Kobe Bryant charged with felony sexual assault

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/18/kobe.bryant/index.html)

Bryant was charged with one count of sexual assault, a class three felony. If convicted, Bryant could serve four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, Hurlbert said.

Bryant's attorney, Pamela Mackey, planned to hold a news briefing in Los Angeles, California, after Hurlbert's news conference, her office said. It is not known if Bryant will attend.

A 19-year-old woman alleges she was a victim of sexual misconduct by Bryant on June 30 at the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera in Edwards, just west of the Vail ski resort. A hotel employee, the woman filed a police complaint the following day.
Say it ain't so Kobe.

I don't know what to think of this. Kobe has always seemed rather smug and cocky but I never thought of him as a criminal dirtbag. Kobe is now claiming that he had consensual sex with the woman.

Details on the alleged victim are scant and the prosecutors has not released details on the charges. They must have have some kind of decent evidence, though, or they wouldn't be moving forward against such a high profile figure.

I'm at a loss for what to make of this...any opinions anyone? Is it possible that he's guilty?

[astorian]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/18/kobe.bryant/index.html)


Say it ain't so Kobe.

I don't know what to think of this. Kobe has always seemed rather smug and cocky but I never thought of him as a criminal dirtbag. Kobe is now claiming that he had consensual sex with the woman.

Details on the alleged victim are scant and the prosecutors has not released details on the charges. They must have have some kind of decent evidence, though, or they wouldn't be moving forward against such a high profile figure.

I'm at a loss for what to make of this...any opinions anyone? Is it possible that he's guilty?

It's ENTIRELY possible he's guilty... but whether he can be convicted is another matter. If it comes down to "he said/she said," as it's likely to, he probably walks.

I don't know Kobe OR his alleged victim, so I have no idea which of them is telling the truth.

But somehow, I see this case ending in a large cash settlement (one that requires the victim to clam up), not in jail time for Kobe.

[Alzarian]

Is this sort of criminal case something that could be settled out of court? In any event, should Kobe be innocent, it would be a very damaging thing to try to pay his way out of it, as the spectre of him paying off the accuser would hang over him forever. If he goes to trial and succeeds in defending himself, he can win back his reputation.

For that matter, if the accuser isn't able to prove the case, would her name become public knowledge at that point? Could Kobe sue her for malice, thus making her the defendant and thus her name would be public record. Right?

[capacitor]

I believe there are unfortunately bruises involved, and after the Dahmer case, that cannot be ignored.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/18/kobe.bryant/index.html)


Say it ain't so Kobe.

I don't know what to think of this. Kobe has always seemed rather smug and cocky but I never thought of him as a criminal dirtbag. Kobe is now claiming that he had consensual sex with the woman.


Ehh. Last week, when asked about it, he seemed to be indicating that he didn't even have sex with the woman..essentially saying to reporters "you guys know what I'm like..i would never do anything like this" (And it didn't appear he was just talking about rape..but about extramarital sex)

This has ick written all over it. I suspect we will know everything about the woman in question in no short order.

[aahala]

The non-denial denial goes like this. Maybe the woman will recant her allegation, maybe the DNA test will get fouled up or maybe I won't be charged. In which case, I can leave the impression nothing at all happened.

The moment the DNA test comes back positive or I get charged, then I will admit the sex and bring my wife and God into it.

[GOM]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic


Say it ain't so Kobe.



Amen.

I want to believe Kobe. Among professional athletes he strikes me as one of the most decent.

[Cat Fight]

Originally posted by beagledave
I suspect we will know everything about the woman in question in no short order.

Me, too. Just saw a news item that revealed that she auditioned for American Idol, so I'm sure some footage of her will be dredged up.

[Mines Mystique]

I happen to know this girl. I haven't talked to her or seen her since this happened, but from what I knew of her in high school, she is not the type to make something like this up.

[HubZilla]

He'll be fine. Juries rarely convict popular athletes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant.

[Bandanaman]

Kobe=lotsa money=Johnny Cochran=not guilty.

Notice I didn't say "innocent"

[SnoopyFan]

So is Vanessa bright enough to throw his clothes on the lawn and take him for everything in a divorce, or is she gonna "stand by her man?"

[Ninas grandpa]

And just who is Kobe Bryant? Never heard of him.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ninas Grandpa,
If you're being serious, Kobe Bryant is a superstar shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers. He's one of the top two or three players in the league. He's still very young and many people believe that he's a Michael Jordan caliber talent. He has always had a clean cut image as well.

[mhendo]

Gee, DtC, your OP surprises me somewhat. For someone who's normally cynical enough not to be surprised by any weird or unpleasant revelation, your "Is it possible that he's guilty" question is rather out of character. Surely someone as savvy about media maipulation and the creation of public images as you are shouldn't be surprised by this.Originally posted by GOM
Amen.

I want to believe Kobe. Among professional athletes he strikes me as one of the most decent. But that's just the point. Why does he "strike" you that way? Have you met him? So he's a great player, seems amiable enough in press conferences, and appears in a bunch of commercials. So what?

Instead of hoping that he lives up to his carefully-crafted public persona, it would be more logical to revise your impression of him in light of this new evidence. Because even if he didn't rape this woman, he did commit adultery. I know this makes him only one of millions of men and women who do it, but this fact doesn't make it particularly admirable.

[leander]

Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever know whether Kobe is innocent or not. In cases like these (remember O.J.?) the public circus is such that "the truth" never really comes out, and we are all left simply to speculate on what really happened.

He said/She said rape cases are difficult enough; can you imagine finding an impartial jury anywhere who wasn't acutely aware of the media attention, especially in this day and age of reality TV madness?

Sadly, regardless of what really happened, some will crucify Kobe and others will defend him, neither really knowing the truth.

[japatlgt]

Married, well-heeled, pro athletes having girlfriends and extra-marital sex lives is not all that uncommon. The wives and teammates accept it as part of their 'needs.' See it all the time. They're like 'sugar daddies' to the girls and basically put them up in an apartment and pay their bills. Heck, I even knew one name athlete who had the wife and the girlfriend living in the same house. To put it crassly, even the good guys do it. He's gotten hung up in this business and is in damage control mode. Whether he actually commited a crime remains to be seen but he's an idiot. It's a shame because he's ruining his and his family's credibilty. Not to mention what harm has been caused to the young lady involved. What does he mean by consensual anyway? Didn't he have a say in the matter? Couldn't he have prevented it? Think about it.

[Ninas grandpa]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Ninas Grandpa,
If you're being serious, Kobe Bryant is a superstar shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers. He's one of the top two or three players in the league. He's still very young and many people believe that he's a Michael Jordan caliber talent. He has always had a clean cut image as well.
Oh Basketball, No wonder I've never heard of him. (It's a girl's game over here).

[The Ryan]

japatlgt, what do you think the word "consensual" means? I'm curious.

[eman77]

I don't think anyone could have an opinion about this case at all yet due the very limited evidence we've been presented. I'm strictly in the "I have no idea" group, basically because I can't see why Kobe would sexually assault a woman. I'm not surprised he commited adultery but that he went out of his way to sexually assault a woman when he could just go out and call up a teammate, go to some party and get laid with whatever decent looking slut he finds. She could just as well be lying as what I presented may just be the defense of Kobe Bryant.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by eman77
I don't think anyone could have an opinion about this case at all yet due the very limited evidence we've been presented. I'm strictly in the "I have no idea" group, basically because I can't see why Kobe would sexually assault a woman. I'm not surprised he commited adultery but that he went out of his way to sexually assault a woman when he could just go out and call up a teammate, go to some party and get laid with whatever decent looking slut he finds. She could just as well be lying as what I presented may just be the defense of Kobe Bryant. I see. I think.

You claim that no-one can have an opinion, and that you are in the "I have no idea" group, yet you are happy to assert what is effectively a defence of Bryant without having any evidence whatsoever.

IANAL, but if i were on a jury the argument "He could have any slut he wanted" wouldn't be much of a defence against a sexual assault charge. That ridiculous defence could just as easily be rebutted by arguing, "Well, maybe this woman said no, and he just couldn't believe that any woman would say no to him."

Neither constitutes real evidence.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Some friends of the alleged victim said in an interview on Fox News yesterday that she had vaginal tearing and torn clothes. Very sobering evidence if true.

[scotandrsn]

Here's all I've heard:

Kobe (who a TV recently reported in all seriousness IS in fact named after the Japanese beef), who is worth several million dollars, at the very least took advantage of his celebrity by having sex with this woman, and one DA is convinced that he forced her to have sex with him.

The woman (who, according to one of her camera-hungry self-described friends "doesn't need to do something like this to get famous, she could get famous on her own, she's so talented") has tried to get on American Idol, thereby proving that she wants a shot at fame badly enough to submit herself to public scrutiny and potential ridicule.

Did he rape her, callously assuming his status as a sports star would protect him, or is she using the fact that they had sex to try be the next person to become famous by means of Darva Conger's successful "I want to be left alone, please keep filming me saying that" ploy.

I'd say either possibility is equally possible, given the evidence so far made public.

[Dignan]

Report: Incident occurred months before alleged assault (http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0720/1583145.html)

From ESPN.com:

The Colorado woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault overdosed on pills and was rushed to a hospital two months before the alleged incident with Bryant, one of her close friends told the Orange County Register.

...

"This is powerful evidence and the answer to the defense's prayers," Robert Pugsley, a criminal law professor at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles, said. Pugsley added that this kind of evidence, if exploited by the defense, could be enough to shut down the case before it reaches trial.



I've never been a fan of Kobe, but as others have said we won't know what really happened. It's a bad situation for everyone involved regardless of the outcome and who is telling the truth.

[schplebordnik]

"Powerful evidence"? How does the fact that she maybe ODed on drugs damage her credibility?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

A previous suicide attempt is "powerful evidence" of what, exactly? A woman who has attempted suicide can't be raped? This suicide story is an irrelevant smear as far I'm concerned.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Ninas grandpa
Oh Basketball, No wonder I've never heard of him. (It's a girl's game over here). I'll bite if nobody else will. Where are you?

[Verminous]

Main thing is, why would she go to his room after-hours unless she wanted to do it with the Kobester? It's not as if he dragged her up there. Add this to the fact that she has abused meds in the past, seems to be an avid fame-seeker (american idol), and her character is seriously in doubt.

Not to say that it isn't possible that Bryant raped her, but it's iffy. He is a very, very wealthy man, and it's not uncommon for women to do something like this. Civil suit looming regardless of the outcome of the trial...

If she's lying, I really hope Kobe sues. Make her think twice about being a gold-digger...

[mhendo]

Originally posted by Verminous
Main thing is, why would she go to his room after-hours unless she wanted to do it with the Kobester? It's not as if he dragged her up there. So any woman who ends up in your room/house/apartment is obliged to have sex with you?

Nice attitude.

[Sterra]

If the woman really was a gold digger you would think that she would just blackmail Kobe. After all it at the very least was adultery.

[Verminous]

Originally posted by mhendo
So any woman who ends up in your room/house/apartment is obliged to have sex with you?

Nice attitude.

Hotel room?

