PDA

View Full Version : Major BOMB to be potentially dropped on Kobe case!


WayOutWest
10-11-2003, 12:52 PM
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/6985883.htm

MavKikiNYC
10-11-2003, 01:03 PM
Sorry. Not a bomb. Just a smear.

If Kobe and the victim had had sex three times that day and the fourth time he forced her to have sex against her will, it would still be rape.

LRB
10-11-2003, 01:08 PM
Former Denver District Attorney Norm Early said Mackey "blatantly smeared" Bryant's accuser and possibly violated Colorado's Rape Shield law, which bars lawyers from delving into the sex lives of assault victims.



So if Kobe's lawyer broke the law, then what would be her punishment? Anyone know?

WayOutWest
10-11-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Sorry. Not a bomb. Just a smear.

If Kobe and the victim had had sex three times that day and the fourth time he forced her to have sex against her will, it would still be rape.

Not sure if you read the same article I read but the story states that there could be evidence of ANOTHER mans seman on the girls panties. If that isn't reasonable doubt than what is? Who's to say who caused the vaginal tears because that's the ONLY real physical evidence. Early on it was reported that there was evidence of bruises on her neck and pelvic area but that was not true, the only real physical evidence of rape are the vaginal tears and this new evidence casts doubts over who caused those tears.

IMO a bomb.

WayOutWest
10-11-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Former Denver District Attorney Norm Early said Mackey "blatantly smeared" Bryant's accuser and possibly violated Colorado's Rape Shield law, which bars lawyers from delving into the sex lives of assault victims.



So if Kobe's lawyer broke the law, then what would be her punishment? Anyone know?

I don't think it will matter if they have evidence to back up Mackey's statements. That law doesn't apply here since this isn't about the girls history, it's about refuting the physical evidence presented by the prosecutor.

LRB
10-11-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Sorry. Not a bomb. Just a smear.

If Kobe and the victim had had sex three times that day and the fourth time he forced her to have sex against her will, it would still be rape.

Not sure if you read the same article I read but the story states that there could be evidence of ANOTHER mans seman on the girls panties. If that isn't reasonable doubt than what is? Who's to say who caused the vaginal tears because that's the ONLY real physical evidence. Early on it was reported that there was evidence of bruises on her neck and pelvic area but that was not true, the only real physical evidence of rape are the vaginal tears and this new evidence casts doubts over who caused those tears.

IMO a bomb.


Actually we haven't heard all the evidence, just some. Most of what we are hearing are unofficial rumors, because there is a gag order in place and this is only a preliminary hearing not the real trial.

MavKikiNYC
10-11-2003, 01:46 PM
It's a red herring, WOW--a smear, literally and figuratively. Unless Kobe is going to argue that he wasn't even there.


The presence of someone else's semen has no bearing on whether Bryant forced her to have sex. And if he did that's rape.

Chiwas
10-11-2003, 01:46 PM
What would the girl win acussing Kobe of rape falsely?

I can't get it.

LRB
10-11-2003, 01:52 PM
Wonder if they found Semen not belonging to Kobe in his underwear?

grndmstr_c
10-11-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
It's a red herring, WOW--a smear, literally and figuratively. Unless Kobe is going to argue that he wasn't even there.


The presence of someone else's semen has no bearing on whether Bryant forced her to have sex. And if he did that's rape.

Nothing other than whether Kobe raped her has any bearing on whether he raped her, but that's beside the point. In a trial it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent commited the crime of which he/she is accused. This is about the defense trying to establish reasonable doubt concerning the physical evidence. None of us know how much impact this is going to have because none of us have seen all of the evidence at this point, but if the defense can reduce the case to a he said/she said by casting doubt on the relevance of all the evidence that helps their case, plain and simple. And regarding a smear of the alleged victim, in that I don't at all doubt that the defense is adopting this strategy IN PART because it allows them to impugn the girl's character and sexual history in a legal way, I agree.

