Surprise.....Civil suit filed against Kobe.....

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Why is she protected while most of you guys on this board are ripping into Kobe none of you know that he raped her. What if Kobe was telling the truth, that he did not rape her, will you guys then call her names then.

While true, this is just something to "B!@#$" about anyway. No one here knows the truth. The media would never report the truth. Too much money involved for their to be a Truth that is believable. Some take the young ladies side, some take the man's side. Either way, only two people know the truth, and both are probably lying to an extent to make themselves look better. Neither is perfect or good, and both have reasons to lie. It is such a shame that their can be no justice in this case --- either way.

"There are three sides to every story --- your side, my side, and then theirs the truth!" --- Loverboy "Lovin' Every Minute of it"

[Nash13]

People are saying the accuser is lying, but NOT because of any evidence related to the incident itself; rather, they're looking at smear tactics used by the defense concerning this girl's prior sexual exploits and thinking the worst of her because she had a promiscuous past.

I don't think Kobe did it, but not b/c of the girls sexual past. It's not fair to use that fact when there's plenty other ones out there. For one, athletes, especially NBA players, are the most vulnerable people in the world when it comes to sex. So if someone wanted to set him up, it wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world to do. And i also take into consideration that Kobe is a tall, good looking young man who makes 12mil a year who has a wife, so i look at it like why does Kobe need to rape the girl unless he's just a sick individual? And i also take into consideration the evidence that the defense has that claims she had sex not too long after being raped. Even though i'm a guy, i try to put myself in her situation. So if i'm her and i got raped, the last thing i would even think about is having sex, especially if i had vaginal tearings.

[chumdawg]

Can someone who knows please answer this question for me:

How common are the Colorado "rape shield" laws? Nationwide, are there more states that allow an examination of the accuser's behavioral patterns, or more that don't?

Further, is the prosecution generally allowed to bring the accused's behavioral patterns into court, or not?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Nash13

I don't think Kobe did it, but not b/c of the girls sexual past. It's not fair to use that fact when there's plenty other ones out there. For one, athletes, especially NBA players, are the most vulnerable people in the world when it comes to sex. So if someone wanted to set him up, it wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world to do. And i also take into consideration that Kobe is a tall, good looking young man who makes 12mil a year who has a wife, so i look at it like why does Kobe need to rape the girl unless he's just a sick individual? And i also take into consideration the evidence that the defense has that claims she had sex not too long after being raped. Even though i'm a guy, i try to put myself in her situation. So if i'm her and i got raped, the last thing i would even think about is having sex, especially if i had vaginal tearings.

1st of all rape is not about the sex, it's about the power. Anyone who rapes is extremely messed up period. Of course we know that Kobe really doesn't like power. It's not like he orchestrated shaq leaving the Lakers or anything. It's not like he orchestrated getting his boss, Phil Jackson, fired or anything. It's not like he demanded a large say in personnel moves inorder to resign with the Lakers or anything. Does this mean that Kobe raped the girl? Not by itself, but it certainly shows that he has a predilection for power.

And just because the defense says so, BTW which violates the gag order and rape shield laws, does not mean that the girl did have sex after she was supposedly raped by Kobe. In fact there is a great deal of proof in what has been released that shows that she did not have sex after her experience with Kobe. And even if she did, that is still not definitive proof. You site that you can't see someone doing that. And how many hundreds of rape victims have you encountered? Probably like most people who have only known a handful at best. So you need to rely on a study to be very accurate. Studies also show that it almost never happens that a woman falsely accuses a man of rape. Especially in high profile cases like this one because of the accusations people will level against her.

It seems that everyone is quick to jump on the smear campaign of innuendo that Kobe is conducting against this girl. He's definitely putting her on trial. Why, because his only defense is to try and make her look worse than him, and he looks pretty damn bad. In other words Kobe is incapbable of keeping from being proven guilty with out a smear campaign against this girl.

How would you feel if some rich dude beat the crap out of you and then said that you did the injuries to yourself just to get money. Proof would be that you suppossedly played Bball after the beating because you wore basketball shorts with sweat on them to the emergency room. Maybe you just got beatup playing ball. After all rich people are always targeted by dishonest lazy and worseless trash like yourself.

[LRB]

Bryant judge faces decision, criticism

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Pressure is mounting on the judge overseeing Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case, with prosecutors citing courthouse gaffes as a reason for seeking the indefinite delay of the NBA star's criminal trial and the father of his accuser blasting the bench for bias against the prosecution.

Prosecutors requested the delay even as they made moves to appeal a key ruling in the case, arguing to the Colorado Supreme Court that the accuser's sexual activities should not be admitted as evidence. If accepted, the appeal could delay the trial for weeks.

