PDA

View Full Version : Judge dismisses the case against Kobe.


LakerMania
09-01-2004, 03:59 PM
details to follow but it may due to DA tampering or prejudice. i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif


This thing is apparently over. http://forums.lakersground.net/images/smiles/icon_cheers.gif



edit: Judge just dismissed the case. Prosecution press conference at 7:45 PST.

Rod1975
09-01-2004, 04:06 PM
Well OJ was aquitted, but had to pay at the money trial. Same here for Showbe, only without the whole murder trial thing.

LRB
09-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by: LakerMania
details to follow but it may due to DA tampering or prejudice. i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif


This thing is apparently over. http://forums.lakersground.net/images/smiles/icon_cheers.gif

It's pretty standard for defenses to ask jusdge for a dismissal. Asking doesn't mean it will be granted nor does it mean that anything inapproriate happened. Of course I'm sure most Laker fans half already judged Kobe by what he can do for the Lakers on the court and any evidence presented in the courtroom is totally immaterial.

dalmations202
09-01-2004, 04:40 PM
I will tell you one thing I know.

If you poll the people after the trial....regardless of whether he is declared innocent or guilty........

40% of the people will say that the jury was wrong.

LakerMania
09-01-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: LakerMania
details to follow but it may due to DA tampering or prejudice. i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif


This thing is apparently over. http://forums.lakersground.net/images/smiles/icon_cheers.gif

It's pretty standard for defenses to ask jusdge for a dismissal. Asking doesn't mean it will be granted nor does it mean that anything inapproriate happened. Of course I'm sure most Laker fans half already judged Kobe by what he can do for the Lakers on the court and any evidence presented in the courtroom is totally immaterial.

Read the topic again......carefully.

LakerMania
09-01-2004, 04:47 PM
Apparently even though the prosecutors will ask to dismiss with the chance of retrying the case, that may not be possible.


"Prosecutors will ask that the charge be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that it can never be brought again. "



http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/kobe_bryant_dismiss_040901-1.html

Lvubun1
09-01-2004, 04:50 PM
Damn sure not a Laker fan but I thought the case was weak anyway. But for the prosecutors to ask for a dismissal WITHOUT prejudice meaning it can't be retried, even with new evidence, something went really, really bad. If you wanna blame somebody, blame the prosecutors.

LRB
09-01-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by: LakerMania

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: LakerMania
details to follow but it may due to DA tampering or prejudice. i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif


This thing is apparently over. http://forums.lakersground.net/images/smiles/icon_cheers.gif

It's pretty standard for defenses to ask jusdge for a dismissal. Asking doesn't mean it will be granted nor does it mean that anything inapproriate happened. Of course I'm sure most Laker fans half already judged Kobe by what he can do for the Lakers on the court and any evidence presented in the courtroom is totally immaterial.

Read the topic again......carefully.

Sorry, I apologize. I had read an article earlier today simple stating that Kobe's lawyers had asked for a dismissal. I see now that several news services are reporting that the prosecution is asking for a dismissal as well. Though there does seem to be some confusion as to whether the dismissal will be with or without prejudice.

LRB
09-01-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by: dalmations202
I will tell you one thing I know.

If you poll the people after the trial....regardless of whether he is declared innocent or guilty........

40% of the people will say that the jury was wrong.

At least 40% Dal and many of the same people would disagree no matter what the verdict.

Lvubun1
09-01-2004, 05:20 PM
On Sportscenter they reported that the female prosecutor is actually 'refusing' to go on with the case, so something real big must have been dropped, pretty weird.

TripleDipping
09-01-2004, 05:24 PM
I'm acting like I'm very surprised.

vinnieponte
09-01-2004, 06:09 PM
WOW what a big shock, not! Even the prosecutors are to afraid to go to trial because once the jury finds out she had sex after they hooked up, it will kill her creditbility. Secondly i'm almost positive this case is all about the $$$$. And I'm almost guaranting that the civil trial wont go all the way through cause Kobe will just make a payment and she will drop all charges. And yes I also guarantee the lakers will suck this year, yet I do think Kobe is innocent i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

LakerMania
09-01-2004, 07:14 PM
Case dismissed per the judge.

Hitman
09-01-2004, 09:19 PM
Kobe's statement....all I can say is....wow.

"I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.
Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.

I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado."

FilthyFinMavs
09-01-2004, 10:31 PM
Kobe should just shut the hell up before he digs himself in a deeper hole.

u2sarajevo
09-01-2004, 10:35 PM
What a justice system we have. Halleluiah!!! Once again, if you are rich it doesn't mean you can get away with whatever you want to get away with.

Justice has been served!!!! Hold your head up high Kobe, you are the BEST!!!!

sike
09-01-2004, 10:50 PM
yup....who did not know this was coming....

MavsFanFinley
09-01-2004, 10:52 PM
Hey guys, he said he was sorry. i/expressions/anim_roller.gif

u2sarajevo
09-01-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Hey guys, he said he was sorry. i/expressions/anim_roller.gifSorry for what? He didn't do anything. That woman flying obvious false accusations at him should be the one apologizing.

Justice is served America!!!!!!

Be proud!

Hitman
09-01-2004, 11:10 PM
Per Kobe's statement/ admission

Was this something that Kobe agreed to do IF the woman agreed to not go ahead with the criminal case?

That would seem to be the only rational explanation, other than a tremendous amount of guilt that Kobe had to get off his chest.

dirno2000
09-01-2004, 11:28 PM
I doubt that Kobe wrote that statment. Probably just a condition of her droping the criminal case. We're still not any closer to knowing what actually happened. Weather he did it or not, it made more sense for Kobe to put his name on that statment than risk going to trail in Eagle Colorado.

Edit to add:
[/quote]The statement, Bryant's attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon told ESPN's Jim Gray, was a condition of the woman withdrawing her testimony.

"Kobe was facing life in prison for a crime he did not commit," they told Gray. "The accuser insisted on that statement as the price for his freedom. The statement doesn't change the facts: Kobe is innocent and now he is free."[/quote]

LRB
09-02-2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by: dirno2000
I doubt that Kobe wrote that statment. Probably just a condition of her droping the criminal case. We're still not any closer to knowing what actually happened. Weather he did it or not, it made more sense for Kobe to put his name on that statment than risk going to trail in Eagle Colorado.

Edit to add:
The statement, Bryant's attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon told ESPN's Jim Gray, was a condition of the woman withdrawing her testimony.

"Kobe was facing life in prison for a crime he did not commit," they told Gray. "The accuser insisted on that statement as the price for his freedom. The statement doesn't change the facts: Kobe is innocent and now he is free."[/quote][/quote]

So Kobe lied. According to his attorney's he said things in the statement that he didn't believe to be true or mabye he was guilty and lied about that.

Oh well if you have enough money you can buy your way out of most any repercussions. Just ask the Kennedy's about that. i/expressions/anim_roller.gif

Shaq Attack2
09-02-2004, 05:08 AM
LRB, I don't see how the statement Kobe released incriminates him. He still says, point blank, that he believes she consented. He simply elaborates by saying that he understands where she's coming from (quite frankly, I'm not sure if Kobe really believes that, since this IS a canned statement required by the prosecutors after all). That said, it's not that hard to believe; I understand why some terrorists terrorize, they were born into it. Doesn't mean I don't believe they are wrong for being terrorists.

Anyway, the case being dropped and all the other evidence that has been reported/leaked strongly indicates Kobe is innocent anyway, so I donít think justice wasnít done today. Iíd be far more suspicious if there was a large, out of court settlement or some sort of illegal activity to pay off the accuser.

twelli
09-02-2004, 05:47 AM
"I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night"

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 08:55 AM
"I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night"


I sure hope Kobe was misquoted on that.

Dooby
09-02-2004, 08:58 AM
Women should be rioting in the street.

sike
09-02-2004, 09:22 AM
so did she drop this case just to get the civil case more quickly???
the DA said he admired this "brave" young woman....

sike
09-02-2004, 09:26 AM
shaqattack2:"I understand why some terrorists terrorize, they were born into it. Doesn't mean I don't believe they are wrong for being terrorists."
did you just somehow insinuate that Kobe was born into raping and that he should and you understand that???

please explain this terribly confusing metaphor

DubOverdose
09-02-2004, 10:07 AM
Well, this sucks. Sure, I hated hearing about Kobe and I sorta thought he was innocent, but he could be getting away.

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by: DubOverdose
Well, this sucks. Sure, I hated hearing about Kobe and I sorta thought he was innocent, but he could be getting away.

The only thing getting away is the money out of Kobe's pockets. This was this girl's intention from the get go.

LRB
09-02-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2
LRB, I don't see how the statement Kobe released incriminates him. He still says, point blank, that he believes she consented. He simply elaborates by saying that he understands where she's coming from (quite frankly, I'm not sure if Kobe really believes that, since this IS a canned statement required by the prosecutors after all). That said, it's not that hard to believe; I understand why some terrorists terrorize, they were born into it. Doesn't mean I don't believe they are wrong for being terrorists.

Anyway, the case being dropped and all the other evidence that has been reported/leaked strongly indicates Kobe is innocent anyway, so I donít think justice wasnít done today. Iíd be far more suspicious if there was a large, out of court settlement or some sort of illegal activity to pay off the accuser.

WTH????
Doesn't mean I don't believe they are wrong for being terrorists.
Nice to know that you condone the targeting and killing of innocents, including children, as an acceptable means to make a political statement. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif I guess Adolph Hitler was you idol for gassing all those Jews as well. But I'm not sure how this applies to Kobe unless you're saying that it's OK for Kobe to rape and I fully support him if and when he does.

And you don't see how the statment incriminates Kobe??? Either he lied in the statement and didn't mean a word, which could mean he's possibly innocent of rape but not of lying, or he was truthful and raped the girl. It's rape if it's without her consent. It doesn't matter if Kobe thought it was consentual, what matters is whether the girl consented to it. So Kobe is admitting that he forced sex on her without her consent. That's rape or Kobe's lying or possibly both.

And if Kobe settles out of court or is sued successfully in court that hardly proves his innocence. Actually it goes more to point towards his being guilty to at least some degree more than Kobe being innocent.

mary
09-02-2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: DubOverdose
Well, this sucks. Sure, I hated hearing about Kobe and I sorta thought he was innocent, but he could be getting away.

The only thing getting away is the money out of Kobe's pockets. This was this girl's intention from the get go.

Really? And you know her intentions how exactly?

Drbio
09-02-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: DubOverdose
Well, this sucks. Sure, I hated hearing about Kobe and I sorta thought he was innocent, but he could be getting away.

The only thing getting away is the money out of Kobe's pockets. This was this girl's intention from the get go.

That is rediculous. You know nothing of her intentions.



Kobe's statement was impressive imho. I bet there are some parameters in place for a settlement of the civil case, but his statement earned back (albeit a very small amount) some glimmer of hope that he is human and feels culpable for his actions. I give him props for making that statement.

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 11:15 AM
C'mon, is hse was really raped, I mean really, then why would you not want to go throught the trial no matter what! And second;y why in the world would you not want to take the stand, you accuse him of rape yet you can't say it out loud. And thirdly why were they doing everything in the world to supress the eveidence about her having sex after kobe??????? Here comes the money trial, oops I mean the civil trial!

MavsFanFinley
09-02-2004, 11:23 AM
The only thing getting away is the money out of Kobe's pockets. This was this girl's intention from the get go.

Instead of rolling in all that money that is likely to come her way, she'll now have to pay for protection for herself and family because of all those pesky leaks. Of course, the judge was sorry about all that too.

If Kobe wasn't guilty why did he and his attorney's agree to this little statement?

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 11:33 AM
If Kobe wasn't guilty why did he and his attorney's agree to this little statement?[/quote]


If kobe WAS guilty, why did they drop the charges? Last I heard they don't drop rape cases because of popularity

MavsFanFinley
09-02-2004, 11:43 AM
She couldn't hold up to the pressure. Hell, I don't care why she dropped the case.

