Judge dismisses the case against Kobe.

[MavsFanFinley]

If Kobe wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be agreeing to her conditions as his lawyers put it.

[dirno2000]

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 him…they'll probably be the same as they are right now.

[MavsFanFinley]

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 him…they'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]

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. What’s 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 don’t know…it’s troublesome to go on Lakers boards and read posts from people who act like they were in the room, or they just know Kobe isn’t 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, that’s just as bad.

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

[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. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img] 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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

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]

Originally posted by: LRB


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

On what planet does “I understand why some terrorists terrorize” mean that I believe terrorists aren’t responsible for their actions? I understand that some terrorists are born into a situation they can’t get out of, and that they commit terrorism as a result. Doesn’t 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 didn’t make her disapproval clear during the incident, how is that rape? It isn’t. It’s certainly possible (though we obviously don’t know, we don’t have all the evidence) that she didn’t say “No!” to Kobe during the encounter, but later decided that she really didn’t 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 can’t 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.

You’ve 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 “Oh, I made a mistake, now let’s make it worse by having my previously ordered gag order removed”. No, that’s ludicrous, and I’m not even an expert.

The judge did this not once but multiple occasions.

At least twice that we know of. And again, if they’re 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 doesn’t mean he’s biased. It may not be fair (which we weren’t arguing about in the first place), but it certainly isn’t 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 there’s no point in bringing that up about when we’re assessing the weight of other person’s opinions. Anyway, I’ve 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 I’ve 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: “it should be easy to see why someone who 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.

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]

Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

On what planet does “I understand why some terrorists terrorize” mean that I believe terrorists aren’t responsible for their actions? I understand that some terrorists are born into a situation they can’t get out of, and that they commit terrorism as a result. Doesn’t 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.

Exactly. Now, think for a minute; if the accuser didn’t make her disapproval clear during the incident, how is that rape? It isn’t. It’s certainly possible (though we obviously don’t know, we don’t have all the evidence) that she didn’t say “No!” to Kobe during the encounter, but later decided that she really didn’t 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 can’t 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.

You’ve 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 “Oh, I made a mistake, now let’s make it worse by having my previously ordered gag order removed”. No, that’s ludicrous, and I’m 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.

At least twice that we know of. And again, if they’re 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.

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 doesn’t mean he’s biased. It may not be fair (which we weren’t arguing about in the first place), but it certainly isn’t 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.

You are also forming an opinion based on partial/incomplete evidence, so there’s no point in bringing that up about when we’re assessing the weight of other person’s opinions. Anyway, I’ve 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 I’ve 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.

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.

Uh, yes you did: “it should be easy to see why someone who was forced to have sex…”

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.

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]

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 don’t 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, you’ve got to be kidding me. A woman does not have to expressly give her permission to a guy for it not to be rape. Let’s say a man approaches a woman and starts making out with her, and she doesn’t say “No!”, “Stop!”, or push him away. Is that rape? No, how on earth could it be rape if the woman isn’t letting the man know she doesn’t 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.

It’s, well, interesting that this isn’t 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 don’t 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 isn’t 100% fair. But there are a lot of things about this case that aren’t 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 you’re 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, that’s 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. That’s 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. You’ve yet to come up with any compelling evidence that the judge is biased. The judge’s reasoning is perfectly reasonable. It’s 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 don’t 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 can’t prove the judge intended to leak information about the accuser to defame her, your theory that he is biased isn’t based in reality, it’s 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.

You’re 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 wouldn’t be fair and as fan of Kobe Bryant the basketball player I’d be pissed that his trial wasn’t going smoothly. And while I’d probably like for him to be able to respond to his leaked information in this fantasy scenario, I certainly wouldn’t 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 don’t understand what’s 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 isn’t 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. There’s no logical way you can argue that type of treatment for a charge that was dropped is fair. But I’m sure you’ll 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 dismissal…and even then, he certainly didn’t 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, week’s 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]

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, you’ve got to be kidding me. A woman does not have to expressly give her permission to a guy for it not to be rape. Let’s say a man approaches a woman and starts making out with her, and she doesn’t say “No!”, “Stop!”, or push him away. Is that rape? No, how on earth could it be rape if the woman isn’t letting the man know she doesn’t 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.

It’s, well, interesting that this isn’t 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]

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? [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[LRB]

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]

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]

Originally posted by: dalmations202
Just to jack with both of you, while we are in the slow, slow offseason.....

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. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[MavsFanFinley]

NYPost

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]

"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]

Originally posted by: LRB


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

[img]i/expressions/anim_laugh.gif[/img]

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]

Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2

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]

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;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

[LRB]

Thanks Cin for posting the young woman's side of the story.

[LRB]

Why did Bryant's accuser become uncooperative?

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]

I still stand by what I originally said... The woman is flat wrong for dropping the case if Kobe really did rape her!!!

[LRB]

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]

This will be handled with PMs from here on out between us LRB!!!