woman said the intercourse lasted about five minutes, the detective testified.

Toward the end of his testimony, Winters added that after the intercourse, the woman said Bryant asked her to "kiss his penis."

"She stated 'No,' " said Winters. "She stated that he then grabbed her and placed her face in front of him at waist level and he made her kiss it."

The woman said that Bryant, after allegedly exacting several promises from her that she would tell no one about what had occurred, urged her to use his bathroom to clean up and "fix her hair," which she did.

The detective said that when the young woman returned to the lobby, she spoke with the same bellman who had seen her with Bryant earlier.

"He asked her what happened," said Winters. "She proceeded to tell him what happened."

The bellman then followed her, in his own car, to ensure that she reached her Eagle home safely.

Not all of Thursday's testimony occurred in open court. The lawyers, Bryant and the judge left the courtroom about 90 minutes into the hearing, and in a private room Winters testified about Bryant's first statements to investigators, which had been captured by a concealed recording device.

When all parties returned to court, Gannett said that portion of Winters' testimony will be excised from any public transcripts and placed under seal, pending a later ruling as to whether it will be admissable.

Bryant faces up to life in prison if convicted of the felony charge of sexual assault.

He arrived at the Eagle courthouse Thursday with his lawyers in a caravan of three SUVs. He said nothing to the crowd.

Staff writers Peggy Lowe and Jeff Kass contributed to this report. brennanc@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-2742

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 07:30 AM

Murphy3
10-10-2003, 08:21 AM
tactics like these used by the defense is probably why more women don't come forward. the defense can just throw something out there that they know will be overruled..but they also know that it will have a negative impact on the way the public views the alleged victim. it's rather sorry to repeatedly throw her name out there as much as the defense did..

amazing

LRB
10-10-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by: Jeremiah
So why is it so despicable and sleazy that the defense attorney asked if the evidence could be consistent with other activities? What's so bad about that?


It the way the defense attorney asked if the evidence could be consisent. The question was a backhanded way of calling the alledged vicitm a "slut".

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 08:47 AM
The defense must be really desperate to use these kinds of tactics.

MavKikiNYC
10-10-2003, 08:52 AM
How many members of the defense team have had rough and/or kinky sex with Pamela Mackey? How many other men on this website have had rough and/or kinky sex with Pamela Mackey?

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 08:55 AM
That type of questioning is a sign of desperation. But when you're trying a case to the public and not just a jury (as this case is being tried), the sad fact is that a lot of people will believe she did what the question implies simply because the question was asked.

LRB
10-10-2003, 08:58 AM
It also sounds like the defense was trying to force the judge to give them the private hearing that they had requested and been denied.

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 09:05 AM
Are they still trying to get the venue changed also? IS that part of there tactic here? By trying to put this false information out and having the preliminary hearing rather than waiving it? Or is it too late to change the venue?

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 09:05 AM

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 09:08 AM

Murphy3
10-10-2003, 09:12 AM
colorado law to help protect the vicitm.

do you know how many women don't come forward because they don't want their name in the public? and the normal sexual assault victim doesn't have near the same amount of scrutiny/publicity directed their way.

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 09:15 AM
Other than disregarding instructions from the judge what is so sorry about the defense calling the victim by name? Should the trial be held in anonymity?

Yes... because most women won't try to press charges because they don't want their pasts dragged out in court.

LRB
10-10-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by: Jeremiah
What about sex three times with the same person in the same night or over 3 days? Would that have been as despicable? How else might have the defense asked whether or not those lacerations were consistent with other activities?


The victim should have a right to have her name withheld from the public. She's been violated once, will be violated again during the trial, and shouldn't have to have the violation made public.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 09:34 AM

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 09:35 AM
.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 09:41 AM
...

dirno2000
10-10-2003, 09:46 AM
IMO using the victims name repeatedly was not called for. I can see her wanting to paint the victim as a slut. Though some may not agree with the tactic, it counters the negative information being revealed about her client. I can't see a strategic reason for repeating the victim’s name.

I heard a defense attorney comment that the only way her past sexual history is admissible is if it directly lead to something the defendant is accused of. Since the DA is using lacerations as evidence, the defense can use recent sexual history to throw doubt on who inflicted them. The guy was saying that the defense must have witnesses who will testify to this since it was brought it up.

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 09:51 AM
Sorry, Jeremiah. I misunderstood. I don't see how it would be possible to have kept Kobe's identity anonymous. Do you?

Murphy3
10-10-2003, 09:53 AM
I heard a defense attorney comment that the only way her past sexual history is admissible is if it directly lead to something the defendant is accused of. Since the DA is using lacerations as evidence, the defense can use recent sexual history to throw doubt on who inflicted them. The guy was saying that the defense must have witnesses who will testify to this since it was brought it up.

you could be right..or, the defense might ask the question knowing that it will be overruled. but, the damage is already done to the alleged victim just by asking the question.. regardless of whether or not there is actually any evidence concerning previous sexual encounters.

but, i'll leave that to OUR special team of lawyers to decipher. I'm sure they'll give us their take on it.

MavKikiNYC
10-10-2003, 09:59 AM
Questions for Kobe:

1) Have you ever been accused of rape before?

2) Have you ever committed adultery before?

3) How many women (and/or men) to whom you were not married have you had sex with?

4) What were the dates and times of these other sexual encounters?

5) Do you remember any of the victims' ...<ahem> I mean...uhm...co-fornicators' names?

6) Would you characterize the sexual exchanges with these women (and/or men) as consensual in nature?

7) During any of these encounters with women and/or men, did any of the women and/or men say "No." or try to dissuade you from proceeding with the acts?

8) Would you characterize any of these acts that you may or may not have engaged in as 'rough'? 'Kinky'? 'Violent'?

9) Is it standard, Mr. Bryant, for you to conclude your exchanges by forcing your....co-fornicator to adminster a penile kiss, and is it true that you have jokingly referred to this gesture with your bodyguards as un Besote Negro?

10) Have you ever made physical contact of a sexual nature with Shaquille O'Neal's wife? Have you ever THOUGHT about such contact? Is is true that you have said that you are not attracted to her beause she is common, ghetto, ho-trash?

11) Have you or your representatives ever paid a woman or entered into a legally binding settlement with a young Filipino woman on or about 10 October 2002 to prevent her from bringing sexual assault charges?

MavsFanFinley
10-10-2003, 10:07 AM
"This is very hard for me," Mackey said in apology on one occasion. "I don't think of her as 'K.F.' "

What bullshit. She's not a slow witted woman. She knows exactly what she's doing, but tries to come off as innocent with her tactics.


