[quote]
“The nature of the injuries doesn’t tell you if the sex was consensual,” Baden said. “It becomes a ‘he said, she said.’ It becomes a jury question: Who do you believe?”
Baden was not the only one with doubts. He said two nurses who examined the accuser the day after the encounter told him they could not say whether the injuries were the result of a rape.
“In my discussion with them, together with the DAs, they could not tell,” Baden said.
Detectives had cited the nurses’ exam and their conclusion that the injuries were “not consistent with consensual sex” as evidence Bryant raped the woman.
Baden said the discrepancy “would have come up as an interesting point in the trial.”[/qoute]
You mean like automatically calling her a victim because she accused someone of rape?
Because she knows it’s a he-said, she-said, and that she’s the one who’s lying.
That evidence has completely fallen apart. Sorry to say this, but she wouldn’t be the first woman who consistently stated she was raped and lied, and she sure as hell won’t be the last.
Absent evidence beyond a reasonable doubht that she was raped, I’m not about to accept her claim that she was.
What it does is present other avenues from which her injuries could have come, and casts doubt as to her credibility.
Referring to her as ‘the victim’ automatically assumes the conclusion: that she was raped by the accused. (And no, I’m not going to use his name. It’s not fair to a man who is innocent until proven guilty to be named in a rape trial knowing that once that particular mark is on one’s reputation, it never vanishes. Not even for an innocent man.)
The linked article you provided indicated there was a “small bruise” on her face. How on earth does that translate into “being hit in the face”?
Cite And how could the prosecution go forward on any charge when the victim has stated she didn’t want to testify? I’m not going to “trust you” for that kind of idiotic assertion.
[/quote]
You’re right, they can’t do shit if she won’t face him. I think a majority of DAs wuld have added the charges to the indictment if they thought there was just cause.
I saw quite a bit of involvement of the DAs office. THey certainly weren’t running dark on this one. She stated she was raped, consistently, yes. There was some corroborating evidence, yes. That evidence broke down under pressure of experts of both sides, yes.
Find some sand and insert your head into it, that’s fine with me. Two experts, one for each side claim that there isn’t enough corroborating evidence to come up with your conclusion.
This isn’t “blame the victim”. For me, this is mainly “blame the prosecution for not having a tight case against a public figure”.
Maybe our definitions of “screetching” are a bit different. Or maybe, you’re just reading into shit again.
I hate to point this out, Pal, but she didn’t testify, therefore it’s not evidence. It’s not even fucking relevant.
No, her injuries have not been called into question as they definitely exist. How they got there ans whether the sex was consensual has been called into question. Called into question by those who examined her. Called into question by an expert hired by the prosecution.
Excuse me, but why did you lump my post in with those others? Did I make any contention as to whether Kobe is innocent or guilty? I don’t believe I did. The response above has nothing to do with what I said. I said the fact that someone may or may not pursue a civil trial does not NECESSARILY mean they’re greedy. Try to stay with me on this: That doesn’t mean I’m making any assertion as to who is lying, who is innocent, or who is guilty. If you want to hold your own half-baked opinions and believe that you know something for a fact, when you couldn’t possibly know because you weren’t there, that’s fine - you’re entitled to your opinion. Personally, I wouldn’t presume to know something that I couldn’t possibly know for sure.
Hey Hamlet, nice to hear from you, sorry it took me so long to get back in here. Do you have any legal expertise? Being married to a former DA, I lean on him heavily in legal matters because he is an expert. I stand by every word in my post.
Extensive investigation is called for before filing a case like this. If you think that the Eagle County DA’s office looked at this as “just another case”, you’d be wrong. They knew they would be under immediate and constant scrutiny and should have had all their legal ducks in a row. They didn’t.
If she was raped, then she has my sympathies because she got screwed twice. But I myself do not believe she was raped, based on the evidence, investigations and her behavior.
Anyway, it was nice to see somebody get that fired up about one of my posts!
What are you disputing? Magic Johnson is not HIV+? Or, he didn’t contract the virus during a time when he was having a lot of casual sex? Or there never was a time when he had a lot of casual sex?
A normal someone suing a normal someone else maybe. But a hotel employee suing a wealthy basketball star whose name she can freely drag through the mud while the media dares not mention hers?
I see catsix is an sensitive as ever.
Yeah, don't have sex after getting raped. You're not allowed to have sex after getting raped. Everyone knows that all rape victims react the same way to rape, and furthermore, there's only one correct reaction: no sex.
As a matter of fact, here’s a conveniant list of things to do if you’re raped. Don’t have had sex, ever. Don’t work at a hotel. Don’t ever go to a hotel room alone with a guy, even though it might be part of your duties. Don’t get raped by a rich famous guy. Make sure that there’s a lot of evidence, too----that’s your job. Bruises aren’t enough, any more—there’s always the rough sex defense. Hell, according to that jury in California, a videotape of an unconscious girl isn’t enough.
Don’t ever have had mental problems. Don’t have a career in show business. Worse yet, don’t try to—people seem to think that bringing rape charges are fun and career-enhancing, and that women somehow do this to get famous. Don’t ever have had a drink, or flirted with a guy, or had sex. Don’t get raped in such a way that there’s not a lot of evidence. Make sure you’re popular, but not ‘slutty’ because everyone knows that sluts can’t be raped.
Most of all, don’t think about how fast people jump from the ‘case couldn’t be proven’ to ‘she’s a money-grubbing lying twat.’ It’s not like the courts allow dueling. A civil suit is the only retribution she’ll get.
