Yeah. That definitely seems to be the smoking gun here.
One could argue that it might be probative to bring up her recent sexual activity (that she may have had sex frequently over the preceding three days), but the number of partners is not. The only reason to mention three different partners is to make the girl look like a slut.
Another part of my WAG about this is that the media analysts were betting that his attorneys would waive the preliminary hearing to prevent any information from getting out that might potentially be damaging to his reputation. So, I will wildly speculate again that his attorneys were doing this either to try to smear her name and prejudice any potential jurors, or for some reason they felt a preliminary hearing was necessary but wanted to prevent any further reputation-damaging info from getting out, so they kept pulling stunts that would get the hearing finished behind closed doors.
Just my completely uninformed musings.
As I suggested, this is a tactic to get around (ignore?) the rape shield law. Not raising the victim’s past sexual history means, well, what I just said. She (Kobe’s attorney) might burn for this one. Or, she might win a huge appellate case and change the law.
Very recent sexual activity is the way to attack the rape shield law. I wonder if Kobe’s attorney has the facts to back up her accusations? Or, if she was just trying to poison the jury pool.
Wasn’t it just a preliminary hearing yesterday?
The defense doens’t put their case on at that point. Since the question was asked about the three men in three days, I’m betting that they do, in fact, as they wouldn’t pull this stunt, get the publicity on it without a basis because they know the country is waitng for proof.
Also, vaginal tearing is not as bad as it sounds usually…it can happen if the woman isn’t lubricated enough, it can happen if the man is large and she isn’t used to accomodating something that big and it can just be good 'ol fashioned rough sex. FWIW, the first time I was with a man above average size, I ended up having some bleeding and I knew I had some tearing 'cause it hurt to go into the ocean (salt) and it was pretty normal sex.
BTW, criminal attn.'s, can they get in the 3 men in 3 days as evidence of how the vaginal tearing occurred?
I meant do have the evidence of 3 men in 3 days…I knew what I was saying, did you?
Slam-dunk acquittal:
[ul][li] Witness testimony says the victim felt she had “chemistry” with Bryant.[/li][li] The victim had a recent drug overdose.[/li][li] The “consistent with a person who has had sex with three different men in three days” testimony was a powerful defense move.[/li][li] The anti-black sentiment of the Edwards, Colorado and Eagle County region will be used to press the theory of malicious prosecution.[/li][li] His indefatigable celebrity is an impossible opponent.[/li][li] Bryant is a handsome, affable defendant with bottomless pockets.[/li][li] Hurlbert is a young, untested prosecutor.[/ul]The sex act was brutal. Her bruises are consistent with physical restraint. Vail and Edwards have so much to lose from allegations such as this; it would have to have been fucking concrete, from the authorities’ standpoint, to get to yesterday’s hearing. Finally, there’s her blood on the inside of his shirt.[/li]
Mr. Bryant is guilty as hell, but I think the victim will lose. She should take a settlement, move far away and get on with her life.
These kinds of cases are bound to get ugly. What are the issues for dispute? Not whether sex happened, or whether the accuser was with Bryant voluntarily. The “chemistry” statements, if proven, will hurt her. That almost sounds like consent.
We end up with: what was said in the room, when – based on the accuser and the accused, only. There will be much arguing about bruises and tearing. How much latitude the judge gives the defense on the sexual history ‘evidence’ as this proceeds is not clear yet, to me.
A lawyer not backing up an allegation made at a preliminary hearing or in an opening statement (Johnny Cochran) is not unheard of. He won. I’m not giving the defense or the prosecution the benefit of the doubt.
Despite all these machnations we’re going through, jury selection will be the key. Nuggets fans may not be so sympathetic. Women will split down the middle. Men also. Celebrity hounds will try to lie their way on the jury. It’s not clear yet how race will play out, but I agree that is likely to be injected into the case at some point or points.
If there were real psychics they would all be in jury selection part of the time.
IOW, the police officer never saw any bruises on the girls neck, no indicators at all. Just heard about it from some nurse, who is for some reason not testafying. So, let’s just leave off the “sick fuck who likes to choke teenage girls” comments.
In addition to Mr. Bs Slam-dunk acquittal observations, I’d point out that it might be worth remembering she gave her statement at home, with her parents sitting right next to her. This is after having told a co-worker that she’d just boinked Kobe a little while after the event and after having told a friend the next day and getting laughed at.
I think the anti-black sentiment, tied to this girls delusions of having some sort of kudos for having fucked a famous person (as opposed to her normal daily fare) being shot down in flames, tied to her parents being let in on the matter = false accusation of rape.
