Kobi and Women's Rights

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 15, 2003, 5:41 pm

Thoughts?

http://us.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/15/bryant ... index.html

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 15, 2003, 6:04 pm

what does that have to do with women's rights

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 15, 2003, 6:31 pm

a women's right to wear soiled underwear...

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 15, 2003, 6:37 pm

Voronwë wrote:a women's right to wear soiled underwear...

So hawt!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 15, 2003, 7:27 pm

The case took an interesting turn today.. will be very interesting to follow the rest of it. And it will be nasty as hell.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 15, 2003, 10:53 pm

The fact that they are going to consider her past sexual activity. To me that is like throwing out a rape case because "she was wearing a tight dress" etc...

Marb

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 15, 2003, 11:14 pm

I don't think they can because it is against colorado law. However I think it might be relevant and I don't think its fair to defendants if their lawyers can't pursue every avenue in defense of their clients.

The main problem is when it gets to a jury trial. If no one is allowed to bring up her sexual history then the jury won't be allowed to hear anything about it leaving the prosecution the ability to paint a picture of some virginal snowflake who was violently deflowered by some horrifying rapist.

Sexual promiscuity is a valid reason why she would be bruised down below depending on the level of bruising. I don't see why bruising would be relevant at all however, since bruising does not neccesarily equal rape.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 16, 2003, 1:05 am

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 16, 2003, 2:35 am

Uhm I think it sounds (and probably smells =( ) fishy...but we'll see...

-=Lohrno

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » October 16, 2003, 9:14 am

Pamela Mackey, during her cross-examination of the Eagle County sheriff's detective who interviewed the alleged victim, asked if the accuser's injuries would be consistent with someone who had had sex with three different men in three days.

Mackey was alluding to the prosecution assertion that nurses who examined the alleged victim said her injuries were not consistent with someone who had recently had consensual sex.

The prosecution objected and Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett stopped the hearing, had the courtroom cleared, and called lawyers from both sides into his chambers. The hearing ended soon after.

Earlier, in her cross-examination of Eagle County Sheriff's Detective Doug Winters, Mackey drew a rebuke from the judge when she called the accuser by name six times. Mackey quickly said it was an accident. The alleged victim has not been officially identified

The problem is the bitch Mackey is trying to make this girl out to be a tramp to get her star player off.
The first paragraph is proof that she is doing that, if she would have simply asked what she did in the second paragraph it would have been appropiate.
Then she mentions her name 6 times and says it was a mistake! I don't think so.
This lawyer is a bitch and I hope the judge makes her pay for the shit she has pulled so far..........before this is over she will pull more of it if he doesn't do something about it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 16, 2003, 9:32 am

Of course if you had paid attention to what happened yesterday you would have realized where the line of comments was headed.

Sperm from a different man found when she went to the hospital eh?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 16, 2003, 9:35 am

Regardless of what you believe in this particular situation, you have to understand one thing: lawyers rarely, if ever, have to pay for their shit. They make money on the clock regardless of what they are doing and I'm sure this person that Kobe hired is getting a mint

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 16, 2003, 10:21 am

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:The problem is the bitch Mackey is trying to make this girl out to be a tramp to get her star player off.
The first paragraph is proof that she is doing that, if she would have simply asked what she did in the second paragraph it would have been appropiate.
Then she mentions her name 6 times and says it was a mistake! I don't think so.
This lawyer is a bitch and I hope the judge makes her pay for the shit she has pulled so far..........before this is over she will pull more of it if he doesn't do something about it.

Um, This IS the defense attorney here. That IS her job to clear Kobe of the charges. You do realize that her job is not to prove Kobe is innocent, but to prove that the prosecution's case is not valid...you know the whole innocent until proven guilty thing most US citizens forget about when this type of trial comes up?