MavsFanatik33
10-11-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Wonder if they found Semen not belonging to Kobe in his underwear?

Like who? Shaqs?

LRB
10-11-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33

Originally posted by: LRB
Wonder if they found Semen not belonging to Kobe in his underwear?

Like who? Shaqs?

Well.....

Nash13
10-11-2003, 03:46 PM
If this turns out to be true, here's my opinions.

1. They should at least make the girl testify.
2. Kobe should've never told that he committed adultery.

grndmstr_c
10-11-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by: Nash13
If this turns out to be true, here's my opinions.

1. They should at least make the girl testify.
2. Kobe should've never told that he committed adultery.

On that second one, no way. As I understand it there's hard evidence that Kobe did have sex with the girl. If this does become his word against hers they need him to look credible, and having him freely admit to having sex with the girl was essential in that respect.
On the first, somebody feel free to correct me here, but I think she will have to testify in the actual trial, won't she? It's just the prelim that she doesn't have to testify at.

Shaq Attack2
10-11-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
It's a red herring, WOW--a smear, literally and figuratively. Unless Kobe is going to argue that he wasn't even there.


The presence of someone else's semen has no bearing on whether Bryant forced her to have sex. And if he did that's rape.

Apparently you do not comprehend why this is a potentially trial stopping piece of evidence. The vaginal tearing the Colorado victim has, which is probably the most important physical evidence the prosecution has, could now be called into question because of semen from another man found on the victim. If the victim did indeed have sex with other men that day or even within two days of the alleged rape, the jury would clearly see that as reasonable doubt, as vaginal tearing can occur during consensual sex.

This is the kind of evidence that gets a prosecution to drop their case.

Unfortunately, this could mean that Kobe still raped her but that because of her supposed promiscuity, he gets off.

LRB
10-11-2003, 04:14 PM
nfortunately, this could mean that Kobe still raped her but that because of her supposed promiscuity, he gets off.

which has unfortunately happened many times in the past in other rape cases. i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif

Mavs Rule
10-11-2003, 05:49 PM
Maybe she hasn't changed her underwear in awhile. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Findelker
10-11-2003, 06:06 PM
maybe kobe wasnt alone. i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gifi/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

WayOutWest
10-11-2003, 06:34 PM
I think some of you, joking or not, are making the point about "reasonable doubt".

While this may not be fair, or will probably prevent the "truth" from comming into the light, in regards to wether or not Kobe is found guilty of "rape", it's is a bomb.

Unless the "rumored" evidence of bruising around her neck and pelvic are being held back, I don't see how Kobe can be convicted. Not saying that he's innocent, just doubting he can be convicted with what's been presented so far.

LRB
10-11-2003, 06:39 PM
WOW I will joke some, but I won't make up my mind as to whether he raped her or not until I can see all the evidence and not just the rumors we're getting now. I just hope the jury will do the same.

MavKikiNYC
10-12-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2<br

Apparently you do not comprehend why this is a potentially trial stopping piece of evidence. The vaginal tearing the Colorado victim has, which is probably the most important physical evidence the prosecution has, could now be called into question because of semen from another man found on the victim. If the victim did indeed have sex with other men that day or even within two days of the alleged rape, the jury would clearly see that as reasonable doubt, as vaginal tearing can occur during consensual sex.

This is the kind of evidence that gets a prosecution to drop their case.

Unfortunately, this could mean that Kobe still raped her but that because of her supposed promiscuity, he gets off.

Uhm...thanks Justice ShaqAttack2 for elucidating the crux of the case. I guess that's what brought the case to a screeching halt the other day--the prosecution tryiing to decide whether to continue with their flimsy case, or just walk over to Kobe, smile, stretch out their hand and say, "Sorry. Our bad."