That’s right, I think she’s a whore who is crying wolf to try not to look like such a cum dumpster, and before you try to defame my character, which you know exactly jack shit about, I’ll have you note that I’m a very, very strong victims rights advocate, which is why I think all the less of this bitch for crying wolf.
IMO, of course.
think do you have a cite for the tone of the remarks to the coworker right afterward? Seems to me that if she’d ‘bragged’ right afterward, that would tend, even in cops eyes, to diminish her believability. I’d heard that she’d said something about it right afterward, but I’d gotten the impression (not sure why) that it was more of a ‘hey, what’s wrong?’ ‘this bad thing happened’ type of conversation.
Presmptions of guilt and presumptions of innocence are really pretty by the by. The bruises for me sound worse than the vaginal tearing - I mean, Kobe’s an NBA player - he can easily palm a basketball. Maybe I’m being prejudiced, but I would certainly assume his feet are bigger than the average mans feet.
How tall is the alleged victim? - if she’s 5’2 I’d be amazed if there wasn’t any after effects. I remember my wife having a lot of soreness after a few days on our honeymoon, and I’m 6’ with average sized feet.
I’ll wait for the rest of the evidence before I convict.
According to several witnesses, the victim left Mr. Bryant’s suite, then beat feet straight down to the lobby and spilled her guts to the bellman. (I’ve heard there will be a cite coming along shortly). Apparently, the bellman consequently made some unsavory remarks about a tall tree and a hank of rope, which tipped off the management.
The lynchpins to this case will be Mr. Bryant’s rambling and somewhat self-incriminating interrogation tape, and the absence of orgasm. His attorneys will get it tossed, get the venue changed to Denver, smear the hell out of the victim and Mr. Bryant will walk.
Call me a fatalist. He’s still fucking guilty.
Mr. B it’s the ‘spilled her guts’ type of statement that makes me think in terms of some one “obviously upset” vs. “gloating/bragging about banging the famous person”.
and it goes quite a way with me towards believability. If she left the room smiling, and ‘hey dood - guess who I just banged’ type of thing, then I’d agree w/thinksnow’s assesment.
If she’d left the room and crying to the co worker or seeming upset, then I’d have a really tough time believing that it’s all an act.
So her demeanor right afterward matters to me. **thinksnow’s ** statements about it were the first I’d ever heard about her ‘bragging’.
Not the cite I’m awaiting, but it’ll suffice for now.
Hope you find it. 'cause I’m just not seeing anything that remotely could be described as ‘bragging’. Of course, I’m assuming that routine investigation would go thusly:
accuser “this is what happened, and right after it happened I told so and so all about it”.
(cop makes notes)
Cop approaches named ‘so and so’ “what can you tell me about the night in question”.
and cop notes results:
Scenario 1. so and so stated that he does not recollect any conversation with accused that night.
Scenario 2. so and so stated that accused told him ‘hey, dood, guess who I just banged! Kobe and it was awesome’.
Scenario 3. so and so stated accused told him ‘I just was raped by Kobe’.
Now, if scenarios one or two occured, that would have shed some doubt on her rape claim.
Given that the prosecution went ahead w/this case, I’m assuming that scenario 3 (or something very close) is the case, since it’d be pretty fucking stupid to go ahead w/a high profile he-said-she-said rape case if they knew of a witness right afterwards who would state that the accused was bragging.
I doubt I’ll find any bragging; it’s exactly the opposite that’s supposed to surface, which has to do with the cops’ interview of the bellman and the bellman’s statement about his initial reaction to the victims’ story.
Well, I rarely put anything past Colorado DAs anymore, but just consider this: the crushing behemoth that is the Vail sports complex. I find it impossible to comprehend this prosecutor tackling a sports’ celebrity of Mr. Bryant’s stature, strictly on the merits of flimsy evidence. The monetary implications are staggering, considering the numbers of celebrities who flock to Vail for skiing, relaxation and therapy.
No. Photographs of the bruises have been submitted into evidence. I’ll stick with the “sick fuck” characterization.
“Whore?” “Cum dumpster?”
Fuck you, you stupid, misogynist, pro-rape shit bag.
On the contrary, thinksnow as the quote by D the C illustrates, we know everything we need to know about your character. Everything. I don’t care if you’re kind to your dear old mum and adopt puppies. You pretty much just spouted every rape cliche there is. Yeah, she’s a starfucking woman scorned who gleefully fucked some guy, then cried rape. Uh, yeah. Yeah, your character is above reproach.
I can’t answer this, but it did remind me of something: isn’t this also stat. rape? Kobe’s 25 (24 when this happened), and the girl is 19. I suppose that’s a non-issue if he’s on trial for sex assault, but hasn’t he already essentially confessed to this?
No. Criminal law is not my area, but I don’t think any state has an age of consent over 18.