Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

[SoMiss2000]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds. The prosecution better be on their game. Hell we still don't know what happen to Jon Benet.

[wsh2293]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />


I studied a bit of criminal law...not that it did me any good.

Anyways, the way I am reading is...he's in a tonne of trouble.

IMO it looks like they've flirted a bit, she's probably been attracted to him and given him a signal...and then backed away.

He's reacted, and gone ahead. She's said no...he's done it anyway.

What a lot of people misinterpret in these things is that constitutes rape.

Rape is not just a guy grabbing a woman off the street. It has all different forms.

If a prostitute, who accepts money off a man,but then gets scared because he's aggressive etc and says "i don't want this"...if he goes ahead and has sex with her...that's rape.

If a girl kisses you for an hour and says she'll go down on you...and half way through it, you decide you want penetration etc and she says "don't", but you go ahead, that's rape.

The facts are, once she says "no"...it's a crime to go ahead.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that she said no and didn't want sex...he's in serious trouble, because nothing else will matter.

IMO it's reasonably clear that at some stage she didn't want sex.

The nurses statement that the damage is NOT consistent with consensual sex will be very strong in front of a jury IMO...when you combine it with the attendants statement, and the DNA.

In a way, I feel sorry for him in that I can see how it's happened . She probably gave him a signal or two that she was keen and, as a male, that does get you thinking that it's time to rock and roll.

However, the bottom line is, once she says 'no'...it's over.

He's made a mistake and he'll (probably) be punished for it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that we all need to remember that these details all come from a detective's version of what the alleged victim says happened. All of these details could very well be false. I'm as guilty as anybody for assuming that this detective's statements are entirely accurate. Even though I really enjoy hearing all of the juicy details, I objectively know that they may not be true. So I think making a judgment on Kobe's guilt or innocence would be getting ahead of things.

Now what you're saying is correct. If the woman (I don't want to use her name for fear that the all-powerful Judge Gannett may admonish me) clearly demonstrated to Kobe that she wanted the sexual interaction to stop, then he raped her. Now I personally don't like the idea of a person's utterance of "no" automatically constituting rape. As a matter of practicality it is virtually impossible to actually prove that this woman ever said "no" without the use of an audio-recording device. I personally believe that an alleged-rape victim must show some type of physical resistance (i.e. the alleged attacker's skin under his or her fingernails from scratching). However, the law is the law.

Remember though, for Kobe to rape this woman as defined by the law he would have to have understood her withdrawal of consent. She may have not wanted to continue, but not have properly communicated her desire to Kobe. Over the course of the day between the alleged incident and the report, she could have very well convinced herself that she did say "no" when in reality that never happened. It is entirely possible that this woman remembered the course of events as she wanted to during her interview with the police. While that is blind speculation on my part, I do believe from personal experience that people have a way of "romanticizing" past events. Just because she claims to have said "no" does not actually mean that she did say "no." Although we won’t hear his side of things until next year, the same goes for Kobe, as well.

The most telling revelations from the preliminary hearing (or is it Preliminary Hearing Vol. 1 now?) were first the bruising around the neck, or lack there of actually. I am no expert, but I believe that some bruising would have occurred if Kobe forcefully grabbed the alleged victim by the neck. Also very important are the sequence of events during the alleged attack. Again I am not an expert, but I am unsure about the physical possibility of Kobe's alleged hand movements. Finally, the question about the possibility of this accuser's injury being caused by sexual encounters with three-different partners in three-consecutive days relatively recent to the alleged attack is a bombshell if true.

While just speculation, that is my analysis and opinion of the situation. I don't really care if Kobe is guilty or innocent, but I do believe that he has gained the upper hand in the case thus far. I'm just interested because this case, sadly, is more interesting than everything else on T.V. Excluding H.B.O., of course. I also relish the shots of Kobe's super-hot wife. Who cheats on that?

[wsh2293]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />


I studied a bit of criminal law...not that it did me any good.

Anyways, the way I am reading is...he's in a tonne of trouble.

IMO it looks like they've flirted a bit, she's probably been attracted to him and given him a signal...and then backed away.

He's reacted, and gone ahead. She's said no...he's done it anyway.

What a lot of people misinterpret in these things is that constitutes rape.

Rape is not just a guy grabbing a woman off the street. It has all different forms.

If a prostitute, who accepts money off a man,but then gets scared because he's aggressive etc and says "i don't want this"...if he goes ahead and has sex with her...that's rape.

If a girl kisses you for an hour and says she'll go down on you...and half way through it, you decide you want penetration etc and she says "don't", but you go ahead, that's rape.

The facts are, once she says "no"...it's a crime to go ahead.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that she said no and didn't want sex...he's in serious trouble, because nothing else will matter.

IMO it's reasonably clear that at some stage she didn't want sex.