The legal moves came as the father of Bryant's accuser wrote a blistering letter to District Judge Terry Ruckriegle saying his family had "lost trust that we can obtain a fair trial in your court."

"It has been painfully obvious that you treat the defense as if they can do no wrong and the prosecution and my daughter's attorney as if you have something against them or this case," he wrote in a letter filed with the court on Monday and posted on the Web sites of the Vail Daily and KUSA-TV on Wednesday.

Bryant 25, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault. He has said he had consensual sex with the woman, then 19, at the Vail-area resort where she worked last summer. Jury selection is scheduled to begin August 27.

Experts said it was unlikely Ruckriegle will agree to a delay at such late notice. Nearly 1,000 residents have been mailed jury summonses, witnesses have been scheduled to testify, and the judge and attorneys have cleared their calendars for September, said Craig Silverman, a former prosecutor.

"It is an incredible logistical task to reschedule all of this," he said. "What will happen is once the continuance is denied, I would not be surprised if the prosecution throws up its hands and says `Well, then, we cannot proceed."'

The request for delay, the high court appeal and the letter could indicate the victim is planning to abandon the criminal trial, legal experts speculated Wednesday.

"It seems to be part of this well-orchestrated exit strategy from this fatally flawed criminal case," Silverman said.

In a court filing made public Wednesday, prosecutor Dana Easter said the recent release of closed-door testimony hurt the chances of getting a fair jury. She also said the judge has not yet decided whether the woman's mental health and medical history will be admitted as evidence, leaving prosecutors in limbo on whether to hire more expert witnesses. Easter also accused defense experts of waiting too long to turn over DNA test results.

Easter singled out transcripts from a June hearing that were mistakenly e-mailed to seven news organizations, including The Associated Press. The media outlets won a court fight with the judge to publish the details, including a defense expert's explanation on why she believes the accuser had sex with someone after her encounter with Bryant and before she was examined at a hospital -- a claim the woman's attorney has denied.

The widely publicized allegation was "extremely harmful" to the prosecution's case, Easter said, and Ruckriegle's strict gag order has prevented prosecutors from responding.

"The release of this information 28 days prior to trial will have the effect of tainting the jury pool and impact the ability of the prosecution to obtain a fair jury at this time," Easter wrote.

Prosecutors filed their request for a delay on Tuesday, the same day attorneys for the accuser filed a civil lawsuit against Bryant in federal court in Denver seeking compensatory damages of at least $75,000 and unspecified punitive damages.

Attorneys for the accuser and Bryant did not return messages. Prosecution spokeswoman Krista Flannigan declined to elaborate on the filing, but said a trial was still planned.

"We are still moving forward; nothing has changed," she said.

Prosecutors' appeal to the state Supreme Court challenges Ruckriegle's decision to allow details from the accuser's sex life in the three days before her hospital exam to be introduced as evidence. That decision is expected to allow the defense to argue she had sex with someone after Bryant but before the exam. The woman's attorney has denied that claim.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
You know, there's a reason experts estimate that less than 25% of all rapes get reported. I think you've just reminded us all why it takes such courage to come forward.

Saying this and having no idea whether or not the girl was actually raped or not is kind of unfair, isn't it?

I'm not going to take sides on this court case but what happens if Kobe never did rape her? What will you all be saying then?

[Epitome22]

br>Misogynist? Hell yeah! When you say stuff like

"if she had made even a few conscientious objections to sitting on every penis that was presented to her.."

about a possible rape victim, I'll label it misogynist. Every day of the week and Sunday. [/quote]


#1 You called me a misogynist before I even made that comment, so unless you have a particular gift for clairvoyance, your dubbing me a misognist is completely due to your lack of imagination to call me anything else related to the topic. #2 insulting someone's percieved (mine) lack of sexual morals and/or standards is not means worthy of accusing someone of being a misogynist. Misogyny is hatred of women, I have no psychological hangups that thus apply or anything against women as a sex or gender in paticular. My insult was not even gender based. You could accuse me of being a prude or judgemental dick for judging someone on such a superficial level and might be right, but a misogynist I am not.

Originally posted by: sturm und drang<
Are women not allowed to have sex? Does the fact that she wasn't a vestal virgin at the time of the incident mean she wasn't raped? Is it even possible to rape a "skank"? You know she was asking for it.

#1 of course Women are allowed to have sex. Your insinuation that I referred to her as a skank simply because she was a sexually active woman well in the means inbetween a vestal virigin and insatiable nymphomaniac is false. She WAS/IS a skank, she was well known as an NBA groupie/superstar cock chaser long before the trial in question came about. And from the information that has been put forth about her since, it appears she wasn't too picky in general. So yes, girlfriend liked the cock. There's nothing criminal about that, alot of other people are like that and see nothing wrong with that; maybe there is nothing wrong with that, I just find guys who stick their penis into any and every orfice presented to them and vice versa to be reprehensible. As for how it bears on whether or not she was raped, it doesen't and I made no claim to the contrary, it merely compromises the prosecution's case. The fact that she couldn't refrain from having sex inbetween the time she was allegedly raped and when she went to the hospital the next day does the prosecution no favors

Originally posted by: sturm und drang<
And we all wonder why rape is so criminally under-reported. What a mystery.

