Whoa, now. If, and I say if she was already ‘damaged’ when Kobe did his thing, that would easily explain the blood on his shirt.
IF she already had some minor tearing, Kobe perhaps being a large man, increased the damage…but that doesn’t mean the blood is a result of force.
However, several posters have said that in normal sex, with large men…they bled. So why is the immediate conclusion on some that this was a result of force?
Feasible?
My point is that the existance of blood demonstrates there was tearing during the encounter w/Bryant. I don’t care if he was hung like a horse or a housefly, either way, there was actual damage during his encounter w/her.
Does that demonstrate consual/non consensual?
no. But it does (in my mind) establish the irrelevance to encounter A or C. The only reason encounters A or C would be admissable (the way I understand it) is to imply that the damage (ie bruising) was due to those encounters vs. Bryant’s. If the damage was limited to bruising, I’d tend to agree with that assesment.
The fact remains that some amount of tearing/bruising can indeed be the result of consensual sex as well.
The prosecution is suggesting that the damage was due to the non consensual nature of the act, whereas the defense seems to be implying that the damage could have been from encounters A or C and not necessarily B.
I’m suggesting that’s a red herring, since whatever an exam may have demonstrated about the condition of the woman’s vagina etc had we had exams after A, B and C, we do know that at the very least, there was definately damage done during event B (the presence of blood on his shirt).
which supports (rather than proves) the credibility of the woman.
Unfortunately the concept that she had relations with her boyfriend before/after (we don’t ‘know’ if A and C were different people) will no doubt cloud the issue of if the encounter B was consensual (which is the only issue before the court - both parties agree that sexual contact was made).
For me, pending specifics from the person who spoke with her right afterward, I’m still leaning towards her being more credible because Kobe lied. A supremely stupid lie, no doubt, since as opposed to Clinton (who, frankly I think would have had to have thought to himself ‘how in the hell would they be able to prove sexual contact months later’), the accusation was made quickly, he certainly knew contact had been made, and therefore known that DNA would prove he’d had contact. I suspect (and it’s only a suspicion) that he believed that his status as a public figure would protect him from a serious enquirey (evidently he doesn’t read the newspapers), and that he’d never be compelled to offer DNA.
Wait wait wait…they’re saying the material found in her panties the next day was “fresh”? Cite?
If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn’t continue if I lacked a good-faith belief that the accused was guilty.
If I had that belief, I’d go forward despite the state of the evidence thus far. This is a probable cause hearing. All the judge has to hear to bind the case over is sufficent evidence to find probable cause that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it.
These revelations may make a jury verdict of guilty less likely, but I don’t think they torpedo the case to the extent that probable cause is lacking.
I’d certainly take the time between now and the trial to have some come-to-Jesus meetings with my witnesses and complainant, and make sure that everyoen is singing the same (truthful, of course) tune. I’d be damn sure my witnesses were prepped better than this detective seemed to be.
Does anyone know how long biological evidence like this lasts? I’ve heard—don’t have a cite----that this can last for a long time. Do we have anybody here who could verify this? Or not?
i don’t think it’s gonna matter. I mentioned this to female friend and her first response was, “yuck…what kind of girl would put on used panties ESPECIALLY going to rape examination and if they weren’t used…double yuck.”
Of course you could say, perhaps they were the only pair she had handy or perhaps they got missed in the wash…or as another poster said, people react differently to rape (if she had sex after Kobe).
…but that first response was one of disgust.
would a jury react any differently?
Bricker I don’t understand your prepped point. Either the girl changed her story or she didn’t. Either she had another man’s semen in her panties or she didn’t.
Unless the DA tells his witnesses to lie, he’s toast with a jury…why proceed?
Prepping his witnesses won’t help with Kobe’s attorneys, who aren’t some overworked, underpaid public defenders. They have the resources and manpower to find witness and attack evidence. I mean the DA got hammered and the trial hasn’t even started yet. You know, they must already know who’s semen that is, her panties can you imagine putting in on the stand?