{Sarcasm Alert}This is probably also the first wind the prosecution has of the defense trying to suggest that the victim had had sex with 3 men in 3 days, and they probably just have no idea of how to proceed.{Sarcasm Alert End} Never mind that some legal analysts are suggesting that Pamela Mackey could well be treading dangerously close to being held in contempt of court for trying to bring the victim's sexual past into evidence.

The prosecution is probably looking at that blood evidence right now--you know, the victim's blood that was found on Kobe's T-shirt near the waist, and just saying...."Ah...what the hey."

You think that a jury will clearly see this alleged evidence as reasonable doubt that Bryant had sex with the victim against her will. Dunno. Given that we've only been presented the specter of a hint of 'evidence' which may or may not be admissible, and which was slimily released to the public before a jury has even been selected, I'm going to go out on a limb and apply my own capacity to distinguish flim from flam and say that if I were a juror, and I saw the defense trying to smear the victim without refuting the evidence against their client, I'd be doubtful of pretty much any evidence the defense presented.

You think this 'alleged' evidence could stop the case? So far it's still going, and I'll lay you odds it goes to trial.

LRB
10-12-2003, 11:28 AM
If the defense is going to present evidence aren't they legally bound to share that evidence with the prosecution before presenting and viceaversa?

Shaq Attack2
10-12-2003, 04:33 PM
Uhm...thanks Justice ShaqAttack2 for elucidating the crux of the case.

You're welcome.


{Sarcasm Alert}This is probably also the first wind the prosecution has of the defense trying to suggest that the victim had had sex with 3 men in 3 days, and they probably just have no idea of how to proceed.{Sarcasm Alert End}

Thanks for the sarcasm. But since I never even hinted that was true I have no idea why you're even wasting time with a random statement like that.


Never mind that some legal analysts are suggesting that Pamela Mackey could well be treading dangerously close to being held in contempt of court for trying to bring the victim's sexual past into evidence.

Yeah, let me know when that happens. i/expressions/rolleye.gif


The prosecution is probably looking at that blood evidence right now--you know, the victim's blood that was found on Kobe's T-shirt near the waist, and just saying...."Ah...what the hey."

Where do you think the blood came from? Again, this is hardly a damning piece of evidence given that Kobe has already admitted to consensual sex.


You think that a jury will clearly see this alleged evidence as reasonable doubt that Bryant had sex with the victim against her will.

Of course they will. If it is indeed true that semen other than Bryant’s was found on the victim, all PM has to do is make sure the jury connects the dots in that the vaginal tearing could have easily occurred during consensual sex with another male before she met Kobe that day. If you don't see that as reasonable doubt you're, well, blind.


Given that we've only been presented the specter of a hint of 'evidence' which may or may not be admissible,

There's no doubt it will be admissible. The presence of sperm other than Kobe's directly refutes the prosecutions primary piece of physical evidence. This is not the same as saying "She tried to commit suicide before!", which probably won't be admissible. Again, this is not the same as the laws which protect rape victims' pasts from being admissible in court.


and which was slimily released to the public before a jury has even been selected, I'm going to go out on a limb and apply my own capacity to distinguish flim from flam and say that if I were a juror, and I saw the defense trying to smear the victim without refuting the evidence against their client, I'd be doubtful of pretty much any evidence the defense presented.

Haha, right. I'm sure the jury is just going to disregard everything the defense says because of questionable smear tactics. Riiiiight. i/expressions/rolleye.gif


You think this 'alleged' evidence could stop the case? So far it's still going, and I'll lay you odds it goes to trial.

This is, of course, assuming it's even true that non-Kobe semen was found on the alleged victim. Again, this hasn't been confirmed. But if it ends up being true (who knows at this point) and is admissible in court (very likely), I guarantee you Kobe will go free, be it through the prosecution dropping their case or through a jury's decision.

LRB
10-12-2003, 05:00 PM
If she already had vaginal tearing, why would she have sex again until it healed? Don't see how this makes that much of a difference if any. Her sexual history should be excluded unless the defense has more evidence than we've heard so far.