My point is that once she said I can't/won't do this anymore, Kobe owed her nothing. He didn't have to issue a statement. His attorney's said that the statement was one of the conditions for her dropping the case.

Why on earth are they agreeing to her conditions if he isn't guilty and she won't continue the trial?

LRB
09-02-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
vinnieponte
C'mon, is hse was really raped, I mean really, then why would you not want to go throught the trial no matter what!

There are many reasons why someone who was really raped wouldn't want to got to trial. Maybe you should look into the stats which say that most rapes go unreported at all. Why, the neanderthals ask? Because those same neanderthals are the ones leading the chant that the victim was a whore and she got what she was asking for. Society knee jerk reaction is to blame the woman and to crucify her character if she is not 100% pure virgin who never so much as said damn or hell in her life. She truely has to bewithout any flaws to escape society heaping blame upon her and even then it's often not enough.

But this case is even worse than normal. The young woman was constantly receiving threats for bringing her case forward and her security was being compromised by a court that was constantly "accidentally", yea accidentally my ass, leaking one sided information against the young woman while at the same time placing a gag order on her to keep her from defending herself.


posted by

And second;y why in the world would you not want to take the stand, you accuse him of rape yet you can't say it out loud.

How would you like to sit in a chair and have an attorney ask you embarrasing question, try to label you a moralless whore who'll do anything to get a penis in you, try and say that you wanted to be assaulted and raped, and point out every single acutual and imagined flaw in your character? Maybe you are a true masochist and would enjoy this. Maybe you like having people tie you up and beat the hell out of you also. But newsflash, most people don't like either of these scenarios. I have a good friend who spend 7 hours as an expert witness in a civil lawsuit among corporations being grilled by a hostile attorney in a deposition. He was paid big bucks for his time, but he said that he would never do it again. This is a man of impeccable character who wasn't attacked or even injured by the lawyers client and who felt horrible for the character assisnations thrown at him.


And thirdly why were they doing everything in the world to supress the eveidence about her having sex after kobe???????

We don't know whether she did or did not have sex after Kobe. And if she did, it could only possibly be relevant if she had sex after Kobe and before taking the rape kit. We've only heard or seen a one sided and small part of the evidence as to whethe she did or did not have sex. It's quite possible that she did not have sex after Kobe and before the rape kit and this was all a ploy by the defense to defame her character. It's not the 1st time a tactic like this has been used by someone who was a rapist. Even taken at face value, the prosecution like the defense would want evidence stricken which did not help their case. Why did Kobe's team try and suppress as evidence Kobe's conversations with police before he was arrested if Kobe was innocent? Surely this means that Kobe was guilty? Right? Wrong. It just means that the evidence was damaging to Kobe's case and the defense wanted it stricken if legally possible.

LRB
09-02-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
If Kobe wasn't guilty why did he and his attorney's agree to this little statement?


If kobe WAS guilty, why did they drop the charges? Last I heard they don't drop rape cases because of popularity[/quote]

Because they weren't getting a fair trial by the judge. Because the girl couldn't stand up to the cruel treatment of the judge who was unfairly favoring Kobe and unjustly allowing this young woman's character be heaped with mud because of the judges mistakes and then have the audacity to not allow the young woman to respond to the attacks by placing a gag order on her.

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 12:04 PM
lrb, you do have valib points about the judge and the harshness of the trial, i'll give you that. But the thing that sticks out more than anything it the prosecution doing anything and everything to bar her sexual information. They seem so frightened about letting people know what she did the next day. And if she did have sex, then this case would be over, because no one gets raped and has sex the next day. My point simply being I came into the trial with no sides, and after all that was said and done, it just seems to be a issue of hurt feelings and money, not a crime.

LRB
09-02-2004, 12:13 PM
because no one gets raped and has sex the next day.

Who knows how people respond to a tramatic event. I'll grant you IMO it would be highly unusual, but to say that no one does it is hyperbole. But if she didn't have sex, and it is a long way from being proven conclusively or otherwise that she did, that would explain why they didn't want the evidence in the trial. It would only be irelevant character assasination. You seem to be harshly judging someone who has been legally prevented from telling her side of the story.

Male30Dan
09-02-2004, 01:05 PM
Bottom line is that a GREAT DEAL of America will believe that this woman was out for the money all along and will actually feel sorry for Kobe's tarnished reputation, (despite the adultery)... What a shame!

Listen to some of the talk shows going on right now, (both political and sports-based), and this will become quite obvious!!!

I don't know honestly if Kobe did or did not rape her; however, I know that if he did, she is one STUPID ASS person for having let him go free...

LRB
09-02-2004, 01:20 PM
I don't know honestly if Kobe did or did not rape her; however, I know that if he did, she is one STUPID ASS person for having let him go free...


Why is she a "STUPID ASS" person just because she couldn't endure months and months of having her character publicly assignated while being legally prevented from replying???? That's a cruel and harsh judgement from somebody who hasn't walked in her shoes. Why is it stupid ass to give up on the legal systems that completely failed her on at least 3 seperate occasions???

Male30Dan
09-02-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

I don't know honestly if Kobe did or did not rape her; however, I know that if he did, she is one STUPID ASS person for having let him go free...


Why is she a "STUPID ASS" person just because she couldn't endure months and months of having her character publicly assignated while being legally prevented from replying???? That's a cruel and harsh judgement from somebody who hasn't walked in her shoes. Why is it stupid ass to give up on the legal systems that completely failed her on at least 3 seperate occasions???

Are you actually behind allowing a person guilty of RAPE to walk free??? I cant believe you would even try to make an argument over such a statement... You honestly think it was not a stupid decision to allow a person guilty of rape to walk free such that he can do it again, (keep in mind my comments about Kobe being guilty are based on my original opinion that IF Kobe really did it, the woman raped was stupid to let him walk without at least letting a jury decide his fate)???

I dont even know how to begin such a rebuttal... Im going to get back to work rather than piss a lot of people off!

LRB
09-02-2004, 01:39 PM
Are you actually behind allowing a person guilty of RAPE to walk free??

No, I'm not in support of that. However, I'm also not in support of undue tramatizing a rape vicitm in an unfair judicial process. It's unfair to expect a rape victim to be emotionally and psychologically raped by the very system that is supposed to be protecting her. Yeah I wish she would have gone through with the prosecution, but I can understand why she didn't. If you want someone to blame, blame the biased judge who sabatogued the prosecutions case.

Max Power
09-02-2004, 02:55 PM
I don't think the judge was biased, I think he (and the rest of the court system of that small town) was just not able to handle the size of the case. It is really hard to do your job when there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of reporters and the like pressuring you about case details. Mistakes were made but the largest mistake was the decision to keep the trial there. It should have been moved to another venue - one that was more used to big cases.

Norm had a guest lawyer on his show and they went over a lot of the Kobe legal stuff.

LRB
09-02-2004, 03:02 PM
I don't think the judge was biased

What do you call a judge who allowed his office to make "mistakes" on 3 separate occassion and release one sided testimony against the accusor and then slap a gag order on her and the prosecution to prevent them from defending themselves? What do you call a judge who refuses to stop using the internet to post documents after 3 mistakes have been committed using it?

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 03:31 PM
She has already gone through a year of hell, so what is a few more months, especially when you're claiming rape and hold a mans life in the balance. I don't think she was raped based on the fact that is she was, she would of stuck this through. The fact she didn't and wouldn't even testify shows me that yes her feelings were hurt, and yes maybe afterwards she felt horrible for having sex with someone she just met, etc,etc,etc. If she was raped the trial would of went on with her testimony or not, the prosecution walked away because it was going to loose. Yes I feel bad for her, and yes Kobe is an idiot for cheating on his beautiful wife, and now he will loose a little money and the game will continue,The end.

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by: mary

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: DubOverdose
Well, this sucks. Sure, I hated hearing about Kobe and I sorta thought he was innocent, but he could be getting away.

The only thing getting away is the money out of Kobe's pockets. This was this girl's intention from the get go.

Really? And you know her intentions how exactly?

Assumption. She drops the charges but she was raped? What sense does that make?

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
C'mon, is hse was really raped, I mean really, then why would you not want to go throught the trial no matter what! And second;y why in the world would you not want to take the stand, you accuse him of rape yet you can't say it out loud. And thirdly why were they doing everything in the world to supress the eveidence about her having sex after kobe??????? Here comes the money trial, oops I mean the civil trial!

You pretty much summed it up here.

LRB
09-02-2004, 03:43 PM
She has already gone through a year of hell, so what is a few more months

This is nothing compared to what the trial would be. Also now she is out from under the unjust gag order and can freely defend herself.


I don't think she was raped based on the fact that is she was, she would of stuck this through.

Just what do you base it on??? The studies that show most rapes go unreported because the victims can stand being victimized by the system one more time??? Hell I'm amazed that she stuck it out as long as she did. You also forget that she had an extremely biased judge who wasn't going to give her a fair shot at recieving justice. Throw in the fact that her very life was in danger by continuing. Forget that if Kobe is guilty that she suffered from one of the most violating crimes that there is and the trama from that is hardly inconsequential. But it's easy for you to sit your ass back in you chair drink you beer and pronounce her guilty because she didn't have the intestinal fortitude to withstand even more abuse.


If she was raped the trial would of went on with her testimony or not, the prosecution walked away because it was going to loose.

Without here testimony the Prosecution didn't have a very strong case. And just because the prosecution would lose, doesn't mean Kobe is innocent, it only means that they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. That's a huge difference.


Yes I feel bad for her

You sure as hell don't act like it. You've judged her and found her guilty on just a bunch of rumors and faulty logic without even hearing her side of the story.

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 03:47 PM
Why should someone feel bad for her if she wasn't raped? If she was that's another story but at the end of hte day Kobe is still innocent. She's also about to recieve money also? What is there for her to feel bad about? Maybe i'm in the minority on this but I have no clue on how this girl looks or what her name is. She's pretty safe from the public.

LRB
09-02-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs



Assumption. She drops the charges but she was raped? What sense does that make?


Can tell right off do don't give a rat's ass about women and their rights. What sense does it make to continue a case where she is being abused daily and unable to defend herself. What sense does it take to pursue a case where the judge is biased against her and has unfairly biased the jury pool against her? How sense does it make to continue to make rape charges when her life is being threatened for doing so and she can't afford protection? I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. If she agreed to drop the charges then they'd stop torturing her. If she'd truely been raped she'd endure the torture. How is it living in the middle ages???

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 03:52 PM
lrb, it's plain and simple, She said she was raped, the trial is about to start and she backs out because of 'pressure". Now there is a civil trial which is about rewarding money, Guess what she wont win that either. My point simple was that I'm not in her shoes and I'm not being harsh towards her. But if you put a mans life on the line and then say, ahh never mind about the trial, then you should be ready for the heat. Now it's all behind us, I believe you're a republician right? So in the words of your fellow republicans in california, stop being a girlyman!

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs



Assumption. She drops the charges but she was raped? What sense does that make?


Can tell right off do don't give a rat's ass about women and their rights. What sense does it make to continue a case where she is being abused daily and unable to defend herself. What sense does it take to pursue a case where the judge is biased against her and has unfairly biased the jury pool against her? How sense does it make to continue to make rape charges when her life is being threatened for doing so and she can't afford protection? I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. If she agreed to drop the charges then they'd stop torturing her. If she'd truely been raped she'd endure the torture. How is it living in the middle ages???


"I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. "

Where the hell did you get this statement from? I said no such. This has nothing to do with womans rights. This has to do with a girl crying wolf. If there was evidence stating Kobe was guilty it would be a different story but I haven't seen that evidence. The girl's been tortured all ready. She can't take back the "torture" she recieved by dropping the case. I believe every man who rapes anyone on this earth she be put in jail. You mean to tell me you don't believe the same way? She should do whatever it takes to put the guy behind bars.

