Dunno if this was conscious, but you used defence when I think you meant prosecution. Kind of scary with the presumption of innocence lies in these cases. I mean, either we accuse person A of using physical violence on person B, or we accuse person B of using legal violence on person A.
Depends upon how rough we’re talking about here. I haven’t seen the pictures, but at a certain point I think the rough sex explanation stops being a reasonable alternate theory.
I certainly agree with this. Some bruising may be rough sex; excessive bruising makes the explanation less likely.
But the real key is simply what the jury buys.
Unfortunately, juries like to see Good Victims. A Good Victim is someone of chaste character and respectable occupation who fought back during the attack and has injuries to prove it. Juries usually have no trouble believing a rape accusation when it comes from a Good Victim.
The more the victim deviates from the Good Victim profile, the more evidence a jury seems to need before they find guilt in a rape. If the victim put herself in a questionable situation - such as accompanying a married man to a hotel room - juries tend to punish her for that.
Someone said above: “Whoever else she may have consented to, however recently or frequently, she still has a sacred right to deny someone access to her body.” There’s no doubt that’s true, and that’s what the law says. That may not be how the jury feels. The defense knows this, and will capitalize on it. The prosecution knows this, and will work to minimize it.
I’m sorry, but that’s how it is.
- Rick
I believe that she has the right to say “no”, no matter how rich, famous/whatever he is and no matter how “slutty” she is.
But since no one really knows what happened it comes down to credibility. If the defense introduces that she was a slut (and that’s what they were stating they will do with her question about 3 men in 3 days. They are basically saying “we will destroy you”) then it makes it seem like “well if she sleeps with all these other guys, why wouldn’t she sleep with Kobe?” and “she’s not a babe in the woods, why did she go up to a man’s room?”.
Now, those questions would be coming from the jury. No doubt, she has the right to say “no” even if she says “yes” to a million other guys. But it comes down to credibility and if the defense can enter her alledged “sluttiness” then her credibility is cast into doubt. Not that women don’t have the right to say “no” it’s just that without sympathy from the jury (and slutty women probably wouldn’t get much) then they are less likely to believe her.
I think the key is that no one knows what happened.
I have heard mixed things about what she said to whom. At one time I heard she was bragging about having had sex with Kobe. That would be very unlike a “rape victim”, I would think, and cast further doubt upon her credibility. It would seem unlikely that a woman who was raped could joke about it later.
I am kind of surprised that other women haven’t come out of the wood work to say that he raped /slept with them.
So what do you think—that virgins have no sex drive at all? Every sexually experienced person was once a virgin.
**
You could just as easily say that a virgin would be particularly susceptible to the Power of Celebrity, for the cachet of having surrendered one’s virginity to someone rich and hot and famous.
Back in the Beatles’ touring days, when they were running groupies through their hotel rooms practically on a conveyer belt, many of the young women were virgins beforehand, but still willing, because wow, they were having their first sex with Paul McCartney! Or whichever one. (One girl wanted to take the bloodied sheet with her :eek:, but was convinced not to, on the grounds that that would be stealing, and she’d be in enough trouble if her parents found out where she’d been.)
I’ve had “past sexual encounters.” But if I found myself in a scenario that had both Mr. Rilch out of the picture somehow (death, divorce, abducted by aliens) and me in a hotel room with Hugh Jackman, if he started acting in a manner inconsistent with the good-guy image I have with him, you bet he’d have to take me against my will, to take me at all. (Actually, the idea of his cheating on his wife would be the main inconsistency. I would never be a party to that.)
In discussions on message boards, the standard is usually a preponderance of the evidence. We sit around going, "Yeah, I think he did it. "
But the jury has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a ‘he said, she said’ case, that’s damned hard to achieve. There are no witnesses, no one really knows what happened behind that door other than the two people involved.
And Kobe’s celebrity may work for him here, because it makes it more likely that the woman really was interested at first. The defense is likely to say, “Hey, she went into a hotel room with a basketball star. What did she expect was going to happen?”
Also, celebrities are targets for gold-diggers and nutcases. If she has a history of mental instability, the defense may argue that she was simply out of control. They might even insinuate that SHE was the one who wanted it rough. Maybe she had sex with him, then left and filed rape charges out of shame or because she’s self-destructive.
I think Kobe did it. But so far, if I were on the jury I might have to vote for acquittal. Because there is some doubt. It could have happened like this: They got in the room, started to have consensual sex, he was very big, it hurt, he was rough, she had enough, told him to stop, and he did. So she leaves the room feeling awful, and rationalizes that it was rape.
Each one of these scenarios is pretty far-fetched, but the defense will be looking at each of them, picking the most credible one, and building up a case for it. If they’re really good, that case may be compelling enough to create a reasonable doubt.
Have we gotten any word on whether the rape kit included Kobe’s semen?