"The only reason they had the preliminary hearing was to smear the victim," said Early, clearly enraged.

This guy seems slow. How many cases have there been where the defense didn't try to smear the victim?

Murphy3
10-10-2003, 10:12 AM
MFF, i think he's just stating the obvious. He's probably not surprised (hopefully not) that the defense used these tactics

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 10:20 AM

WayOutWest
10-10-2003, 10:24 AM
I guees I'm not seeing things the same way as alot of others on this board.

First off, repeatedly using the ALLEGED victims real name is a sleazy intimidating tactic. If the defense is trying to cast doubt on the alleged victim then why not use the same tactic as the "womans story"? Throwing the word ALLEGED in front of victim carries alot more weight than using her name. Using her name just strikes me as an attempt at intimidation. Something to the effect, can you imagine what we're gonna put you through at trial. SLEAZE!

Nothing wrong with asking about 3 other sexual incounters. As someone stated, past sexual encounters or conduct is not admissable unless it is directly tied to the incident. That was a legit question and tactic.

The cop screwed up on the stand because durring part of the session he claims she showed Kobe a tatoo on her back by lifting up her dress, durring another part of the questioning session he says the tatoo was actually on her ankle.

Here is what was BIG news to me:

There was no bruising on her neck. The only bruise was a small one on her chin that could have come from anywhere. After reading some articles about the physical evidence that would be presented I thought I would read about some very graphic pictures of noticable and disturbing bruising around her neck. The type of brusing that would depict and back up the girls recount of a violent encounter. IMO this is good news for camp Kobe. The vaginal injuries could be explained away in many different ways. Rough sex, Kobe being large of the girl being small. The physical evidence is not what I thought it would be and this may turn back into a "he said, she said" case after all.

The other item was it possible exlusion of Kobe's initial testimony where he denied any sexual contact at all. Basically Kobe's credibility would be called into question if he lied to the cops in the first interview then later admitted to sexual contact in the second. Because the cops recorded the interview with a concealed recording device, I'm assuming without Kobe's knowledge, that whole portion of the testimony could be thrown out. Again, another postitive for camp Kobe.

IMO, the next key factors could potentially be:

If the line of questioning that Kobe's lawyers started is allowed to continue to a certain extent.

The strength of the testimony of the bell hop who met with the girl immediately after the encounter.

The strength of the testimony of the witness the defense is calling. Speculation is that witness will coraborate the line of "sexual promiscuity" questioning that got the courtroom shut down yesterday.

What drama. One of my aunts was a rape victim, she was then thrown from the moving car of the rapist so I know first hand how serious and devastating this could be for victim and her family. I had a cell all picked out for Kobe about a month ago but based on yesterdays activities I'm leaving the door wide open for him to be exonerated.

P.S. My spelling sucks as bad football picks! YIKES!

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 10:25 AM
If someone is going to put someone else's freedom in jeopardy, then one should be able to stand behind that accusation and open one's self up to scrutiny.

Do you think you would feel the same way if it was your daughter?

Tarzan
10-10-2003, 10:26 AM
The accuser's home has been broken into, she has received death threats, and at least one person has offered to kill her. Do you need any more reasons to protect her identity from the masses?

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 10:37 AM
The type of brusing that would depict and back up the girls recount of a violent encounter. IMO

I don't see what the difference is between a small bruise or a large bruise. Violence doesn't even have to be applied... only implied, to rape someone. And if the girl was lying and hurt herself to make it look like she was raped couldn't she have hurt herself worse than that? Isn't it more likely that she would have? I mean if she made this up she must be a criminal mastermind.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 10:41 AM

Murphy3
10-10-2003, 10:47 AM
Let me ask you this...What was the purpose of yesterday's preliminary hearing? To see if there was enough information to proceed?

No one has even speculated that the defense could cossibly make a case in the preliminary hearing for not proceeding to the next step. So what were their motives? To convince the judge to dismiss the charges? No, not a chance in hell that that would happen.
What was the defense trying to do?

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 10:53 AM

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 10:56 AM
I think trying to make this discussion personal is inappropriate.

What would make you think it is personal? I don't know you at all. It was a hypothetical question.

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 11:01 AM
This thread gives me tired head.

With respect to the questioning about the lacerations and the alleged prior sexual encounters, that line of questioning is ONLY relevant if they are alleging (and have evidence) that the woman was injured in prior, recent sexual encounters.

If they have such evidence, I guess I don't have a problem with that line of questioning.

If they don't, the whole line of questioning is inappropriate given the Colorado law which makes prior sexual history inadmissible.

If they don't have another witness that will talk about her "having sex three times in three days", what the prosecutors did was unethical because they were only asking the question to try to get something into the minds of potential jurors without having any evidence of it.

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
Let me ask you this...What was the purpose of yesterday's preliminary hearing? To see if there was enough information to proceed?

The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether the judge thinks that the prosecution has enough evidence to proceed to trial.


No one has even speculated that the defense could cossibly make a case in the preliminary hearing for not proceeding to the next step. So what were their motives? To convince the judge to dismiss the charges? No, not a chance in hell that that would happen.
What was the defense trying to do?

I think you're correct in saying that the defense probably didn't really expect to get the case dismissed at this point. Frankly, the prosecutor wouldn't have pressed forward with the case if he didn't have enough evidence to get past the preliminary hearing.

With this whole thing being played out in the media, the defense could have opted to go forward with the hearing so that they could put their spin on how the encounter occurred rather than having the jury hear about the encounter for the first time during trial. (I say this because we all know that, realistically, the jury pool WILL be affected by the coverage of this hearing.) Also, by putting more of the specifics out there for the public to hear and by putting their spin on things (that perhaps this girl was injured in another sexual encounter) they could affect how the case is decided in the "court of public opinion". Don't underestimate how that will impact the trial.

I'd be curious to hear OP's take on things, since the criminal arena was his forte.


Originally posted by: Jeremiah
I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps to exercise their right to a preliminary trial?

Doubtful, because as I mentioned above, the prosecution wouldn't have pressed forward without sufficient evidence to get to trial.


Perhaps to intimidate the state, to let them see firsthand what kind of lawyers they are competing against?

Don't think so.


Perhaps to put some doubt in potential jurors?

Likely. See above.


Perhaps to put some doubt in the state's witnesses? Perhaps to delay the real trial to have more time?

I don't see this. The state's witnesses are going to say what they're going to say. As for delaying the trial, I can't speak intelligently as to Colorado criminal procedure, but I doubt that having a preliminary hearing will delay the trial.