If the woman in question is indeed bringing false, then I shudder to think what that will do to future rape victims and the backlash against them in this country.

[binbin]

Originally posted by: LRB1st of all rape is not about the sex, it's about the power.

lrb, is that a verified scientific fact, proposed academic hypothesis, or a social/political conjecture?

Studies also show that it almost never happens that a woman falsely accuses a man of rape.

would you please provide some academic reference about that, if it is convenient for you?

thanks.

[sturm und drang]

Um, I think you missed the point.

Whether or not Kobe is guilty is actually immaterial to this particular argument.

What is relevant is that – as is so often the case in rape trials – it is the victim who is put on trial. The burden of proof and chastity is placed on her. Her sexual history is offered up for all to see, the media to broadcast, the general publict to dissect and make their own moral judgments. Around the world, people call her names like "skank."

Kobe's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. Women know that is ultimately the victim who is tried, not the perpetrator. And if you think this isn't the single biggest reason that the vast majority of rapes go unreported, you're crazy.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
There's a good reason for rape shield laws. A woman's sexual history has absolutely no bearing on whether she consented to sex on a PARTICULAR occasion, any more than a poor driver's driving record has bearing on whether they were negligent in a PARTICULAR car accident. It's irrelevant, and the defense wants to introduce that evidence for the sole purpose of smearing the name of the accuser, so that in essence the accuser will be on trial rather than the accused. As S&D pointed out, if they're a skank or a whore, how can they really be raped? Right? I mean, we all know that they want to be bent over a chair and physically injured during intercourse, right?

Wrong, see my reply to S&D. Your insinuation that by calling her a "skank" means I'm alligned with the "she must have been asking for it" crowd is false and completely your own creation.

Originally posted by: kg_veteran<
It's sickening to me to hear such nonsense. It's equally sickening to have to listen to the accusation that people on this board think Kobe's guilty because he's rich and black. Their OPINION couldn't have anything to do with the evidence that we know about, could it? Nah, they just want all rich, black people to go to jail.

Sad.

I cannot say for sure whether or not people thinking Kobe's guilty is based on his race, wealth or combination of both. I will attest however that I believe the opinions of Kobe's presumed guilt are based largely on factors that have nothing to do with the facts presented in this case.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Wrong, see my reply to S&D. Your insinuation that by calling her a "skank" means I'm alligned with the "she must have been asking for it" crowd is false and completely your own creation.

Here are your words:

"Free Kobe from this burdensome trial and leave this skank to her own devices."

So you're saying that you weren't implying that Kobe didn't rape her, you just hate sexually promiscuous people? Right.

I cannot say for sure whether or not people thinking Kobe's guilty is based on his race, wealth or combination of both. I will attest however that I believe the opinions of Kobe's presumed guilt are based largely on factors that have nothing to do with the facts presented in this case.

If we're talking about the opinions of some people, I'm sure you're right, just like the opinions of some people are that Kobe couldn't have possibly raped this girl because she's a "skank" and because, as you put it, "girlfriend liked the cock."

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: LRB

Oh, so I get it now. The girl must be lying because she's poor white trash and Kobe is a successful black athelete. Somehow I new that you'd play the race card in this one. Kobe is black so he must be innocent. You must be about as big a bigot as they come. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img][/quote]


??? This statement confuses me, and has little to do with what I said or what you said. I never once accused the girl of lying, I never insinuated that Kobe was innocent based on his status as a black athlete. My playing the "race card" in this section isn't even particualrly accurate. Those sentences were in direct response to your statement that I seemed like the type of person who would be against rape victim's rights. A wildly inappropriate and shamefully libelous statement if there ever was one. I merely regurgitated your tactics.

Actually it does have bearing. Just as much if not more than the girl's sexual history. It has bearing on Kobe's character. Certainly he shouldn't go to jail just for commiting adultery. However he placed himself in this position by at the very least commiting adultery. Had he kept his pants on, he would not be in this mess.

That does not mean bearing. You're right, if Kobe was not so quick to fornicate with any groupie that passed his way, against the vows he undertook with his wife, he wouldn't be in this situation right now. That's like saying if the lady in question wasn't trying to boff any guy with an NBA paycheck that crossed her path, she wouldn't be in this situation. Would you object to that? I certainly would. Being an adulturer has no bearing on whether or not Kobe is a rapist just like the fact that the woman in question was promiscuous and liked to fornicate with professional athletes has no bearing on whether or not she was raped.