LRB
09-02-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
lrb, it's plain and simple, She said she was raped, the trial is about to start and she backs out because of 'pressure". Now there is a civil trial which is about rewarding money, Guess what she wont win that either. My point simple was that I'm not in her shoes and I'm not being harsh towards her. But if you put a mans life on the line and then say, ahh never mind about the trial, then you should be ready for the heat. Now it's all behind us, I believe you're a republician right? So in the words of your fellow republicans in california, stop being a girlyman!

And you should stop being a fan of those who commit violence against women. You criticize her for dropping charges against Kobe because she put his life on the line???? That is the most bigoted ignorant and totally ridiculous statement that I've ever heard. I don't know where to begin. 1st, how in the hell is she hurting Kobe by letting him off???? 2nd, Kobe's freedom may have been on the line, but Colorado doesn't impose the death penalty for rape so Kobe's life was hardly on the line. 3rd you have all the empathy of a dog turd. She backed off because she wasn't getting a fair shake from the judges and the judge wouldn't agree to stop being unfair to her. So what do you dream of at night how you can beat and rape women? You sure seem to enjoy demeaning and putting them down and saying they deserve what they got.

And why the hell should she be ready for the heat??? She didn't ask to get raped. It's called rape because her choice was taken from her by force. It's not like a political campaign. So I guess you think that crime vicitms should just be ready to get abused like hell or quit crying for justice. You're pathetic.

LRB
09-02-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs



Assumption. She drops the charges but she was raped? What sense does that make?


Can tell right off do don't give a rat's ass about women and their rights. What sense does it make to continue a case where she is being abused daily and unable to defend herself. What sense does it take to pursue a case where the judge is biased against her and has unfairly biased the jury pool against her? How sense does it make to continue to make rape charges when her life is being threatened for doing so and she can't afford protection? I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. If she agreed to drop the charges then they'd stop torturing her. If she'd truely been raped she'd endure the torture. How is it living in the middle ages???



"I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. "

Where the hell did you get this statement from? I said no such. This has nothing to do with womans rights. This has to do with a girl crying wolf. If there was evidence stating Kobe was guilty it would be a different story but I haven't seen that evidence. The girl's been tortured all ready. She can't take back the "torture" she recieved by dropping the case. I believe every man who rapes anyone on this earth she be put in jail. You mean to tell me you don't believe the same way? She should do whatever it takes to put the guy behind bars.


This is too about women's rights. You're saying no woman has a right to claim that she was raped unless she has overwhelming evidence. She should in the infamous words of faild GOP gubatorial candidate Clayton Williams "just sit back and enjoy it." If a woman can't take the abuse of pursuing a trial, and women do get abused for that, you're for automatically labing them as lying whores. And this girl was being tortured lots longing than a freaking week. I'd like to see each and every rapist but in jail, but to expect a woman to go through that hell just to meet your neanderthal sense of justice is total BS. But I guess it's easy to believe that when you love pissing on women's rights.

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 04:14 PM
lrb, I'm not pathetic, i'm just stating the obvious. But since we're on name calling I'd rather much finish this in person if you like? So now you're the judge? What wasn't fair? The fact that they were going to bring up her sexually history pertaining to the days after the supposed "rape"? That should be available to anyone whom is being accused of such a horrible crime. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if she was raped, if she truly was, she would of went on with the trial. Now back to the name calling, you want to keep it flowing, fine with me bitch, name the place!

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs



Assumption. She drops the charges but she was raped? What sense does that make?


Can tell right off do don't give a rat's ass about women and their rights. What sense does it make to continue a case where she is being abused daily and unable to defend herself. What sense does it take to pursue a case where the judge is biased against her and has unfairly biased the jury pool against her? How sense does it make to continue to make rape charges when her life is being threatened for doing so and she can't afford protection? I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. If she agreed to drop the charges then they'd stop torturing her. If she'd truely been raped she'd endure the torture. How is it living in the middle ages???



"I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight. "

Where the hell did you get this statement from? I said no such. This has nothing to do with womans rights. This has to do with a girl crying wolf. If there was evidence stating Kobe was guilty it would be a different story but I haven't seen that evidence. The girl's been tortured all ready. She can't take back the "torture" she recieved by dropping the case. I believe every man who rapes anyone on this earth she be put in jail. You mean to tell me you don't believe the same way? She should do whatever it takes to put the guy behind bars.


This is too about women's rights. You're saying no woman has a right to claim that she was raped unless she has overwhelming evidence. She should in the infamous words of faild GOP gubatorial candidate Clayton Williams "just sit back and enjoy it." If a woman can't take the abuse of pursuing a trial, and women do get abused for that, you're for automatically labing them as lying whores. And this girl was being tortured lots longing than a freaking week. I'd like to see each and every rapist but in jail, but to expect a woman to go through that hell just to meet your neanderthal sense of justice is total BS. But I guess it's easy to believe that when you love pissing on women's rights.


Where in the hell did I say this at?

"You're saying no woman has a right to claim that she was raped unless she has overwhelming evidence. "


I'm saying that this girl in particular lied and she thought she could just get easy money from Kobe. She thought this situation would be drama free. I'm saying that if she did lie she deserves every threat she recieves. I'm saying i don't feel bad for a liar. If that is saying no woman has a right to claim that she was raped unless she has evidence then let it be. At the end of the day Kobe is innocent and a girl lied.

Fah Q
09-02-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
lrb, it's plain and simple, She said she was raped, the trial is about to start and she backs out because of 'pressure". Now there is a civil trial which is about rewarding money, Guess what she wont win that either. My point simple was that I'm not in her shoes and I'm not being harsh towards her. But if you put a mans life on the line and then say, ahh never mind about the trial, then you should be ready for the heat. Now it's all behind us, I believe you're a republician right? So in the words of your fellow republicans in california, stop being a girlyman!

You have got to be one the stupidest people I've come in contact with in my life. LRB has stated why anyone wouldn't want to go on with this case and your response is "stop being a girlyman." You stupid piece of shit! People like you shouldn't have the right to breathe.

Let me ask you, lets say you get raped by a big burly man and everything in your life becomes a media circus and the past transgressions that you made become part of the case, and you know your not gonna win, what do you do? Do you go on with case, or do you decide to punish the man the only way that seems possible, through his wallet? If you say the you would go through the case that you know you aren't gonna win, then give me address and find someone to visit you.

Sorry to the Mods, I'll take strike one for this.

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 04:30 PM
Everyone seems to be mad at me, yet your conclusions are wrong. I think rape is a horrible crime and I think anyone whom commits it should spend the rest of their life in prison. I have been stating that if there was really a case here, it would of went on. The dropped the charges so that speaks for itself. Nothing more nothing less.

LRB
09-02-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
lrb, I'm not pathetic, i'm just stating the obvious. But since we're on name calling I'd rather much finish this in person if you like? So now you're the judge? What wasn't fair? The fact that they were going to bring up her sexually history pertaining to the days after the supposed "rape"? That should be available to anyone whom is being accused of such a horrible crime. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if she was raped, if she truly was, she would of went on with the trial. Now back to the name calling, you want to keep it flowing, fine with me bitch, name the place!

The judge was unfair in releasing one sided information to the press which was against the victim. The judge was unfair in refusing to take substantial measures to insure this stoped. The just was unfair in not lifting the gag order to allow the vicitm and the prosecution to publicly respond to the informaiton released or release a balance set of information. There judge was unfair in unevenly enforcing the gag order. I'd have to see the full set of evidence to have an informed opinion if the judge was fair in allowing her sexual history to be introduced, so right now I don't hold that against the judge.

But all that aside there is still the fact that you are judging her on partial evidence. Not only are you judging her but you are judging every vicition of a violent and tramatic crime by stating if they can't handle a great deal of additonal abuse then they had to have made it up. That sure appears to me that you advocate violence, especially against women. I guess you feel if the she can't take the pressure she deserved to get her ass raped? And now you want to solve this argument with violence. Sure fits the pattern.

It's not an either Kobe is prosecuted and found guilty or this woman is guilty of lying and fraud. Lots of guilty people get off. Our justice system is set up to allow for that to protect those who might be innocent. We'd prefer to let 99 guilty men go free than to send on innocent man to jail. All dropping of charges means is that the DA thinks that there is insufficient evidence to convict. Doesn't mean the crime did or did not happen. Doesn't mean Kobe did or did not do it. Doesn't mean the young woman is or is not lying.

However some people love to blame women. They don't care at all for women's rights. They take every opportunity just or not to put women down. Hey it's a free country and if you want to piss on women's right's with your posts, go right ahead. But I will call you out on it.

LRB
09-02-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs



Where in the hell did I say this at?

"You're saying no woman has a right to claim that she was raped unless she has overwhelming evidence. "


I'm saying that this girl in particular lied and she thought she could just get easy money from Kobe. She thought this situation would be drama free. I'm saying that if she did lie she deserves every threat she recieves. I'm saying i don't feel bad for a liar. If that is saying no woman has a right to claim that she was raped unless she has evidence then let it be. At the end of the day Kobe is innocent and a girl lied.

You say that the girl lied but there is not supstantial proof only rumor and inuendo to point to this at best. Looks like a very prejudiced decision to me.


I'm saying that if she did lie she deserves every threat she recieves.

So now people deserve to be killed if they falsely accuse someone?


At the end of the day Kobe is innocent and a girl lied.

There's no definitive proof that Kobe did or did not rape this girl. Can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt either way with the evidence available to us. Same for the girl. The case is essentially a he said/she said case with some physical evidence that we don't have fully. But at the end of the day it sure looks like you hate women and don't give a damn if Kobe raped that girl or not as long as he goes free.

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 04:44 PM
"So now people deserve to be killed if they falsely accuse someone?"

What I mean by that was she deserved the threats or in your words the torture she has recieved. I wish harm on no one. But you don't just falsly accuse someone of rape. Either it happened or it didn't. In my book being accused of rape is the worst accusation of them all. That's not a word to play with. Everything you stand for is out the door when you are accussed of rape. Imagine yourself being not guilty but oh because your an NBA player the assumptions go wild. I don't feel bad for neither parties here. They both were in the wrong.


"You say that the girl lied but there is not supstantial proof only rumor and inuendo to point to this at best. Looks like a very prejudiced decision to me. "

Even though I do believe she did lie that's not what I said.

I'm saying that if she did lie she deserves every threat she recieves.


Keyword is if.

MavsFanFinley
09-02-2004, 04:45 PM
Vinnie, you simply make me sick.

It's already been pointed out how many women don't come forward after being raped. It's not the first time a woman has gone this far only to pull out because they can't take the pressure of being grilled as if they were in the wrong.

As if that's not enough pressure, this woman had to deal with the media circus all because of Kobe's fame. Not to mention the convenience of the leaks with all her personal information.

Here are a few of the highlights from your posts:

(taken from the Barkley thread)

whats up with these women and withdrawing their cases aginst nba stars??? It's all about the money i guess.

(taken from this thread)

Secondly i'm almost positive this case is all about the $$$$.

C'mon, is hse was really raped, I mean really, then why would you not want to go throught the trial no matter what! And second;y why in the world would you not want to take the stand, you accuse him of rape yet you can't say it out loud. And thirdly why were they doing everything in the world to supress the eveidence about her having sex after kobe??????? Here comes the money trial, oops I mean the civil trial!

My point simply being I came into the trial with no sides, and after all that was said and done, it just seems to be a issue of hurt feelings and money, not a crime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if she was raped, if she truly was, she would of went on with the trial.

LRB
09-02-2004, 04:54 PM
FilthyFinMavs wrote:
What I mean by that was she deserved the threats or in your words the torture she has recieved. I wish harm on no one. But you don't just falsly accuse someone of rape. Either it happened or it didn't. In my book being accused of rape is the worst accusation of them all. That's not a word to play with. Everything you stand for is out the door when you are accussed of rape. Imagine yourself being not guilty but oh because your an NBA player the assumptions go wild. I don't feel bad for neither parties here. They both were in the wrong.