[margin]

Verminous, she worked as the concierge at the hotel where he was staying. Guests in other rooms reported hearing screams.

And yeah, that's a nice attitude. Makes you wonder why rape is so under-reported.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by Verminous
Hotel room? Who gives a fuck what sort of room. Stepping into a hotel room with a man does notmean that she's obliged to fuck him.

She might even have gone there intending to fuck him, and then changed her mind when they arrived. Does she deserve to be raped for this?

I'm not saying this is what happened, as i don't know. But your argument that simply stepping into a hotel room with a guy means that a woman must somehow be asking for it is moronic.

[Verminous]

Not saying she was asking for it, i'm saying that she had no business going into his room after-hours unless she had some motives. Going to get his autograph? Naw, she was seen talking to him earlier in the day. What else? She wants to be friends?

It's different with a celebrity. One just has to notice the groupies waiting by the Laker bus to know this.


If she changed her mind, then yes, Kobe had no right. Never said otherwise.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

She worked at the hotel. She may have just wanted to meet him and get his autograph. She probably couldn't have asked for his autograph while she was working so she went at the end of her shift.

Her reputation is very good in that town (and what "character" issues are you alluding to, Verminous?).

If the reports are true, there was vaginal tearing, bruises, torn clothing and reports of screams from other guests. Everyone who knows this girl has unanimously said that she is absolutely not a groupie or anyone who would invent a story like this.

Of course, everybody that knows Kobe says that he would never assault a woman...but they also thought he'd never commit adultery.

I just don't think we know enough about the evidence yet to make an informed judgement. Kobe may be innocent but I'm not ready to start sliming the alleged victim just yet.

Is it possible that in Bryant's inflated ego it never occurred to him that a woman might really not want to have sex with him? That he didn't even realize that she wasn't consenting?

[YourOldBuddy]

Rape cases are difficult to proove. My best friends brother was accused of rape by a girl half his age and who he hardly knew. He wasnt in the country at the time it was supposed to have happened :smack: It sort of changed my perspective. To this day ppl around here state that hes guilty :mad: He moved away poor bugger.

I think Kobe should be found innocent until prooven guilty. I see no proof.

[SnoopyFan]

Are concierges ever required to say, take extra towels to a guest's room?

(I've never seen a concierge before so I have no idea what they do.)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by YourOldBuddy
Rape cases are difficult to proove. My best friends brother was accused of rape by a girl half his age and who he hardly knew. He wasnt in the country at the time it was supposed to have happened :smack: It sort of changed my perspective. To this day ppl around here state that hes guilty :mad: He moved away poor bugger.

I think Kobe should be found innocent until prooven guilty. I see no proof.
I agree. My position is that we should not trash either party at this point until we know what the evidence is.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by SnoopyFan
So is Vanessa bright enough to throw his clothes on the lawn and take him for everything in a divorce, or is she gonna "stand by her man?"

The press conference attended by Kobe and his wife answered this question... she's standing by him, or that's at least what's being presented on the surface.

A local radio talk-show host is dead-convinced that her expression of support for Bryant is all a sham, managed by his "handlers." While this is certainly a possibility, and worth keeping in mind, I don't think there's any reason to assume that it is so.

It's very possible, to my mind, that his wife genuinely loves him and wants to give him support. She may believe that he is wrongly accused, and she's trying to help him by being there for him. Were I in a similar situation (and thank goodness I'm not), I would hope that my wife would stand by me at least until there was proof that I had done what I was accused of. In fact, I know she would -- I was once accused of stealing, and she believed that I had not done it. She still does (and I didn't).

This radio host seemed to think it a completely alien concept that Bryant's wife would genuinely want to support her husband in a difficult time. Apparently, according to him, she should have hid herself away and been suspicious and doubtful from the get-go, before anything is even proven against him.

And we wonder why he's not married. :rolleyes:

[Verminous]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
She worked at the hotel. She may have just wanted to meet him and get his autograph. She probably couldn't have asked for his autograph while she was working so she went at the end of her shift.

Don't know all the details of their earlier meeting as of now, so I can't really say if she could/couldn't have procured an autograph then.... it would seem like the common thing to do in asking for the autograph the 1st time you run into a celebrity, would it not?


Her reputation is very good in that town (and what "character" issues are you alluding to, Verminous?).

Accuser ODed...basket case? (http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0720/1583145.html)

Tried out for American Idol....seeks fame? (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/2326266/detail.html)



If the reports are true, there was vaginal tearing, bruises, torn clothing and reports of screams from other guests. Everyone who knows this girl has unanimously said that she is absolutely not a groupie or anyone who would invent a story like this.

Of course, everybody that knows Kobe says that he would never assault a woman...but they also thought he'd never commit adultery.

I just don't think we know enough about the evidence yet to make an informed judgement. Kobe may be innocent but I'm not ready to start sliming the alleged victim just yet.

Is it possible that in Bryant's inflated ego it never occurred to him that a woman might really not want to have sex with him? That he didn't even realize that she wasn't consenting?

Her friends also failed to mention her overdosing. Accident? Ha.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Verminous
Don't know all the details of their earlier meeting as of now, so I can't really say if she could/couldn't have procured an autograph then.... it would seem like the common thing to do in asking for the autograph the 1st time you run into a celebrity, would it not?
Not necessarily. In many jobs where employees come into contact with celebrities they are not allowed to ask for autographs while they are working. The alleged victim may have had to wait until after her shift before she was allowed to ask for an autograph. Such a policy would not be at all uncommon.



Accuser ODed...basket case? (http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0720/1583145.html)

Tried out for American Idol....seeks fame? (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/2326266/detail.html)




Her friends also failed to mention her overdosing. Accident? Ha. [/B][/QUOTE]
She auditioned for American Idol and she may have attempted suicide. How is either one of those things a "character" issue?

How does either one of those things have fuck-all to do with whether she was assaulted or not?

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
...She auditioned for American Idol and she may have attempted suicide. How is either one of those things a "character" issue?

How does either one of those things have fuck-all to do with whether she was assaulted or not?

I think the presumption is that she was not assulted, and showing that she is some loony fame-seeker speaks to her character, and possible willingness to do whatever to become 'famous'.

Or not. Unless Kobe is caught on tape, eating his neighbors baby, does anyone think he will spend day one in prison?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Neither one of those things shows that she is either loony nor a fame seeker. Even if she were those things. looney fame seekers can still be raped.

[The Ryan]

DtC
Some friends of the alleged victim said in an interview on Fox News yesterday that she had vaginal tearing and torn clothes.
Sorry if this seems like a nitpick, but shouldn't you have said that the friends said that the alleged victim said that there was vaginal tearing? Unless the friends actually verified this personally.

schplebordnik
"Powerful evidence"? How does the fact that she maybe ODed on drugs damage her credibility?
Because our culture stigmatizes drug use. Notice that he didn't say that this shows that she was not raped, only that it will make it harder to press charges.

[cowgirl]

My goodness. The attitude in this thread towards alleged rape victims is terrifying and hugely offensive. Character assaults on women who claim to be raped as a defense of the accused are something that I was hoping we could leave behind in the twentieth century. Apparently this isn't the case.

DtC has repeatedly pointed out that even loony attention-seekers can be raped.

Are you saying that no, loony attention-seekers (especially ones who go into men's hotel rooms) cannot be raped? Or just that American juries believe that to be so?

Either way, I am saddened and sickened. G*d, I hope you never have a loved one who could, in any way, be percieved to be a loony attention-seeker.

[rjung]

Originally posted by cowgirl
My goodness. The attitude in this thread towards alleged rape victims is terrifying and hugely offensive. Character assaults on women who claim to be raped as a defense of the accused are something that I was hoping we could leave behind in the twentieth century. Apparently this isn't the case.
Am I the only one getting flashbacks of Anita Hill here?

Not to say that Kobe is as bad as Clarence Thomas, but the predisposition of some folks to "blame the victim" is rather disturbing.

[Ninas grandpa]

Originally posted by Beagle
I'll bite if nobody else will. Where are you?

UK. Sorry, I was bored.

[astorian]

Originally posted by rjung
Am I the only one getting flashbacks of Anita Hill here?

Not to say that Kobe is as bad as Clarence Thomas, but the predisposition of some folks to "blame the victim" is rather disturbing.

Not as bad? If Anita Hill told the truth, Clarence Thomas was guilty of nothing more than trash talk. If Kobe's accuser is telling the truth, Kobe is guilty of rape.

Or is TALKING about sex really worse than rape, in your eyes?

[Grim_Beaker]

It's not clear at this point what the facts are. IMHO It's premature at this point to say that Kobe raped her *OR* that she's lying. Not enough evidence is present to really say what occurred. Those who are taking positions on such flimsy info as "She tried out for American Idol" or "He's a wealthy man who can get sluts whenever he wants" are saying more about themselves IMO than about the merits of their positions.

[rjung]

Originally posted by astorian
Not as bad? If Anita Hill told the truth, Clarence Thomas was guilty of nothing more than trash talk. If Kobe's accuser is telling the truth, Kobe is guilty of rape.

Or is TALKING about sex really worse than rape, in your eyes?
No, my intent was that Kobe Bryant has not been found guilty yet, so I wasn't comfortable saying he's worse than Clarence Thomas, professional sexual harrasser. I will revise my opinions of Mr. Bryant once the dust settles and the verdict is in, not before.

[The Ryan]

The fact that she filed the charges the next day, rather than waiting for just the right moment when her charges could most severely damage Bryant's career does lend her additional credibility in my mind.

[The Ryan]

The fact that she filed the charges the next day, rather than waiting for just the right moment when her charges could most severely damage Bryant's career, does lend her additional credibility in my mind.

[Nightime]

My goodness. The attitude in this thread towards alleged rape victims is terrifying and hugely offensive. Character assaults on women who claim to be raped as a defense of the accused are something that I was hoping we could leave behind in the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, they are something that may never be left behind.

The reason is that rape cases very often turn into he said/she said ordeals. The evidence for rape can look exactly like evidence that they just had sex, in many cases.

If personal character is the most important thing in the case, and the accused is already being attacked, then it seems the only option for the accused is to attack the character of the accuser.

While I am appalled at the attacks on the character of a woman who claims to be raped, I must admit that if I were ever falsely accused of rape I might attack the character of the person accusing me.

Would you do any different if you were falsely accused?

[holmes]

Originally posted by Nightime
Unfortunately, they are something that may never be left behind.

The reason is that rape cases very often turn into he said/she said ordeals. The evidence for rape can look exactly like evidence that they just had sex, in many cases.

If personal character is the most important thing in the case, and the accused is already being attacked, then it seems the only option for the accused is to attack the character of the accuser.

While I am appalled at the attacks on the character of a woman who claims to be raped, I must admit that if I were ever falsely accused of rape I might attack the character of the person accusing me.

Would you do any different if you were falsely accused?

There's just as much rush to judgement against Kobe in this thread. The victim attempted suicide, yet we're supposed to ignore that? NO, of course that doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but it does and should be used to weigh her credibilty. This case like many "date" rape cases always comes down to a matter of credibility...being self-destructive doesn't help her.