Now, the name being released 6 times is screwed up, but what I find stranger is that the accuser does not have to be in court. My sister was raped and got to be there during the trial. She said that it was not a scary feeling seeing him again, but a fulfilling one that he was getting what he deserved. There are too many things in this trial so far that point to him actually having sex with her which will cause problems. He has already pretty much admitted something happening with her, that will cause problems in the public's eyes (what actually happened?!?!). HER side of the story HAS to be released because until they can prove that there is no doubt Kobe was the one who raped her (if anybody did), he didn't do it . <---- Yup that's a period for all of the people that don't seem to understand how the American Legal System is supposed to work.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 16, 2003, 11:15 am

Bringing up previous sexual activity is a touchy subject. I think it should be allowed only so far as it is relevant to the case. In this instance, it is relevant. If she is having a different sexual partner every day of the week then she is really screwed up in some way.

Kobe has admitted to having consensual sex with her. It will be interesting to see how all the evidence shakes out in this. I am betting Kobe gets off.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 16, 2003, 11:27 am

The thing that gets me here is that she has most likely been with another guy that same day to have had their DNA in her panties. She definitely should have her mental history and her sexual behavior brought up in this trial. They already know she has issues. The thing that really sticks out as being odd to me is if she is out banging Joe Schmoe every night, why would she turn Kobe Bryant down after she goes up to his room at midnight? She could well have said no...and we will never know, but I would have serious doubts about it.

If and when Kobe is cleared, this girl's face and name should be plastered on every media outlet on the planet for a month. Hopefully no guy in his right mind would ever go near her again.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 16, 2003, 11:29 am

Deward wrote:In this instance, it is relevant. If she is having a different sexual partner every day of the week then she is really screwed up in some way.

Actually, the reason why it's relevant is because it shows doubt that any of her bruises were caused, specifically, by Kobe. If they can't prove those "injuries" were caused by Kobe, it throws out that whole line of prosecution.

However, her flamboyant behavior will play a role if it boils down to a he said/she said case.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 16, 2003, 12:02 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: The thing that really sticks out as being odd to me is if she is out banging Joe Schmoe every night, why would she turn Kobe Bryant down after she goes up to his room at midnight? She could well have said no...and we will never know, but I would have serious doubts about it.

.

maybe she had a change of heart when she saw how big he was

i think the fact that she had underwear with sperm from another guy is completely relevant to the case. Behavior that could have been the cause of her vaginal trauma is absolutley fair game for the defense to go after.

she may very well have been raped, and if so that is wrong, but what is a girl like her doing in a married man's hotel room if it isnt to fuck him.

she went there to fuck him.

cases like this actually set rape prosecution back in my opinion, because the prosecution's client is in the predicament because of bad choices.

that doesnt make the crime right (if it was a crime).

but let's say i went out in a bad neighborhood at 4am and got the shit kicked out of me. well the cops will say "why were you in that neighborhood at 4am dumbass?"

and they are right to say it.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » October 16, 2003, 4:28 pm

Let me see if I can make this more simple..........I am a talker not a writer.

IF the Defense attorney would have questioned the nurse by saying
"Could her injuries be consistent with someone who had recently had consensual sex with in the last twenty four hours" I would have no problem with it. It is a simple question, it does not imply that I think this girl is a slut.
Defense attornys are not suppose to be able to bring up certain things like how many sex partners in your life, weather or not your a virgin, what type of sex you like. There have been cases where they have gotten in big trouble for doing so.
There was a time where they would pull out all stops to get rapist off with these statements. Make the woman out to be a whore and get the rapist off.
If you can't bring up a mans past unless he has been charged and found guility then I say don't bring up the womans sex life or life style.

I agree, this girl had no business going to his room. Her job did not require her to be there. At the same time this married man had no business having sex outside of his marriage.
IF it started out consensual and he grabs her around the throat, maybe not hard but enough to scare her, then he gets forcefull, she gets more frieghtend and tells him no, stop and he keeps on he is raping her.
I am not talking about some little tease, this does happen and it is time people start really understanding what rape is. Women included.
And its time for people to start understanding what a rapist is about. Just because he is successful, rich and can have any woman he wants, or women throw themselves at a man does not mean that man isn't a rapist.