Let me ask you another question, based on the evidence now, if you were the judge would you dismiss? If not, why?
The highly paid legal team might need the money for sanctions, BTW…
Ever see that British show where they examine the contents of audience members’ underwear for, eh, stuff?
Let’s say, depending on the test, semen shows up for a very long time.
If the “retelling of events” is correct, however, the prosecution may as well drop the charges. The “gold-digging defense” is almost complete at the preliminary hearing.
One of my friends brought up a very good point. The female body, as a part of its self-cleaning mechanism—oh, boy, bad mental image----sloughs off material continuously, thus leading to a slow, uh, God, I don’t know how to put it. But not all semen from a sexual encounter disappears immediately. She could have put on entirely clean panties, and just as the natural course of events, wound up with discharge from an earlier encounter. So it’s not as definite as it looks.
Well… this is really a point beyond the ability of most men to make a judgement about. I have no clue if it’s possible for a women to -
1: One day before event have sex (where condom use is claimed)
2: During the claimed rape have 5 minutes of forciible penetration without ejaculation
3: The day after the rape have motile sperm on a different pair of panties from the intercourse 2 days prior. Likely or unlikely?Especially in that most women are recoiling in horror at the concept of wearing soiled panties to a rape examination.
So if the the assumption is proved that the panties were fresh, and the sperm was fresh, it is very, very likely the sperm came from a condomless sexual encounter after Bryant. In real terms how likely is it that a rape victim claiming massive emotional trauma, vaginal tearing and multiple brusing from an abusive manhandling and rape is going to have intercourse with her boyfriend, between the claimed rape and the medical examination 24 hours later? I’d venture to say not many.
This assumes they can prove when the sex that caused the sperm to soil the panties occurred. If not, no assumptions can be made.
astro I believe you are wrong about assuming what is ‘normal’ behavior for any specific woman post rape.
Just as different people have different reactions to anything, different women may have different reactions to rape. For some, being touched by anyone afterwards is too painful to contemplate, whereas for others, it may be that consensual contact with a loved and trusted boyfriend may be exactly what she needs.
I’ve known people who reacted to news of a death of a loved one w/a strong sexual urge, while the idea was totally foreign to me in the same circumstances. Different reactions, different people.
Unless there is a lot of blood or serious tearing – I guess that’s relative – the whole case turns on consent. Really, no matter what, the whole case turns on consent.
Based on the accuser’s actions, if the summary by legal experts is correct, everything points to consent. With a “presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, how can you not have a reasonable doubt as to the lack of consent?
Violent rapes between strangers are SO much easier than cases like this. Here you have what looks like flirtation, sneaking around, intentionally getting alone, and a question as to whether she even said “no.”
Here are some key “facts” from that “retelling” article posted by holmes above:
Consent, consent, consent, consent, not consent (but no unbiased witnesses).
This case is probably DOA.
I don’t agree that it’s that simple. For example, during Detective Winters’ direct testimony, he said the alleged victim told him that consensual kissing turned unexpectedly into an unwanted attack, that Bryant clutched her throat and raped her. During his cross, he admitted that the woman did not mention that she told Bryant ‘no’ in her first interview with county sheriffs – even when they asked her “Why didn’t you say ‘no’ to Mr. Bryant?”
That’s poor witness prep and direct examination. His direct examination should have “drawn the sting” - brought out that the woman didn’t directly say no, but resisted in such a way that was obvious to anyone that the attack was unwanted.
I’d bind Mr. Bryant over for trial.
Why? Because the standard that the prosecution must meet is very low: the judge must decide if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, gives rise to probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that Mr. Bryant is the person that committed it.
