Talk about piloting a toboggan down a slippery slope. Did you make this up all by yourself, or do you have some computer program that helps you weave logical fallacies into ordinary sentences?
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let’s just assume that little miss slut had sex with several men. Does it not therefore follow that she’s highly unlikely to turn down anyone who crosses her path? Why, the little tramp could never turn down such a desirable man as Kobe – unless of course she’s racist.”
/me golf claps
If at some point you’d like to look at things a bit more logically, you may wish to start by considering that 1) no amount of prior sexual activity deprives you of your right to say ‘no’ to someone. 2) promiscuity is irrelevant, which is just as well since it hasn’t been proven. 3) turning down the advances of someone is not equivalent to bigotry against whatever minority groups they might belong to.
I fully agree with your statement as it stands. However if it is a question of determining the veracity of a claimed sexual rejection, then I think it has relevance in a he says she says standoff.
Well you may be right that it hasn’t been proven but I’ve read that there was more than one genetic signature in the semen recovered with the rape kit. But I do think promiscuity is relevant in the case of a rape charge against a clearly desirable male with the attributes commonly considered attractive to women, and NBA stars are certainly in that category.
Sure, but I’m asking what if it was the reason? The lack of response to this particular question is quite understandable.
Prior “promiscuity” doesn’t mean dick in a rape case. That’s why such evidence is inadmissable.
The reason she turned him down is also completely fucking irrelevant. She doesn’t fucking need a fucking reason. She doesn’t fucking need to fucking justify her rejection. She fucking said no. That’s all we need to know.
Let’s have a look at the “three men in three days” information.
"Three men in three days" is an unanswered question from the defense – an implication on behalf of the Defense – which along with the mentioning of the victim’s name six times (though Defense Attorney Mackey was strictly admonished to not do so) caused a pause in the hearing. Both sides then went to chambers, where the judge decided to suspend and reconvene “some time next week.”
What’s been established at the hearing:[ul][li]The Detective was asked if he’d asked the nurse a question. [*]The question he’d asked was whether the injuries were consistent with having sex with three men over three days.[/ul]At present, it’s an implication. That’s all.[/li]
I hope you’ll all agree this is a very serious case for the DA to file. Considering the amount of pressure on the authorities, and irrespective of the presumed expectation of Rape Shield Protection, it is difficult for me to believe the DA would have filed in the presence of evidence of promiscuity.
If it turns out this “3 days of sex” is not some bombastic Defense comment, it could be easily explained away that the victim had had sex with her new boyfriend for the two days prior to the incident with Mr. Bryant. And that she suffers from vaginismus.
What we’re seeing here is the first backhand swipe of a terrific smear campaign. It’s simply a matter of time before an old boyfriend comes out of the woodwork and starts rapping on the time she huffed a can of Raid, stuffed a Coors longneck in his ass, then blew him. It’s not relevant, but we all seem to enjoy it…
Notwithstanding the Rape Shield laws, the fact the victim had sex with someone else - or multiple someone elses - recently enough to account for the bruising and bleeding is admissible, assuming the prosecution argues that the only inference to be drawn from the injuries is non-consensual sex with Mr. Bryant.
The defense is entitled to rebut that allegation, if and only if they have a foundation for the questions. They cannot simply ask the victim questions as though they were tossing out a fishing net and seeing what they reel in. But if they have specific evidence, such as the presence of semen from two or more different sources in the rape kit, and if the prosecution argues that the only source of the injuries to the victim was Mr. Bryant, then they may explore the alternative explanations without running afoul of the strictures imposed by Rape Shield.
(At least, they would if this were my state. I admit to not knowing specifics about Colorado law. But it seems to me that any result other than this raises serious problems under the Confrontation Clause.)
It’s my understanding that even if the presence of more than one person’s semen is found in the panties that there is no way to tell how long each sample has been there. If she had sex with a boyfriend a month ago and her underwear simply wasn’t laundered very well some traces of dried semen could still be there, could they not? It wouldn’t have to be very much. The faintest bit of residue would be all the defense needed to raise the theory of multiple partners.
BTW, has it actually been confirmed that more than one DNA sample exists in the panties? Has the alleged victim herself been ruled out as the contibutor for that marker?
Has the defense actually produced any names of guys claiming to have had sex with her in the previous two days?
It sounds like the defense is just blowing smoke by raising these questions. They got the smear out there on the public record and got the prelim moved out of public earshot while appearing to have gone along with it.
From what I’ve read, Kobe’s own statement may be problematic for the defense. I suspect that’s why Mackey sabataged the hearing by repeatedly dropping the victim’s name. She wanted to get the smear out there and then cut the prelim short before Kobe’s statement was made public.
So do you fully agree or not? Whoever else she may have consented to, however recently or frequently, she still has a sacred right to deny someone access to her body. The only thing that is legally relevant is the possibility that those prior encounters may account for some of the physical evidence being used against Kobe. It is not relevant in the slightest as a measure of her truthfulness, and I frankly bristle that someone would try to draw the connection.
