It's over. There's already reasonable doubt, and I'd be surprised if the judge lets this go forward.
Kobe's Defense starts in sewer, aims lower
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
It's over. There's already reasonable doubt, and I'd be surprised if the judge lets this go forward.
In no criminal proceeding are the rules of admissibility so slanted as in a case of sexual assault. For anyone to argue that Mr. Bryant is not entitled to a spirited defense, or to admonish his attorney's for naming his accuser in open court is dictatorial. This is not a rape that was committed during the commission of a crime, this is de facto date rape. The revelation of facts hinges on subtle innuendo. The prior conduct of the accuser is of paramount importance, much like the prior conduct of a convicted defendant is considered during the penalty phase of a trial.
I'm as much of a law and order advocate as anyone. Profiling ect., fine with me.But when a man is on trial, allow him the proper weapons of defense.
I'm as much of a law and order advocate as anyone. Profiling ect., fine with me.But when a man is on trial, allow him the proper weapons of defense.
...well perhaps you should contact Colorado because they have a victims privacy act that does not allow for the introduction of prior sexual history....but in this case its obvious that the DA kind of left out some BIG info...like the fact that at the hospital they found ANOTHER MAN"S SEMEN and HAIR....who's to say he didn't;t rape her????
Everyone seems to be assuming she arrived at the hospital to be checked for rape with a fresh load on her panties. Rather unlikely. I doubt the medical examiner can put a time on when the panties were ..uh soiled by someone else. Could have been weeks earlier. In fact, let's assume she had been nailed by some guy 15 minutes before she was summoned to Kobe's room. Doesn't that make it less likely she would have given him the go ahead?
Of course, there is the matter of the pubic hair also found, either on her or the panties. She could have picked them up lying in her own bed if some guy, perhaps MrMarket, had been there before. At most, all of this evidence perhaps could be used to cast doubt on the internal injuries. Most likely, it is excluded at trial.
I see zero chance that the case is dismissed before trial, at least not with what we know now. Consent is a factual issue for the jury. Every thing else is just window dressing.
Of course, there is the matter of the pubic hair also found, either on her or the panties. She could have picked them up lying in her own bed if some guy, perhaps MrMarket, had been there before. At most, all of this evidence perhaps could be used to cast doubt on the internal injuries. Most likely, it is excluded at trial.
I see zero chance that the case is dismissed before trial, at least not with what we know now. Consent is a factual issue for the jury. Every thing else is just window dressing.
What is lacking in these pre-trial tactics, for both the defense and the prosecution, is an opportunity to fully examine, and cross examine the evidence.
All that matters is the evidence, and the more physical evidence the better.
In the end, it is still a matter of listening to all the evidence presented that is fact and not just opinion, and coming to the conclusion of why is telling the truth and who is lying.
Kobe is a proven liar, as he initially said he did nothing, and then later confessed to the sex act....only when the physical evidence found forced him to say so.
She may also be a proven liar.
One thing to remember though, reasonable doubt can be overcome by less than 100% certainty. It is nowhere stated that anyone has to be 100% certain of guilt, just that "reasonable doubt" has to be overcome.
You can be 55% to 85% certain of guilt, lacking evidence one way or the other to prove one side's position over the other, and still convict because you have a reasonable belief in guilt.
Reasonable doubt is not clearly understood by most people. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt often leaves those on a jury who convict, still always wondering if they made the right choice....but confident enough to convict. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt, just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, odds are we will never know (unless Kobe or the girl admit they are lying) what happened.
Pay attention to the evidence, hard evidence and come slowly to a conclusion.
Anyone who has made up their mind at this point is just plain wrong to do so.
All that matters is the evidence, and the more physical evidence the better.
In the end, it is still a matter of listening to all the evidence presented that is fact and not just opinion, and coming to the conclusion of why is telling the truth and who is lying.
Kobe is a proven liar, as he initially said he did nothing, and then later confessed to the sex act....only when the physical evidence found forced him to say so.
She may also be a proven liar.
One thing to remember though, reasonable doubt can be overcome by less than 100% certainty. It is nowhere stated that anyone has to be 100% certain of guilt, just that "reasonable doubt" has to be overcome.
You can be 55% to 85% certain of guilt, lacking evidence one way or the other to prove one side's position over the other, and still convict because you have a reasonable belief in guilt.
Reasonable doubt is not clearly understood by most people. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt often leaves those on a jury who convict, still always wondering if they made the right choice....but confident enough to convict. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt, just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, odds are we will never know (unless Kobe or the girl admit they are lying) what happened.
Pay attention to the evidence, hard evidence and come slowly to a conclusion.
Anyone who has made up their mind at this point is just plain wrong to do so.
I am sick of hearing the word panties used with this case.
Call them underwear, undergarments, bikini briefs, etc.
The only proper place for the use of the word panties as it relates to a rape was in the movie Deliverance.
"Now just you drop them panties, boy!"
Call them underwear, undergarments, bikini briefs, etc.
The only proper place for the use of the word panties as it relates to a rape was in the movie Deliverance.
"Now just you drop them panties, boy!"
that to me is weird....she admits to have sex with another guy a day or two earlier.....The Defense is going to say it was the day before or the day of....either way, as a juror I would squirm listening to a girl say she had sex, dropped the dripping drawers on the floor, met Kobe the next day, then came home and put the old underwear on again??? If I was the Defense, i would asking why this OTHER partner is not being investigated ????