We’ve heard testimony that the girl reported that she was forced to have sex. The additional material found does not have to mean anything. It’s a jury’s job to weigh the evidence and decide what to believe from among conflicting pieces. The judge’s job at a preliminary hearing is to decide if there is sufficient evidence present that, if believed by the fact-finder, would rise to the level of probable cause.
In this case there is. The victim reported that she had been raped immediately after the event. Even if she never testifies, the immediate outcry hearsay proves this. There was physical evidence of assault. That’s probable cause.
I’ll agree with you, Bricker. If she contends that she said no, it’s simply her word against his. Of course the defense will bring up her sexual past, and the prosecution will perhaps mention the fact that he wanted to file for divorce, resulting in his wife needing medical attention (actually, I’m not sure if that’s admissable). Bottom line - she could have been a hooker, it still doesn’t matter if she said “no.”
The real question is: let’s say he’s convicted. IMHO, he will be found guilty - what will the sentence be?
His direct examination should have “drawn the sting” - brought out that the woman didn’t directly say no, but resisted in such a way that was obvious to anyone that the attack was unwanted.
This line of questioning seems to be directly contradicted by the accuser’s initial statement, that Kobe stopped as soon as she resisted. Also, "I didn’t say ‘No,’ but I meant ‘No,’ " is a weak basis for establishing a lack of consent, particularly in light of the preceding events. In a he said, she said case, the she said part has to be consistent. If it seems to change from day to day, who is willing to trust her enough to imprison a man on her say so.
IMHO, he will be found guilty - what will the sentence be?
The max sentence is life in prison. Another reason why it will be nearly impossible to get all 12 members of a jury to convict. The defense only needs to establish reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. At least one juror will say, “I know Kobe didn’t do it, because the girl said he didn’t do it in her initial statement.”
Unless there is some hidden bombshell - an audio or videotape of the events in question, or an eyewitness - the prosecution doesn’t have a case. I’m assuming that the prosecution would have to turn over this evidence to the defense as part of the discovery process even if it’s not available to the media.
Well, I’ll have to disagree with you - I’m pretty sure other men have been convicted on the testimony of the alleged victim without physical evidence. Also, (and I’m not saying this is a good thing, just stating the obvious) I doubt whether another rich black man can walk away after the O.J. trial.
Possibly, but in this “rich black man” case the developing evidence really seems to be pointing toward there being significant grounds for reasonable doubt as to the victim’s characterization of what happened as a violent, forced rape encounter. Maybe there is some unreleased prosecution bombshell, but this is starting to look like a situation where, fairly or not, the defense is going to be able to paint her as a little bit slutty, and little bit nutty and if they are successful in this Bryant will walk.
I hear you, Astro, but I still think Kobe won’t walk, just a gut feeling on my part, granted. Get even one woman on that jury and it’s all over. The funny thing is – he’s Kobe, why the hell would he have to force someone? (somehow, I don’t think the defense will use that argument.)
Interesting you would say that re the risk “even one women”. I am not an atty (you may be) but I would have no compunction about putting middle aged or older women on that jury. The women (mainly middle class professional) I have heard speak about the news reports of the case, are even less sympathetic than the men I have heard offering opinions, or at least they are less reticent about expressing that if the “never said no” and “semen on the panties” stories are true the victim’s credibility is highly suspect.
The original article summarizing the case so far -
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2351064,00.html
Juries are capable of anything. The Simpson case reminded everyone of this, if anyone had forgotten. It’s possible the jury members could simply disregard evidence that contradicts their initial inclinations.
It depends on what kind of jury Bryant gets. If the case remains in Eagle, the jury could be all white, and harbor resentment over the outcome of the Simpson case. OTOH, they may just feel embarrassed that one of their own was behaving scandalously.
Thus far, the judge has refused to grant a change of venue. With the case looking so weak, he may decide to punt the whole mess to metro Denver. A multiracial jury would likely work in Kobe’s favor. Older conservative Latinas, IMHO, would have little sympathy for the accuser in light of her conduct before the alleged assault.