Batshit. What the fuck is ‘clearly desirable’ and who the fuck are you to determine who or what a nineteen year old stranger would find attractive? Is the fact that he is older clearly desirable? The fact that he is married clearly desirable? The fact that he is a complete stranger clearly desirable? Your assumption that she had to be attracted to him, and that attraction had to be strong enough for her to consent to sex, ranks among the ten most inane things I have ever seen written. Anywhere. The addition of your supposition that if she did turn him down she must be a racist catapults you into the top five.
No. There would need to be forensic evidence of recent intercourse - the presence of motile spermatazoa or other strong indicia - before you can overcome the Rape Shield rule concerning sexual history.
That’s not to say that there is such forensic evidence. The defense could simply have been flouting the rule to get favorable press.
I think the bruising, plus the alleged victims emotional response afterwards, points strongly towards a nonconsensual sexual encounter.
The prosecution only needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. I don’t think the “rough sex” defense is a reasonable doubt.
Not sure about the law in regard to legal relevance, but as a juror, I’d be much more inclined to believe that she did not consent if she was a virgin, or clearly monagamous. Go ahead and use your criteria to condemn Kobe, which frankly makes me bristle. Perhaps its personal for me, because I’ve been falsely accused with consequences.
Assuming you are a straight male with past sexual encounters, alone in a hotel room with Halle Berry, forgive me for not believing she successfully laid you against your will.
As I said in my earlier post that got supplanted by even sven’s, there’s only an unanswered implication by the defense about “three men over three days.”
Depends on what, grienspace? You state you “fully agree” and then go on to state how you really don’t agree at all. Now it “depends” but you are unwilling, or incapable, of telling us what your agreement depends on.
Well, on the first point I sadly have to agree with you. I don’t doubt that your attitude regarding the veracity of a rape claim from a sexual active woman would be evident among many potential jurors. It is this troglodytic thinking that makes running the victim through the mud a viable and commonly employed defense strategy. It’s not the spirit of the law; it is morally reprehensible; and congratulations for wallowing in it.
Another intellectual balk, grienspace. You’ve reinforced your absurd opinion that there are certain people so desirable that they should never be accused of rape, and sought to prove this codswallop with an irrelevant analogy. It’s never been more curious that the word analogy reads like it is intended to carry the meaning of the study of one’s own anus. I’m not 19. I’m not female (which doesn’t grant me a differing set of rights, but certainly does alter my views on sex and intimacy.) I’m physically not likely to be overpowered by Halle. And I still would have the right to turn down Miss Berry for any reason that struck me, including racism if I were the type of person to embrace bigotry.
Strangly, I haven’t made any statement about whether Kobe is innocent or not. Where did you pull this assumption from?
It sounds like she responded to Bryant’s overtures, and after the foreplay, and somewhere along the continuum in the initial penetration phase, or very close to it, suddenly decided this was really not what she wanted to be doing. For whatever reason, and there is evidence to suggest that she is not a particularly stable person emotionally, she gets freaked out by the situation when he’s just starting to get into it. Horniness and aggression are two thinly separated sides of the same primal urges coin, and he gets incredibly pissed at this flakiness that leaves him hanging sexually, grabs her and penetrates her roughly a few times. She’s really freaked out and crying at this point so he lets her go, and the rest is history.
Camille Paglia once spoke to this real world danger of women/girls foreplaying with men to the verge of intercourse, and then suddenly switching gears. Regardless of their perfect legal right to do so, as a practical matter this is very risky behavior. Historically, to the extent I can recall in cases of this sort, juries (even primarily female ones) have relatively little sympathy for “I was in his hotel room, naked and making out, and suddenly changed my mind” defenses.
Even given how roughly she may have been handled after changing her mind, unless she can convince the jury that she’s not a flaky, slutty tease (which is how the prosecution will paint her), her chances of prevailing are limited.
I can’t believe what I’m reading from some of you people. Why the fuck does it matter if a woman is a slutty tease? What does that have to do with the question of whether she was raped or not?
The nature of how males and females are built makes a scenerio where a female overpowers a male and has sex with him against his will highly unlikely compared to the reverse scenerio. And unfortunately, the former would probably be much harder to prove (would a forced encounter with Halle leave bruises? What kind of proof would there be that sex even took place?).
And personally, I don’t really find celebrity females attractive. All I see of them is an image they put up for the rest of the world. There’s a certain level of fakeness there that turns me off.
My post may indeed be wildly off base as to how things actually happened, or will pan out, but in essence it was a practical arm’s length attempt at analyzing what might have happened based on the limited information offered to date, and how a jury might interpret the context and facts of the situation, and how the plaintiff might be portrayed by the defense. I don’t really recall at what point in my post I offered a specific moral judgment on her behavior or his. And in essence you are right with respect to the fact of her being portrayed as a “slutty tease” being legally immaterial to the specific legal question of rape, but in the real world it will not be immateial to how the jury judges her claims as a victim.