Drbio
10-10-2003, 11:23 AM
Did anyone else think that the DA and the detective had to ad lib through the hearing? I felt like they thought the hearing would be waived and they didn't prepare. As a former officer, I can assure you that I was well practiced and prepared by the DA in important cases even when it wasn't likely to go to trial. They did their work. To me, the prosecution seemed sloppy.

Chiwas
10-10-2003, 11:32 AM
A Question:

Can Kobe and the girl negotiate an (economic) agreement and dismiss the legal case?

MavKikiNYC
10-10-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
This thread gives me tired head.

With respect to the questioning about the lacerations and the alleged prior sexual encounters, that line of questioning is ONLY relevant if they are alleging (and have evidence) that the woman was injured in prior, recent sexual encounters.

If they have such evidence, I guess I don't have a problem with that line of questioning.

If they don't, the whole line of questioning is inappropriate given the Colorado law which makes prior sexual history inadmissible.

If they don't have another witness that will talk about her "having sex three times in three days", what the prosecutors did was unethical because they were only asking the question to try to get something into the minds of potential jurors without having any evidence of it.

Suppose the defense attorneys have evidence of recent sexual activity...3 times in 3 days or whatever...--would they also have to have evidence that the victim was injured in those exchanges? Or can they just dangle the possibility out there.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 11:33 AM

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 11:39 AM
That's a personal argument, that is conveniently indefensible.

No, it isn't personal... it is universal. That is why the laws were put in place, I am guessing.

WayOutWest
10-10-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by: Chiwas
A Question:

Can Kobe and the girl negotiate an (economic) agreement and dismiss the legal case?

No.

Drbio
10-10-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by: Chiwas
A Question:

Can Kobe and the girl negotiate an (economic) agreement and dismiss the legal case?

Certainly they could agree and she could drop her desire to charge Kobe and waive her right to civil damages, but the DA has the authority to prosecute this case with or without her intent on the criminal side (although it would probably be unlikely).

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 11:42 AM

Chiwas
10-10-2003, 11:44 AM
Thanks.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 11:52 AM

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 11:58 AM
We could go in circles with me asking you how you would feel if someone accused your son but was free to hide behind anonymity?

I am guessing that it is because almost all sexual assault victims are women, not men. That is what makes my question valid. These laws weren't just put into place for no reason.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 12:06 PM

MavKikiNYC
10-10-2003, 12:17 PM
J--

I understand your deisre to de-peronsalize these discussions, and the "What if it were your daughter?" argument can very easily be inartfully presented.

And yet, I think I see value behind that question. I THINK that the point of the question is to get people to consider the need for rape victim idenity protection laws by trying to get us to consider whether or not if one of our family members were the victim, if we would not better understand the purpose of those laws by empathizing (hypothetically, at least) with the humiliation and violation that victims and their families feel by having to report these crimes and then having to co-operate very publically with prosecutors.

The question can posed even more directly, not to personalize the issue, but to encourage you to consider the issue from a rape victim's perspective--

If YOU had been the victim of a sexual assault by a famous athlete, would YOU be reluctant to report the crime and proceed with charges for fear of having yourself identifed as the victim of an extremely traumatic and personally stigmatizing type of crime?

ReDIRKulous
10-10-2003, 12:17 PM
"Apologies for not being clear. I could say, what if someone accused your son of rape, i.e., your son would be in Kobe's position, and was allowed to make those accusations in anonymity. Would you be happy that someone was accusing your son under anonymity? I wasn't asking, "What if your son was making the accusation of BEING raped." "

I would feel the same way, of course. But the reality is that it usually isn't men. Also, the law of making the victim anonymous isn't only used with women as far as I know. Both men and women are anonymous. But the reason the law was made was because most sexual assault victims are women.

As far as I know most accusers of other crimes aren't anonymous, nor the accused. Only in sexual assault cases or when involving a minor as far as I know. My guess is that this law was put in to place because most sexual assault victims are women. That is why my question is valid.

"In case I misunderstood and you mean to say that a woman as a victim should be shielded because she's a woman, well, I'd disagree."

My point is that if it was your daughter you would agree... and that is why the law was made... because universally that is true. We can dance around the issue, but the reality is that women are treated differently in our society, right or wrong.

"Regardless, I think your question was irrelevant to the discussion, which is why I'd rather not argue it."

That is your right, but imo that is the crux of the issue.

Let's put it this way... should a minors identity be exposed in criminal trials also? No, of course not... and the reason they are given special treatment is very much the same reason women are as well.

LRB
10-10-2003, 12:24 PM
Rape is one of the most tramatic crimes to the victims that exists. Often the victims live in fear of it happening again and possibly losing their life. This women has had constant death threats. While Kobe hasn't been proven guilty and deserves legally the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, I do not think that the accused need have the right to try the case in the court of public opinion. The judge put a gag order and limitations on this trial for a reason. Of course if the woman was killed, it sure would help Kobe's case.

dirno2000
10-10-2003, 12:42 PM
Good article about the key witness in the case. It's amazing how a case like this changes so many lives. This kid is now in danger, but he seems like a stand up guy.

[/quote]By Steve Henson
Times Staff Writer

October 10, 2003

There is more than one basketball player central to the Kobe Bryant case.

During the Laker guard's preliminary hearing Thursday, it became clear that Bobby Pietrack, a seldom-used guard and widely respected honor student at tiny Fort Lewis College, could have an enormous impact on whether Bryant is found guilty of felony sexual assault.

Eagle County Sheriff's Det. Doug Winters testified that a bellman at the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera, an Edwards, Colo., resort, witnessed Bryant and his 19-year-old accuser walking toward the Laker star's hotel room and was later present in the lobby when the woman returned, disheveled and visibly shaken.

Although he was never mentioned by name — just "the bellman" — Thursday, legal analysts say Pietrack is the most important prosecution witness besides the woman who alleges Bryant raped her the night of June 30.

The former Eagle high school star was the first person the woman encountered after she left Bryant's room, according to her statement to police.

At the time, Pietrack, 22, might not have understood the importance of an "outcry witness" — whose testimony about what the alleged victim said is not considered hearsay — but he certainly does now.

Three days after Bryant's July 4 arrest, a private investigator working for the Laker star knocked on the door of Pietrack's home in Eagle. Reporters began calling the same day — and haven't stopped.

According to Det. Winters, Pietrack spoke with the woman and Bryant on a hotel balcony before their encounter and with the woman again minutes after she left Bryant's hotel room. He then followed her home in his car. What did Pietrack observe? What did the woman say to him?