As you’ll notice, the success of this list depends on going back in time and changing yourself into a virgin who never goes out, does anything, or has any fun at all. It seems like that’s what it would take.
There you go assuming that he’s guilty because some greedy bitch said so. She’s out for money, his money, and she knows that there’s no way for her to win a civil trial if he’s acquitted at the criminal trial. He’d be acquitted because the prosecution has shit for evidence and she looks like a little liar considering all the lies she’s already told.
She’s not the first to lie, and she won’t be the last. She’s not the first opportunistic bitch to want money from a rich superstar, and she won’t be the last.
Margin, NO ONE is disputing that it’s possible for a woman, even a slutty, drunk, mentally ill hotel worker who went voluntarily to the hotel room with a famous, wealthy NBA star, to be raped. FWIW, I neither believe nor disbelieve the alleged victim. I don’t know what really happened and neither do you.
What I will say is that the more strikes you have against you (all the things you listed above), the harder it’s going to be to get a CONVICTION. That is a fact.
And given everything that has come to light, I question what the DA’s motive was in pushing forward with this case. If it was anything other than his desire to seek justice, then shame on him.
Margin, do you not see how incredibly weak the evidence of rape is in this case? Honesty… I really want to know. Do you not believe that people have a right to defend themselves against such charges? Do you not believe that before people are accused of such a crime, the evidence should at least be strong?
You seem to be ignoring the way the evidence as played out. I would agree that INDIVIDUALLY the flaws in this case, shouldn’t mean much, but COMBINED they were the death-knell of this case; as they should be. The same way had the evidence went the other way, the defendent should be on trial now.
As far as the civil suit goes, what people have a problem with is, if she says she can’t bear to face the trial with the protections afforded to her, why is she willing to face a Civil Trial in which they (defense) will be able to rip her to even smaller chunks?
I guess you didn’t read the last part of my post, did you? Until the law allows dueling, civil suits are all she’s got.
When I see a defense attorney playing dirty, I have to wonder what they’re hiding. It’s as simple as that. Why aren’t muggings and confidence schemes defended as viciously as rapes are? Don’t talk to me about how the poor guy lives with it even if he’s acquitted; given the way people bash rape victims—see catsix above-----there are people who could see a videotape of a rape and still believe it was consensual. Oh, wait. That actually did happen in the California gang rape case. Even a videotape of a rape isn’t enough to get a conviction.
Punditlisa, what you call strikes I call sexism and the double standard. Either we treat everybody like we treat rape victims, or we treat rape victims like we treat other crime victims. Mugging victims don’t get blamed for being robbed because they were wearing $2000 suits, but rape victims get dismissed because they’ve had sex before. Hell, if we treated crime victims in general the way we treated rape victims we’d get no convictions at all. Which ought to be enough to make people wonder.
Uh, catsix, sweetie? Could you give up the mindreading just long enough to recognize that you’re doing it again? You’re accusing me of assuming he’s guilty because you and only you know what lurks in the subconscious of the victim. Oh, poor Kobe----actually, his statement, if he wrote it himself, was pretty much the best analysis of what I’ve read about the case. They both believe they’re telling the truth, but she wound up with his dick inside her where she didn’t want it, and he wound up with an orgasm. His fans and lots of others will never believe he’s guilty, and now she’s nationally known as a lying slut. They both went through the pre-trial hell, but society has a predisposition to believe that women lie. It’s as old as the double standard, but she had to fight against that, and he didn’t. The scorned women stereotype is as old as the Bible, and there’s even a lying scorned woman there, too----Potiphar’s wife. catsix’s bitter certainty that the victim is lying is a perfect example. There’s a lot of ground between Bryant himself saying that they both believe they’re telling the truth and catsix’s and others denouncing the victim as a lying twat. Instantly, too. Lot of ground there. Funny how it’s either one end of the spectrum or the other, but never the middle.
A mugging victim can always buy a new wallet. How do you flee your own body? Maybe that’s why she’s so determined to press her civil suit. That’s the middle ground.
[QUOTE=margin]
I guess you didn’t read the last part of my post, did you? Until the law allows dueling, civil suits are all she’s got. /QUOTE]
Sure, if the case had gone to trial, I would agree. It didn’t go to trial. Why? She doesn’t want to go forward…but she’ll willing to bypass sending the defendent to prision, instead going directly for money.
I’ll ask you again. If the accused feels she can’t testify in a criminal case…how can she testify in a Civil Trial, when there will be less protection?
The DA says he has a strong case, and the reason he’s dropping it is because she refuses to testify. Yes?
margin is one of those radical feminists who seems to deny the very existence of false rape accusations.
Defnitely before their face and their name are plastered all over the TV and newspapers. You can ruin a person’s life with that accusation, even if it’s meritless.
I could think of a few million reasons. All of them with a dead President’s head on.
She says now she didn’t want it there. Now that she has the opportunity to get a lot of money out of it.
A man falsely accused of rape can never shed the association.
Umm, I’m sorry, but maybe I missed this “playing dirty” by the defense. Why don’t you tell me what the defense did that was so “dirty” or not by the rules.
AFAIK, the defense has done their job in refuting the evidence presented to them, and calling into question the victim’s character, reputation, and actions before, during and after the alleged rape.
In this case, the rape victim was not condemned for having had sex before.
She was condemned for having had sex with another man after the alleged rape but before the rape kit was taken.
While I agree that it’s possible for a legitimate rape victim to have consensual sex with someone else before reporting the rape, immediately after the rape, it is certainly not common in the annals of rape victimology.