I don't think the woman has to be at the court untill the actuall trial starts, wasn't this just the prelims? And you have to remeber women would handle something like this different from each other. Sounds like your sister is a strong woman.

cases like this actually set rape prosecution back in my opinion, because the prosecution's client is in the predicament because of bad choices.

I agree with that.

Don't misunderstand me its not that I am taking her side, I am taking the side of rape victims across the country that have to go through hell because and there are so many that will never come forward because they can't go through the humiliation tactics of the defense attorny.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 16, 2003, 4:33 pm

If you can't bring up a mans past unless he has been charged and found guility then I say don't bring up the womans sex life or life style.

When that sex life directly impacts the case? Hell yeah it should be brought up. If I was charged for hitting somebody with a car I fully expect the cops to bring up how I was well known for driving recklessly (just an example heh).

She went to be examined with another man's sperm. That has MAJOR impact on the case.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » October 16, 2003, 4:39 pm

Like I said the way the question was asked was wrong. This was asked BEFORE the information about soiled stinky messed up panties were ever brought in to play.
Yes, whos sperm was it, did he have rough sex with her the same day or day before. Unless there is some rough sex or forced sex is going on she isn't going to be brused. Was the bruse fresh looking or was it spread out like a bruise does when the bloos is spreading out in to the tissue around it.
And yeah, if someone comes to this trial and says he raped them unless he was charged and found guilty it wouldn't be let in.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » October 16, 2003, 6:10 pm

I agree with everything above...but I heard she was also bragging about teh cock size at a party a night or 2 later? If this is the case, she's in it for money and is a lying bitch. The very last thing a rape victim thinks about is the girth of the man who raped her.

This may be a rumor, but if it's true.... I declare a mistrial!!11!11

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 16, 2003, 6:26 pm

silvarel i agree with you pretty much completely =)

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » October 16, 2003, 6:29 pm

Mort wrote:I agree with everything above...but I heard she was also bragging about teh cock size at a party a night or 2 later? If this is the case, she's in it for money and is a lying bitch. The very last thing a rape victim thinks about is the girth of the man who raped her.

This may be a rumor, but if it's true.... I declare a mistrial!!11!11

Would only be a mistrial if it went to trial, but we get your point. Sounds soiled to me this whole thing.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 16, 2003, 7:21 pm

kobe could probably see her nipples under her blouse and thus she was just asking for a good raping am i rite?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 17, 2003, 9:27 am

what I find stranger is that the accuser does not have to be in court

Isn't it a right to be able to face your accuser or something like that?

This so reminds me of "The Life of David Gayle" right now.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 17, 2003, 9:31 am

Bringing up the accuser's character is not a crime. That establishes whether or not the person would lie about it in the first place. If she was a lying sack of shit that would lie to her own dad and say that her hair was not really blonde when she was born, when it was, then obviously there are some problems with the way her brain does business.

The above was just used as an example. Establishing the character of both the accused and the accuser is allowed. HOW you do that on the other hand may not be.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 17, 2003, 9:34 am

When that sex life directly impacts the case? Hell yeah it should be brought up. If I was charged for hitting somebody with a car I fully expect the cops to bring up how I was well known for driving recklessly (just an example heh).

Please explain the relevance of this. We are not trying to determine whether or not Kobe and the victim had sex. That is already given. What we are trying to determine is whether the sex was consentutaul. What is the relevance of the victim's sexual history to this? What is relevant about the victim is her propensity for telling the truth, not her propensity for having consentual sex.

Your example is a non-sequiter. If you are involved in a car accident and at issue is whether you were reckless, knowing that in the past you have a habit of driving recklessly would be relevant. But, would knowing that the victim hit by your car had been hit by other reckless drivers in the past be material? Of course not.