Originally posted by: LRB

The stigma is nothing compared to that of being a rape victim[/quote]

That's conjecture and it hasn't been established that she is indeed a rape "victim"

Originally posted by: LRB

This young women's life is totally wrecked. There are few possible things that could be worse than to be raped and then put on trial for having been raped.[/quote]

If she was indeed raped, then yes that would suck.

Originally posted by: LRB

Nothing Kobe will experience in soley being accused of being a rapist will compare with what this young woman will go through for having the audacity to not lay down and take it like a whore as you obviously feel that she should have. [/quote]


Another wildly inappropriate statement that makes continued discussion all the more puzzling and bizarre. If you can't keep your emotions in check long enough to keep yourself from making libelous statements such as that I feel rape victims should have lied down and taken it like whores then you seriously need to seek therapy or remove yourself from the discussion. Be an adult.

Originally posted by: LRB

The percentage of those charges which are brought which are false are extremely small compared to legitimate charges. [/quote]

What figures do you have to back this up? I've done some research on this and I've found figures ranging as low as 2 percent to as high as 50 percent of chagres of rape ending up being false. Obviously there is some political partisanship involved in both sides of this research. Regardless, as long as it is established that people have brought forth charges of rape and continue to do so that end up being false then I will grant Kobe his entitled presumption of innocence.

Originally posted by: LRB

And all I've called for is for justice to be done.[/quote]

No, you've basically called for Kobe to be fitted for his Colorado penal league jersey regardless of his guilt or lack thereof.

Originally posted by: LRB

However when you're rich, you can simply out spend the prosecution to get the verdict you want. Couple that with someone who is famous who manipulates the media to taint the jury pool with half truths. That's exactly what Kobe has done. [/quote]

There you go again with the rich thing. It would be one thing if you were merely expressing doubts about the probability of a fair trial with rich athletes or celebritys involved; but it becomes more and more apparant that you seem to bear some sort of grudge against these people becuase of their fame and wealth and any outcome of justice ultimately involves them serving time in jail regardless of there innocence.

Originally posted by: LRB

Now if you were simply defending Kobe I could respect that. But you have judged this woman guilty and called her the most reprehensible of names. [/quote]

LOL, If that ain't the pea calling the celery green, I dunno what is.

[Epitome22]

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Originally posted by: Epitome22
Here are your words:

"Free Kobe from this burdensome trial and leave this skank to her own devices."

So you're saying that you weren't implying that Kobe didn't rape her, you just hate sexually promiscuous people? Right.

????

This reply has no bearing on what was said before. I never said I wasn't implying that Kobe didn't rape her, and the fact that I find sexuall promiscous people reprehensible being brought up is completely out of left field. You've made this so vastly confusing that it's extremely diffucult to summarize but to do by best.

I do not believe Kobe is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe the woman in question is a skank and I find that reprehensible but believe it has no bearing on whether or not she was raped. I do not subscribe to the notion that promiscous people deserve rape, have rape coming to them or question their capability of truly being raped based on the fact that they are promiscuous. That whole mode of thinking is based on the notion that rape victims are somehow responsible for their own rapes to some degree which I find absurd. if the woman in question was raped, her sexual promiscuity had no bearing on her probability of being raped. If she wasn't raped, sexual lifestyle has no bearing on whether she would pursue a matter like this for whatever reason.







[quote]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran<


If we're talking about the opinions of some people, I'm sure you're right, just like the opinions of some people are that Kobe couldn't have possibly raped this girl because she's a "skank" and because, as you put it, "girlfriend liked the cock."

In no way shape or form did I say or even imply that Kobe couldn't have raped this girl because she was a skank. This is something entirely of your own creation which I have thoroughly addressed earlier in this post. I would advise you to refrain from making such assinine accusations further. Simply by addressing this girl by a certain handle which thoroughly implies how I might think of her, and referring to her lifestyle with certain prose does not imply that I believe she is a liar based on those particular matters.

[kg_veteran]

In no way shape or form did I say or even imply that Kobe couldn't have raped this girl because she was a skank.

Um, okay. Maybe you just like to call people skanks, even when you don't know whether that's true or not. No worse, I guess, than people calling Kobe a rapist without knowing if he is or not.

This is something entirely of your own creation which I have thoroughly addressed earlier in this post. I would advise you to refrain from making such assinine accusations further. Simply by addressing this girl by a certain handle which thoroughly implies how I might think of her, and referring to her lifestyle with certain prose does not imply that I believe she is a liar based on those particular matters.