Could the testimony of this 5-foot-10 reserve who made two of 15 shots for an NCAA Division II school last season sink a five-time NBA all-star? Or might Pietrack sink the case against Bryant?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fort Lewis was established 125 years ago to protect those inside from dangers inherent to life in the Old West. The fort became an Indian school in 1891 and in 1956 moved to its current location atop a mesa overlooking Durango, a rustic former mining town in the remote Four Corners region of Colorado.

Now the college that bears the name of the historic stronghold is trying to provide haven for Pietrack.

Campus police and administrators have implemented a plan to shield him from peril — and from the media.

The concern appears merited. Pietrack was the target of venomous phone calls during the summer while living with his parents in Eagle. Photos of him and his friends were lifted from an autobiographical Web site he built for a class last year and posted on sites dedicated to the case.

Furthermore, threats have been made to several people associated with the case. Two men have been arrested in connection with threats to Bryant's accuser, and the prosecutor in the case, Mark Hurlbert, said he has received "hundreds" of threats.

Fort Lewis campus Police Chief Arnold Trujillo said he is not aware of any threats against Pietrack since classes began Sept. 1. But Trujillo is being proactive — an officer is expected to accompany the basketball team on its long bus rides through the mountains to road games.

Approached during an informal shoot-around in the Fort Lewis gym last month, before the policy was implemented, Pietrack was polite but firm.

He wouldn't comment on the Bryant case, and he said he doesn't want his family or friends to comment. He is disturbed that his chance involvement in what has become a huge story threatens to disrupt his tranquil college experience and the team's focus on the upcoming season.

From all accounts, he is well aware of the impact his testimony could make and refuses to do anything that could compromise his integrity or credibility.

"I'm afraid that if I say anything or my teammates say anything, [other media] will see it and come up here," he said. "I won't be left alone."

He later released a statement: "I believe I have a civic duty to be honest, and out of fairness to everyone involved, refrain from commenting on any knowledge I have about this situation. Therefore, I ask everyone to please respect this decision and my family's privacy. Thank you."

Pietrack clearly is ill at ease with the circumstances that have thrust him into the spotlight. However, he is driven by a desire to do what is proper.

"One thing you can say about Bobby — he will always do what he thinks is the right thing," said Bob Hofman, the Fort Lewis coach. "That's how he is. He's a terrific kid."

A few days after an interview with The Times, Hofman was instructed not to talk about Pietrack to reporters. If someone asks, a Fort Lewis administrator told the coach, just say you don't know who he is.

Many on campus are forbidden from mentioning Pietrack's name.

"We cannot comment on that person at all," said Sarah Meier, the sports information director. "We have no comment on that person. So whatever anybody is looking for, there is nothing to find."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Efforts by Bryant's investigators to study Pietrack's background continued beyond the July 7 inquiry, those close to him say.

Does he have a history of being truthful? Is he prone to exaggeration? Is he concerned his impact on Bryant's future will determine the direction of his own?

Yes. No. Maybe so.

Those who know him say he is caring, honest and motivated — an overachiever in the classroom and on the athletic field since grade school.

"He has the highest character of anyone I know, of any age," Sheri Rochford, dean of alumni and development at Fort Lewis, told the Vail Daily.

Pietrack moved to Eagle from Las Vegas in grade school and became a star athlete for the Eagle Valley High Devils, setting a state small-schools career record with 702 assists in basketball and playing four years of varsity baseball.

He also played quarterback, and a freshman cheerleader during his senior year in 1998 was a neighbor he knew only in passing, a girl who would become Bryant's accuser.

Pietrack left Eagle to play baseball at Northern Idaho Community College in Coeur D'Alene and transferred after one year to Fort Lewis, where he changed sports. He has mostly ridden the bench, scoring 16 points in three seasons.

Nevertheless, Pietrack immersed himself in student life, serving as president of the athletic council and giving campus tours to prospective freshmen.

"Bobby is always in the forefront of making everybody feeling important," Hofman said. "People seek him out for advice.

"He loves the school. He's the first guy I'll give to a recruit, because you won't get any lies from him, you'll get the straight stuff."

Hofman tried to convince him to run for student body president, but Pietrack, who is on schedule to graduate in the spring, told his coach the commitment would detract from basketball and academics.

"He's as valuable a team member as we have," Hofman said. "He comes to me with suggestions on the bench, or he might come in and tell me someone is upset about something, so the fire can be put out quickly."

When Rusty Kiddoo, a freshman guard from Tucson, arrived on campus, Pietrack made him comfortable.

"He takes us all under his wing," Kiddoo said before the policy of not speaking to reporters was implemented.

"He's very involved in everything around the school, everything academic. He's not the greatest player, but he's always there for everybody. He's a huge part of this school."

Those who know Pietrack don't think investigators will find anything in his background that would impugn his credibility. He was not asked to testify at the preliminary hearing because, experts said, prosecutors didn't believe his testimony was needed to establish probable cause.

During the trial, prosecutors are expected to call an expert in strangulation. Det. Winters, in his report, said Bryant's accuser claimed she had been grabbed around her neck, and a photo of a small bruise on her jaw was entered as evidence Thursday. Legal experts say that if the woman told Pietrack she had been raped, the defense will ask him why he didn't inform authorities immediately. The alleged rape was reported about 12 hours later.

"If she says, 'I've been raped,' nobody sits on it," said Larry Pozner, a former president of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "He would have to explain why he didn't tell anybody" right away.

"Nobody should assume his testimony can only help [the accuser]. The defense might know something or ask him five questions that help" Bryant.

Pietrack's friends say the prospect of testifying is the source of stress. He can't help but wonder whether his involvement in the case could derail his dream of becoming a Division I basketball coach.

"Sometimes he wishes he never went to work that night," one friend said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could a multimillionaire, three-time NBA champion and a Division II backup have anything in common besides playing the same game?

Pietrack's Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference games draw 1,000 fans on a good night. Only two players from the conference — Tom Kropp and Bart Kofoed of Nebraska Kearney — ever made the NBA.

Nobody attends Fort Lewis, elevation 6,600, seeking glamour. Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher and renowned curmudgeon Steve Carlton is Durango's most well-known resident since Western novelist Louis L'Amour passed away.

Yet as the case inches forward, the previously anonymous Pietrack and the world-famous Bryant share plenty. Both are guards who must remain guarded. They yearn for privacy in a maelstrom. And they don't want the case to distract their teams.

Not many people following the Bryant case care that Fort Lewis is on an upswing, winning the RMAC last season, but Pietrack does.