Likewise, here, that the victim may have been promiscuous is not at all related to whether she was raped. The victim says she was raped. The only thing we need to know about the victim now is whether or not she is likely to be telling the truth. We don't need to know whether she had sex with other people consentually.

If the victim herself testifies that this sex was clearly rape because she is a religious person saving herself for marriage, then great - as rebuttal evidence (and to show that the victim's testimony on other issues is also unreliable) we have something there. But just the fact that she is a sexually active person makes it no more or less likely that she was raped.

This "evidence" is nothing more than playing to the religious based prejudice that sexually active women are "whores." And "whores" either can't be trusted or are getting what they deserve anyway, right?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 17, 2003, 10:45 am

Aaeamdar wrote:If the victim herself testifies that this sex was clearly rape because she is a religious person saving herself for marriage, then great - as rebuttal evidence (and to show that the victim's testimony on other issues is also unreliable) we have something there. But just the fact that she is a sexually active person makes it no more or less likely that she was raped.

This "evidence" is nothing more than playing to the religious based prejudice that sexually active women are "whores." And "whores" either can't be trusted or are getting what they deserve anyway, right?

Of course they are also trying to establish that if this girl doesn't say no to anyone, then why would she say no to a basketball start that she was excited to meet? If she fucks every guy whose room she goes into, why would we believe her when she went to his room at midnight and engaged in willing misbehavior and then says no? I am all for castration of rapists, but this doesn't really add up.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 17, 2003, 11:26 am

What we are trying to determine is whether the sex was consentutaul. What is the relevance of the victim's sexual history to this?

The sexual history of the past, no. The sexual history AFTER the alleged rape has a bigtime impact on it. Once again, she showed up with somebody elses sperm in her panties when she came to be checked out by a nurse. THAT is relevant. They have to establish wether the marks came from Kobe or not.

The only thing we need to know about the victim now is whether or not she is likely to be telling the truth. We don't need to know whether she had sex with other people consentually.

If a woman was raped I doubt she would have consentual sex right after it. I'm not a woman but I highly doubt so. Therefor, it is extremely relevant that she slept with somebody else AFTER the alleged rape.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 17, 2003, 11:54 am

If a woman was raped I doubt she would have consentual sex right after it.

1. What is the basis for this belief? If it is just your "gut feeling" (as I suspect it is), then that is pretty much yet another good reason why the evidence is more prejudicial than it is probabtive (and fortunately, CO, like most other States, agrees with this and that evidence will not be admitted at trial).

2. Is there a reason you believe the DNA material on the underwear she wore to the hospital was deposited post rape? As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that is or is not the case. Could have been there for days for all we know.

Once again, she showed up with somebody elses sperm in her panties when she came to be checked out by a nurse. THAT is relevant. They have to establish wether the marks came from Kobe or not.

Why is that relevant. The only thing it demonstrates is that she had sex with someone otehr than Kobe. So what? Whether she slept with someone else or not, they need to establish that the "marks" came from Kobe. There is, once again, no relevance, other than to support Kilmoll's (and sadly so many other people) "but she's a whore" theories. She says she was raped. There is alledgely some physical evidence supporting this (what I assume you are refering to my "the marks"). The prosecution will need to establish that those "marks" were caused by Kobe. Why the fact that she had panties with some other person's sperm on them is at all relevant to this, I have no idea.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 17, 2003, 11:57 am

If she fucks every guy whose room she goes into, why would we believe her when she went to his room at midnight and engaged in willing misbehavior and then says no?