I think it was a reasonable reading of your posts. I can't read your mind, but most people wouldn't label her a skank unless they were implying something by the label. If you weren't, fine. Either way, spare me the advice.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Um, okay. Maybe you just like to call people skanks, even when you don't know whether that's true or not. No worse, I guess, than people calling Kobe a rapist without knowing if he is or not.

I think it was a reasonable reading of your posts. I can't read your mind, but most people wouldn't label her a skank unless they were implying something by the label. If you weren't, fine. Either way, spare me the advice.

By calling her a skank, I was obviously making clear what I thought of her based solely on her lifestyle, groupieism and my personal partisan assessment of her lack of sexual morals or standards. In no way does calling her a skank imply that I felt she is dishonest, in the sense of bringing false rape charges or deserves/was asking for rape, in the sense of debating whether or not she was raped. Gathering that from calling her a "skank" is not a reasonable or responsible reading.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
I think Kobe's defense has put forth more than enough reasonable doubt that speaking of him as a criminal off-hand is unjust. I was originally behind this woman, but the newer evidence has led me to seriously doubt or question her believability. The sole remaining factor that kept me on the fence was the fact that she did not opt for civil suit, and instead pressed charges against him. Well it looks like the cash was on her mind.


Free Kobe from this burdensome trial and leave this skank to her own devices. If only there was a way to sue or press charges for false accusal.

Let's revisit your original post in this thread since you have IMO introduced so many restatements of your original post to be very confusing.

1) you pronounce that you've judged Kobe to be innnocent.
2) you've announced that you doubt the woman's credibility.
3) you've judged that the woman only had cash on her mind.
4) you've judged that Kobe needs to be free from this "burdensome trial", and are therefore declaring that you do not want to see the justice process work where Kobe is judged guilty or innocent by a jury based on legally presented evidence. You through rumors, innuendos, and half truths are fully confident that this is uneeded.
5) you call the victim a skank, a particularly vial and degrading term. Later posts you state that you base this on the rumors that she slept with every Bball player she could.
6) you state that the girl, the alledged rape victim is the one who should have charges brought against her while Kobe is let go.

You're pathetic. Sorry I have no respect at all for people who respect women so little. you want Kobe treated as innocent until proven guilty. Hell you want him treated as innocent and not even have a chance to be proven guilty. And yet you treat the women as guilty without having any chance to rebutt the accusations leveled against her.

[kg_veteran]

By calling her a skank, I was obviously making clear what I thought of her based solely on her lifestyle, groupieism and my personal partisan assessment of her lack of sexual morals or standards. In no way does calling her a skank imply that I felt she is dishonest, in the sense of bringing false rape charges or deserves/was asking for rape, in the sense of debating whether or not she was raped. Gathering that from calling her a "skank" is not a reasonable or responsible reading.

Nonsense. The only reason for you to make clear what you thought of her sexual morality was that it affected, at least in part, your opinion regarding what actually happened in her encounter with Kobe Bryant.

[KennyDirk]

You know the other day when the letter by the father was released, I wanted to see what idiots in LA were thinking so i check out this site lakerstalk.net, and read the Kobe Charged section, and it made me sick to my stomach to how much they abused this victim just because it was against Kobe. I don't know what happened that night, I do want to know, because I trully do feel bad for this victim, I actually really do believe they should continue this trial, even if they have been given set-backs, in the beginning I felt they had a case, but I don't think they were prepared for the star cast Kobe was going to have for his defense. I did respect Kobe, but I can also see him being guilty of this crime, however, as I said I can't really give my opinion as I do not really know what happened, all I know is what is being leaked out "accidently". Court cases like these shouldn't make "accidental" leakages. Yet it did happen, but I think on this particular topic, I think careful sensitivty should be use especially towards the alleged victim, and to an exten kobe bryant. But I will say this, I am glad this is not a lakersfan board where no utter respect is show.
Just my 2 cents

[mary]

If Robbery Victims Were Treated Like Rape Victims

The victim's expensive suit, watch and nice home would be cited as tempting robbers beyond human endurance.

The victim's spouse, family, friends, and representatives of the victim's religion and favorite charities would be called in to testify that the victim frequently gave money willingly (even enjoyed it!).

The victim's name would be withheld because it is shameful to be robbed.

The victim would be blamed for having money or a home where robberies are known to occur.

The victim would be photographed nude by strangers in white coats.

If the victim knew the robber, it would be automatically assumed that the items or money taken were actually gifts by the victim to the robber.

The victim would be quizzed about how much the victim resisted the alleged robbery and required to show proof of struggle.

The victim's checkbook, bank records, and tax returns would be subpoenaed and submitted as evidence the victim has given, spent, and lost money and property foolishly before.

The robber would sincerely testify that since the victim left the door unlocked, the robber naturally thought the victim wanted to be robbed.

The robber would sincerely testify that it wasn't robbery. They were just having "rough giving" together.