Shaq Attack2
10-12-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
If she already had vaginal tearing, why would she have sex again until it healed? Don't see how this makes that much of a difference if any. Her sexual history should be excluded unless the defense has more evidence than we've heard so far.

Thing is, this really isn't about her history, it's about the prosecution using evidence (vaginal tearing) and trying to say Kobe caused it. If there was indeed another man's sperm found on the alleged victim, then that is a piece of evidence that calls the prosecution's supposed iron clad vaginal tearing argument against Kobe into question. It would be ridiculous to throw that piece of evidence out based on the "prior acts" rape laws, because it's not the same thing as, for example, her previous suicide attempts.

Jeremiah
10-13-2003, 10:43 AM

superheadcat
10-13-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by: Jeremiah

Originally posted by: LRB
If the defense is going to present evidence aren't they legally bound to share that evidence with the prosecution before presenting and viceaversa?

It depends upon the jurisdiction. In CO, I am not sure, but in NY and the District, no, not unless that evidence is exculpatory.

my impression is that for a trial, the evidence need to be shared before presenting, but for a prelim hearing, no such regulation.

WayOutWest
10-15-2003, 03:24 PM
More than just rumors now:

http://www.msnbc.com/local/knbc/a1831723.asp?vts=101520031301

LRB
10-15-2003, 05:49 PM
Nothing new in the article except a lot of speculation. But it sure does look like Bryant's lawyers are intent on taking every possible loophole to smear the alledged victim.

WayOutWest
10-15-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Nothing new in the article except a lot of speculation. But it sure does look like Bryant's lawyers are intent on taking every possible loophole to smear the alledged victim.

I don't see how it's a loophole. They are addressing the vaginal tears directly with the evidence about the "other" sexual partner.

LRB
10-16-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Originally posted by: LRB
Nothing new in the article except a lot of speculation. But it sure does look like Bryant's lawyers are intent on taking every possible loophole to smear the alledged victim.

I don't see how it's a loophole. They are addressing the vaginal tears directly with the evidence about the "other" sexual partner.

Actually they presented their therory to get it in the news. Whether there is any validity to the theory remains to be seen. But while this evidence might possibly get Kobe aquitted in a trial it isn't enough to keep it from going to trial.

This tactic was is dubious whether it was within in the laws at all. None the less, there was absolutely no reason to use the victims name 6 times in court. This tactic is more about putting the the alledged victim on trial (who may very well be suffering from severe psychological trauma.) These are bullying and fear tactics. If nothing else, these tactics make me lean more towards believing Kobe's guilty than innocent.

WayOutWest
10-16-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Originally posted by: LRB
Nothing new in the article except a lot of speculation. But it sure does look like Bryant's lawyers are intent on taking every possible loophole to smear the alledged victim.

I don't see how it's a loophole. They are addressing the vaginal tears directly with the evidence about the "other" sexual partner.

Actually they presented their therory to get it in the news. Whether there is any validity to the theory remains to be seen. But while this evidence might possibly get Kobe aquitted in a trial it isn't enough to keep it from going to trial.

This tactic was is dubious whether it was within in the laws at all. None the less, there was absolutely no reason to use the victims name 6 times in court. This tactic is more about putting the the alledged victim on trial (who may very well be suffering from severe psychological trauma.) These are bullying and fear tactics. If nothing else, these tactics make me lean more towards believing Kobe's guilty than innocent.


I agree it's going to trial, no doubt.

I also agree using the girls name was a dispicable act. No reason to use her real name unless your intent was INTIMIDATION. Disgusting.

As far as bringing up who she slept with withing days of the supposed rape, completely fair game. They are refuting physical evidence.

Fidel
10-16-2003, 08:32 AM
She´s just trying to make money, IMO.