It's his team, even from the bench.

"The program has turned around and Bobby has been part of it," Hofman said. "He's never complained once. He loves the team. He loves the school. And for that, he's my hero right there."

Pietrack, the aspiring coach, devoted a page on his Web site to coaches he considers role models. Among them: Dean Smith, Roy Williams, Lute Olson and John Wooden.

He also posted a photo of himself wearing a shirt emblazoned with an American flag. Underneath were words he wrote last year, well before the events of June 30: "A real friend is who is there for you when he'd rather be anywhere else."[/quote]

LRB
10-10-2003, 01:03 PM
Thanks for the article Dirno

WayOutWest
10-10-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by: ReDIRKulousLet's put it this way... should a minors identity be exposed in criminal trials also? No, of course not... and the reason they are given special treatment is very much the same reason women are as well.

Minors are ALSO not named when they are the ACCUSED. If you're going to keep the victims name anonymous in certain crimes then the same courtesy should be alloted the accused. Not all rape crimes are ligit so affording both parties the same courtesy seems like a no-brainer to me. A falsely accused rape suspect has tons to lose as well so keep both names private IMO. Of course once convicted they should be put on the same PUBLIC list as any other sexual criminal regardless of stature and more importantly regardless of MONEY.

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 01:30 PM

Jeremiah
10-10-2003, 01:53 PM

LRB
10-10-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Originally posted by: ReDIRKulousLet's put it this way... should a minors identity be exposed in criminal trials also? No, of course not... and the reason they are given special treatment is very much the same reason women are as well.

Minors are ALSO not named when they are the ACCUSED. If you're going to keep the victims name anonymous in certain crimes then the same courtesy should be alloted the accused. Not all rape crimes are ligit so affording both parties the same courtesy seems like a no-brainer to me. A falsely accused rape suspect has tons to lose as well so keep both names private IMO. Of course once convicted they should be put on the same PUBLIC list as any other sexual criminal regardless of stature and more importantly regardless of MONEY.

Actually I would prefer keeping the accused's name annoyomous as well. Once he or she is convicted, then publish it. Don't know why we have to know someone was arrested until they are convicted. Publicity hurts the prosecutions case as much as it helps, and innocent people get they reputation damaged.

I could have lived not knowing this about Kobe until the case was decided.

LRB
10-10-2003, 02:34 PM
You know, I just read an article about a woman who owns a beauty supply shop and has been robbed at gun point several times. She's so afraid for her life that she is going to close her shop at the end of this year. Rape victims are not the only victims that live in fear. Identifying the woman does not try her in the "court of public opinion." If his name is dragged through the mud, then, since he has a right to a presumption of innocence, then scrutinizing the accuser should not be such a problem. You know, if someone were to kill Kobe, the state's case would be helped as well. Irrelevant, but it would help.

Rape victims are not the only ones who live in fear, but they as a general rule live in much more fear. There will always be a few exceptions. There is no reason that the defense had to publicly identify the woman to give Kobe a fair defense. There is no public shame attached to being robbed at gun point, but there is to being raped. Quiet often accused rapists' attorneys try to tramatize the victim so bad that they will with drawn their accusation because of the trama. Victims should have rights as well as the accused.

BTW if Kobe was killed the state's case would dissolve. Instead they would need to open a new case to seek out his killer, assuming he was killed in CO. In other words the state doesn't win if Kobe dies, while Kobe wins if the young woman dies.

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by: Chiwas
A Question:

Can Kobe and the girl negotiate an (economic) agreement and dismiss the legal case?

Not at this point. It's out of her hands.

Then again, the skeptic would say that they could make an illegal agreement whereby she accepted a large sum of money to "throw" the case by changing her testimony at trial to say it was consensual. If that happened, though, she might have some explaining to do to the DA...

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 02:50 PM
Suppose the defense attorneys have evidence of recent sexual activity...3 times in 3 days or whatever...--would they also have to have evidence that the victim was injured in those exchanges? Or can they just dangle the possibility out there.

In my opinion, they'd have to at least have some evidence that the other encounters could have injured her.

Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Kobe's attorneys to have this prelim hearing. They could have waived it and saved Kobe a lot of exposure. This stuff about bending her over a chair is going to linger for weeks and months, and people are going to make up their minds before the trial ever happens.

superheadcat
10-10-2003, 02:53 PM
This stuff about bending her over a chair is going to linger for weeks and months, and people are going to make up their minds before the trial ever happens.

maybe then they can require a change of venue?

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by: superheadcat

This stuff about bending her over a chair is going to linger for weeks and months, and people are going to make up their minds before the trial ever happens.

maybe then they can require a change of venue?

Where are they going to go? This thing has worldwide exposure. There's not any place that will have an "untainted" jury pool.

superheadcat
10-10-2003, 03:01 PM
Where are they going to go? This thing has worldwide exposure. There's not any place that will have an "untainted" jury pool.

the purpose is not to find an "untainted" pool, maybe they can try to go to a place with less strict victim protect laws?

edit: i am trying to make sense of the defense team's decision of going on the hearing, and using the tactics they used.

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 03:04 PM
I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, if someone is going to put someone else's freedom in jeopardy with an accusation, that person should not be allowed to stand behind the cloak of anonymity. Those are my thoughts on that.

There are a couple of things you should consider before taking this position.

First, the prosecutors in this case would not have gone forward with charges if they didn't think they had a case. I'm not saying they're necessarily going to win, but the evidence isn't going to be simply the accuser's testimony. So to say that she is putting Kobe's freedom in jeopardy, well, that's oversimplifying things, really.

Second, the idea of rape shield laws is to prevent the formerly common practice of defense attorneys of putting the alleged victim on trial. If the alleged victim weren't anonymous, especially in high profile cases, it would make it EXTREMELY difficult for women that did come forward. And honestly, I think it's more important to encourage women to report such crimes, even if some women lie about it and subject innocent men to these charges, than it is to discourage women from reporting such crimes. In other words, better to have a few more innocent men accused if we convict more of the guilty ones than it is to have fewer innocent men accused but fewer guilty ones convicted.

kg_veteran
10-10-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by: superheadcat

Where are they going to go? This thing has worldwide exposure. There's not any place that will have an "untainted" jury pool.

the purpose is not to find an "untainted" pool, maybe they can try to go to a place with less strict victim protect laws?

Those are Colorado laws. The case won't leave the state.

MavKikiNYC
10-10-2003, 03:13 PM
Rape victims deal not only with fear, but with stigmatization as well. Rape is and has been a crime more frequently perpetrated against female victims, and it is probably difficult to overstate the traumatizing effect of the crime on the vicitim.