Let me ask you this, if a woman came be a nanny for your children and you found out, during the interview that she attempted suicide; would you let her? Would that past incident, prevent her from being a great nanny today? I guess not, but I wouldn't have her. I am I being unfair or realistic?

Granted Kobe's credibility isn't that great either...a man who cheats on his recently pregant wife, is pretty low in my opinion. He's PROVEN that he's a lair.

So I think that maybe we ought to wait and see how this shapes up.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

holmes, please explain how a suicide attempt has anything to do with credibility or honesty. Do you think that someone who has attempted suicide can't be raped?

What about the fact that Kobe cheats on his wife? Doesn't that undercut his own credibility? Adultery is after all an act of dishonesty unlike a suicide attempt.

[holmes]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
holmes, please explain how a suicide attempt has anything to do with credibility or honesty. Do you think that someone who has attempted suicide can't be raped?

What about the fact that Kobe cheats on his wife? Doesn't that undercut his own credibility? Adultery is after all an act of dishonesty unlike a suicide attempt.

Re-read my post, but maybe I wasn't clear....

Yes anyone who attemptes suicide has a mental problem. Are we now to believe that suicide is the act of a rational person? Do you KNOW, what her state of mind was when she met Kobe? Was she under medication? Is she bi-polar? I don't know. If it's proven she was under some medication or missed her meds, doesn't that go to credibility? Did she drink? What effect does booze have with any medication she MAY be on?

Even so, she still may have been raped. I'm not saying she wasn't. One more time, I am not saying she wasn't raped.

She may be fine, and Kobe may have raped her. I'm not saying he didn't. However I have a problem, with this "protect the victim at all costs", when we know she has a had a problem, one strong enough to cause her to try to end her life.

And ONCE again, no that doesn't mean she wasn't raped and no that doesn't mean isn't being truthful. However it smacks of dishonestly to IGNORE that she has a 'history' of mental illness...unless you don't think suicide is a mental illness...even temporary.

And yes AGAIN, Kobe's honesty isn't great either and while he's a proven liar, but there's a reason for his lies. He didn't want to get caught. That doesn't mean he lied because he raped her.

i say again, we need a lot more information.

[Boo]

on Dan Patrick's radio show yesterday, they said that there is a report that the girl had previously been with Kobe before that night. ESPN has a policy of getting two sources and since they only had one, they didn't "report" it...although they did anyways just by mentioning it. If true, the defense attorney is going to make her look like a slut with a suicide problem on the stand which will affect her credibility....if they let the evidence in.

This case is starting to remind me of that Kennedy rape case years ago...I wonder if this girl will have selective memory too.

No one likes to admit it, but race will be a factor here. The county in which the girl lives is 85% white with blacks making up less than one percent per a sports radio show here this morning.

[cowgirl]

See, the problem with arguments that assault the character of the alleged victim is that they assume what DtC keeps yelling to the hills: that people with characteristic X can't be raped.

For instance, using this argument, if you could find someone that attempted suicide (or has whatever characteristic X is) you could go and fuck her, with impunity, since she can't be raped and no jury would convict you. Basically denying such people the right to say "no" to sex. I don't believe that any woman should be denied this right, no matter how "crazy" or "attention-seeking" she is, or if she's promiscious, or had sex with him already, or if she thought she might want to but changed her mind, or whatever.

I firmly believe that these kinds of character traits should not be involved in the trial. Look at the evidence as it is, presume the man innocent until proven guilty, but for goodness sake, don't put the woman's previous history on trial. It has nothing to do with the case at hand, and is permitted only because of the assumption that some kinds of women can't be raped, or don't have the right to say no.

Please, honestly consider what your thoughts would be if someone you cared about had a mental illness, and was raped. Would you disbelieve her because of her mental illness? Would you think that the illness justified the rape?

It's easy for us to sit here and look "objectively" at the situation and conclude that she is nothing more than a loony attention-seeker and therefore must be lying. But think about the implications this has for women in general.

It's a very hard question because you do need to balance with the rights of the accused, and sometimes men are falsely accused of rape. I don't know the statistics (maybe one of you does?) but I am fairly certain that the frequency of women falsely alleging rape, and putting themselves under the scrutiny and criticism that will result (from people such as yourselves, and the media, and so on) is much much smaller than many would have us believe.

Boo - you say race will be a factor - what race is the accuser?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes anyone who attemptes suicide has a mental problem
Cite?

[Boo]

she is white

[holmes]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Cite?

Here (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Suicide_and_mental_illness_explained?OpenDocument) Sucide and mental illness in young people...Now what?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by holmes
Here (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Suicide_and_mental_illness_explained?OpenDocument) Sucide and mental illness in young people...Now what?
All it says is that some people who attempt suicide are depressed. SFW? It doesn't say that all people who attempt suicide are mentally ill as you asserted.

Also, there is no correlation between depression and personal character.

[annaplurabelle]

I don't think your cite makes your point. It only indicates the percentage of people diagnosed with mental illness who commit suicide (6%), or attempt suicide (30 times for every successful suicide?).

An impulsive, isolated suicide attempt during an exogenous depression, related to a culmination of major life stresses (leaving home for school, losing boyfriend, death of a loved one, etc.), is not the same diagnosis as endogenous or chronic depression, bipolar disorder, etc.

The testimony of the consulted psychs from both sides will give us more info.

[holmes]

Originally posted by cowgirl
See, the problem with arguments that assault the character of the alleged victim is that they assume what DtC keeps yelling to the hills: that people with characteristic X can't be raped.

For instance, using this argument, if you could find someone that attempted suicide (or has whatever characteristic X is) you could go and fuck her, with impunity, since she can't be raped and no jury would convict you. Basically denying such people the right to say "no" to sex. I don't believe that any woman should be denied this right, no matter how "crazy" or "attention-seeking" she is, or if she's promiscious, or had sex with him already, or if she thought she might want to but changed her mind, or whatever.

I firmly believe that these kinds of character traits should not be involved in the trial. Look at the evidence as it is, presume the man innocent until proven guilty, but for goodness sake, don't put the woman's previous history on trial. It has nothing to do with the case at hand, and is permitted only because of the assumption that some kinds of women can't be raped, or don't have the right to say no.

Please, honestly consider what your thoughts would be if someone you cared about had a mental illness, and was raped. Would you disbelieve her because of her mental illness? Would you think that the illness justified the rape?

It's easy for us to sit here and look "objectively" at the situation and conclude that she is nothing more than a loony attention-seeker and therefore must be lying. But think about the implications this has for women in general.

It's a very hard question because you do need to balance with the rights of the accused, and sometimes men are falsely accused of rape. I don't know the statistics (maybe one of you does?) but I am fairly certain that the frequency of women falsely alleging rape, and putting themselves under the scrutiny and criticism that will result (from people such as yourselves, and the media, and so on) is much much smaller than many would have us believe.

Boo - you say race will be a factor - what race is the accuser?

There is no real physical evidence in cases like this, save they had sex. Unless he drugged her or beat the crap out of her, it's a matter of perceptions.

Why don't you and the others imagine your son being accused of a rape he swears he didn't do and the victim has a history of mental illness. Are you telling me you WOULDN'T tell the defense attorney to bring that up in court? You would allow your son to go to prison on the word of a person with a history of a least one attempted suicide?

Your heart may bleed that much but not mine.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have said several times, that mental illness doesn't prevent women from being honest or a victims of crime. But hear I am again being accused of saying that.

All that people seem to want is this PC world of "fairness", well it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not about to be a pollyanna and ignore the very real fact that she MAY be unstable. This has nothing to do with women in general and yes quite often women inmates, Really mentally ill women, hookers and even wives are raped and are ignored because of their station in life and it sucks.

In such cases, hopefully the evidence will support their claims. However call me insensitive, but I'm not going to take the word of a crack hooker over that of an honest working stiff, who until that moment has lead a perfect life.

Unless the evidence says differently. What REAL evidence is there that Kobe forced this girl? If there is no evidence, then what? Who do you believe and why?

Why do you automatically assume that she's telling the truth? Because the of the rarity of false accusations? You see I'm not assuming anything, I think they BOTH have serious credibility issues...but people seem to only have a problem with me mentioning the girl having them.

[annaplurabelle]

...but I'm not going to take the word of a crack hooker over that of an honest working stiff...

Interesting choice, since neither applies in this situation. Crack hooker? Honest?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no real physical evidence in cases like this, save they had sex. Unless he drugged her or beat the crap out of her, it's a matter of perceptions.
Actually there are reports of vaginal tearing, torn clothes, and screams being heard from Kobe's room by other hotel guests.

There have NOT been any reports that the accuser had a "history of mental illness." A suicide attempt doesn't qualify.
Why do you automatically assume that she's telling the truth? Because the of the rarity of false accusations? You see I'm not assuming anything, I think they BOTH have serious credibility issues...but people seem to only have a problem with me mentioning the girl having them.
I have yet to see a credibility issue on the part of the accuser and I haven't assumed that she's telling the truth. I have said repeatedly that I don't know what happened and that we should refrain from smearing either party until we know the evidence.

I also think that the accuser's prior mental history is remotely relevant. I doubt it will even be admitted at trial. The defense is just trying to influence a jury pool with irrelevant garbage before they get selected.

I notice that the prosecution has thus far refrained from doing the same thing to Kobe even though they could. Does anyone seriously believe that this was the first time Kobe ever cheated on his wife?

[holmes]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Actually there are reports of vaginal tearing, torn clothes, and screams being heard from Kobe's room by other hotel guests.

There have NOT been any reports that the accuser had a "history of mental illness." A suicide attempt doesn't qualify.

I have yet to see a credibility issue on the part of the accuser and I haven't assumed that she's telling the truth. I have said repeatedly that I don't know what happened and that we should refrain from smearing either party until we know the evidence.

I also think that the accuser's prior mental history is remotely relevant. I doubt it will even be admitted at trial. The defense is just trying to influence a jury pool with irrelevant garbage before they get selected.

I notice that the prosecution has thus far refrained from doing the same thing to Kobe even though they could. Does anyone seriously believe that this was the first time Kobe ever cheated on his wife?

Please, do you really think there won't be a "Hard Copy" or "National Enquirer" with the women of Kobe?

Until it's entered as evidence, those reports are no more evidence than the girl's mental history...not to beat a dead horse...but you don't know why she tried to commit suicide and in the cite you called me on, a certain percentage of suicide attempts were done by mentally ill people...she may be one.

And yes we should wait.

[holmes]

Originally posted by annaplurabelle
...but I'm not going to take the word of a crack hooker over that of an honest working stiff...

Interesting choice, since neither applies in this situation. Crack hooker? Honest?

Way to pull things out of context...the context being how does one chose when the evidence is a matter of personal character...which does apply to this situation.

Of course i noticed you didn't answer whether or not, you would encourage the defense to bring up a victims pass, if you and yours were on the line.

[annaplurabelle]

Quote:
It's a very hard question because you do need to balance with the rights of the accused, and sometimes men are falsely accused of rape. I don't know the statistics (maybe one of you does?) but I am fairly certain that the frequency of women falsely alleging rape, and putting themselves under the scrutiny and criticism that will result (from people such as yourselves, and the media, and so on) is much much smaller than many would have us believe.