Robbery victims would be suspected of going through all of the above just to get attention or to harm the honor of the robber.

Society would think none of the above is strange.

504 (of 506) JOHN RAMSEY April 16, 1991 at 22:14 Eastern (1929 characters)

(By John Ramsey, Copyright 1991, permission given to non-profit use as long as this by-line is included.)

John Ramsey, written Tuesday, April 16, 1991 at 10:00 am. First Presbyterian Church in Rochester in North Central Indiana.

Link

[mary]

By the way, the above post isn't meant to be a joke. There's nothing more disgusting to me than some of the unfortunate comments that have been made in this thread. I've considered several responses and have even gone through the trouble of typing a few out....but in the end I'm just going to trust that anyone that would publicly degrade a potential rape victim with such enthusiasm will eventually meet up with the bad karma he so richly deserves.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: binbin

lrb, is that a verified scientific fact, proposed academic hypothesis, or a social/political conjecture?

would you please provide some academic reference about that, if it is convenient for you?

thanks.

binbin rape being about power versus sex is a fairly well established and documented conclusion by profilers, people who study the pyschology of rapists. Information gathered from case studies and interviews with convicted rapists. It also makes since. Most people can buy sex, prostitutes or just use their hand.

As far as the figures on false accusations on rape, my come from watching documentaries on Court TV and the Discovery channel as well as experts on network and cable news. I've also had conversations with former DA's, law enforcement officers, and court psychologists. While there is not complete agreement among the experts, the vast majority place it at a very low number.

I'm booked up without time to do a lot of research until at lest the weekend, but a Google search on Rape and false accusations would probably be a good start. The FBI web site might also have some reports, www.fbi.gov.

[Epitome22]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

Let's revisit your original post in this thread since you have IMO introduced so many restatements of your original post to be very confusing.

1) you pronounce that you've judged Kobe to be innnocent.

False. I said that I felt there was more than enough "reasonable doubt" that considering Kobe guilty outright as is done in this forum was unjust.


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

2) you've announced that you doubt the woman's credibility.

False. I never said anything about her credibility or reliability as a witness. I merely stated that the newer evidence has led be doubt her more. I suppose it could be interpreted that me saying that her filing a civil suit compromised my faith in her as questioning her credibility.




[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

3) you've judged that the woman only had cash on her mind.

True. Her opting for civil suit has led me to question whether or not she had financial motives, previously unquestioned.


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

4) you've judged that Kobe needs to be free from this "burdensome trial", and are therefore declaring that you do not want to see the justice process work where Kobe is judged guilty or innocent by a jury based on legally presented evidence. You through rumors, innuendos, and half truths are fully confident that this is uneeded.

False. I want Kobe freed from the burdens of a trial that's based on very weak charges in my eyes. My opinion on Kobe's lack of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the evidence that has been presented in the courtroom that has been made public, it has nothing to do with rumors or innuendos spread by some dorks that may have shared a lunch table with her in highschool.


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

5) you call the victim a skank, a particularly vial and degrading term. Later posts you state that you base this on the rumors that she slept with every Bball player she could.

True. But I don't base it solely on the fact that she was an NBA groupie, more than enough stuff has come out about this girl that lean in a favor of a "skank" verdict. I suppose it's possible that it's all B.S. and part of some vast conspiracy to destroy her but I wouldn't call it probable.


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

6) you state that the girl, the alledged rape victim is the one who should have charges brought against her while Kobe is let go.

True. If this rape allegation turns out to be false (no way to prove that) then there should be a way for the falsely accused to seek punitive damages.


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

You're pathetic. Sorry I have no respect at all for people who respect women so little.

The feeling is mutual. I have equal contempt for conservative blowhards with such a perverse desire to see rich black athletes locked up, guilt be damned.


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

you want Kobe treated innocent until proven guilty.

What a concept!!!!!1111


[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

Hell you want him treated as innocent and not even have a chance to be proven guilty. And yet you treat the women as guilty without having any chance to rebutt the accusations leveled against her.

I don't treat the woman as guilty any moreso than you treat Kobe as guilty.

[Epitome22]

http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...2003/0722.html


False Rape Charges Hurt Real Victims
July 22, 2003
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.net


The media coverage of the felony sexual assault charge leveled at basketball star Kobe Bryant includes an element that has been rarely introduced into public discussion in recent years: Commentators are openly speculating on whether the accusation is false. Could the woman be lying?

And yet, whenever an unwitnessed crime is alleged, such speculation is valid. This is especially true if the allegation of crime is not unambiguously backed up by physical evidence. In a "he said/she said" scenario, the credibility of the accuser is key. This is why Western jurisprudence recognizes the right of the accused to face his or her accuser and ask questions in a court of law.