How quick you are to pronounce judgement on her without a trial, without hearing her sided of the story, without hearing all the facts. It's people like you who knee jerk to judge women guilty of false accusations that are responsible for most most rapes not being reported. You can't wait to judge this woman. "Damn the facts let's curicify the damn bitch. " Of course withholding judgement until all the facts are out is out of the question, because only men accused of rape deserve the benefit of the doubt. Women are guilty until proven innocent. This makes me sick.

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
FilthyFinMavs wrote:
What I mean by that was she deserved the threats or in your words the torture she has recieved. I wish harm on no one. But you don't just falsly accuse someone of rape. Either it happened or it didn't. In my book being accused of rape is the worst accusation of them all. That's not a word to play with. Everything you stand for is out the door when you are accussed of rape. Imagine yourself being not guilty but oh because your an NBA player the assumptions go wild. I don't feel bad for neither parties here. They both were in the wrong.


How quick you are to pronounce judgement on her without a trial, without hearing her sided of the story, without hearing all the facts. It's people like you who knee jerk to judge women guilty of false accusations that are responsible for most most rapes not being reported. You can't wait to judge this woman. "Damn the facts let's curicify the damn bitch. " Of course withholding judgement until all the facts are out is out of the question, because only men accused of rape deserve the benefit of the doubt. Women are guilty until proven innocent. This makes me sick.



Why didn't we hear her side of the story? That's right make me the bad guy. That's fine. I'm ignoring the facts but you still fail to realize that the facts are Kobe is innocent and this girl lied. That's fine if you want to put words in my mouth. You act is if the word rape is something to play with. It's not. Kobe will never be known as that guy who resembled Michael Jordan. For now on he will be known as the guy who got away from a rape charge. Oh but excuse me for not feeling sorry for a girl who falsely accused someone of rape. And what happens to her you ask? Not a damn thing. Actually she gets rewarded for the lie. Now once again if she is telling the truth then that's another topic at hand. But she didn't.


"because only men accused of rape deserve the benefit of the doubt"

Damn right they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Just like woman deserve that same right. What in the hell did you mean by that statement above?

LRB
09-02-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: LRB
FilthyFinMavs wrote:
What I mean by that was she deserved the threats or in your words the torture she has recieved. I wish harm on no one. But you don't just falsly accuse someone of rape. Either it happened or it didn't. In my book being accused of rape is the worst accusation of them all. That's not a word to play with. Everything you stand for is out the door when you are accussed of rape. Imagine yourself being not guilty but oh because your an NBA player the assumptions go wild. I don't feel bad for neither parties here. They both were in the wrong.


How quick you are to pronounce judgement on her without a trial, without hearing her sided of the story, without hearing all the facts. It's people like you who knee jerk to judge women guilty of false accusations that are responsible for most most rapes not being reported. You can't wait to judge this woman. "Damn the facts let's curicify the damn bitch. " Of course withholding judgement until all the facts are out is out of the question, because only men accused of rape deserve the benefit of the doubt. Women are guilty until proven innocent. This makes me sick.



Why didn't we hear her side of the story? That's right make me the bad guy. That's fine. I'm ignoring the facts but you still fail to realize that the facts are Kobe is innocent and this girl lied. That's fine if you want to put words in my mouth. You act is if the word rape is something to play with. It's not. Kobe will never be known as that guy who resembled Michael Jordan. For now on he will be known as the guy who got away from a rape charge. Oh but excuse me for not feeling sorry for a girl who falsely accused someone of rape. And what happens to her you ask? Not a damn thing. Actually she gets rewarded for the lie. Now once again if she is telling the truth then that's another topic at hand. But she didn't.


"because only men accused of rape deserve the benefit of the doubt"

Damn right they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Just like woman deserve that same right. What in the hell did you mean by that statement above?

What did I mean about that statement? I meant that you want to proclaim Kobe innocent because she dropped the case against him and they some evidence possibly suggests that she could have gotten some of her injuries in another way. But we don't have all the evidence against Kobe. However you want to judge this woman guilty without Kobe even bring charges, whichout even providing her the chance to produce any evidence in her defense. What a prejudiced set of double standards. A blind man could see you use one set of standards for Kobe and another for her.

What proof do you have that she's lying. No proof. Things suggest that it was possible that she was lying and things suggest that it was possible that she was telling the truth. Neither are conclusive. But you're so in an all fired hurry to blame the woman you don't give a damn about proof or about fairness.

mary
09-02-2004, 05:18 PM
I could get really upset about this thread. But honestly....anyone that thinks a woman is lying solely on the basis that she dropped rape charges is simply not intelligent enough to understand or grasp common sense. Lost in this argument (by some anyway) is the fact that Kobe himself admitted she was not lying. He now believes she did not see it as consensual sex. Those who are dismissing this, are doing so because it is convenient for them to do so and because the fact that they could be wrong about something simply boggles the empty wasteful space located just above their necks.

No offense intended.....

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 05:24 PM
LRB: "A blind man could see you use one set of standards for Kobe and another for her. "


This is the most hypocritical post in this thread. Your doing the exact same thing above.


What proof do you have that she is telling the truth? "No proof."

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by: mary
I could get really upset about this thread. But honestly....anyone that thinks a woman is lying solely on the basis that she dropped rape charges is simply not intelligent enough to understand or grasp common sense. Lost in this argument (by some anyway) is the fact that Kobe himself admitted she was not lying. He now believes she did not see it as consensual sex. Those who are dismissing this, are doing so because it is convenient for them to do so and because the fact that they could be wrong about something simply boggles the empty wasteful space located just above their necks.

No offense intended.....

When will you guys realize that we aren't speaking about every woman in the world who has been raped? We are referring to one specific girl. The girl in this case. No one here has proof that Kobe did rape her. No one here has proof the girl is lying. It's all speculation but why is it that since a couple think the girl lied that they are in the wrong? You then get posts like these : I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight

LRB
09-02-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs
LRB: "A blind man could see you use one set of standards for Kobe and another for her. "


This is the most hypocritical post in this thread. Your doing the exact same thing above.


What proof do you have that she is telling the truth? "No proof."

I don't have any proof except her word and Kobe's word. But I haven't seen all the proof and facts, so I'll reserve final judgement. We don't know if Kobe is guilty or not. He says one thing, she says another and we only have a portion of the evidence. It may very well be the only two people who will ever know for sure are Kobe and the girl. So I'm refusing to post final judgement on either Kobe or the girl until I have all the facts and even then recognizing that they might not be enought to determine for sure. How is that the same as you passing final judgement on Kobe that he's innocent and ont he girl that she's guilty???

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs
LRB: "A blind man could see you use one set of standards for Kobe and another for her. "


This is the most hypocritical post in this thread. Your doing the exact same thing above.


What proof do you have that she is telling the truth? "No proof."

I don't have any proof except her word and Kobe's word. But I haven't seen all the proof and facts, so I'll reserve final judgement. We don't know if Kobe is guilty or not. He says one thing, she says another and we only have a portion of the evidence. It may very well be the only two people who will ever know for sure are Kobe and the girl. So I'm refusing to post final judgement on either Kobe or the girl until I have all the facts and even then recognizing that they might not be enought to determine for sure. How is that the same as you passing final judgement on Kobe that he's innocent and ont he girl that she's guilty???


Oh okay. Now you want to sweeten up huh? It's facts. The girl backed out of the case and Kobe is innocent. He didn't commit the crime. I don't know if he did it or not which I stated above. I don't know if the girl lied or not however my opinion is that she did lie. Kobe also commited adultery. He also in the wrong. But don't just throw the word rape out there for the hell of it.

mary
09-02-2004, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

When will you guys realize that we aren't speaking about every woman in the world who has been raped? We are referring to one specific girl. The girl in this case. No one here has proof that Kobe did rape her. No one here has proof the girl is lying. It's all speculation but why is it that since a couple think the girl lied that they are in the wrong? You then get posts like these : I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight

If your opinion does not reflect your ideas about women in general, then what about this specific case do you find unique? Do you think its unique that a potential rape victim drops charges? Do you think its unique that the alleged victim has a questionable sexual history? Do you think its unique because the accused is a prominent member of society? Do you think "this" incident is different because many people think the alleged victim is lying? Do you think? What about this case is so different that should make me believe your comments don't reflect your attitude about women in general?

Male30Dan
09-02-2004, 05:57 PM
I am so glad that I decided to leave this thread when I did... Looks like it got out of hand as I assumed it would!

vinnieponte
09-02-2004, 05:58 PM
I dont seem to understand why everyone in here thinks that if you state your opinion about the Kobe case, and it's not in favor of Kate Faber, that you hate women and think rape is ok, which it isn't! I can testify for myself that I don't hate women, and think that anyone whom commits such a offense should spend the rest of their miserable life in prison. Now regarding the case, I'm with fin. I don't know if she lied or not. I don't know if the rape happened or not. I do know that she dropped out of it therefore making me believe that it wasn't rape. So everyone please, for the sake of reason, and discusion, stop saying we hate women because we don't agree with you.

FilthyFinMavs
09-02-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by: mary

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

When will you guys realize that we aren't speaking about every woman in the world who has been raped? We are referring to one specific girl. The girl in this case. No one here has proof that Kobe did rape her. No one here has proof the girl is lying. It's all speculation but why is it that since a couple think the girl lied that they are in the wrong? You then get posts like these : I suppose you think that it would be OK to take a women who accuses a man of rape and torture the hell out of her for a week straight

If your opinion does not reflect your ideas about women in general, then what about this specific case do you find unique? Do you think its unique that a potential rape victim drops charges? Do you think its unique that the alleged victim has a questionable sexual history? Do you think its unique because the accused is a prominent member of society? Do you think "this" incident is different because many people think the alleged victim is lying? Do you think? What about this case is so different that should make me believe your comments don't reflect your attitude about women in general?

What do I find unique about this case? The fact that she didn't go through with it.

Drbio
09-02-2004, 07:56 PM
Fact: Kobe was not found to be innocent as one poster is trying to suggest. The case was dropped. He could have been found not guilty, but no one would have found him to be innocent.

mary
09-02-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs



What do I find unique about this case? The fact that she didn't go through with it.

If you think that makes this case "unique" in any way, shape, form or fashion, you are truly living your life under a rock.

mary
09-02-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
I dont seem to understand why everyone in here thinks that if you state your opinion about the Kobe case, and it's not in favor of Kate Faber, that you hate women and think rape is ok, which it isn't! I can testify for myself that I don't hate women, and think that anyone whom commits such a offense should spend the rest of their miserable life in prison. Now regarding the case, I'm with fin. I don't know if she lied or not. I don't know if the rape happened or not. I do know that she dropped out of it therefore making me believe that it wasn't rape. So everyone please, for the sake of reason, and discusion, stop saying we hate women because we don't agree with you.

I have a particular issue with people who believe the only reason a woman would drop a rape case is because she is lying. I don't think that makes you a woman hater or a supporter of rape - just ummm...obtuse? LRB has done an excellent job of outlining they many reasons why women don't always "go through" with rape charges.

MavsFanFinley
09-02-2004, 11:27 PM
If Kobe wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be agreeing to her conditions as his lawyers put it.

dirno2000
09-03-2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
If Kobe wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be agreeing to her conditions as his lawyers put it.Not even to avoid a trial? Even if he's not guilty, it makes more sense for him to sign that statement than to put his hands in the fate of 12 strangers. Kobe gains nothing by going through with the trial. Even if he's not found guilty, people are going to have their own opinions of himÖthey'll probably be the same as they are right now.

MavsFanFinley
09-03-2004, 12:55 AM
Not even to avoid a trial? Even if he's not guilty, it makes more sense for him to sign that statement than to put his hands in the fate of 12 strangers. Kobe gains nothing by going through with the trial. Even if he's not found guilty, people are going to have their own opinions of himÖthey'll probably be the same as they are right now.

I would think most people would want to prove their innocence. Especially when the accuser no longer wants to testify or continue on with the trial. I find it all very strange that she wants to stop but only on her conditions which he's eager to agree to. And the statement was only one of those conditions according to his lawyers. Does anyone really believe they haven't already agreed on a cash settlement?