Percentage of false rape accusations, according to Cynthia Stone, media coordinator for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault:

2.5%. No more than for most felonies.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2096156,00.html

BTW, A "Court of Public Opinion" covering this case will be featured on NBC's Dateline, tonight 10pm EDT.

[hilltopper]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Actually there are reports of vaginal tearing, torn clothes, and screams being heard from Kobe's room by other hotel guests.



Do you have a cite?

I also think that the accuser's prior mental history is remotely relevant. I doubt it will even be admitted at trial. The defense is just trying to influence a jury pool with irrelevant garbage before they get selected.

What makes you think the defence planted this?

[cowgirl]

There is no real physical evidence in cases like this, save they had sex. Unless he drugged her or beat the crap out of her, it's a matter of perceptions.

Or if her clothing was torn, or if witnesses heard screams, or if she shows physical signs of struggle.

Why don't you and the others imagine your son being accused of a rape he swears he didn't do and the victim has a history of mental illness. Are you telling me you WOULDN'T tell the defense attorney to bring that up in court?

Yep, that's what I'm telling you.

You would allow your son to go to prison on the word of a person with a history of a least one attempted suicide?

I believe I said above that other evidence should be used. He said/she said is very hard to decide, yes, but in cases like this there is other evidence.

In such cases, hopefully the evidence will support their claims. However call me insensitive, but I'm not going to take the word of a crack hooker over that of an honest working stiff, who until that moment has lead a perfect life.

And what in the world does that have to do with the case at hand?

[annaplurabelle]

Originally posted by holmes
Way to pull things out of context...the context being how does one chose when the evidence is a matter of personal character...which does apply to this situation.

Of course i noticed you didn't answer whether or not, you would encourage the defense to bring up a victims pass, if you and yours were on the line.

Sorry, I'm not trying to distort your meaning or context. But if the context is personal character, shouldn't the example apply to the case at hand? Your example showed bias, even if unintentional.

I wouldn't need to encourage the defense to bring up the victim's past. It's standard procedure in cases like this - a way of trying to overcome the Rape Shield Law, which protects the accuser's past history from admission, unless a pattern of unstable behaviour can be shown.

[holmes]

Originally posted by cowgirl
Or if her clothing was torn, or if witnesses heard screams, or if she shows physical signs of struggle.

What if that evidence can be explained away? We were so hot for each other we tore off each other's clothes. The witnesses can't be sure where the screams came from and the physical signs of struggle are inconclusive. This is a difficult case to try.


Originally posted by cowgirl
And what in the world does that have to do with the case at hand?

It has to do with this:
cowgirlI firmly believe that these kinds of character traits should not be involved in the trial. Look at the evidence as it is, presume the man innocent until proven guilty, but for goodness sake, don't put the woman's previous history on trial. It has nothing to do with the case at hand, and is permitted only because of the assumption that some kinds of women can't be raped, or don't have the right to say no.


i was simply pointing out in an extreme case, that a person's history must be consider in this type of case...if the evidence is weak. How do you judge?

[holmes]

Originally posted by annaplurabelle
Sorry, I'm not trying to distort your meaning or context. But if the context is personal character, shouldn't the example apply to the case at hand? Your example showed bias, even if unintentional.

I wouldn't need to encourage the defense to bring up the victim's past. It's standard procedure in cases like this - a way of trying to overcome the Rape Shield Law, which protects the accuser's past history from admission, unless a pattern of unstable behaviour can be shown.

No it didn't as i was responding to cowgirl[b/]:
Originally posted by cowgirl
[B"I firmly believe that these kinds of character traits should not be involved in the trial. Look at the evidence as it is, presume the man innocent until proven guilty, but for goodness sake, don't put the woman's previous history on trial. It has nothing to do with the case at hand, and is permitted only because of the assumption that some kinds of women can't be raped, or don't have the right to say no."

I was simply using the extreme example of a woman who society considers 'unrapeble' and the reasons why in this type of case, history must be used...if there is no conclusive physical evidence either way. Who do you believe?

I'm sorry but I see bias on the other side too, it seems that the woman is to be believed not matter what...because "why would she lie?"

And don't think I wouldn't put the man's history on the line too. I don't understand how you can possibly have a fair trial in this type of case, without physical evidence.

I need to see a pattern of behaviour on either side to make an honest jugdement.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by hilltopper
Do you have a cite?
I saw it on the Rita Cosby show on Fox News over the weekend. It was in an interview with friends of the accuser. I don't know how to finf transcripts for FNC shows but here's something from FreeRepublic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949265/posts?page=301) FWIW.

[quote][b]What makes you think the defence planted this?
It didn't come from the prosecution.

[pravnik]

If evidence of mental unbalance or a history of attention seeking is introduced at trial, it's important to understand what it's being used for. It's not being used to show that the alleged victim was a member of class x and that members of class x are incapable of being raped, or to "punish the victim" for having made the allegations, or to blame the victim, etc. It's being introduced becuase its relevant evidence pertaining to her credibility and motives.

Certain things as a matter of law cannot be introduced; if the state follows the Federal Rules of Evidence (and most all do) you can't introduce evidence of sexual promiscuity on the part of the alleged victim, but within those limitations, the accused has every right to put on evidence that might pertain to the untruthfulness of the alleged victim. It's unthinkable to most people that someone would do something as vile as accuse someone else of a rape that didn't occur, but it can't be unthinkable to present evidence that that might be what is happening to the jury. For whatever reason, false accusations happen. Before I had any experience with family law I expressed shock and disbelief to my Dad (who does a lot of it) that spouses would falsely accuse each other of child molestation in a divorce proceeding. He laughed. It's regrettable that trials traumatize legitimate victims of crime, but criminal trials are as serious as serious gets. This guy is looking at a maximum of life in prison.

[holmes]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I saw it on the Rita Cosby show on Fox News over the weekend. It was in an interview with friends of the accuser. I don't know how to finf transcripts for FNC shows but here's something from FreeRepublic FWIW.


DtC and you consider 3 friends on a talk show credible evidence? No let's not smear.

[annaplurabelle]

I was simply using the extreme example of a woman who society considers 'unrapeble' and the reasons why in this type of case, history must be used...

I don't want to start a semantics war over the term "unrape-able", so I'll assume you meant "a person who has exhibited a pattern of unstable behaviour". Ultimately, the judge decides what is admissable, based on pre-trial motions, psych consults, etc.

But as DtheC said, leaking to the media affects the perception of the potential jury pool, regardless of whether or not the information is eventually admitted.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I was simply using the extreme example of a woman who society considers 'unrapeble' and the reasons why in this type of case, history must be used...if there is no conclusive physical evidence either way. Who do you believe?
All women can be raped, even prostitutes. If "society" thinks a prostitute is "unrapeable" then society is ignorant.

[Nightime]

The defense must be able to present evidence pertaining to the credibility of the accuser, because very often the evidence is inconclusive and credibility is everything. However, I haven't seen anything in this case that is relevant to the accuser's credibility.

The chain from attempted suicide, to mental illness, to false accusations, is nonexistant. If I was the judge, I would not allow that reasoning by the defense at the trial.

Also, while it is possible that the leaks are the work of the defense, you should remember that the leaks could be very bad for Kobe.

The woman is highly thought of in this closely knit community, and it is very possible that the community will get mad about the attacks on her character.

[hilltopper]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It didn't come from the prosecution.

These "reports" are quotes from friends of the accused? Those probably should have been qualified in the original post.

And haven't you heard of overzealous reporters trying to make a name for themselves? IMO the defense had nothing to do with the OD story.

[cowgirl]

What if that evidence can be explained away? We were so hot for each other we tore off each other's clothes. The witnesses can't be sure where the screams came from and the physical signs of struggle are inconclusive. This is a difficult case to try.

From anna's stats above, it seems that there's a 2.5% chance that she is making a false accusation. If the odds are closer to even - if there was a 50% chance that she was making it up - your point would be valid.

I'll say it again: The credibility of the accusor is quite simply not relevant to whether or not she was raped. Five women in two hundred lie about it: why are we so quick to assume that every woman is?

i was simply pointing out in an extreme case, that a person's history must be consider in this type of case...if the evidence is weak. How do you judge? You're right, it is hard to judge. But I can tell you with certainty that if my circumstances were such that I was (as you say) a "crack hooker," and some pillar-of-the-community man raped me, I would be pretty pissed off that everyone automatically took his word over mine. Because, goodness knows, men who are pillars of the community never do things like that.

If evidence of mental unbalance or a history of attention seeking is introduced at trial, it's important to understand what it's being used for. It's not being used to show that the alleged victim was a member of class x and that members of class x are incapable of being raped, or to "punish the victim" for having made the allegations, or to blame the victim, etc. It's being introduced becuase its relevant evidence pertaining to her credibility and motives.

I understand that. The reasoning for allowing it is as you say. But the consequences are as I mentioned above (and I acknowledge that they are unintended) : if you are a respected member of the community, you pretty much can go and rape a hooker if you feel like it, because everyone will believe you and not her. There is a presumption that the woman is lying - witness this thread, for example.

In Canada there have been a few recent cases of exactly this: prostitutes went missing from Vancouver for years before anyone noticed or cared, now they are being found, chopped up and buried on a pig farm. The attitude towards the "credibility and motives" of prostitutes contributed to the relatively unconcerned attitude of the police towards it.

spouses would falsely accuse each other of child molestation in a divorce proceeding
A big difference between this example and rape accusations can be seen if you examine the possible motives of the accusor. A random woman has little to gain from a false rape accusation - years of traumatic testimony, your sexual and psychological history paraded in front of the press, etc, in return for a chance at a settlement? Divorced people have quite a lot to gain - custody of children, in most cases.

[holmes]

Originally posted by annaplurabelle
I was simply using the extreme example of a woman who society considers 'unrapeble' and the reasons why in this type of case, history must be used...

I don't want to start a semantics war over the term "unrape-able", so I'll assume you meant "a person who has exhibited a pattern of unstable behaviour". Ultimately, the judge decides what is admissable, based on pre-trial motions, psych consults, etc.

But as DtheC said, leaking to the media affects the perception of the potential jury pool, regardless of whether or not the information is eventually admitted.

No I meant "unrape-able", as in cannot be raped. The term rape doesn't apply to them, as it does "normal" women.

There are people who believe that prostitutes, because of their lifestyle, a prositute can not be raped. There are people who believe that husbands can't rape their wives. That in their station in life, they must be receptive to sex, whether they want it or not.

It is very difficult to have a jury convict a man of raping a prositute...i would imagine in certain countries, let alone US states, it would be equally hard to convict a husband of rape as well...IMO.

Do you agree?

So what do you do? Let's say that the guy did rape the prostitute, unless he beat the crap out her, how could you possibly convince a jury, that he forced her?

His character, his past, his credibility. I agree that the rape shield is good thing, but it doesn't work in this type of crime, where the participants are aware of each other.

He didn't drag her into the hotel room. He didn't hide his face. They agree to go to a certain point and she changed her mind, but he would let her, when he was done he paid her.

That's rape...but prove it, to a jury. You need to know about this guy to show a jury his pattern or he will walk.