A night clerk of the hotel who first saw her after she left Kobe´s room told the police that she did seem to be fine and didn´t seem to have any problems. One day after the incident she came to the hospital wearing panties in which the sperm of another man was found. And the police officer winters who first said that she told him she tried to hold of Kobe and repeatedly said "no no no" now had to admit that the girl didn´t say anything like this during the first examination one day after the incident. Source: German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. (http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,270032,00.html).

She probably had sex with him and decided a little later that she might as well make a little money of it. Come on a girl that comes to the medical examination wearing panties with sperm of another man in it?? IMO there is no case in this case.

LRB
10-16-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Originally posted by: LRB
Nothing new in the article except a lot of speculation. But it sure does look like Bryant's lawyers are intent on taking every possible loophole to smear the alledged victim.

I don't see how it's a loophole. They are addressing the vaginal tears directly with the evidence about the "other" sexual partner.

Actually they presented their therory to get it in the news. Whether there is any validity to the theory remains to be seen. But while this evidence might possibly get Kobe aquitted in a trial it isn't enough to keep it from going to trial.

This tactic was is dubious whether it was within in the laws at all. None the less, there was absolutely no reason to use the victims name 6 times in court. This tactic is more about putting the the alledged victim on trial (who may very well be suffering from severe psychological trauma.) These are bullying and fear tactics. If nothing else, these tactics make me lean more towards believing Kobe's guilty than innocent.


I agree it's going to trial, no doubt.

I also agree using the girls name was a dispicable act. No reason to use her real name unless your intent was INTIMIDATION. Disgusting.

As far as bringing up who she slept with withing days of the supposed rape, completely fair game. They are refuting physical evidence.

WOW I will admit that this could be a valid theory to present in court, but not necessarily. This is something that should have been discussed in chambers IMO and a ruling given by the judge. The defense would then be able to appeal the ruling if the judge dissallowed it. If the judge allowed it, then he could have stipulated strict ground rules.

The defense would still have to show that it wasn't rape. Even if she had the tears before hand, which there is no real evidence that she did, it would have been painful to have sex with Kobe. Why would she have willingly gone through that pain? That's what the defense needs evidence to show. Otherwise it's still rape if she said no, even if she had the tears before hand.

LRB
10-16-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by: Fidel
She´s just trying to make money, IMO.

A night clerk of the hotel who first saw her after she left Kobe´s room told the police that she did seem to be fine and didn´t seem to have any problems. One day after the incident she came to the hospital wearing panties in which the sperm of another man was found. And the police officer winters who first said that she told him she tried to hold of Kobe and repeatedly said "no no no" now had to admit that the girl didn´t say anything like this during the first examination one day after the incident. Source: German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. (http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,270032,00.html).

She probably had sex with him and decided a little later that she might as well make a little money of it. Come on a girl that comes to the medical examination wearing panties with sperm of another man in it?? IMO there is no case in this case.


Fidel this is a common misconception amoung society that women are in it for the money or some other reason. Even if true the alledged discrepancy in her behavior more closely resembles that of an actual rape victim than someone out to get rich. This has been documented through studies. Look for my references in the kobe's hearing - accuser's side of story (http://dallas-mavs.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=12534) thread.

It's a sad fact that most people in this day and age still want to believe that the woman wasn't raped when studies show this is only a trival percent of charges brought. This woman hasn't show any of the common behaviors of a faker to the best of my knowledge. The main theory is because Kobe is rich, he must be innocent because she's only after his money. This is affording Kobe and other rich people extra priveledges. I not saying don't give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm just saying give the young woman the same benefit of the doubt.

WayOutWest
10-16-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by: LRBWOW I will admit that this could be a valid theory to present in court, but not necessarily. This is something that should have been discussed in chambers IMO and a ruling given by the judge. The defense would then be able to appeal the ruling if the judge dissallowed it. If the judge allowed it, then he could have stipulated strict ground rules.