I guess it is easier to sweep it under the rug if you have the money instead of dealing with a pesky thing such as the justice system.

dirno2000
09-03-2004, 01:43 AM
I would think most people would want to prove their innocence. That's my point; can he really "prove his innocence"? There was no video so ultimately it's going to be her word against his. In the court of public opinion, it would still be a split. The people who believe he did it will just say he won because he could pay for a better lawyer. Whatís he proving by putting his life on the line?

I don't know if he did it or not, but I can't think of a scarier proposition than going to jail for a crime you didn't commit. I think most people faced with that possibility would do whatever they could to avoid it.

I donít knowÖitís troublesome to go on Lakers boards and read posts from people who act like they were in the room, or they just know Kobe isnít capable of committing such a heinous act. Yet if you go to the board of one of the other top Western contenders, people are just as sure that he must have done it, and to me, thatís just as bad.

This is probably not an issue to be discussed on a sports board. Thereís already so much emotion around Kobe and the Lakers and I donít know if it can be separated from this case.

Shaq Attack2
09-03-2004, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by: LRB


Nice to know that you condone the targeting and killing of innocents, including children, as an acceptable means to make a political statement. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif I guess Adolph Hitler was you idol for gassing all those Jews as well. But I'm not sure how this applies to Kobe unless you're saying that it's OK for Kobe to rape and I fully support him if and when he does.

What on earth are you talking about? Please read what I wrote, I in no way condone terrorism. I said I understand why there are terrorists that commit terrorism around the world; they were born into it. And as I said before, my understanding of that doesn't mean I don't think terrorism is wrong.


And you don't see how the statment incriminates Kobe??? Either he lied in the statement and didn't mean a word, which could mean he's possibly innocent of rape but not of lying, or he was truthful and raped the girl. It's rape if it's without her consent.

Where does Kobe say in that statement that he was aware that she did not consent during the incident? Exactly, he doesn't say. He says after listening to her testimony and reviewing the surrounding circumstances, that he understands how she may have perceived it as rape at the time. Obviously it's hard to say much more than that without revealing the exact details of the incident, but you get the gist of it, hopefully.


It doesn't matter if Kobe thought it was consentual, what matters is whether the girl consented to it. So Kobe is admitting that he forced sex on her without her consent. That's rape or Kobe's lying or possibly both.

No it isn't, and that's the point; we don't know exactly what was said or what their mannerisms were. If he thought she gave him the OK, and she didn't object, it's consensual. Clearly, something went on (perhaps a wink or some other gesture?) that wasn't made clear by her and/or Kobe. We just don't know exactly what went on. Based on the statement the prosecutors asked Kobe to read, it's clear that the incident wasn't as simple as...Kobe: "Can I have sex", Accuser: "No". Something vague or unclear went on that we don't know about, based on this statement that is. We'll probably hear more details in the civil trial and afterwards.


And if Kobe settles out of court or is sued successfully in court that hardly proves his innocence. Actually it goes more to point towards his being guilty to at least some degree more than Kobe being innocent.

The criminal trial is over; it was dismissed. Harp all you want about how bad the legal system is, but the accuser decided not to testify in the criminal trial and is now pursuing a civil trial where she has less privacy if she takes the stand and the chance to earn some big dollars. Draw your own conclusions.

Shaq Attack2
09-03-2004, 06:41 AM
Does anyone really believe they haven't already agreed on a cash settlement?


Per my admittedly laymen understanding of Colorado law, it would be illegal for there to be a cash settlement as part of the deal for the charges to be dismissed in this trial. That's according to Colorado legal analysts and ESPN legal experts.

LRB
09-03-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
I dont seem to understand why everyone in here thinks that if you state your opinion about the Kobe case, and it's not in favor of Kate Faber, that you hate women and think rape is ok, which it isn't! I can testify for myself that I don't hate women, and think that anyone whom commits such a offense should spend the rest of their miserable life in prison. Now regarding the case, I'm with fin. I don't know if she lied or not. I don't know if the rape happened or not. I do know that she dropped out of it therefore making me believe that it wasn't rape. So everyone please, for the sake of reason, and discusion, stop saying we hate women because we don't agree with you.

A) we only know you through your posts. B) Your posts have shown an extreme lack of empathy for women as vicitims of violence and sexual assault. So this leads to the conclusion that you hate women or at the very least have incredibly little empathy for them. You can disagree with me all day long and that's fine. However when you perpetrated the harsh and unjust condemning of women who've come forth claiming that they have been raped with your unempathetic and rash judgements, then don't whine like a girlyman if you get called out on it.

LRB
09-03-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

Originally posted by: LRB


Nice to know that you condone the targeting and killing of innocents, including children, as an acceptable means to make a political statement. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif I guess Adolph Hitler was you idol for gassing all those Jews as well. But I'm not sure how this applies to Kobe unless you're saying that it's OK for Kobe to rape and I fully support him if and when he does.

What on earth are you talking about? Please read what I wrote, I in no way condone terrorism. I said I understand why there are terrorists that commit terrorism around the world; they were born into it. And as I said before, my understanding of that doesn't mean I don't think terrorism is wrong.



I'm talking about you statement that appears to be saying the terrorist aren't responsible for their actions because they're just born into it.





And you don't see how the statment incriminates Kobe??? Either he lied in the statement and didn't mean a word, which could mean he's possibly innocent of rape but not of lying, or he was truthful and raped the girl. It's rape if it's without her consent.

Where does Kobe say in that statement that he was aware that she did not consent during the incident? Exactly, he doesn't say. He says after listening to her testimony and reviewing the surrounding circumstances, that he understands how she may have perceived it as rape at the time. Obviously it's hard to say much more than that without revealing the exact details of the incident, but you get the gist of it, hopefully.


It doesn't matter if Kobe thought it was consentual, what matters is whether the girl consented to it. So Kobe is admitting that he forced sex on her without her consent. That's rape or Kobe's lying or possibly both.

No it isn't, and that's the point; we don't know exactly what was said or what their mannerisms were. If he thought she gave him the OK, and she didn't object, it's consensual. Clearly, something went on (perhaps a wink or some other gesture?) that wasn't made clear by her and/or Kobe. We just don't know exactly what went on. Based on the statement the prosecutors asked Kobe to read, it's clear that the incident wasn't as simple as...Kobe: "Can I have sex", Accuser: "No". Something vague or unclear went on that we don't know about, based on this statement that is. We'll probably hear more details in the civil trial and afterwards.


It's rape if she was forced to have sex nonconsenually. Dosen't matter what Kobe thought, it matters if she consented or not. Kobe's saying that he believes her when she says the she didn't consent. No we don't know what happened. We only know the young woman made a claim and what Kobe has said. Kobe could be lying. The young woman could be lying as well. We just don't know for sure. However IMO either Kobe is lying or he committed rape.

We probably will hear more details. However IMO I think we'll see a settlement and a similar statement from Kobe instead of a civil trial.







And if Kobe settles out of court or is sued successfully in court that hardly proves his innocence. Actually it goes more to point towards his being guilty to at least some degree more than Kobe being innocent.

The criminal trial is over; it was dismissed. Harp all you want about how bad the legal system is, but the accuser decided not to testify in the criminal trial and is now pursuing a civil trial where she has less privacy if she takes the stand and the chance to earn some big dollars. Draw your own conclusions.


She is pursuing s civil trial where hopefully the judge won't be so biased and she won't be under the unfair gag order which prevents her from defending herself. Did you ever think that this was about her being slimed while not legally being able to offer a word in defense??? Let me repeat, that would mean it's not the being slimed that is so bad by itself. What was the crucial point was being slimed AND not being able to defend herself. Maybe you are empathetically challenged, but for those of us who arent'; it should be easy to see why someone who was forced to have sex and felt violated because she wasn't able to defend herself might have a hard time being violated in a different manner and not being able to defend herself.

LRB
09-03-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs
LRB: "A blind man could see you use one set of standards for Kobe and another for her. "


This is the most hypocritical post in this thread. Your doing the exact same thing above.


What proof do you have that she is telling the truth? "No proof."

I don't have any proof except her word and Kobe's word. But I haven't seen all the proof and facts, so I'll reserve final judgement. We don't know if Kobe is guilty or not. He says one thing, she says another and we only have a portion of the evidence. It may very well be the only two people who will ever know for sure are Kobe and the girl. So I'm refusing to post final judgement on either Kobe or the girl until I have all the facts and even then recognizing that they might not be enought to determine for sure. How is that the same as you passing final judgement on Kobe that he's innocent and ont he girl that she's guilty???


Oh okay. Now you want to sweeten up huh? It's facts. The girl backed out of the case and Kobe is innocent. He didn't commit the crime. I don't know if he did it or not which I stated above. I don't know if the girl lied or not however my opinion is that she did lie. Kobe also commited adultery. He also in the wrong. But don't just throw the word rape out there for the hell of it.

WTH??? No one is just throwing rape out there just for the hell of it??? Where did you get such an incredibly obtuse idea???

You want to believe Kobe is innocent and the girl is guilty fine. You can believe anything you want. However if post this opinion don't be surprised if other's don't call you out how how incredibly unempathetic towards women it is. You're making a rash and hastely judgement against this girl, and truely against all women who are victims of a violent and sexual assault. Why is it that you refuse to keep an open mind until hearing her side of the story and hearing all instead of just some of the facts??? I can understand why no man can really understand why a woman goes through with rape, goodness knows that I don't. However to show as little empathy as you do is incredibly barbaric and prejudiced IMO.

Shaq Attack2
09-03-2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by: LRB


I'm talking about you statement that appears to be saying the terrorist aren't responsible for their actions because they're just born into it.

I made no such statement.


It's rape if she was forced to have sex nonconsenually. Dosen't matter what Kobe thought, it matters if she consented or not. Kobe's saying that he believes her when she says the she didn't consent.

No, that's not how the statement was worded. Read it again, and dissect it. It's very well worded.


She is pursuing s civil trial where hopefully the judge won't be so biased and she won't be under the unfair gag order which prevents her from defending herself.

What? Unfair gag order? Biased judge? Where the hell did this come from? Have you even followed the trial? Most Legal experts around the country and Colorado attorneys have said that Hulbert should have never charged Kobe with the assault in the first place. They have said the DA had a very weak case to begin with. The judge being biased is pure BS; you have no evidence of such an act. Mistakenly revealing information about the accuser on a web site or having a gag order (how is a gag order biased? ) hardly means the judge has it in for the accuser.


Did you ever think that this was about her being slimed while not legally being able to offer a word in defense???

What in the hell are you talking about? Neither Kobe or the accuser could legally talk about the case publicly.


Let me repeat, that would mean it's not the being slimed that is so bad by itself. What was the crucial point was being slimed AND not being able to defend herself. Maybe you are empathetically challenged, but for those of us who arent'; it should be easy to see why someone who was forced to have sex and felt violated because she wasn't able to defend herself might have a hard time being violated in a different manner and not being able to defend herself.

We don't know if she was forced to have sex. Even the most laymen head case should understand that elementary concept. This BS about her not being able to defend herself makes absolutely no sense; what on earth are you talking about, Kobe is the one with the defense lawyer.

MavsFanFinley
09-03-2004, 08:16 PM
Per my admittedly laymen understanding of Colorado law, it would be illegal for there to be a cash settlement as part of the deal for the charges to be dismissed in this trial. That's according to Colorado legal analysts and ESPN legal experts.

It wouldn't be the first time money was exchanged for silence. And I wasn't referring so much to the criminal trial being dismissed for money, but that it's been settled overall.

LRB
09-04-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

Originally posted by: LRB


I'm talking about you statement that appears to be saying the terrorist aren't responsible for their actions because they're just born into it.

I made no such statement.



Yes you did. You said "I understand why some terrorists terrorize, they were born into it. "





Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's rape if she was forced to have sex nonconsenually. Dosen't matter what Kobe thought, it matters if she consented or not. Kobe's saying that he believes her when she says the she didn't consent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, that's not how the statement was worded. Read it again, and dissect it. It's very well worded.