Now my question is does the rape shield apply to him?

[holmes]

Cite on spousal rape:here (http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2002/022002/02022002/512542)

just in case.

[annaplurabelle]

Originally posted by holmes
No I meant "unrape-able", as in cannot be raped. The term rape doesn't apply to them, as it does "normal" women.

There are people who believe that prostitutes, because of their lifestyle, a prositute can not be raped. There are people who believe that husbands can't rape their wives. That in their station in life, they must be receptive to sex, whether they want it or not.

It is very difficult to have a jury convict a man of raping a prositute...i would imagine in certain countries, let alone US states, it would be equally hard to convict a husband of rape as well...IMO.

Do you agree? I can't speak for varied international laws, but in the US(AFAIK - state laws vary, I believe), and as far as the spirit of what you're saying, I emphatically do not agree.

Now my question is does the rape shield apply to him? Not specifically the rape shield law, but what is admissable is decided based on the Federal Rules of Evidence mentioned by pravnik. Pertaining to character and credibility.

[holmes]

Originally posted by annaplurabelle
I can't speak for varied international laws, but in the US(AFAIK - state laws vary, I believe), and as far as the spirit of what you're saying, I emphatically do not agree.


Then I suggest you read my link. The spirit of the law says differently.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No I meant "unrape-able", as in cannot be raped. The term rape doesn't apply to them, as it does "normal" women.
The hell it doesn't.
There are people who believe that prostitutes, because of their lifestyle, a prositute can not be raped. There are people who believe that husbands can't rape their wives. That in their station in life, they must be receptive to sex, whether they want it or not.

It is very difficult to have a jury convict a man of raping a prositute...i would imagine in certain countries, let alone US states, it would be equally hard to convict a husband of rape as well...IMO.

Do you agree?
Nobody buys that bullshit about a husband not being able to rape his wife anymore, I don't think it would be any harder to convict a husband than anybody else.

As for the prostitute, you are right that there is an irrational, hypocritical and misogynistic prejudice against prostitutes among many people, however that is not attributable to the credibility of prostitutes but to the ignorance of society.

BTW, it sounds like the OD may not be admissable (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0703/22kobe.html) anyway.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That marital rape thing is pretty archaic and unenforceable, holmes. Show me one time in the last 50 years where it's been successfully used as a defense.

[annaplurabelle]

Originally posted by holmes
Then I suggest you read my link. The spirit of the law says differently. Not to be rude, but I think you are misinterpreting your own cites:
So, then, it's like this under current state law:
A married person can commit an act of sexual violence that the code clearly defines as rape,
but whether he can be prosecuted for the act depends entirely on
incidental matters--i.e., the attacker's place of residence and the victim's ability to document
physical harm....

...In an encouraging development Wednesday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee unanimously passed the Senate bill, with Kilgore's proposed revisions to the marital-rape subsection of the state code left intact.

The proposed revisions being removal of the previously cited "special" circumstances. This is the spirit I mentioned, and the current trend in what society thinks of as rape.

[holmes]

Not to be rude, but I think you are misinterpreting your own cites:


Not taken that way...don't worry, but I think you're missing the point. Yes, the revisions are occuring, but people's attitudes aren't ocuring at the same speed. We have lots of laws concerning Race, but we still have a long way to go.

You left out the rest of the article...

It boggles the mind to think that nearly two-thirds of the states in our nation have an exemption on the books for marital rape--an act of violence that's far more widespread than most people believe. The Washington Post reports that here in the Old Dominion, more than 10 percent of women who are sexually assaulted and seek out help from local programs say they have been raped or assaulted by their husbands....

Some apologists for the marital-rape exemption contend that eliminating it would lead to a flood of false rape charges, particularly during divorce litigation. Kilgore and domestic-violence experts dismiss this argument. "Courts and prosecutors are quick to get to the bottom of the real facts,"
Kilgore says....

Kilgore's plan to criminalize marital rape in all cases still may face considerable opposition as the domestic-violence bills move through the General Assembly. However, the time is long overdue for doing away with this odious codification of patriarchy. As Ruth Micklem, advocacy director for Virginians Against Domestic Violence, says, passage of this legislation "would bring Virginia into the 21st century in regard to women."...

We'll see if some of those good ol' boys down the road in Richmond are ready for the 21st century. Who knows, maybe they'll finally have the moral courage to make Rich's provocative analysis of male power sound at least a little dated....


That's the spirit, I'm referring to..the good old boys who sit on juries and don't consider this a crime, even if it's not used as a defence.

So why yes you and Dtc are right about this being archaic, even the reporter knows that lots of archaic ideas influence the lives of people everyday. Even if it hasn't been used as a defence in 50 years, you don't think a wife would think twice about going to the police and saying her husband raped her, knowing the history of that type of charge carries?

BTW:Dtc how's this defence (http://christianparty.net/rapespousal.htm)

[holmes]

From Dtc
That marital rape thing is pretty archaic and unenforceable, holmes. Show me one time in the last 50 years where it's been successfully used as a defense.

Let's try again.Defence (http://christianparty.net/rapespousal.htm)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I stand corrected. What a filthy, disgusting law.

it doesn't have anything to do with victim credibility, though, it just says it's ok to rape your wife. I am stunned that such a law still exists, I am even more stunned that "family rights" activists would aggressively support it.

Maybe you can remind what this has to do with the Kobe case?

[annaplurabelle]

A possible nit-pick: That appeal is from 1999. Do we have an update on that case, or any revisions of Arizona spousal rape law?

In any case, if you agree the perception/law is archaic, and we agree that the perception still exists amongst certain individuals in society - what exactly are we debating? :-)

[annaplurabelle]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I stand corrected. What a filthy, disgusting law.

it doesn't have anything to do with victim credibility, though, it just says it's ok to rape your wife. Not quite. From the last cite: Until 1976, no state considered it a crime for a husband to rape his wife because married men were once exempted.
Today, it's a crime to some degree in every state. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have abolished the exemption, according to the National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape in California.

Again, this article is from 1999.

[holmes]

Originally posted by annaplurabelle
A possible nit-pick: That appeal is from 1999. Do we have an update on that case, or any revisions of Arizona spousal rape law?

In any case, if you agree the perception/law is archaic, and we agree that the perception still exists amongst certain individuals in society - what exactly are we debating? :-)

Hey, DtC wanted one in 50 years, I'm done.

Nothing now, but re-read the thread, we've only just arrived at common ground. Although I was already here....

holmes

[Marley23]

A different way of looking at this, perhaps:
1) We know that Kobe's press conference was 'managed.' This was done so that he could present the most repentant and pitiable public face while maintaining his innocence. Doubtless his lawyers had a lot to do with the way it was carried off.
2) The girl accusing Kobe has chosen, for whatever reason, not to make her face public. Her friends are speaking for her. I cannot possibly believe that they would say the things they are saying without the approval of the prosecution. The prosecution would be mighty stupid to let these girls say just any damn thing.

In other words, both sides are presently attempting to make their cases publicly (without revealing too much about the hands they will play during the trial) because in a celebrity case, the court of public opinion is very important, and the future jurors are probably watching this on TV.

Let's not forget the most important words in the American legal system: REASONABLE DOUBT. The defense does not have to prove that Kobe didn't rape this girl. They just have to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the jury. That's what the American Idol thing is, indirect as it may be, and the suicide thing a bit more directly.

I wouldn't say it's really relevant, but anything that damages the credibility of this girl's accusations (regardless of its factual relationship to the case) is what they want. The prosecution is making its share of irrelevant statements too: who cares that the girl was in her choir and was a cheerleader? It doesn't mean shit in real life. But it might make her seem more wholesome and trustworthy, thus more believable. The jury has to trust her, so she has to be a 'good girl.' The suicide thing sorta refutes that somewhat.

The prosecution, it seems, will be arguing based primarily on physical evidence (a rape kit, bruises or photos, evidence of torn clothes and vaginal tearing, perhaps Kobe had some minor cuts or bruises as well). That's more straightforward, and we'll see what they have in court.

There is plenty of posturing from BOTH sides right now. The DA said a few days ago that the case was a "slam dunk." Both sides want to present a confident front (Kobe's remark that "When everything comes clean, it will all be fine, you'll see... I shouldn't have to say anything.") And of course, he's also trying to appear contrite because he obviously cheated on his wife, if nothing else. Sorry for his mistake, innocent of his crime. That sort of thing.

None of the stuff we've seen is real evidence right now, it's just a matter of public presentation. Because the defense won't be relying on physical evidence - I'm assuming they don't have security camera footage proving that Kobe was locked in the elevator the whole time or something - they have to assail the girl's credibility. If there's anything that might make her look bad, they'll use it. Think back to the OJ trial for a minute: remember all the business with Mark Fuhrman and the word "nigger?" The defense was just trying to make it look like he was a racist to reduce his credibility. Now, who's really going to believe that he was so racist he somehow stole OJ's glove and samples of his blood and DNA and planted them? Nobody that I can think of. But it doesn't matter. It's more of a shady, innuendo kind of thing. Damaging credibility is the goal.

Does any of that make sense?

Please don't interpret any of this as my approval or disapproval of anything. This is just how I see the tactics being used by both the prosecution and defense.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I disagree that the friends of the victim are talking with the approval or urging of the prosecution. The prosecution has no power to tell the friends what to say or not say. Also, the fact that the friends also talked about the OD would show that their comments were not orchestrated.

Furthermore, her mother has been asking the friends to stop talking (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E11%257E1525789,00.html).

[Marley23]

Furthermore, her mother has been asking the friends to stop talking.
K. The parents and the prosecution aren't the same people, however. I'm not saying they have the power to tell anyone what to do, I'm saying they might find it advantageous to suggest what the friends could say to help the girl's case. They'd probably want to help their friend out, after all.

Maybe I'm wrong. But one way or the other, there's a lot of stuff flying around that might not all be totally on the level.

[pravnik]

Originally posted by cowgirl
From anna's stats above, it seems that there's a 2.5% chance that she is making a false accusation. If the odds are closer to even - if there was a 50% chance that she was making it up - your point would be valid.

I'll say it again: The credibility of the accusor is quite simply not relevant to whether or not she was raped. Five women in two hundred lie about it: why are we so quick to assume that every woman is?

That's what a trial is all about, though, saying why the other side's witnesses aren't believeable, and why yours are. If she's delusional, or is a pathological liar, etc., you should be able to impeach their testimony as not being credible.

A big difference between this example and rape accusations can be seen if you examine the possible motives of the accusor. A random woman has little to gain from a false rape accusation - years of traumatic testimony, your sexual and psychological history paraded in front of the press, etc, in return for a chance at a settlement? Divorced people have quite a lot to gain - custody of children, in most cases.

True, but they don't always do it only to gain custody. They do it purely out of spite and malice, too. Also, I would add the random rational woman has little to gain from a false rape accusation, but not everyone is rational. A few women have made rape accusations to gain revenge on a lover who has jilted them, get attention, get sympathy, etc. The fact that no rational person would do such a thing makes it harder to understand when an irrational person does it, just like it's hard to understand why someone with Munchausen's syndrome would harm their own children to get sympathy and attention.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Marley23
2) The girl accusing Kobe has chosen, for whatever reason, not to make her face public.
I thought this was imposed by the prosecutor?