People seem to forget that Camp Kobe wanted the pre-lim closed, it's the prosecutions fault for wanting to get their faces on TV. They did end up spending about and hour before the pre-lim was restarted speaking with the judge in chambers and that line of questioning was allowed to continue. Tells you something right there according to legal experts on TV.


Originally posted by: LRBThe defense would still have to show that it wasn't rape. Even if she had the tears before hand, which there is no real evidence that she did, it would have been painful to have sex with Kobe. Why would she have willingly gone through that pain? That's what the defense needs evidence to show. Otherwise it's still rape if she said no, even if she had the tears before hand.

The defense doesn't have to show it wasn't rape, it's up to the prosecution to show that it WAS rape. IMO the defense has all the reasonable doubt they are going to need. The defense has physical evidence to cast doubt on the physical evidence of the prosecution, the defense also has a witness to refute the testimony of the prosecutions witness. All that's left is her word against Kobes.

The only other factor in the case that could swing the verdict is any physical evidence the prosecution may be holding back. The DA has stated they did not present all their evidence, just enough to take it to trial. Don't know if the defense knows what that is at this stage of the proceedings.

LRB
10-16-2003, 10:13 AM
People seem to forget that Camp Kobe wanted the pre-lim closed, it's the prosecutions fault for wanting to get their faces on TV. They did end up spending about and hour before the pre-lim was restarted speaking with the judge in chambers and that line of questioning was allowed to continue. Tells you something right there according to legal experts on TV.


It was a mistake IMO to have any of the trial open to the public. Too much of a chance of this becoming a full fledged circus. I strongly disagree with the prosections stance to have it open. That doesn't make what the defense did totally justified.

Since the hearing was closed we don't know for sure what happened. The judge may have very well set limits.

I just wish they would have the trial and then open the transcripts to the public afterwards. Cut out the rumors on both sides and concentrate on justice.


The defense doesn't have to show it wasn't rape, it's up to the prosecution to show that it WAS rape. IMO the defense has all the reasonable doubt they are going to need. The defense has physical evidence to cast doubt on the physical evidence of the prosecution, the defense also has a witness to refute the testimony of the prosecutions witness. All that's left is her word against Kobes.

The vaginal tears show that the sex was painful to the woman, and backs up the conention that it wasn't consenual. Even if she already had the tears, it would still be painful. Yes the prosecution needs to prove Kobe raped the woman, but the defense needs to prove that the prosecutions evidence is not relative. Even if there is a reasonable doubt that she could have encurred the vaginal tears in a prior sexual encounter, that doesn't discount the vaginal tears as evidence that she was raped. It still would have caused her pain. She still would have most likely asked Kobe to stop before he could have climaxed and deposited his semen in her. That's why I say that the defense needs to explain why she would have willing gone through that pain to discount the evidence.

I would agree that the DA could have evidence and probably should have more if they expect a conviction. The "facts" that I have heard so far lend me to believe the young woman more than Kobe. But I don't think that they establish a criminal case sufficient to move beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of rape that she alledges, it's just very had to prove in a criminal court. That doesn't mean Kobe's didn't do the deed, but the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and not a preponderance of the evidence. Right now IMO the young woman's side of the story has the preponderance of the evidence. Of course the trouble is distinguishing fact from rumor. I really want to see all the facts from the trial before I make my final decision.

cin
10-16-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by: Fidel
She´s just trying to make money, IMO.

A night clerk of the hotel who first saw her after she left Kobe´s room told the police that she did seem to be fine and didn´t seem to have any problems. One day after the incident she came to the hospital wearing panties in which the sperm of another man was found. And the police officer winters who first said that she told him she tried to hold of Kobe and repeatedly said "no no no" now had to admit that the girl didn´t say anything like this during the first examination one day after the incident. Source: German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. (http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,270032,00.html)

So why is Winters now saying she didn't say ... no..

Do you think he's seeing dead people?
Lots of dead presidents?