I did reread it and don't see how it could really be interpreted any other way. Kobe says "I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."


What? Unfair gag order? Biased judge? Where the hell did this come from? Have you even followed the trial? Most Legal experts around the country and Colorado attorneys have said that Hulbert should have never charged Kobe with the assault in the first place. They have said the DA had a very weak case to begin with. The judge being biased is pure BS; you have no evidence of such an act. Mistakenly revealing information about the accuser on a web site or having a gag order (how is a gag order biased? ) hardly means the judge has it in for the accuser.



Unfair because the judge published, whether intentionally or not, incriminating statements about the victims character and then refused to let here publicly defend herself or even at least fairly release her side of the evidence. The judge did this not once but multiple occasions. The judge also refused to make substantial changes requested by the victim to prevent it from happening again. If you call this fair, you've got serious issues.

As for this case I have followed it closely. And I really don't give a damn what a bunch of legal experts say when basing they "expert" opinions on partial and incomplete evidence.


What in the hell are you talking about? Neither Kobe or the accuser could legally talk about the case publicly.


The judge wasn't releasing one sided damning evidence against Kobe to the public, so Kobe really didn't need to respond to specific evidence.


We don't know if she was forced to have sex. Even the most laymen head case should understand that elementary concept. This BS about her not being able to defend herself makes absolutely no sense; what on earth are you talking about, Kobe is the one with the defense lawyer.


I never said that she was forced to have sex. I'm just saying that people shouldn't rush to judge her a liar about that until hearing all evidence including her side. Kobe had a defense lawyer, but the victim did as well. The reason why is that she was the one being put on trial both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. She was accused of being a liar, a thief, a whore, and all kinds of other charges which had to be answered before Kobe could even be put on trial. Unlike Kobe, she didn't get a fair shake from the legal system.

Shaq Attack2
09-05-2004, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by: LRB


Yes you did. You said "I understand why some terrorists terrorize, they were born into it.Ē

On what planet does ďI understand why some terrorists terrorizeĒ mean that I believe terrorists arenít responsible for their actions? I understand that some terrorists are born into a situation they canít get out of, and that they commit terrorism as a result. Doesnít mean I condone it or excuse it, it means I understand that sometimes you have no choice.


I did reread it and don't see how it could really be interpreted any other way. Kobe says "I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

Exactly. Now, think for a minute; if the accuser didnít make her disapproval clear during the incident, how is that rape? It isnít. Itís certainly possible (though we obviously donít know, we donít have all the evidence) that she didnít say ďNo!Ē to Kobe during the encounter, but later decided that she really didnít consent to him. That would make this statement of his perfectly logical, and certainly not rape. However, again, no trial, no real point in going over stuff we canít be sure about.


Unfair because the judge published, whether intentionally or not, incriminating statements about the victims character and then refused to let here publicly defend herself or even at least fairly release her side of the evidence.

Youíve got to be kidding me. Why on earth would a judge allow the accuser to clarify or rebut accidentally leaked information? Do you honestly believe a judge would say ďOh, I made a mistake, now letís make it worse by having my previously ordered gag order removedĒ. No, thatís ludicrous, and Iím not even an expert.


The judge did this not once but multiple occasions.

At least twice that we know of. And again, if theyíre accidents, this hardly makes him biased. Unless, of course, you have evidence that has compelled you to believe this judge had it in for the accuser for good reasons?


The judge also refused to make substantial changes requested by the victim to prevent it from happening again. If you call this fair, you've got serious issues.

Please, neither party has any power to manipulate how information is dispersed. If the judge believes that information is best dispersed a certain way, it doesnít mean heís biased. It may not be fair (which we werenít arguing about in the first place), but it certainly isnít biased as you stated before. Unless, again, you have something to go on.


As for this case I have followed it closely. And I really don't give a damn what a bunch of legal experts say when basing they "expert" opinions on partial and incomplete evidence.

You are also forming an opinion based on partial/incomplete evidence, so thereís no point in bringing that up about when weíre assessing the weight of other personís opinions. Anyway, Iíve formed my opinion based on publicly available information, leaked information and the opinions of legal experts around the country. And far more people believe what Iíve been arguing here than your crackpot conspiracy theory that the judge had it in for the accuser.


The judge wasn't releasing one sided damning evidence against Kobe to the public, so Kobe really didn't need to respond to specific evidence.

Neither was the judge, and this is what you seem to like to ignore. And besides, there was a gag order in effect; releasing more information to please the accuser makes no sense.


I never said that she was forced to have sex.

Uh, yes you did: ďit should be easy to see why someone who was forced to have sexÖĒ


I'm just saying that people shouldn't rush to judge her a liar about that until hearing all evidence including her side. Kobe had a defense lawyer, but the victim did as well. The reason why is that she was the one being put on trial both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. She was accused of being a liar, a thief, a whore, and all kinds of other charges which had to be answered before Kobe could even be put on trial. Unlike Kobe, she didn't get a fair shake from the legal system.

How can you say Kobe got a fair shake from the legal system when he spent millions of dollars to defend a charge that was eventually dismissed? Your logic is bafflingly hypocritical.

LRB
09-05-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

Originally posted by: LRB


Yes you did. You said "I understand why some terrorists terrorize, they were born into it.Ē

On what planet does ďI understand why some terrorists terrorizeĒ mean that I believe terrorists arenít responsible for their actions? I understand that some terrorists are born into a situation they canít get out of, and that they commit terrorism as a result. Doesnít mean I condone it or excuse it, it means I understand that sometimes you have no choice.



Saying that terrroists have no choice but to be terrorists is saying that they aren't responsible. You're in esscense saying that terrorists are dumb beasts incapable of discerning right and wrong and only making the decisions along the paths of least ressitance.





I did reread it and don't see how it could really be interpreted any other way. Kobe says "I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

Exactly. Now, think for a minute; if the accuser didnít make her disapproval clear during the incident, how is that rape? It isnít. Itís certainly possible (though we obviously donít know, we donít have all the evidence) that she didnít say ďNo!Ē to Kobe during the encounter, but later decided that she really didnít consent to him. That would make this statement of his perfectly logical, and certainly not rape. However, again, no trial, no real point in going over stuff we canít be sure about.



The victim doesn't have to expressly say no for it not to be rape. She has to expressly give her permission or it is rape. That's a huge difference. Now if all the evidence is the girl saying that she didn't consent, it would be practically impossible to get a conviction. Not being able to get a conviction doesn't mean it wasn't rape, it only means not enough evidence was available to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.




Unfair because the judge published, whether intentionally or not, incriminating statements about the victims character and then refused to let here publicly defend herself or even at least fairly release her side of the evidence.

Youíve got to be kidding me. Why on earth would a judge allow the accuser to clarify or rebut accidentally leaked information? Do you honestly believe a judge would say ďOh, I made a mistake, now letís make it worse by having my previously ordered gag order removedĒ. No, thatís ludicrous, and Iím not even an expert.


A jude would wish to correct the record by allowing both sides to air information about portions that had leaked. What purpose is there in a onesided gag order??? How can gaging one side and not the other be fair??? Keeping the gag order after the information has been released is like locking the barn door after the cows have escaped.





The judge did this not once but multiple occasions.

At least twice that we know of. And again, if theyíre accidents, this hardly makes him biased. Unless, of course, you have evidence that has compelled you to believe this judge had it in for the accuser for good reasons?

the judge relased harmful information to the accuser on at least 3 separate occasions to none against the defendent. The judge refused to stop posting information via the internet wehre all 3 mistakes took place. The judge refused to allow the accuser to publicly rebut defamation of her character in respect to the information that the judge accidentally released. Looks pretty biased to me. I would suspect you of bias towards your star player in denying it though.





The judge also refused to make substantial changes requested by the victim to prevent it from happening again. If you call this fair, you've got serious issues.

Please, neither party has any power to manipulate how information is dispersed. If the judge believes that information is best dispersed a certain way, it doesnít mean heís biased. It may not be fair (which we werenít arguing about in the first place), but it certainly isnít biased as you stated before. Unless, again, you have something to go on.



Not being fair towards one side only is bias. The judges actions were a bias against recieving an impartial judgement.





As for this case I have followed it closely. And I really don't give a damn what a bunch of legal experts say when basing they "expert" opinions on partial and incomplete evidence.

You are also forming an opinion based on partial/incomplete evidence, so thereís no point in bringing that up about when weíre assessing the weight of other personís opinions. Anyway, Iíve formed my opinion based on publicly available information, leaked information and the opinions of legal experts around the country. And far more people believe what Iíve been arguing here than your crackpot conspiracy theory that the judge had it in for the accuser.



Just because people don't believe something doesn't make it right. In 1776 far more people believed it was OK for people to be slaves than not. In Germany far more people thought Hitler and the Nazis should be in power than not. And I am not making a final judgement on partial evidence. I'm waiting to hear the full evidence including the girls side of it before making a final judgement. You exhibit extreme bias and prejudice against women with your medieval attitude towards potential rape victims. If not believing in doing that makes me a crackpot, then I'm damn proud to be one.





The judge wasn't releasing one sided damning evidence against Kobe to the public, so Kobe really didn't need to respond to specific evidence.

Neither was the judge, and this is what you seem to like to ignore. And besides, there was a gag order in effect; releasing more information to please the accuser makes no sense.



Releasing both sides of the issues in the partial information would make a ton of sense in obtaining a fair verdict. Would you call it fair if the judge had released incriminating evidence against Kobe to bias the jury pool while gagging Kobe and his attorney's to respond publicly and refusing to release Kobe's side of the information on the subjects released? Well I certainly wouldn't, nor do I feel would most leagal experts. Problem is it's OK to but a woman on trial for a accusing a man of raping her, and unlike the accused, the accusor has precious few rights that are respected.




I never said that she was forced to have sex.

Uh, yes you did: ďit should be easy to see why someone who was forced to have sexÖĒ



No I'm not saying that she was forced to have sex here. I'm talking about any woman who's has been forced to have sex, who the accusor in the Kobe case may or may not be. Meaning I'm leaving open the possibility and championing withholding judgement on her until she can tell her side of the story.





I'm just saying that people shouldn't rush to judge her a liar about that until hearing all evidence including her side. Kobe had a defense lawyer, but the victim did as well. The reason why is that she was the one being put on trial both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. She was accused of being a liar, a thief, a whore, and all kinds of other charges which had to be answered before Kobe could even be put on trial. Unlike Kobe, she didn't get a fair shake from the legal system.

How can you say Kobe got a fair shake from the legal system when he spent millions of dollars to defend a charge that was eventually dismissed? Your logic is bafflingly hypocritical.

How can you be so blissfully stupid to say that Kobe didn't get a fair shake from the legal system when it was his attorney's who filed for the dismissal??? That what he wanted. It was granted when the prosecution agreed and asked the judge to dismiss. Kobe spend millions to get the charge dismissed. That's what he wanted. It would have been grossly unfair to make him spend millions more to to defend himself in a trial that he didn't want and that the prosecution didn't want. What kind of inane stupidity are you trying to preach???

Shaq Attack2
09-06-2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by: LRB


Saying that terrroists have no choice but to be terrorists is saying that they aren't responsible. You're in esscense saying that terrorists are dumb beasts incapable of discerning right and wrong and only making the decisions along the paths of least ressitance.

Geez, you really have reading comprehension problems LRB. I donít know how else to explain.


The victim doesn't have to expressly say no for it not to be rape. She has to expressly give her permission or it is rape. That's a huge difference.

My god, youíve got to be kidding me. A woman does not have to expressly give her permission to a guy for it not to be rape. Letís say a man approaches a woman and starts making out with her, and she doesnít say ďNo!Ē, ďStop!Ē, or push him away. Is that rape? No, how on earth could it be rape if the woman isnít letting the man know she doesnít want to have sex? See, in that example, the man initiated the sexual encounter and the woman did not give express permission. She simply did not object to it verbally or physically.