Ignoring your hyberbole, you believe then that if someone is highly promiscuous then people have a right to force such a person to have sex? That after you reach some threshhold of consentual sex acts that you loose the right to refuse sex? If not, please explain what other result you see flowing from your proposed rule of evidence.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 17, 2003, 12:10 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
If she fucks every guy whose room she goes into, why would we believe her when she went to his room at midnight and engaged in willing misbehavior and then says no?
Ignoring your hyberbole, you believe then that if someone is highly promiscuous then people have a right to force such a person to have sex? That after you reach some threshhold of consentual sex acts that you loose the right to refuse sex? If not, please explain what other result you see flowing from your proposed rule of evidence.

No, what he's saying is this:

Say you often leave two children in a room with a cookie jar, and tell them no cookies, and you come back and one is asleep and the other has a faceful of cookies and one in each hand.

Later you leave the same two children with the cookie jar, but when you come back the jar is empty and both children are asleep.

Which child do you think ate the cookies?

I don't say it's more than circumstantial evidence, but this propensity of people to want to believe that past behaviour doesn't affect future behaviour are kidding themselves. Oh, and morals fit very well into a rape case since the entire concept of rape is a moral stance, albeit one I wholeheartedly support in a higher order species

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 17, 2003, 12:22 pm

You are making the same mistake Kelshara made in his reckless driver example. To make this more clear, this is not a "who dun it" case, this is a "what was done".

See, in your cookie example you have two people in a room and some missing cookies. You know what was done - the cookies were stolen - you just don't know who did it (though you have it narrowed down to two people). In that case, yes, a child's propensity to steal the cookies in the past is relevant to the question of "which of these two children stole these cookies."

The rape case is completely different. We know everyone involved - Kobe and the victim. We are trying to determine what was done (consentual sex or rape). Whether or not the victim had engaged in consentual sex with others in the past (or even whether she continues to engage in consentual sex) is completely immaterial to the question of whether Kobe raped her. That is - if Kobe is a rapist, there is no reason to think he is more likely to rape a chasted person than a promiscous one. It is Kobe's acts that are in question here, not the victim's.

It is very rare in a sexual assault case that the prior (or future) sexual acts of the victim are ever relevant. What we want to know about the victim is whether she is honest, not whether she is promiscuous. Any other result creates a "right to rape." (or alternatively eliminates any right to refuse sex).

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 17, 2003, 12:34 pm

You leave out if Kobe needed to rape her.. I also find it dubious that people seem to think a thumb print on the jaw proves rape, apparently they're all kindergarten teachers and have never even heard of rough sex.

The case comes down to his word v's hers. So you're going to weigh the morals of a cheating husband v's the morals of a skank.. Kobe's admitted he's a cheating husband, the defense really needs to show that this girl is no pure angel dragged off kicking and screaming or they're hosed.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 17, 2003, 12:42 pm

So you're going to weigh the morals of a cheating husband v's the morals of a skank

Pretty much exactly the reasoning that makes Rape Shield Laws so important. It is sad that so many people still think this way. Basically you have decided that since she is a ho that she got what was comming to her. Thankfully, pretty much all State governments do not hold your opinion. The trial should not be wieghing the morals of either - apart from propensity to tell the truth. (Again, if it does, then essentially once a person has established they are promiscuous then they are open target for being raped.)

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 17, 2003, 12:53 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
So you're going to weigh the morals of a cheating husband v's the morals of a skank
Pretty much exactly the reasoning that makes Rape Shield Laws so important. It is sad that so many people still think this way. Basically you have decided that since she is a ho that she got what was comming to her. Thankfully, pretty much all State governments do not hold your opinion. The trial should not be wieghing the morals of either - apart from propensity to tell the truth. (Again, if it does, then essentially once a person has established they are promiscuous then they are open target for being raped.)

I've rarely seen someone who doesn't hold to the same moral baseline in everything they do...

I haven't "decided she got what was coming to her" but it probably was consentual sex that got out of hand..