Our society has long acknowledged the existence of false accusations. In Biblical times, "bearing false witness" was recognized as a practice prevalent enough to be delineated as one of only 10 overriding social rules: the Ninth Commandment reads, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

In the Common Law tradition, upon which American jurisprudence draws heavily, the prevalence of false accusations contributed to "the presumption of innocence." The definition of this legal term is: "The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent."

Why? Because, in almost any circumstance, a certain percentage of people will lie. They will do so for a variety of motives. Sometimes there is a clear advantage to lying: for example, to gain money or the custody of children.

In his forthcoming biography Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson discusses another motive that underlies some false accusations. In 2001, a woman he had never met alleged he had raped her in Louisville, a city he had never visited. After $14,000 in defensive legal bills, Carlson discovered that the woman had a chronic mental disorder. He decided not to sue for redress since it would further link his name with the word "rape."

Carlson even hesitated to speak out in his tell-all book because "the stigma of being accused of that kind of crime is so strong." Fortunately, he thought it taught a valuable lesson: "I always assumed, like every other journalist does, that all sex scandals are rooted in the truth, period. You may not have done precisely what you're accused of, but you did something." From bitter experience, he now knows differently.

Even charges that are later revealed to be false can devastate the accused. Consider journalist John Fund, who was arrested on charges of domestic violence and publicly excoriated for sexual misconduct. The charges were later dropped.

Columnist Eric Alterman recently published an article entitled "Who Framed John Fund?" There, Alterman chronicled the false accusations that haunt Fund. Once a high-profile presence on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page and a frequent television commentator, Fund now writes for the WSJ's far less prestigious Opinionjournal.com and is rarely on TV.

On his Web site, Fund posted a notarized affidavit from his accuser, stating, "Mr. Fund has not been abusive to me contrary to what I said in reports to the Jersey City police." He has also posted the transcript of a deposition in which she testifies under oath that she has "borderline personality disorder." Nevertheless, it is not clear whether Fund's career will recover.

How prevalent is the false reporting of sexual assault? Estimates vary widely.

According to much-cited feminist statistics, two percent of all reports are false. Susan Brownmiller's book Against Our Will (1975), for example, claims that false accusations in New York City dropped to that level after police departments began using policewomen to interview alleged victims. Elsewhere, the two percent figure appears without citation or with a vague attribution to "FBI" sources.

According to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin of Purdue University, the correct figure may rise to the 40 percent range. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987. Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."

Studies and statistics often vary and for legitimate reasons. For example, they may examine different populations. But such a dramatic variance -- two percent to 50 percent -- raises the question of whether political interests are at work.

It is understandable why some feminists might wish to understate the incidence of false reporting. In the '50s, women who reported sexual assault or domestic violence were dismissed. To acknowledge false reports as a real problem might undercut the gains made toward taking women seriously.

But if the charge against Kobe Bryant is proven false, a backlash against women reporting violence may occur. Bryant is accused of a crime that, under Colorado law, carries a prison term of four years to life or probation for 20 years to life. The highest level of evidence and credible testimony should be required before ruining a man's life in that manner.

Feminists should demand such a high level of proof. Otherwise, it is the man who appears to be the victim no matter how many times the accusation is repeated.


Wendy McElroy Home Page

[ChickenLittle]

She couldn't win in court so she's filing a suit so she can get her money easier.

[mapape]

I aggree with ChickenLittle for sure.

[madape]

mapape?????

[EricaLubarsky]

whats with all the spinoffs?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: madape
mapape?????

Dang man that sucks. Make him at least change his avatar.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Dang man that sucks. Make him at least change his avatar.

It's quite hard on us dyslexically challenged. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[LRB]

Kobe Accuser, Prosecution Seek to Ease Gag Order

DENVER — Prosecutors in the Kobe Bryant (search) sexual assault case have joined the NBA star's accuser in arguing that a strict gag order imposed by the judge makes it impossible for them to rebut rumors on the Web or allegations in released transcripts.

The woman's attorneys, John Clune and Lin Wood, say a defense witness has distributed derogatory information about their client on the Internet for months.

"Unrebutted, this `garbage' is allowed to be elevated in the mind of the public to the undeserved status of fact," they wrote in a filing released Thursday.

Defense attorneys have asked the judge to keep the order in place, saying the accuser's attorneys must be prevented from repeating "inflammatory" comments that threaten the chances for a fair trial.

Bryant, 25, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault. He has said he had consensual sex with the employee of the Vail-area resort where he stayed last summer. The trial begins Aug. 27, with the last pretrial hearing scheduled for Monday.

If convicted, the Los Angeles Lakers (search) guard faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000.


Earlier this month, District Judge Terry Ruckriegle (search) broadened his gag order to prohibit all lawyers, witnesses and others connected to the case from talking to reporters about the case.