[annaplurabelle]

If she's delusional, or is a pathological liar, etc., you should be able to impeach their testimony as not being credible.

I agree completely. And to be fair, I wouldn't apply the normal statistical odds to this situation, because there's the additional element of possible financial gain for the accuser, which isn't a motive possibility for most false rape accusations.

One element that hasn't been discussed here: the third scenario possibility of withdrawn consent (ie consent retracted prior to intercourse but was ignored). This is more difficult for the prosecution to prove, so I'm not sure they'd attempt it unless there's evidence that implies consent at any point.

This reminds me of the Tyson/Washington rape case, in that I believe that Mike Tyson believed he was innocent (whether he was or not). Is it possible that celebrities develop an altered perception of what consent is? Or do certain personality types differ in their perception of what consent is? Could this be a factor in this case, possibly for both accused and accuser?

[Marley23]

I thought this was imposed by the prosecutor?
I haven't heard anything to that effect, but maybe you know something I don't. I'm not sure why a DA would tell her to keep quiet.

[Marley23]

One element that hasn't been discussed here: the third scenario possibility of withdrawn consent (ie consent retracted prior to intercourse but was ignored). This is more difficult for the prosecution to prove, so I'm not sure they'd attempt it unless there's evidence that implies consent at any point.
I don't see why this is more difficult. If she said no, it's rape, it's rather simple that way. She may have gone to his room to have sex with him for all we know. But if she changed her mind and he beat her or held her down or whatever, it doesn't matter what she did beforehand. I'm not sure the prosecution needs to prove this, as it really WOULD be he said/she said.

[annaplurabelle]

I'm not sure the prosecution needs to prove this, as it really WOULD be he said/she said.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think the last thing the prosecution wants is it to boil down to he said/she said. Because unless defense credibility is tarnished in a significant way, reasonable doubt would dictate towards acquittal. Without substantial corroborating evidence, he said/she said favours the defendant.

[Marley23]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think the last thing the prosecution wants is it to boil down to he said/she said.
You're 100% correct. The little we know indicates that they took a 'rape kit' from the girl, which should include sperm and DNA samples. And if the friends are telling the truth about bruising and such, they've got more than he said/she said to go on. If all they had was the girl's word, I don't think it would have gotten this far.

What I meant was that the prosecution does not really need to prove that she gave and withdrew consent if that's what happened. The giving part is irrelevant from their standpoint; I was disagreeing with your assessment that it's more difficult for them to prove. If they have the girl's word that she withdrew or didn't give consent and the physical evidence to back it up, it may not matter.

[Belowjob2.0]

OFF TOPIC

Marley23, your memory fails you:

Think back to the OJ trial for a minute: remember all the business with Mark Fuhrman and the word "nigger?" The defense was just trying to make it look like he was a racist to reduce his credibility. Now, who's really going to believe that he was so racist he somehow stole OJ's glove and samples of his blood and DNA and planted them? Nobody that I can think of. But it doesn't matter. It's more of a shady, innuendo kind of thing. Damaging credibility is the goal.

In fact, Fuhrman stated that he hated blacks in his application for a disability pension. He so hated blacks, he claimed, that he could no longer stand to work as a police officer. Working as a cop in black and Latino neighborhoods was driving him, in his words, "crazy".

Fuhrman expressed similar hostilities on tape when he was interviewed by a writer doing research for a screenplay. He said that he hated blacks, that he particularly hated to see black men and white women together, and would find any pretext to stop such couples. He also said that he would plant evidence if neccessary to make a case against a known criminal.

There are only two possibilities: either Fuhrman really was a racist, or he lied on official documents to get a desired outcome. His credibility is ruined either way.

ON TOPIC

Kobe is a prize fool for becoming involved with this woman in any way. The NBA has for years now conducted mandatory seminars for incoming players to help them avoid problems with women - paternity suits, accusations of sexual harrassment and assault, etc. Maybe he wasn't paying attention. Maybe he just forgot. Still, every NBA player knows that he's a big, moving target for unscrupulous women.

He also failed to learn anything from the example of another Laker great, who was beloved by the fans, who had a clean-cut, family guy image, who had lots of unprotected sex with strange women, who contracted HIV.

Kobe didn't know this woman at all. He could've brought any number of ugly diseases back to his wife - herpes, chlamydia, Hep C, warts - whatever.

This woman - the accuser - has a pattern of behavior that is associated with survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Survivors often have a damaged sense of self -preservation and danger, so they put themselves in dangerous situations. They will gravitate to situations where they are likely to be abused, and remain in those situations long after an emotionally healthy person would have fled or sought help. One answer to the question: Why did she go to Kobe's hotel room late at night if she didn't want sex?

Abuse survivors can learn to deal with powerful men by seducing them, manipulating men with sexuality, even as they despise sex. Flirtation, manipulation, seduction become their way of dealing with the world.

Her recent behavior - attending a party and speaking inappropriately about her assault -"boasting," and publicly describing her alleged rapist's genitalia, are indications of desensitization. It's common for abuse survivors to speak of their abuse with inappropriate ease or jocularity, because the capacity to connect with deeper, more appropriate emotional expression is lacking.

Also fitting the profile of abuse survivor is her tendency, reported by friends, to get excited and strip naked at parties. Suicide attempts and substance abuse are also common among abuse survivors. Her pursuit of fame and her desire to associate with celebrities may be attempts to repair a damaged psyche, to fill up the hole inside her.

I could imagine Susan Smith making a false rape accusation. A nice girl, from a good, Christian family with high social standing in their small town. A nice girl who was sleeping with her stepfather.

Unfortunately, none of this really speaks to Kobe's guilt or innocence. As others have noted, even if the woman is disturbed, that doesn't mean she can't be raped. If she is disturbed, she's quite capable of fabricating a rape story, wounding herself and tearing her clothes to make it seem credible. She may not be entirely sure in her own mind whether she wanted to have sex with Kobe or not. She may be using Kobe as a proxy for the man who really hurt her, a man she either can not or will not accuse.

[Marley23]

Below, I just didn't remember that much about the case (it ended when I was in... was it 8th grade? Frighteningly long ago. ;))

His credibility is justifiably ruined in either case, although I think it may support my point a little bit anyway: the defense didn't need to (or try to) prove that he really planted the evidence. The fact that he was a racist and apparently unscrupulous cop was enough.

[annaplurabelle]

Marley23:
Well, I agree with you in theory. But remember, the sperm/DNA doesn't mean anything if defense is claiming consensual sex. Even some vaginal tearing and minor bruising is inconclusive - it can be seen as consistent with consensual sex. In general, I think the withdrawn consent argument places a bigger burden on the physical evidence, and has a negative effect on the jury's perception of the accuser. But it's just a layman's hunch on my part, and I still don't know enough for a more informed opinion.

Belowjob2.0: Where are you getting this from?

This woman - the accuser - has a pattern of behavior that is associated with survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Cite?

[Marley23]

But remember, the sperm/DNA doesn't mean anything if defense is claiming consensual sex. Even some vaginal tearing and minor bruising is inconclusive - it can be seen as consistent with consensual sex.
I would imagine that the nature and extent of the bruising, tearing, etc. will be in question. (If her friends are being honest when they say her injuries are still visible three weeks later, they may not be 'minor'). Some of that is absolutely possible during consensual sex, but if it's an egregious amount, that may be different.

[The Ryan]

cowgirlSee, the problem with arguments that assault the character of the alleged victim is that they assume what DtC keeps yelling to the hills: that people with characteristic X can't be raped.

No, they don't, any more than people that question Bush's credibility are asserting that Iraq was incapable of having WMD.

I'll say it again: The credibility of the accusor is quite simply not relevant to whether or not she was raped. Five women in two hundred lie about it: why are we so quick to assume that every woman is?
If a woman who is known to have made a false accusation accuses someone of rape, you would refuse to take the previous accusation into account? I don't see how anyone can claim to know how common false accusations are, and giving Bryant the benefit of the doubt is not assuming that the woman is lying.

pravnik
Munchausen's syndrome would harm their own children to get sympathy and attention.
[Nitpcik]In Munchausen's syndrome, the person makes themself sick to elicit sympathy. You're thinking of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.[/quote]

[holmes]

Some interested events over the evening.

Apparently our victim was bragging about her conquest...Bragging (http://msnbc.com/news/942322.asp?0sl=-21#BODY)

Mother told victim she was raped:
"It was her mother that knew right away what happened," Bray said. It was her mother, Bray said, who told the woman, "You were raped."
Mom (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~90~1527303,00.html)

And of course the Race card:Fear of sex with a black man (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33684)

I think combined, these can create quite a bit of resonable doubt...The mother story bothers me, only because the young woman has a history of "incidents", related to men. Her OD was apparently caused by a break-up, here's Kobe 'rejecting' her again. Perhaps her mother has undue influence on her, I don't know and this may be my ignorance as a man, but wouldn't a person know that they were Raped? If she said, "no" and he forced her, wouldn't that mean rape? Would they need to be told that they were raped?

Further, I could see her mother having a "problem" with Kobe's blackness and telling her daughter...she MUST have be raped in order to have sex with a black man...and her daughter who has a history of "impulsive" behaviour agreed and here we are.

Of course, YMMV.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by holmes
Some interested events over the evening.

Apparently our victim was bragging about her conquest...Bragging (http://msnbc.com/news/942322.asp?0sl=-21#BODY)

Mother told victim she was raped:
"It was her mother that knew right away what happened," Bray said. It was her mother, Bray said, who told the woman, "You were raped."
Mom (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~90~1527303,00.html)

And of course the Race card:Fear of sex with a black man (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33684)

I think combined, these can create quite a bit of resonable doubt...The mother story bothers me, only because the young woman has a history of "incidents", related to men. Her OD was apparently caused by a break-up, here's Kobe 'rejecting' her again. Perhaps her mother has undue influence on her, I don't know and this may be my ignorance as a man, but wouldn't a person know that they were Raped? If she said, "no" and he forced her, wouldn't that mean rape? Would they need to be told that they were raped?

Further, I could see her mother having a "problem" with Kobe's blackness and telling her daughter...she MUST have be raped in order to have sex with a black man...and her daughter who has a history of "impulsive" behaviour agreed and here we are.

Of course, YMMV. Damn straight my mileage varies. Your post is a poorly constructed cut-and-paste of various aspects of the issue, with a narrative (constructed by you) that ties them together as if each follows logically from the one before.

You imply that the victim was "bragging" before her mother told her it was rape, but this is completely false. The alleged bragging occurred three days before charges were filed, while the alleged incident with the mother occurred the morning after the alleged sexual assault. And why is it that your are willing to uncritically accept testimony that supports Bryant? If you are skeptical of the young woman's story, and of those who are supplying supporting evidence, isn't it logical to be just as skeptical of those who provide contrary evidence? Or is that just inconvenient for you?

There is, so far as we know, one person who makes the bragging claim, but even he does not expand on this. What exactly was she bragging about? Apparently Bryant's anatomy was up for discussion, but we don't know what was said about it. Another person alleges that she was still pretty "shaken up" at the time.