In the past, in part because the nature of the crime has been mischaracterized and/or misunderstood, there has been the perception that rape victims were somehow "damaged goods". Because rape was not understood as an act of violence, rape victims also had to deal with having their virtue called into question, and still deal with the perception that they somehow provoked, or invited or encouraged the crime in some way. Victims of the crime have to deal not only with the physical effects of the assault, but with the effect on their virtue as well. In many cases, victims of the crime may even blame themselves in part, and because of the specific nature of the crime, are often made to feel 'dirty'.

You can observe a similar effect among child victims of sexual assault by priests. Few people would try to argue that children encouraged or invited the crime, but the secrecy surrounding the crimes has been maintained by NUMEROUS different victims across NUMEROUS different cases for many, many years. The children are somehow made to feel as if THEY have done something wrong, and attempt to hide the crime even though they have been the victims.

I recently posted an article from the NYTimes about a case involving sexual assaults perpetrated by senior members of a Long Island high school football team against freshman team members. Despite the fact that there were numerous witnesses to the assaults, several days elapsed between the occurence of the crimes, and the time they were reported. The crimes came to light when the parents of one the victims contacted police because their son's injuries required surgery. The case has generated a good bit of controversy because of the reluctance of victims and witnesses to discuss what happened, but this is not all that surprising considering that the victims, the attackers, and the witnesses were all males. As bad as it is for female victims, I would argue that the stigma for male victims may be even more intense, as it tends to call into question not only their perceived "virtue", but also their masculinity and sexuality. (I will also add that I was initially a little surprised at the lack of discussion in response to that article. But I think the lack of discussion on a board whose contributors are primarily male can be accounted for in part by males' discomfort with the topic, and reluctance to discuss any remotely similar experiences, witnessed or otherwise.)

Because of the special nature of the crime--the particularly intimate, violent, objectifying, dehumanizing effects of a sexual assault-- the fear of robbery is not directly comparable to the stigma associated with rape. And because of the particular traumatizing effects of the crime, special laws have been enacted to protect victims, to encourage the reporting of the crime, and at least theoretcially, to try to prevent attackers from being able to continue their violent, criminal attacks with impunity.

LRB
10-10-2003, 03:42 PM
Excellent post Kiki.

Jeremiah
10-13-2003, 08:55 AM

LRB
10-13-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by: Jeremiah



Rape victims are not the only ones who live in fear, but they as a general rule live in much more fear. There will always be a few exceptions. There is no reason that the defense had to publicly identify the woman to give Kobe a fair defense. There is no public shame attached to being robbed at gun point, but there is to being raped. Quiet often accused rapists' attorneys try to tramatize the victim so bad that they will with drawn their accusation because of the trama. Victims should have rights as well as the accused.

BTW if Kobe was killed the state's case would dissolve. Instead they would need to open a new case to seek out his killer, assuming he was killed in CO. In other words the state doesn't win if Kobe dies, while Kobe wins if the young woman dies.

As a general rule? I've never heard of that rule, it can't be that general. You're just pulling stuff out of thin air. Besides, are you going to trivialize someone's fear because they weren't raped but were robbed at gunpoint? I'm not. Attempting to quantify it as well and then use it as public policy is ridiculous.

There is not always public shame attached to being raped. There are women that are raped that receive plenty of public support. You don't think that the state's attorney isn't going to go after the defendant in cross examination if given the chance? That's what happens in US court. Attorneys compete against each other, and part of that competition means attacking a witness's credibility, and confusing them. Victims DO have rights. Go visit the local criminal court and you'll probably find an office DEDICATED to victim's rights. I don't think the court has to allow the defense to use the victim's name to give Kobe a fair trial, but they don't have to disallow it to protect the victim. I have read about the death threats and the house robbery, and these are very frightening things. I think the woman needs to be protected. However, if the state thinks or wants the public to think that they are protecting this woman by not having her name on the court record, they are doing a tremendous disservice to her and to the public.

Yes, the state's case would dissolve. That was my point. But I'll take back that statement I made before.

Jeremiah how many of your close friends or family members have been raped or molested? Any? I've had a few. I've also know people who've been robbed at gunpoint. Let me tell you from 1st hand knowledge of speaking with these people that the trama of sexual assault is overwhelmingly more lasting and intense than being robbed. You can try and be cute about saying that I pulled it out of thin air. But that's total BS. The trama of victims of sexual assault is highly documented. Have you ever had a gun pulled on you? Ever been shot by one? I'm not talking about a friendly accident here. I can truthfully answer to yes to both. Have you every had anyone try and sexually attack you? Well I did. And thank God they only tried and that I'm the size of an NFL lineman (even at age 18). There were 3 guys and I was able to fight them off until I got back to a public place. I wasn't really hurt, but it was a hell of a lot more tramatic that getting a gun pulled on me and being shot.

It's realy easy to sit back and talk of these situations in your easy chair. It's quite another to walk in their shoes. Being sexually assalted and violated is a horrible crime that is almost incomprehensible. I had a 14 year old niece raped a few years ago. She's only a shell of the person she was before the assault. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power. There is really very few things if any that can make a victim feel less powerless.

So think before you go and accuse someone of pulling things from thin air.

Jeremiah
10-13-2003, 09:38 AM

Jeremiah
10-13-2003, 10:07 AM

LRB
10-13-2003, 10:47 AM
Jeremiah, just a few quick responses.


don't know why it is difficult for women to report a rape, but I concede that it is.

A good movie that you may want to watch or rewatch is The Accused with Jodi Foster. It does an excellent job of showing what a woman goes through with rape in a 2 hour or less time frame. Doesn't cover everything, but does give excellent insight IMO.




Your sample is highly suspect in it's representativeness.

The same could be said for your sample. Perhaps it would be better for you to define beforehand what would be a good representative sample for you, and I'll see if I can find a reference for you.


Contrary to what you may believe, you're situation is not unique.

Actually I had no expectation that my situation was unique, quite the opposite infact.


I'm a bit insulted that you took that as being cute.

As was I when you tried to place a literal meaning on a widely recognized figurative expression.



You choose to trivialize the fear of a victim of robbery and exalt the fear of a victim of sexual assault. I don't.

Actually I did no such thing, though you may have percieved it as that way, just as I percieved that you were trying to trivialize the victims of sexual assault. I happen to realize that it is very difficult for me to actually understand how a woman or a child would feel victimized and violated and the sense of powerlessness they would feel. I was 18, 6'3" 260 + lbs when I was attacked and I fought them off. And it scared the shit out of me. Still I was far from powerless.