Bryant's attorneys asked for the order after the judge released an edited transcript of a closed-door hearing in which an expert witness for the defense explained why she believes the alleged victim had sex with somebody within 15 hours after her encounter with Bryant. Clune has denied that claim.

Clune and Wood appeared on national television last week to criticize the judge and the court for gaffes that led to the release of the transcript and the accidental posting of their client's name on a state court Web site.

The attorneys also said in a court filing that the gag order must be eased so they can respond to "that devastating, one-sided account" of evidence contained in the transcript.

"As long as this unconstitutional gag order remains in effect, the terrible damage to the victim's right to a fair trial, to the victim's right to due process of law, to the victim's right to speak and reply, and to the victim's reputation, becomes irreparable," they wrote.

[vinnieponte]

It was all about the money to begin with. There is sooo much evidence against her, right from the start. Yet I do blame Kobe, why the hell would you tap that, have you seen his wife.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
It was all about the money to begin with. There is sooo much evidence against her, right from the start. Yet I do blame Kobe, why the hell would you tap that, have you seen his wife.

Only a small part of the evidence has been released and then only one side of it. Of course there are more than a few rumors going around on the internet. However you should go to snopes.com and read up on just how few internet rumors turn out to be true. So what facts do we know for sure? By for sure I mean that both sides appear to agree that these are the case.

1. Kobe's penis penetrated the alledged victims vagina. Both sides agree on this. Kobe says it was consential and the girl says it wasn't.

2. There were no witnesses to the event other than Kobe and the girl.

3. There was vaginal tearing in the girl's vagina.

4. Kobe admits to have cheated on his wife who he entered into a legal contract not to have sole sexual relations with.

5. Traces of semen not belonging to Kobe was found on the girls panties that she wore to the rape exam the next day after the alledged rape.

6. A grand jury indicted Kobe based on the evidence ruling that there was enough to bring the case to court. This does not mean that there is enough for a conviction or that there is not enough for a conviction.

7. There have been 3 leaks of information from the judges office in this case.

8. All parties involved in the trial are under a gag order not to comment to the press about the case.

Now I may have left out a couple of additional facts, but I believe that I have most of them. There is really no evidence here that is against the woman. Admitedly the additional semen is perplexing and certainly should be questioned to some degree. However it was found externally to her and not inside her as was Kobe's semen. So at worst the evidence is equal against Kobe and the woman, and best the majority is against Kobe. Now we only have seen portions of the evidence. Maybe with full evidence it will be clear the girl was fabricating the truth. Of course it may be clear that Kobe is a rapist. But I would like to know exactly what evidence that you are referring to in your highly ambigious statement.

[Evilmav2]

+
"MapApe"?

Hahaha... that's bizarre.

[sturm und drang]

Vinnieponte wrote:

"There is sooo much evidence against her, right from the start."

I thought Kobe was on trial, not the victim? Oh, that's right: it's a rape trial. Vinnieponte has a point – albeit not the point he meant to make.

[vinnieponte]

meaning ???

[LakerMania]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang


I thought Kobe was on trial, not the victim? Oh, that's right: it's a rape trial. Vinnieponte has a point – albeit not the point he meant to make.

I thought the defendant was innocent until proven guilty? If she's already "the victim" then Kobe is already guilty. Oh that's right: he's a black man and she's a white girl.

[vinnieponte]

ditto~ and secondly who the hell has sex after you've been raped, and lets say she wasn't raped, what kind of girl walks around with semen on her panties????

[KennyDirk]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LakerMania

Originally posted by: sturm und drang





I thought the defendant was innocent until proven guilty? If she's already "the victim" then Kobe is already guilty. Oh that's right: he's a black man and she's a white girl.

and your point being??????????????????????????????????????????

[LRB]

Originally posted by: LakerMania

I thought the defendant was innocent until proven guilty? If she's already "the victim" then Kobe is already guilty. Oh that's right: he's a black man and she's a white girl.

That she is a victim does not mean that Kobe is guilty. It is well documented that she received trama to her sexual organs. So she is definitely a victim of that trama. What color she and Kobe are is immaterial. However from your username it appears if you might care more that it's the superstar on your favorite sports team versus some dumb girl that you don't give a damn about if she was raped or not. Of course you seem to believe that the girl and not Kobe should be on trial by your comments. Or maybe you just mean to say that any black man should be able to rape all the white women he wants without repercussions.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
ditto~ and secondly who the hell has sex after you've been raped, and lets say she wasn't raped, what kind of girl walks around with semen on her panties????

It could very well one who was raped by Kobe Bryant. Or it could be one who wasn't. However a proper court of law should fairly and justly decide that without giving preferential and illegal treatment to either the accused or the accusor.