As to can you bring shit on yourself? Sure you can. I'm going to leave out the extreme examples because you know what they all are.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » October 17, 2003, 12:55 pm

Aaeamdar I think you're missing a big point some people have made. The reason why it is relevant is because someone else could have caused the marks on her, not Kobe. I think this is just Kobe lawyer's trying to smear her name too, but technically I don't see how this could be inadmissible.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 17, 2003, 1:11 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
So you're going to weigh the morals of a cheating husband v's the morals of a skank
Pretty much exactly the reasoning that makes Rape Shield Laws so important. It is sad that so many people still think this way. Basically you have decided that since she is a ho that she got what was comming to her. Thankfully, pretty much all State governments do not hold your opinion. The trial should not be wieghing the morals of either - apart from propensity to tell the truth. (Again, if it does, then essentially once a person has established they are promiscuous then they are open target for being raped.)

This is a he said/she said case. You have no more idea if she said no or yes to sex than anyone else on this planet, other than Kobe or her. You are automatically assuming he forced her to have sex just because she said so. If you believed everything anyone ever claimed, then you would be in some serious trouble. I know an awful lot of people who make shit up just to have a story to tell...and they don't have the potential to drain someone of millions of dollars if people believe them.

So like any trial of this type, it comes down to do you believe her beyond a shadow of a doubt that she told him no? I can guarantee you that any jury that comes into that room and finds out that she doesn't tell anyone else no is going to clear him in a heartbeat. Unless she provides a videotape of her being forcefully raped, she is not going to win in this one.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 17, 2003, 1:11 pm

- She was allegedly raped on day X.
- On day X+Y (I can't remember if it was the next day but I believe it was) she shows up for a nurse to look at.
- Marks are found, along with sperm not from Kobe and pubic hair from a caucasian. Dunno about you, but I wouldnt' walk around with panties that were spoiled a week before.
- Kobe is examined and no marks are found that there was struggle.
- Neighbors who had window open heard nothing.
- The woman's boss said she seemed fine and not upset at all.

When you look at it all I would say the sperm and pubic hair is damn important. You said yourself you need to prove if she is lying or not, if she had sex after being "raped" I think that goes a long way to prove she was. Hence it is relevant.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » October 17, 2003, 1:47 pm

Somewhere in there it said that she told nurse or detective that she had sex 3 days before. I can't imagine why someone would wear panties that were soiled 3 days earlier, but maybe her washer doesn't do a sufficient job.

I'm thinking if I had sex with two guys and one left me a little sore which one would I have a chance to get some money from? Joe Schmoe or Kobe?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 17, 2003, 2:07 pm

Rape shield laws deny defendants their right to defend themselves vigorously. I can't see how anyone could be so stupid as to think that having sex with someone else shortly before or after the alleged rape would not be relevant to the case. The defense doesn't have to prove that Kobe didn't rape her; they only have to demonstrate that he might not have raped her.

The defense apparently is lining up people around the block that will say that she was bragging about fucking him at a party a couple days later and that everyone at work said she was fine. It's a difficult case to handle when the accused is a basketball star though because they might just be fans. Still, common sense would dictate that if a famous basketball star invited a young and pretty girl up to his hotel room they probably aren't going to be watching movies on the pay per view box. I very highly doubt she went into his room not expecting to get laid. I'm also of the belief that kobe bryant isn't moronic enough to rape a woman and leave physical evidence of it up inside her. I know for a fact that pro atheletes get it drilled into them over and over again by their agents, coaches, managers, and everyone else about the consequences of doing crap like that.

Now the circumstances could be that she went into his room thinking that they are going to play trivial pursuit and eat popcorn, and that kobe bryant, even though he could have a fucking harem of willing sorority girls at his door in 15 minutes by snapping his fingers (yes I know rape isn't always about having sex) ignored the probably constant warnings of everyone around him about raping women decided to stick his dick in her and leave behind enough physical evidence to wreck his life, and that every witness the defense has is lying through their teeth. Those could certainly be the circumstances behind the case, but if I was going to gamble on it I would put my money down on that the girl is lying.