Itís, well, interesting that this isnít fairly obvious to you LRB.


Now if all the evidence is the girl saying that she didn't consent, it would be practically impossible to get a conviction. Not being able to get a conviction doesn't mean it wasn't rape, it only means not enough evidence was available to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

True. Then again, this thing never went to trial and the accuser decided to let her supposed rapist off the hook.


A jude would wish to correct the record by allowing both sides to air information about portions that had leaked. What purpose is there in a onesided gag order???

I donít think you understand what a gag order is. Look it up. No judge is going to throw out their own gag order over an honest mistake.


How can gaging one side and not the other be fair???

True, it isnít 100% fair. But there are a lot of things about this case that arenít fair. Is it fair that Kobe Bryant had to spend millions of dollars on a case that was dismissed, or have his name and credibility dragged through the mud, or have his friends and family put under intense public scrutiny over what could have been a completely false accusation? And you want to bitch and moan about leaked information that has been a common occurrence in high profile cases for decades? Sorry, but if youíre going to complain about that, we might as well complain about life itself being unfair. But as you probably know, that would be a waste of time.


Keeping the gag order after the information has been released is like locking the barn door after the cows have escaped.

No, thatís hardly the same thing.


The judge relased harmful information to the accuser on at least 3 separate occasions to none against the defendent.

Yes, accidentally according to the judge.


The judge refused to stop posting information via the internet wehre all 3 mistakes took place.

The Internet is the best way to disperse information that is deemed publicly available. Shutting down the web site would have cut off ALL information. Thatís even stupider.


The judge refused to allow the accuser to publicly rebut defamation of her character in respect to the information that the judge accidentally released. Looks pretty biased to me. I would suspect you of bias towards your star player in denying it though.

Hardly. Youíve yet to come up with any compelling evidence that the judge is biased. The judgeís reasoning is perfectly reasonable. Itís been discussed ad nauseum, with most legal experts agreeing that he made the right moves in the unfortunate leaking of information. Have fun with your half baked conspiracy theory that the judge has it in for the accuser, just donít be surprised if no one (including most legal experts) disagree with you.


Not being fair towards one side only is bias.

Jesus Christ, no. Please look up bias in the dictionary. Bias has everything to do with intent. If you canít prove the judge intended to leak information about the accuser to defame her, your theory that he is biased isnít based in reality, itís based on half baked theory.


Just because people don't believe something doesn't make it right. In 1776 far more people believed it was OK for people to be slaves than not. In Germany far more people thought Hitler and the Nazis should be in power than not. And I am not making a final judgement on partial evidence. I'm waiting to hear the full evidence including the girls side of it before making a final judgement. You exhibit extreme bias and prejudice against women with your medieval attitude towards potential rape victims. If not believing in doing that makes me a crackpot, then I'm damn proud to be one.

Youíre a crackpot for thinking any sane person would believe the judge has it in for the accuser. It makes you look ignorant and paranoid.


Releasing both sides of the issues in the partial information would make a ton of sense in obtaining a fair verdict. Would you call it fair if the judge had released incriminating evidence against Kobe to bias the jury pool while gagging Kobe and his attorney's to respond publicly and refusing to release Kobe's side of the information on the subjects released?

No, that wouldnít be fair and as fan of Kobe Bryant the basketball player Iíd be pissed that his trial wasnít going smoothly. And while Iíd probably like for him to be able to respond to his leaked information in this fantasy scenario, I certainly wouldnít be dumb enough to ask a judge to cancel his own gag order and have the Kobe tell his side of the story publicly. Heck, it would probably prompt the accuser to then argue that now she should be able to elaborate further now that Kobe has gotten the chance. But then guess what, you would have a case that would end up being tried publicly, and you would be a sorry excuse for a judge.

So clearly, you still donít understand whatís going on. The gag order was to protect the accuser. If the judge allowed the accuser to release more information about her personal life publicly, that would destroy the whole point of a gag order and would open up god knows how many precedents on canceling gag orders in future cases. It just isnít going to happen.


How can you be so blissfully stupid to say that Kobe didn't get a fair shake from the legal system when it was his attorney's who filed for the dismissal??? That what he wanted.

What? That has nothing to do with what you responded to. Kobe spent 14 months and millions of dollars on a case that was eventually dismissed, having to endure and public and private humiliation during the process. Thereís no logical way you can argue that type of treatment for a charge that was dropped is fair. But Iím sure youíll find a way.


It was granted when the prosecution agreed and asked the judge to dismiss. Kobe spend millions to get the charge dismissed. That's what he wanted.

Well no, if you really want to get down to it, Kobe never wanted to be charged in the first place. And when he was eventually charged, he never wanted the judge to approve a trial. And then, after those two things, he wanted a dismissalÖand even then, he certainly didnít want to spend millions of dollars and play an entire NBA season with a trial looming. So really, he would have rather had the dismissal take place last summer/fall. In other words, weekís dismissal was far from his ideal scenario, if that's what you were saying.


It would have been grossly unfair to make him spend millions more to to defend himself in a trial that he didn't want and that the prosecution didn't want. What kind of inane stupidity are you trying to preach???

Wow. Just, wow. Take reading comprehension classes or something.

LRB
09-06-2004, 01:52 AM
Shaq Attack your total cluelessness and lack of compassion towards women who are victims of rape is almost unbelievable. Maybe you would be better if it didn't potentially affect you getting to see Kobe play ball for the Lakers. After all you please at watching basketball should come before treating any woman fairly.

But still your logic astounds me. For example you said:


My god, youíve got to be kidding me. A woman does not have to expressly give her permission to a guy for it not to be rape. Letís say a man approaches a woman and starts making out with her, and she doesnít say ďNo!Ē, ďStop!Ē, or push him away. Is that rape? No, how on earth could it be rape if the woman isnít letting the man know she doesnít want to have sex? See, in that example, the man initiated the sexual encounter and the woman did not give express permission. She simply did not object to it verbally or physically.

Itís, well, interesting that this isnít fairly obvious to you LRB.


Using this logic I could walk up to you on the street with 3 of my friends, throw grab you and pull your wallet out and take off. Unless you told us explictedly to stop, then it wouldn't be robbery.

Shaq Attack2
09-06-2004, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by: LRB
Shaq Attack your total cluelessness and lack of compassion towards women who are victims of rape is almost unbelievable. Maybe you would be better if it didn't potentially affect you getting to see Kobe play ball for the Lakers. After all you please at watching basketball should come before treating any woman fairly.

Well, since you haven't actually logically argued any of my points, I'll take this as admitting defeat. I've been in plenty of relationships, and my partners would all agree with what I'm saying here. I'm hardly a rapist, nor have I been indicted or convicted as one.


Using this logic I could walk up to you on the street with 3 of my friends, throw grab you and pull your wallet out and take off. Unless you told us explictedly to stop, then it wouldn't be robbery.

I don't know what a "throw grab" is, but if someone pulled my wallet out of my pocket I'd beat their ass, scream for them to give it back and probably call the police or yell for help. In fact, I would be absolutely stupid not to do any or all of those things (assuming I wasn't being held at gunpoint or something). The accuser in this case would similarly have to be absolutely stupid to expect Kobe Bryant to know what she felt if she didn't verbally or physically object.

This argument you're making about "What is rape?" is pretty revealing about yourself. You've clearly never spontaneously made love to someone, because if you had you wouldn't be able to live with the guilt of being a rapist right? i/expressions/anim_roller.gif

LRB
09-06-2004, 01:17 PM
This argument you're making about "What is rape?" is pretty revealing about yourself. You've clearly never spontaneously made love to someone, because if you had you wouldn't be able to live with the guilt of being a rapist right?

Actually quite the contrary. I'm always hearing "Don't Stop!!!" yelled out.


Well, since you haven't actually logically argued any of my points, I'll take this as admitting defeat. I've been in plenty of relationships, and my partners would all agree with what I'm saying here. I'm hardly a rapist, nor have I been indicted or convicted as one.


Take it for what you will. I'm not refuting your points because I already have in past posts and don't see the point of repeating the same refutations ad infinitum with you.

BTW I never said that you were a rapist. Rather that you don't care much for the rights of women if they in anyway infringe on the quality of one of your sports teams.


don't know what a "throw grab" is, but if someone pulled my wallet out of my pocket I'd beat their ass, scream for them to give it back and probably call the police or yell for help. In fact, I would be absolutely stupid not to do any or all of those things (assuming I wasn't being held at gunpoint or something). The accuser in this case would similarly have to be absolutely stupid to expect Kobe Bryant to know what she felt if she didn't verbally or physically object.

So I walk up to you point a gun at your head, tell you to shut the F@## up or I'll blow your head off, and then take your wallet out and leave; you mean to say it's not robbery unless you specifically tell me know and fight to keep your wallet?

dalmations202
09-06-2004, 01:37 PM
Just to jack with both of you, while we are in the slow, slow offseason.....


I'm always hearing "Don't Stop!!!" yelled out.

Are you sure it was "Don't Stop!!!" or could it have been "Don't!!!" , " Stop!!!!"??

Because, by my understanding - of the law, that could be the total difference between Rape and Consent.

LRB
09-06-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by: dalmations202
Just to jack with both of you, while we are in the slow, slow offseason.....


I'm always hearing "Don't Stop!!!" yelled out.

Are you sure it was "Don't Stop!!!" or could it have been "Don't!!!" , " Stop!!!!"??

Because, by my understanding - of the law, that could be the total difference between Rape and Consent.

Dal202, you're right that slight pause between "don't" and "stop" changes all the meanings. But I also follow up with a question to clarify the answer. Of course it's always in a manner to enhance the mood. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

MavsFanFinley
09-06-2004, 11:08 PM
NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/29972.htm)

Kobe's Apology Insincere: Teammate

By CYNTHIA R. FAGEN

September 6, 2004 -- Kobe Bryant did not want to apologize to the Colorado woman who accused him of raping her in his hotel room, according to a former Laker teammate.
"Kobe fought tooth and nail. He really didn't want to concede anything, but his lawyers and some family members begged him to do whatever to make it [the rape charge] go away," the unidentified friend told Newsweek.

The written apology, which was made public, was issued after a tense 11th-hour hearing in Eagle, Colo., and was pivotal in getting authorities to drop the charge.

The apology stated that while the NBA All-Star believed that sex between him and the then-19-year-old hotel employee was consensual, "I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

"Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure," Bryant wrote.

The accuser and her lawyers told the judge in the closed-door hearing Wednesday that she was unable to go forward with the criminal trial because of the "agony" she has been put through.

That included the court's accidental release of her name on the state Web site last September and the inadvertent release of a confidential report on her sexual history.

Bryant still faces a civil lawsuit. Most experts believe that the hoopster and his accuser will reach a financial settlement before a trial.

Chiwas
09-06-2004, 11:15 PM
"I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter." Isn't he addmiting it then? Or, isn't it implied that it was a rape, in some degree, with this statement?

Shaq Attack2
09-07-2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by: LRB


Actually quite the contrary. I'm always hearing "Don't Stop!!!" yelled out.

i/expressions/anim_laugh.gif


Take it for what you will. I'm not refuting your points because I already have in past posts and don't see the point of repeating the same refutations ad infinitum with you.

BTW I never said that you were a rapist. Rather that you don't care much for the rights of women if they in anyway infringe on the quality of one of your sports teams.

The only reason I'm following this case is because of Kobe, but I'm not arguing in favor of Kobe because he's on the Lakers.


So I walk up to you point a gun at your head, tell you to shut the F@## up or I'll blow your head off, and then take your wallet out and leave; you mean to say it's not robbery unless you specifically tell me know and fight to keep your wallet?

No, that's clearly a different scenario than the one that played out in Colorado (from what we know). Obviously, if something prevented her from objecting physically or verbally (like a gun), that's a completely different situation. But otherwise, as I said before, approaching a woman and spontaneously making love to her without her express permission isn't rape as you claimed.