Your piece about the mother implies that the young woman was under the impression that she had just had a fun sex romp, and that her mother convinced her otherwise. You ignore the paragraph in the same story in which the young woman is desribed a hysterial and visibly upset when she left the lodge to drive home that evening. The fact that she waited until the next morning to tell her mother, and that her mother told her she was raped, is hardly evidence that the sex was consensual. The woman might still have been confused, or in denial that something like this could have happened to her.

And your "Race card" argument is ridiculous. You provide a link, but absolutely no context in your post, leaving us with the impression that the girl herself is playing the race card.

In fact, the race card is being played by a lawyer (let's call him Pinhead) who represents athletes in trials like this one. Writing an Op-Ed piece, Pinhead makes the following argument:Bryant is accused of rape in Eagle County, Colo. Eagle County is not exactly a black Mecca. Kobe Bryant's alleged rape victim is white. My gut feeling is that the sex was consensual, and then the regret and fear set in.His gut feeling? Yeah, great fucking evidence.

The author of this crappy little "think piece" makes this comment after discussing a completely different case over a thousand miles away in Georgia, in which a high school athlete has been sentenced to 15 years for raping a classmate. Pinhead argues:Many who have studied the case believe this young man to be innocent. He's a National Honor Society student and scored over 1200 on his SATs. Hardly the profile of a sexual predator. But, the athlete is black and his victim was a white girl.Well, firstly, whether he's right about that case or not, it hardly bears on what is happening in Colorado, half a country away. Secondly, anyone who thinks that an honor student with good SATs is incapable of committing rape is a fucking idiot. How many times do people have to be told that rapists come from all sections of society, all colors, all social classes, etc., etc.? Pinhead is complaining about the stereotype of the black rapist, and it is true that this is an unfortunate stereotype, but Pinhead constructs another stereotype of his own--the unimpeachable honor student who is, by definition, incapable of sexual assault.

His argument that the young woman is worried about her reputation also contains a rather large flaw--if this was her only concern, why not just keep quiet about the sex? Surely she knew that Kobe Bryant wasn't going to run around the town bragging about it, so if she had said nothing then no-one need ever have known.

And you, holmes, "could see her mother having a 'problem" with Kobe's blackness,' could you? And your insight into this woman's alleged racism comes from where? Out of your ass, it seems.

I will conclude by repeating something i've said in other places: it is indeed possible that the young woman is lying, and that Bryant is being set up. It is also possible she is telling the truth, and that Bryant is guilty. I choose to wait for the trial.

But holmes, your apparent crusade to paint this young woman in the worst possible light is rather pathetic. Worse, your disingenuous construction of your "argument" serves to misrepresent the media articles that you draw on for evidence, providing a story that is your own fantasy.

[holmes]

Originally posted by mhendo
Damn straight my mileage varies. Your post is a poorly constructed cut-and-paste of various aspects of the issue, with a narrative (constructed by you) that ties them together as if each follows logically from the one before.

But holmes, your apparent crusade to paint this young woman in the worst possible light is rather pathetic. Worse, your disingenuous construction of your "argument" serves to misrepresent the media articles that you draw on for evidence, providing a story that is your own fantasy.

Whoa, calm down partner. I thought this was a place for honest debate, even if you don't like the direction the debate is heading. Even if those opinions are spawned from the anus.

You accuse me of being disingenous, yet i provide a means for you to either agree of disagree. I posted cites for you or anyone to have a look at and respond to, because I do think this is an interesting case and while you and others may not agree...I'm not so sure that Race, Money and Power aren't at the root of this. I merely posted some links and quick narrative to tie it together.

You don't agree and have opinions of your own. Isn't that what a debate is about? I don't have to show all sides to an issue. How did I, by not pulling ALL aspects of the cites I link( considering that many of that information has already been touched upon?) hindered an honest discussion? You read them and posted a different rationale.

Not in context...? Maybe, you read the cites and pulled out the quotes you deemed important, isnt that how this works? I see the problem...I read an entire thread and assume that everyone else does too. There was a couple of posts concerning Race and I wanted to add a little background into it.

You could of course asked me to clarify what I meant, before accusing me of being disingenuous, but it's clear that this issue is a hot one and I'll be a bit more organized before I post of series of loosely linked thoughts.

holmes

[holmes]

Well, firstly, whether he's right about that case or not, it hardly bears on what is happening in Colorado, half a country away.

It doesn't? You have a black sportsman, with a good reputation being accused of raping a white girl, after having what he considers concensual sex. In a county of mostly white residents and he's doing 15 years, based on what appears to be he said/she said evidence. No, nothing similar here.


Secondly, anyone who thinks that an honor student with good SATs is incapable of committing rape is a fucking idiot. How many times do people have to be told that rapists come from all sections of society, all colors, all social classes, etc., etc.? Pinhead is complaining about the stereotype of the black rapist, and it is true that this is an unfortunate stereotype, but Pinhead constructs another stereotype of his own--the unimpeachable honor student who is, by definition, incapable of sexual assault.

No one is saying that honour students can't be rapists, what's being said is how likely will a honour student be a rapist? How is this any different than saying "It's unlikely that women lie about being raped?"

Aren't both assumptions based on some form of statistical data? I don't have a cite on how many honour students are rapists, so don't ask. But I would imagine that the majority aren't.

This is problem that I have with the defenders of this case, automatically she is to be believed; yet if it's suggested that a honour student based on the stereotype of honour students, is mostly likely not a rapist, you're a pinhead.

Or maybe it just me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's just you.

An honor student has the same statistical chance of being a rapist as a non-honor student. There is no correlation between acadmeic achievement and the potential to rape. Ted Bundy was an honor student.

To say that an honor student doesn't "fit the profile" of a rapist is an ignorant statement because there isacademic component to the profile of a rapist - as a matter of fact there's not much of a profile at all. (http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v099b/fa/n012/Cam-Rapist-Profile-Cozad.html)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

there is academic component to the profile of a rapist

What I meant to say, of course, was that there is no academic component. :smack:

[holmes]

From Canada:
sex offenders (http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e082/e082j_e.shtml) I doubt the states will be much different.


"Approximately 62% of the sample were Caucasian, with the remaining 38% being either Aboriginal or Métis.

The average sample age was 38, and the average level of educational achievement was at approximately a Grade Nine level. "

Statistically where does a Black honour student fall? Of course he could be a rapist...anyone can be a rapist. No one is saying anything different...

But if it turns how that less than 2 percent of black honour students are rapists, do we have to believe him to be innocent?

[mhendo]

Originally posted by holmes
It doesn't? You have a black sportsman, with a good reputation being accused of raping a white girl, after having what he considers concensual sex. In a county of mostly white residents and he's doing 15 years, based on what appears to be he said/she said evidence. No, nothing similar here.:sigh:

You don't quite get it, do you? I never argued that there were no similarities between the cases. The point i was making is that the facts of that particular case have no relevance to the facts of this one.

The fact that the guy was found guilty in Georgia doesn't mean that Bryant should be found guilty in Colorado. And the fact that some people believe that the woman in Georgia made up her story does not mean that the woman in Colorado made up her story. Note, also, that there was evidently enough evidence in the Georgia case to convict the guy, despite Pinhead's own feelings on the issue.

All i'm saying is that Pinhead's use of his knowledge about the specifics of one case to draw a conclusion about the specifics of another is pretty stupid. Yes, we all know that sometimes false rape accusations are made, but the fact that they are does not automatically mean that this particular woman is lying.No one is saying that honour students can't be rapists, what's being said is how likely will a honour student be a rapist? How is this any different than saying "It's unlikely that women lie about being raped?"

Aren't both assumptions based on some form of statistical data? I don't have a cite on how many honour students are rapists, so don't ask. But I would imagine that the majority aren't.What do you mean "don't ask" for a cite? If you're going to throw around statistical claims in GD, be prepared to back them up.

And even if you find statistics showing that most honour students don't rape, so what? Simply making the argument that "the majority" of honour students aren't rapists is pointless. "The majority" of members the male sex are not rapists, either. Does that mean we should dismiss all allegations of rape made against any man?This is problem that I have with the defenders of this case, automatically she is to be believed; yet if it's suggested that a honour student based on the stereotype of honour students, is mostly likely not a rapist, you're a pinhead.

Or maybe it just me. Yes, it is.

Never once have i said that she is automatically to be believed; if you can find a place where i've said that, point it out. The argument i've been making is that she should not automatically be disbelieved, or dismissed as a gold-digger or a racist or a liar, simply for making an allegation of sexual assault.

[holmes]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It's just you.

An honor student has the same statistical chance of being a rapist as a non-honor student. There is no correlation between acadmeic achievement and the potential to rape. Ted Bundy was an honor student.

To say that an honor student doesn't "fit the profile" of a rapist is an ignorant statement because there isacademic component to the profile of a rapist - as a matter of fact there's not much of a profile at all. (http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v099b/fa/n012/Cam-Rapist-Profile-Cozad.html)

You're missing the point. No is doubting the potential for a honour student to be a rapist. What's being suggested is based on the number of convictions, how many were Black, honour students. If the number is less than 2%, can I now say that it is unlikely that a black honour student is a rapist?

Not that he isn't, but is unlikely.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by holmes
From Canada:
sex offenders (http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e082/e082j_e.shtml) I doubt the states will be much different. You doubt the US will be much different? Really? On what do you base this assumption?

Your sample consists of 26 inmates in a Canadian province in which roughly 14 per cent (http://www.gov.sk.ca/bureau.stats/census/ethnicity1.pdf) of the population is of aboriginal origin (Inuit, Metis, or North American Indian). How does this compare to the US?

Also, from your link: Most of the offenders were first-time sex offenders who had been convicted of molesting children known to them.While child molestation is a heinous crime, it is different in many ways from the rapes we are talking about here. Your sample does not even fall into the appropriate offence type. Not all sexual offences are the same, you know.

Averages can hide a lot, also, In the study you cite, the "average" age of the offenders is 38. Does that mean Kobe Bryant is more likely to be innocent because he's only 24? Same thing could well apply to the issue of educational levels.What's being suggested is based on the number of convictions, how many were Black, honour students. If the number is less than 2%, can I now say that it is unlikely that a black honour student is a rapist?.I'm getting the picture now--your problem isn't just your attitude to this case, it's your ignorance of statistical method.

You need to adjust the figures relative to a whole bunch of other factors that you haven't even considered, such as the percentage of black honour students in the population at large, the percentage of other demographic groups that commit rape, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

To construct a very simple example, based on your own assertion:

If 2% of rapists are black honour students (this is your figure, not mine), but only 1% of the population are black honour students, then does this not indicate that a black honour student is, in fact, more likely to be a rapist that an "average" member of the population? But if 4% of the population are black honour students, then this group is less likely than average to be a rapist.***

Your made-up figures are totally irrelevant to the issue. As i said before, the majority of men do not commit rape; this does not mean that all allegations of rape are to be dismissed.



*** I cannot emphasize enough that this is merely a statistical illustration using holmes's own figures. I am actually quite uncomfortable using "black" and "rapist" in the same sentence so often, as it does tend to perpetuate ignorant stereotypes.