It’s precisely because of the danger of the jury making those impermissible inferences that Rape Shield-type laws have been passed. As a matter of law, the vicitm’s past sexual history is irrelevant (with certain exceptions, one of which I mentioned above).
- Rick
I didn’t lie, Rick, but how nice of you to accuse me of that. And how interesting. I contacted Lynn Schafran herself, but the case is ten years old, and I’m having to track down statements that appeared in press articles that haven’t been archived anywhere on the web. Not being able to yet find the source is not the same as lying, but it does reveal some very interesting things about your character, as long as we’re discussing it. Hm. So I’m a liar for not being able to find a ten-year old quote. Yet. But there’s nothing wrong with calling me a liar when I said something that I had read previously, quoted in good faith, and was searching to verify. Your whole argument hangs on that quote, doesn’it it? If I can’t find it, I’m a liar, not someone who doesn’t have access to the law library. What an interesting mindset this is.
And as for character, there’s something kind of creepy about your shrugging off of sexism in the quote that follows. Gotta love how you totally ignore thinksnow’s sexism, as well. It doesn’t bother you at all, does it?
Yep, nothing wrong with accepting sexism.
Colorado’s rape shield law. The first thing I see that the attorney is likely hanging her hat on is 18-3-407 (1)(b),
(bolding mine)
If Kobe’s attorney has evidence of what she suggested in the preliminary hearing regarding recent sexual conduct, it might be admissible. Of course, that’s virtually always true, “it might be admissible.” OTOH, it could have been a violation of the rape shield law. I’ll let the other legal beagles have at it before I jump to conclusions.
Where do you get ‘accepting’ from? What you just read was a straightforward description of bias in the system, not an endorsement this bias. If you aren’t smart enough to understand this, and are going to make a habit of twisting people’s words to suit your own purposes, you are going to have a short, unhappy stay here. My humble suggestion is that you re-read, reconsider, and aploligize.
This statement says that sexism in the system is unchangeable and is best not tampered with. There is no criticism of sexism anywhere in the whole statement; merely stating that is’s a fact. As a matter of fact, the final phrase----“I’m sorry, but that’s how it is”----is a statement of finality. This system is carved in stone. Period.
And I’ll apologize when Bricker apologizes for calling me a liar. Funny how that didn’t bother you. Although in view of statements like this…
…it might appear that I’m not the one who has difficulties with the truth.
margin, what does your petty back and forth accusations of lying have to do with what I told you? You mischaracterized a statement. I called you on it. I’m not interested in debating yours or Bricker’s truthfulness at the moment, so stop trying to obfuscate. If you want to call Bricker out for the way he might defend a robber, be my guest, but it has dick-all to do with my comments to you.
Now you have interpreted the simple 6 word statement “I’m sorry, but that’s how it is,” to mean that Bricker endorses the system without criticism, and further feels it is best not to do anything about it. You’re an idiot. I’m sorry, but that’s how it is.
You THINK I mischaracterized his statement. That’s your opinion. Now you call me an idiot. That’s also your opinion. YOU’REan asshole. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, sweetie, but just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean you have the god like ability to be the final authority there. Fuck off. What an asshole, and I mean that sincerely.
Add me to your asshole/shitlist, because I agree with Waverly. You’re wrong here. Your inference from Bricker’s comment cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of what he said. (And you’re wrong in the other thread, too. If you’re going to make comments that amount to an accusation of jury tampering and/or violating the juror’s oath, you better have a cite.)
Look who’s wrong, then? Lea Haller’s been quoted by Amy Pagnozzi and Lynn Hecht Schafran in public and while she’s married to Roy Black, neither one of them has taken issue with the remarks as quoted. Locating those remarks, after twelve years, has proven to be more onerous than I expected. Bricker called me a liar, not an inadequate researcher. I never accused anyone of jury tampering, but, hey, why let a little fact like that bother you? No one’s yet taken Bricker to task for his hyperbole in making his point.
You just accused me of something I never claimed in support of Bricker. Neither one of you acknowledge his hyperbole. Gee, I’m so impressed with your unbiased approach, really. It’s almost as much as the way Bricker praised thinksnow’s posts in that other thread, and then ignored his excesses in this one to make a jab at me.
It’s a real simple question, Random. If I can’t verify a quote, does that make me a liar? If you won’t bother answering that, I have nothing further to say to you.
Did it really come out in the trial that Kobe is “very big”? Because everyone keeps saying that.
This thread has been hijacked enough. margin, if you wish to say anything more, I’ve set up a thread in your honor.
Yeah, thanks, I’m still waiting for one of you every-so-impartial souls to explain how ‘wrong’----according to you----and ‘lying’ are identical. Hm?
No…
She said she said no. There’s a difference.
Stop screaming long enough and you might even see why that’s important.
-Joe, who thinks he probably did it, but can’t stand to see frothing fanatics screaming that they know the truth…when they don’t