LRB
09-07-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2



So I walk up to you point a gun at your head, tell you to shut the F@## up or I'll blow your head off, and then take your wallet out and leave; you mean to say it's not robbery unless you specifically tell me know and fight to keep your wallet?

No, that's clearly a different scenario than the one that played out in Colorado (from what we know). Obviously, if something prevented her from objecting physically or verbally (like a gun), that's a completely different situation. But otherwise, as I said before, approaching a woman and spontaneously making love to her without her express permission isn't rape as you claimed.

Yes, it's different. It can't be exactly the same because you aren't a woman. But there are some striking similarities. You would most likely keep quite and not struggle because you know that the odds are extremely loarge that if you do that I can kill you if I want to. In fact just pointing the gun at you will likely quite any protests. Likewise with the young lady in question, if she struggles or protests she can be reasonable surh that the odds are extremely large that Kobe could have killed her if he wanted to.

The reason why the woman needs to give permission, versus just not denying permission, is because usually, and definitely so in this case, the man is considerable bigger, stronger, and more powerful. And while I'm all for spontaneous love making in a relationship, I think that when having sex with someone for the 1st time a higher standard of proof is called for to assure consent; especially with someone you've only known a few hours at best.

cin
09-08-2004, 01:32 PM
Bryant prosecutor says alleged victim was ``physically ill'' before trial

September 8, 2004
DENVER (AP) -- One of the prosecutors in the Kobe Bryant case said the 20-year-old woman who accused the NBA star of rape grew ``physically ill'' on the eve of the trial, leading her to pull out of the case and forcing the district attorney to drop the charges against Bryant last week.

Dana Easter, who has worked on sexual assault cases since 1989, said the ``remarkable young lady'' had withstood over a year of being followed by Bryant's investigators and the media but had feared what was going to happen during the trial.

``She was physically ill. Her anticipation of what was going to be done to her and what was going to be allowed to be done to her was frightening. I don't think any of us will ever experience that kind of awful anticipation,'' Easter told the Rocky Mountain News in a story published Wednesday.

Had the case gone to trial, Easter said prosecutors could have proved the woman had been raped based on the woman's injuries, Bryant's statement to investigators as well as three people who saw her after the alleged assault.

Easter, who had been prevented from speaking out before because of a gag order in the case, said experts would have testified about ``battering ram'' injuries suffered by the woman because of the alleged assault on June 30, 2003 at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera, where she worked.

``It was a physically violent assault. It was a very degrading assault. It was clearly perpetrated by someone who thought he was entitled,'' she said.

Easter also said that there was no truth to the defense's claim that the woman had sex with someone else soon after her encounter with Bryant.

In testimony from a closed-door hearing accidentally released to some media outlets, a defense expert said that semen from another man was found on the alleged victim and in her underwear during her rape exam.

However, Easter presented another explanation She said the woman returned home stunned after her encounter with Bryant and changed into a blue tank top and yellow underwear that she had pulled out of an overnight bag in her bedroom. She had worn the underwear after having sex on June 18, her birthday.

At the time, Easter said the woman didn't plan to report what had happened even though she had told her friend and bellman Bobby Pietrack and a former boyfriend what had happened that night. When she woke up the next morning, Easter said the woman realized she had to report what happened and called her mother.

``We really believed in her and we still do. I can't emphasize that enough,'' Easter said. ``I think because we work in the system we really believe that is a way for victims to say what happened to them.''

Easter said that the woman didn't know who Bryant was when he made a reservation but went to his room to get an autograph for Pietrack, who plays basketball at Fort Lewis College.

Prosecutors dropped charges against Bryant as the final phase of jury selection was set to begin. Still pending is a civil suit filed by the woman seeking an unspecified dollar amount from Bryant.

She is seeking unspecified monetary damages for pain and emotional distress she says she has suffered since her accusation became public 14 months ago.

Information from: Rocky Mountain News, http:// INSIDEDENVER.COM/


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpYTg2ZTBwBF9TAzk1ODYxOTQ4BHNlYwN0 bQ--?slug=ap-bryantcase&prov=ap&type=lgns

LRB
09-08-2004, 01:49 PM
Thanks Cin for posting the young woman's side of the story.

LRB
09-08-2004, 03:23 PM
Why did Bryant's accuser become uncooperative? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/07/sebok.bryant/index.html)

As is now well-known, the Kobe Bryant criminal prosecution in Colorado has collapsed. According to the Eagle County District Attorney's Office, the reason is that the woman who had accused Bryant of the crime has announced that she no longer wishes to cooperate with the prosecution.

Within hours of the state's announcement that the case would be dropped, Bryant's lawyer read a statement from Bryant. The statement said that Bryant "apologized" to the young woman for his "behavior that night and the consequences" she suffered. Bryant went on to say that while he believes that the sexual encounter that occurred "that night" was consensual, he recognizes that she does not.

Why did she stop cooperating? Why did the state drop the case? And why did Bryant agree to give the statement? In this column, I will examine some possible explanations for each of these events.

Why the accuser may have turned uncooperative
One possibility is that she may believe her case was mishandled.

Her faith in the criminal justice system must have been shaken each time her name was mistakenly leaked to the public. She may also have felt reluctant to testify given the cross-examination authorized by the judge.

Prosecutors tried to protect the accuser's privacy under Colorado's rape shield law. But in the end, the judge ruled the defense could present a limited set of evidence relating to the alleged victim's sexual history. The evidence, according to the ruling, would encompass any acts of sex up to 72 hours before, or in the hours immediately following, the accuser's time with Bryant. (Apparently, the reason the defense seeks to introduce the up-to-72-hours-prior evidence is to rebut claims Bryant used force -- by suggesting any evidence of force actually could have related to another sexual encounter.)

The victim might also have feared she would suffer this inquiry into her private affairs, only to watch the prosecution lose the case.

Reportedly, the prosecution was having trouble finding enough potential jurors who did not seem predisposed towards Bryant's innocence to make up a jury.

Wise move by prosecutors
After the accuser stopped cooperating, why did prosecutors drop the case?

Technically, they didn't have to: The state could have pursued a prosecution on its own initiative, and it could have subpoenaed the accuser to testify (as could the defense).

But as a practical matter, without the alleged victim's cooperation, the case would have been hard for the state to win. Jurors who sense the accuser's reluctance to appear might wonder if she was reluctant because she was lying -- or they might simply not feel confident enough in her reluctant testimony to base a conviction on it.

In the end, prosecutors made the right decision: It would have been cruel to force the accuser to participate -- without her full consent -- in a proceeding in which such private matters were at issue.

How will accuser's pending civil suit be affected?
As I pointed out in my last column, the alleged victim is now also a plaintiff in a civil suit: Last month, she filed a tort complaint against Bryant for damages, in federal court.

The accuser has not, however, withdrawn her civil suit against Bryant. Thus, she appears to think the civil suit will be easier to endure than the criminal case -- which she claimed had become unbearable.

Is she correct? She may be -- for several reasons.

First, the civil case may well settle before she ever has to testimony -- whereas Bryant showed no signs of being willing to plead guilty in the criminal case.

Second, she may reasonably expect that her hand-picked civil lawyers will do better than the Eagle County prosecutors, who have been unimpressive.

Third, she may hope to benefit from the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil cases. Jurors who might have hesitated to find Kobe Bryant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, might be more open to concluding that it is "more probably than not" he sexually assaulted his accuser. (One famous case in which a criminal jury acquitted, but a civil held the defendant civilly liable, is of course that of O.J. Simpson.)

Fourth, even if the accuser did have to testify, the testimony might not go into her sexual history. The relevant rule would be Federal Rule of Evidence 412 -- which allows such evidence (if otherwise admissible) only if "its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party." Rule 412 isn't very different from the Colorado rape shield statute applicable in criminal cases. But the civil judge still might rule differently from Judge Ruckriegle.

Why? Because in the tort case, the plaintiff need only prove lack of consent -- not use of force. And remember, the 72-hours-prior sexual history evidence that would have been heard in the criminal case would have been used to rebut the prosecution's claim that Bryant used force.

Her conduct immediately after the sexual encounter with Bryant, on the other hand, probably would be held admissible in the civil case, just as it was in the criminal case. The defense seems to want to use evidence of a subsequent sexual encounter to show that the accuser never was raped in the first place -- for she did not "act like a rape victim."

Of course, victims of crimes act very differently from each other -- and the whole concept of "acting like a rape victim" is thus arguably wrong, and even offensive. But nevertheless, the court will likely at least allow the defense to argue that had the accuser really been raped, she would not have had sex with someone else soon afterwards.

Anonymity in civil case?
There is one respect, however, in which the civil case may actually be worse for the accuser: In the civil case, she has little to no chance of remaining anonymous.

Granted, the accuser has lost a lot of her anonymity anyway -- through leaks that occurred during the criminal case. But in the civil case, the court is likely to actually issue a formal order removing her anonymity. And the press may then follow suit by printing her name, as it has generally refrained from doing.

Granted, federal courts do occasionally allow plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym in civil suits. But this only happens rarely -- for instance, in a "highly sensitive." And while one might think a sexual assault case would be highly sensitive, case law suggests otherwise.

For example, when Tupac Shakur was sued for sexual assault, the court denied the plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously. The court reasoned that, unlike in a criminal case, it was the plaintiff -- not the state -- who had chosen to come to court, and thus her interest in anonymity was not the same. Ultimately, the court held that the public's interest in knowing who was suing Shakur outweighed the plaintiff's interest in privacy.

For these reasons, if Bryant moves to have the plaintiff's anonymity removed from the federal case, he will probably win.

Why did Bryant make his statement of apology?
It is typically unethical for plaintiffs to "trade civil for criminal" -- that is, to drop a criminal complaint in exchange for a civil settlement. So it is not possible, ethically, that there could have been a formal quid-pro-quo here -- with Bryant's lawyers swapping his apology for the accuser's noncooperation with the criminal case.

Nonetheless, it could have happened somewhat like this: Bryant's attorneys could have let the accuser's attorneys know that Bryant was inclined to make the kind of statement he gave -- one expressing regret, but not admitting guilt -- but not while the trial was going on.

The accuser's attorneys could have passed this information on to the accuser, who might have felt somewhat vindicated that Bryant had expressed remorse for how he behaved; was at least willing to admit that he behaved badly; and recognized that she had genuinely felt their sex was not consensual -- she wasn't making anything up.

The key, though, is that ethically the attorneys could not have agreed to the exchange of the statement for the noncooperation. But if the offer of the statement ended up causing the noncooperation, that might be ethically acceptable.

The key civil case issue
It is likely that the next step in this case will be a civil settlement -- probably one that would occur before litigation of the anonymity issue.

In light of the statement he has made, Bryant would have to argue during the civil trial as follows: She didn't think she had consented. But I thought she had. On these facts, would he be liable? The answer is: Only if the jury believes that in fact, the plaintiff didn't consent, and that it was unreasonable for Bryant to believe that she had.

This standard is different from the standard that would have applied at the criminal trial. There, Bryant could have been acquitted of rape if he genuinely but unreasonably thought she had consented.

If it's indeed the case that Bryant made an unreasonable mistake as to consent, then it's possible a kind of rough justice will be done in this case after all. That kind of mistake would not necessarily make Bryant guilty of the crimes charged. But it could still mean he committed a civil and thus ought to pay for the injuries he caused. In that situation, a civil settlement with no criminal trial may be the right result.


Anthony J. Sebok, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Brooklyn Law School. His other columns on tort issues may be found in the archive of his columns on this site.

Male30Dan
09-08-2004, 04:31 PM
I still stand by what I originally said... The woman is flat wrong for dropping the case if Kobe really did rape her!!!

LRB
09-08-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by: Male23Dan
I still stand by what I originally said... The woman is flat wrong for dropping the case if Kobe really did rape her!!!

Just curious have you have you ever had a friend or family member who was raped?

And yes I have.

Male30Dan
09-08-2004, 07:15 PM
This will be handled with PMs from here on out between us LRB!!!