[holmes]

Your sample consists of 26 inmates in a Canadian province in which roughly 14 per cent of the population is of aboriginal origin (Inuit, Metis, or North American Indian). How does this compare to the US?

Well for one, i believe that african-americans are about 11-12% US population and I believe that whites commit rapes in about the same breakdown. But yes it's not a great link, but all I could find that relates in anyway to education and sex offense.

I love you guys. I don't have access to the FBI's breakdown on the educational level of the majority of rapists. You demand cites and I provide the best i can...sometimes they're right on and sometimes they're not, but I try.

Where's yours? Oh I know, the burden of proof is on me. Very convenient.

I'm getting the picture now--your problem isn't just your attitude to this case, it's your ignorance of statistical method.

Why don't you try to keep this is context? The context being and I've said this several times: It has been said in this thread that because the number of women who report false accusations of rape is about 2%, that it is unlikely that most women will lie about being raped. Since 98% are being truthful.

Now while my ignorance of statisical methods may be apparent, and your re-interpetation of my inquiry not-withstanding... I don't see the difference in number of the accused, if of all rapists only 2% are black honour students. Therefor 98% of black honour students are being truthful.

Why is this different?

Your made-up figures are totally irrelevant to the issue. As i said before, the majority of men do not commit rape; this does not mean that all allegations of rape are to be dismissed.

No but the majority of men are rapists. Using my faulty knowledge of statistical methods, one could reasonable say since the majority of men are rapists, its likely that most rapes are committed by men.

no?

And when did I say that all allegations of rape are to be dismissed? Oh, must not quite get it.

[annaplurabelle]

Regarding statistics and other "facts":

I'd like to note something about my own previous statistic cite regarding false rape charges. That statistic varies wildly, depending on the source. Most victim advocacy groups use the 2.5% figure I cited. The FBI quotes 8%. After that it skews upwards, with some university studies quoting rates that approach 50%. I have no idea what the actual figures are, but I suggest again that none of these studies can be used as a determinant to a specific charges's likelihood of being either true or false.
Be Careful with Numbers (http://www.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp)And some of the studies are obviously limited. Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city: "Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41 percent incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables."

[mhendo]

Originally posted by holmes
Why don't you try to keep this is context? The context being and I've said this several times: It has been said in this thread that because the number of women who report false accusations of rape is about 2%, that it is unlikely that most women will lie about being raped. Since 98% are being truthful.

Now while my ignorance of statisical methods may be apparent, and your re-interpetation of my inquiry not-withstanding... I don't see the difference in number of the accused, if of all rapists only 2% are black honour students. Therefore 98% of black honour students are being truthful.No, see, you're falling over your figures again.

First you give a hypothetical figure saying that 2% of rapists are "black honour students." Then you say that this means that "98% of black honour students are being truthful."

No, i doesn't. Your first figure gave the 2% as a percentage of all rapists, and your second figure gave the 98% as a percentage of all black honour students. These are not congruent groups. If 2% of rapists are black honour students, this does not mean that 2% of black honour students are rapists. Are you getting it yet? No but the majority of men are rapists. Using my faulty knowledge of statistical methods, one could reasonable say since the majority of men are rapists, its likely that most rapes are committed by men.Jeeeeeeeeeeeesus. Will you look at what you're writing?

The "majority of men are rapists." Really? More than 50% of all men have committed rape? You are making exactly the same mistake as you did above, confusing groups and subsets with one another. While the majority of rapists might be men, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of men are rapists.

Let's take a wholly unrelated example, just to make it easier.

All Sioux are Native Americans. Yes?
All Native Americans are Sioux? No!

All four-door sedans are cars. Yes?
All cars are four-door sedans? No!

Is it becoming clearer yet?

[holmes]

Originally posted by mhendo
No, see, you're falling over your figures again.

First you give a hypothetical figure saying that 2% of rapists are "black honour students." Then you say that this means that "98% of black honour students are being truthful."

No, i doesn't. Your first figure gave the 2% as a percentage of all rapists, and your second figure gave the 98% as a percentage of all black honour students. These are not congruent groups. If 2% of rapists are black honour students, this does not mean that 2% of black honour students are rapists. Are you getting it yet? Jeeeeeeeeeeeesus. Will you look at what you're writing?

The "majority of men are rapists." Really? More than 50% of all men have committed rape? You are making exactly the same mistake as you did above, confusing groups and subsets with one another. While the majority of rapists might be men, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of men are rapists.


You got me. I need to proof better...but of course you knew that....unfortunately there's no edit on this board...I must learn patience.

Apologies and allow me to clarify, this way there's no misunderstanding.

1. First you give a hypothetical figure saying that 2% of rapists are "black honour students." Then you say that this means that "98% of black honour students are being truthful.

What I meant to say of course was they were being truthful about not being rapists. And I explained where the hypothetical is based upon.

The "majority of men are rapists." Really? More than 50% of all men have committed rape? You are making exactly the same mistake as you did above, confusing groups and subsets with one another. While the majority of rapists might be men, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of men are rapists.

Once again, a mistake on my part. What I should have said is "majority of rapists are men". You got me again... I wrote lousy sentences, that confused my point.

I'll shall endeavor to be more accurate in my meanings. Of course there are some who might say you knew what i meant. But they were poorly written sentences, who can blame you from misunderstanding me.

holmes

[mhendo]

Originally posted by holmes
You got me. I need to proof better...but of course you knew that....unfortunately there's no edit on this board...I must learn patience.

Apologies and allow me to clarify, this way there's no misunderstanding.Hey, we all sometimes make mistakes in our sentence structure and usage. It's no big deal, and i'm not out to hang anyone. But.....What I meant to say of course was they were being truthful about not being rapists. And I explained where the hypothetical is based upon.Well, the fact that 2% of any given group are rapists says nothing more than exactly that. It does not say that the rest are "truthful," because that has no meaning in this context. If you've never even been accused of being a rapist, it's a bit silly to say that you're "truthful" about the issue.

And anyway, your comparison with the issue of women making rape accusations is, in my opinion, inappropriate. After all, the 2% figure given for that group was that only 2-2.5% of women who made rape allegations were lying. This says nothing about the larger group--women in general. If only 2-2.5% of women making rape allegation are lying, then that figure becomes even smaller when taken as a percentage of the women's population as a whole. Yet you extrapolate your figures to include all black honour students, rather than just the ones accused of rape. It's not a reasonable comparison to make.

If you restricted your hypothetical to black honour students accused of rape, rather than to the group as a whole, you might be able to make a better case.Of course there are some who might say you knew what i meant. And they would be correct but, as you realise, it's not my responsibility to make your argument for you. :)

[H8_2_W8]

mhendo and holmes: sorry to interrupt your personal discussion -
Loyola Law School - a fairly objective paper on why the "2% false" figure is wrong - and the implications on strict liability and racial discrimination. If we're fighting ignorance, we probably shouldn't use the lowest figure that is widely used by those with a political agenda for these debates.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf

What if the number is 8% or higher? Would the defense use these types of statistics to get a jury member (just one, really) to think the woman is making all of this up?

[Marley23]

this may be my ignorance as a man, but wouldn't a person know that they were Raped? If she said, "no" and he forced her, wouldn't that mean rape? Would they need to be told that they were raped?
It has nothing to do with being a man, but no, you're wrong about this. Things are not always so uncomplicated (remember that most rapes are of the acquaintance variety, which muddies things) and there seems to be a tendency for the victim to blame herself at least in part. Among other factors.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by H8_2_W8
mhendo and holmes: sorry to interrupt your personal discussion -
Loyola Law School - a fairly objective paper on why the "2% false" figure is wrong - and the implications on strict liability and racial discrimination. If we're fighting ignorance, we probably shouldn't use the lowest figure that is widely used by those with a political agenda for these debates.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf

What if the number is 8% or higher? Would the defense use these types of statistics to get a jury member (just one, really) to think the woman is making all of this up? Firstly, i never accepted or rejected the 2% figure as true or false. I only picked it up because others were using it. And i only used it for illustrative purposes, not to make any outright claims about women's honesty. I certainly agree that it is desirable to use the best figures available.

However, while Greer's paper certainly casts some doubt on the methodology and the legal/political motives behind the 2% figure, he really provides little evidence of his own to show that the real figure is higher. Sure, he gives a lot of "it's reasonable to assume" type arguments, but these do not constitute empirical proof any more than the feminist legal scholars' "evidence pyramid" does.

And even if we accept Greer's thesis completely, and assign a higher percentage figure to false rape allegations, i don't believe that this figure should be relevant to any particular trial. Each trial should be judged on the preponderance of the evidence at hand, not based on what may have happened in other trials.

And this works both ways. If only 2% of woman lie about rape, that does not mean that this woman is telling the truth. Conversely, if only 2% of women tell the truth about rape, that does not mean this woman is lying.

As to your final question, i'm sure that if the defense thought that statistics llike this could help sway the jury, they would use them if at all possible. The fact that it happens doesn't make it good, in my opinion.

[annaplurabelle]

I don't know and this may be my ignorance as a man, but wouldn't a person know that they were Raped? If she said, "no" and he forced her, wouldn't that mean rape? Would they need to be told that they were raped?

This might actually be irrelevant to the case.
From Colorado Statute:

Proof of defendant's awareness of nonconsent is not necessary under this section, except under the circumstances described in subsection (1)(e). In all other circumstances, the prohibited conduct by its very nature negates the existence of the victim's consent.
Dunton v. People, 898 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1995).

In this case, prohibited conduct refers to:

Where the jury is properly instructed as to the elements of the offense and the term "knowingly," the jury should properly focus on whether the defendant knowingly caused submission of the victim through the application of physical force or violence. The defendant's awareness of the victim's non-consent is neither an element of the offense nor a topic for argument to the jury.
People v. Dunton, 881 P.2d 390 (Colo. App. 1994).

(all emphasis mine)

This will also pertain to the charges brought against Kobe.
(copy of Kobe complaint doc at Findlaw) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/bryant/cobryant71803cmp.pdf)

[Rilchiam]

Originally posted by holmes

No but the majority of men are rapists. Using my faulty knowledge of statistical methods, one could reasonable say since the majority of men are rapists, its likely that most rapes are committed by men.

holmes, at this point you are just making me laugh. (Yes, I know you corrected your typo, but the "majority" of your argument is still whacked.) You are also making me recall this exchange from the movie Life is Sweet (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0100024):

Natalie (Claire Skinner): I don't fancy bringing a kid up on me own.

Nicola (Jane Horrocks): It's better to be on your own than to be with a bastard.

Na: Well, presumably, you wouldn't choose a bastard in the first place if you had any sense!

Ni: All men are bastards!

Na: What?!

Ni: They're all potential rapists!

Na: That's a bit sweeping!

Ni: All men have got the ability to rape!

Na: Well they don't all do it, do they?!

Ni: Well, they've got the ability; they've got the desire.

Na: That's paranoid rubbish!

Ni: What d'you know about paranoia?

Na: Well, not as much as you do; I'll give you that.

This humourous interlude brought to you by Rilchiam. Now, back to your normally scheduled thread.