Being robbed at gunpoint is extremely tramatic as are many different crimes. Still few IMO have the same long lasting and psychological affect as violent sexual assault. Armed robber you fear for your life and lose your property which can be replaced. With violent sexual assault you fear for your life and lose something with cannot be replaced.

I'm at work now but when I have time I will look for and send you references to studies on sexual assault.

Jeremiah
10-13-2003, 11:14 AM

MavKikiNYC
10-13-2003, 11:52 AM
One thing, J--

I don't think there's any intention to triviailize one crime victim's experience compared to another's. But I don't think that pointing out the difference in crimes like robbery and rape trivializes either.

And it's not comparing the fear of the victim of one crime to the fear of the victim of another to say that a rape victim faces an additional dimension of psychological after-effect. This, IMO, is just common sense.

I've never been the victim of a physical assault. I have had a couple of cars to be seriously vandalized, and have had my apartment burglarized. I know that in all three cases, I felt, in addition to the anger over the losses, a sense of edginess. But I don't think that my experiences come anywhere near to what the victim of an armed robbery experiences. And in the same way, I think that because of the nature of a sexual assault, that the average rape victim's experience--the fear and the trauma--are more complex than the average robbey victim's. And if I'm reading you correctly, you're more or less in agreement here.

But again, neither is trivialized by pointing out the differences between the two. That's all.

LRB
10-13-2003, 06:01 PM
Post-Traumatic Disorder, Depression Linked
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), made famous by returning Vietnam vets, may be even more prevalent in civilian women, a new study shows. And researchers say PTSD may be linked to other psychiatric illness such as depression, anxiety, and alcoholism. "Women are twice as likely to get PTSD than men," said Dr. Naomi Breslau, director of research at the Henry Ford Health Sciences Center's Department of Psychiatry, in Detroit. She says that not many studies have looked at PTSD sufferers outside of veterans who have experienced the unique conditions of warfare. Her team's research into the psychiatric histories of over 800 Detroit-area women found that violent incidences such as rape, assault, and accidents can trigger PTSD in even higher rates than men. PTSD is defined as a constellation of symptoms, including 're-experiencing' phenomena such as nightmares or flashbacks, avoidance of traumatic locales or objects, emotional detachment from others, and jumpy, panicky, and suspicious behavior. Breslau says about half of those experiencing PTSD will show a fading of symptoms over a period of 6 to 12 months. But for others,the condition can persist for years. She says it's not clear why women are more prone to the illness. "It remains something we just don't understand," she says. But she notes it follows general psychiatric trends. "Women, in general, have more psychiatric disorders, more anxiety and depression, than men." Her study found that PTSD was strongly tied to incidences of other forms of mental illness. For example, researchers found that having a previous diagnosis of PTSD doubled the risk for first-onset major depression, and tripled the risk of later alcohol abuse. But a cause and effect relationship was not so clear. "The relationship between major depression and PTSD is like a chicken-and-egg situation. For example, we found that if you have an incidence of PTSD, you're then more likely to develop depression. But also, if you had depression first, you're more likely, upon exposure to a terrible event, to develop PTSD," Breslau explained. To further complicate the equation, researchers discovered that those with psychiatric disorders (like anxiety or depression) were also more likely to find themselves placed in violent or traumatic situations. "We know that psychiatric disorders affect people's motivation, their interests, their judgment," Breslau explained. "It is very likely that people who are depressed are not very able to make good decisions, in terms of who to choose as their friends, and where they go, and what they do with their lives. This leads to them not being able to protect themselves, or to use the kind of judgment that's needed for self-protection." Breslau says there are no PTSD-specific medications currently available to help those with the disorder. But she says antidepressants and antianxiety drugs, along with behavioral therapies, do seem to be helpful. She says the research effort needs to expand its base, in order to better understand how catastrophic events affect not only soldiers, but civilians. "We need a lot more research on civilians, people out there who suffer from PTSD but weren't under the unique conditions of combat," she concluded. SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry (1997;54:81-87)

Link (http://www.hopeforhealing.org/march.html)

LRB
10-13-2003, 06:09 PM
Rape Trama Syndrome (http://www.annalsmed.org/pdfNov02/LongFY.PDF)

LRB
10-13-2003, 06:22 PM
RESISTING “UTMOST RESISTANCE”:USING RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME TO COMBAT UNDERLYING RAPE MYTHS INFLUENCING ACQUAINTANCE (http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/22_2/05_TXT.htm)

Good article on many of the myths about rape.

LRB
10-13-2003, 06:28 PM
UNDERSTANDING TRAUMA AND POST TRAUMATIC STRESS (PART XV): (http://guidancechannel.com/detail.asp?index=747%20&cat=19)

Very good article as well. A good quote:


The first study of “rape-trauma syndrome” was conducted in 1972 by Ann Burgess, a psychiatric nurse, and Lynda Holmstrom, a sociologist. Through interviews with rape victims in the emergency room of Boston City Hospital, Burgess and Holmstrom noted that all of the 37 women interviewed had experienced rape as a serious life-threatening incident that was characterized by fear of death and mutilation.

LRB
10-13-2003, 06:35 PM
What is Rape Trauma Syndrome? (http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/sjrp/publicat/rape.htm)

By:
Desirée Hansson
(in collaboration with the Lawyers for Human Rights)

Occasional Paper 4-92


INTRODUCTION

Many people experience physical, psychological and behavioural problems after suffering a serious trauma like losing someone they love or being disabled in a car accident. These problems have been called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This condition is a normal reaction to abnormal stress. People who have not previously had a mental illness or psychological problems can suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Different kinds of traumas can produce different reactions. Take rape for example: Rape is not just unwanted sex, it is a highly traumatic experience and like other serious traumas, it has negative effects on those who survive it. Rape is usually experienced as life threatening and as an extreme violation of a person. It is not surprising then, that many rape survivors suffer from a particular kind of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, known as Rape Trauma Syndrome:

PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS OF RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME

Immediately after a rape, survivors often experience shock: they are likely to feel cold, faint, become mentally confused (disoriented), tremble, feel nauseous and sometimes vomit.
Pregnancy.
Gynaecological problems like: irregular, heavier and/or painful periods, vaginal discharges, bladder infections, sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, gonorrhoea and/or AIDS.
Bleeding and/or infections from tears or cuts in the vagina or rectum, depending on what happened during the rape.
A soreness of the body. There may also be bruising, grazes, cuts etc, depending on the kind of force used during a rape.
Nausea and/or vomiting.
Throat irritations and/or soreness due to forced oral sex.
Tension headaches.
Pain in the lower back and/or in the stomach.
Sleep disturbances like: difficulty falling asleep, waking up during the night, being woken by nightmares about the rape, getting less sleep than usual; or on the other hand feeling exhausted and needing to sleep more than usual.
Eating disturbances such as: not feeling like eating, eating less than usual and so losing weight; or on the other hand eating more than usual and so putting on weight.
BEHAVIOURAL SYMPTOMS OF RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME

Crying more than usual.
Difficulty concentrating.
Being restless, agitated and unable to relax; or on the other hand just sitting around and moving very little.
Not wanting to go out and/or socialise; or on the other hand socialising more than usual.
Not wanting to be left alone.
Stuttering or stammering more than usual.
Trying to avoid anything that reminds the survivor of the rape. So for example, someone who was raped at a party may stop going to parties. Many rape survivors don't want to talk about what happened, because it makes them remember the rape.
Being more easily frightened or startled than usual. Rape survivors often get very scared when someone walks up behind them without warning.
Being very alert and watchful.
Getting very upset by minor things that didn't worry them before the rape.
Losing interest in things that used to be of interest to them before the rape.
Problems in relationships with people like family, friends, lovers and spouses. Rape survivors may become irritable and so may quarrel with others more easily; or they may withdraw from people with whom they had been close before the rape. They may also become very dependent on others, or on the other hand overly independent.
Sexual problems like a fear of sex, a loss of interest in sex or a loss of sexual pleasure.
Changes in work or school such as: dropping out of school, truanting from school, changing jobs, or stopping work altogether.
Moving house.
Increased use of substances like alcohol, cigarettes and/or drugs. A person who didn't use a substance before the rape may start to use it after a rape.
Increased washing and/or bathing, because of a feeling of being dirty from the rape.
Acting as if the rape never happened. It is quite common for rape survivors to try and carry on with their lives as if nothing has happened, because they don't want to face their feelings about the rape. This is called denial.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS OF RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME

Intrusive thoughts about the rape that upset the rape survivor.
Intrusive thoughts and feelings about being dirty from (contaminated by) the rape. These feelings often make rape survivors wash or bath more frequently. These thoughts are known as obsessional thoughts.
Flashbacks - the sudden feeling that the rape is happening again, which makes the survivor very frightened and upset.
Nightmares about the rape.
Being very upset by anything that reminds the survivor of the rape.
Becoming extremely afraid of certain things that remind the survivor of the rape. Such extreme fears are called phobias. Rape survivors often develop extreme fears of men, of strangers, of being alone, of leaving their homes, of going to school or to work, and of sex. These phobias are called traumatophobias, because they are caused by a trauma.
A loss of memory for all or part of the rape, which is called psychogenic amnesia.
Being unable to feel certain feelings like happiness, or feeling very 'flat'. On the other hand, rape survivors can feel emotionally confused and have mood swings (quick changes of mood).
Feeling that they will not live for very long and/or feeling very negative about their future prospects.
Feeling depressed and/or sad, and sometimes having thoughts of suicide.
Feeling irritable and angry.
Feeling more fearful and anxious than usual. Rape survivors are often very afraid that their assailant/s will return, that they may be pregnant or have been infected with a disease from the rape.
Feelings of humiliation and shame.
Feeling different and/or distant from other people.
Feelings of guilt and self-blame about the rape. Rape survivors often feel that they were somehow responsible for being raped.
Feelings of helplessness and powerlessness.
A loss of self respect and self confidence. Many rape survivors feel that the rape has made them worth less than other people.
Human beings respond to trauma in different ways. Although many rape survivors suffer from the symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome, not all survivors respond to rape in the same way - some rape survivors may have none of these symptoms and others may suffer only a few. Therefore, if a person experiences many of the symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome, it is highly likely that s/he has been raped; but if a person claims to have been raped, yet experiences none of these symptoms, or only a few, it is not a sign that s/he has not actually been raped. Because most rape survivors are afraid to tell anyone that they have been raped, any person who claims to have been raped, should be treated as if they have been raped.

It is important to treat each rape survivor as an individual and to try and understand what the rape means to that particular person. A person's religion, culture, class, race and gender may affect how they feel about being raped. The impact of a rape may be worse if the victim is physically or mentally handicapped, if they were raped by more than one person, or on more than one occasion; and/or if they were raped by someone they knew. Coping with being rape may also be more difficult if family, friends and colleagues are not supportive and/or blame the survivor.

Rape survivors seem to experience different symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome over time. In the first couple of days immediately after a rape, a survivor usually experiences a state of shock. After this shock has passed, some survivors try to act as if nothing has happened. This is their way of trying to block out the rape, because they feel that they won't be able to cope if they let themselves remember what happened to them. So, they may look as if they have not been affected by the rape. This has been called the stage of denial or pseudo-adjustment.

However, if a rape survivor is going to recover well from the impact of a rape, s/he must let her/himself remember the rape and feel whatever s/he is feeling inside. When s/he does start remembering and feeling, s/he will also start suffering from symptoms, but these usually improve gradually over time. It often helps a survivor to have counselling if s/he is experiencing symptoms that upset her/him.

The effects of rape are long term. Rape survivors never forget being raped, but many learn how to deal with the memory. Studies have shown that the symptoms suffered by a rape survivor three months after a rape usually continue over the next three to four years, although they do seem to improve over time. Rape survivors who have strong self-esteem before being raped, those who have good relationships with people and those who have few major changes in their fives in the year, before a rape; seem to recover more quickly from the effects of rape.

Rape Trauma Syndrome has been introduced in court cases overseas in a number of ways: to corroborate a victim's claim that s/he did not consent to having sex; to explain a rape survivor's poor memory about a rape; and to help the court decide on a sentence for a rapist. The negative effects of rape are not yet widely known or recognised in South Africa. Many of our courts are still operating under the false impression that rape is merely unwanted sex and therefore, that it does not damage rape survivors especially in the long term. Rape Trauma Syndrome is only now being introduced as evidence in South African courts.

Jeremiah
10-17-2003, 08:13 AM

LRB
10-17-2003, 11:02 AM
Jeremiah I wasn't arguing with you to prove that I'm right and you're wrong or that I'm smarter on this subject. Just trying to share a point of view that I think is often hidden behind what I consider false myths of society.

Take you time, and when you get caught up at work and still want to read and debate feel free to bring it up again.