The nurses statement that the damage is NOT consistent with consensual sex will be very strong in front of a jury IMO...when you combine it with the attendants statement, and the DNA.

In a way, I feel sorry for him in that I can see how it's happened . She probably gave him a signal or two that she was keen and, as a male, that does get you thinking that it's time to rock and roll.

However, the bottom line is, once she says 'no'...it's over.

He's made a mistake and he'll (probably) be punished for it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that we all need to remember that these details all come from a detective's version of what the alleged victim says happened. All of these details could very well be false. I'm as guilty as anybody for assuming that this detective's statements are entirely accurate. Even though I really enjoy hearing all of the juicy details, I objectively know that they may not be true. So I think making a judgment on Kobe's guilt or innocence would be getting ahead of things.

Now what you're saying is correct. If the woman (I don't want to use her name for fear that the all-powerful Judge Gannett may admonish me) clearly demonstrated to Kobe that she wanted the sexual interaction to stop, then he raped her. Now I personally don't like the idea of a person's utterance of "no" automatically constituting rape. As a matter of practicality it is virtually impossible to actually prove that this woman ever said "no" without the use of an audio-recording device. I personally believe that an alleged-rape victim must show some type of physical resistance (i.e. the alleged attacker's skin under his or her fingernails from scratching). However, the law is the law.

Remember though, for Kobe to rape this woman as defined by the law he would have to have understood her withdrawal of consent. She may have not wanted to continue, but not have properly communicated her desire to Kobe. Over the course of the day between the alleged incident and the report, she could have very well convinced herself that she did say "no" when in reality that never happened. It is entirely possible that this woman remembered the course of events as she wanted to during her interview with the police. While that is blind speculation on my part, I do believe from personal experience that people have a way of "romanticizing" past events. Just because she claims to have said "no" does not actually mean that she did say "no." Although we won’t hear his side of things until next year, the same goes for Kobe, as well.

The most telling revelations from the preliminary hearing (or is it Preliminary Hearing Vol. 1 now?) were first the bruising around the neck, or lack there of actually. I am no expert, but I believe that some bruising would have occurred if Kobe forcefully grabbed the alleged victim by the neck. Also very important are the sequence of events during the alleged attack. Again I am not an expert, but I am unsure about the physical possibility of Kobe's alleged hand movements. Finally, the question about the possibility of this accuser's injury being caused by sexual encounters with three-different partners in three-consecutive days relatively recent to the alleged attack is a bombshell if true.

While just speculation, that is my analysis and opinion of the situation. I don't really care if Kobe is guilty or innocent, but I do believe that he has gained the upper hand in the case thus far. I'm just interested because this case, sadly, is more interesting than everything else on T.V. Excluding H.B.O., of course. I also relish the shots of Kobe's super-hot wife. Who cheats on that?

[wsh2293]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />


I studied a bit of criminal law...not that it did me any good.

Anyways, the way I am reading is...he's in a tonne of trouble.

IMO it looks like they've flirted a bit, she's probably been attracted to him and given him a signal...and then backed away.

He's reacted, and gone ahead. She's said no...he's done it anyway.

What a lot of people misinterpret in these things is that constitutes rape.

Rape is not just a guy grabbing a woman off the street. It has all different forms.

If a prostitute, who accepts money off a man,but then gets scared because he's aggressive etc and says "i don't want this"...if he goes ahead and has sex with her...that's rape.

If a girl kisses you for an hour and says she'll go down on you...and half way through it, you decide you want penetration etc and she says "don't", but you go ahead, that's rape.

The facts are, once she says "no"...it's a crime to go ahead.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that she said no and didn't want sex...he's in serious trouble, because nothing else will matter.

IMO it's reasonably clear that at some stage she didn't want sex.

The nurses statement that the damage is NOT consistent with consensual sex will be very strong in front of a jury IMO...when you combine it with the attendants statement, and the DNA.

In a way, I feel sorry for him in that I can see how it's happened . She probably gave him a signal or two that she was keen and, as a male, that does get you thinking that it's time to rock and roll.

However, the bottom line is, once she says 'no'...it's over.

He's made a mistake and he'll (probably) be punished for it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that we all need to remember that these details all come from a detective's version of what the alleged victim says happened. All of these details could very well be false. I'm as guilty as anybody for assuming that this detective's statements are entirely accurate. Even though I really enjoy hearing all of the juicy details, I objectively know that they may not be true. So I think making a judgment on Kobe's guilt or innocence would be getting ahead of things.

Now what you're saying is correct. If the woman (I don't want to use her name for fear that the all-powerful Judge Gannett may admonish me) clearly demonstrated to Kobe that she wanted the sexual interaction to stop, then he raped her. Now I personally don't like the idea of a person's utterance of "no" automatically constituting rape. As a matter of practicality it is virtually impossible to actually prove that this woman ever said "no" without the use of an audio-recording device. I personally believe that an alleged-rape victim must show some type of physical resistance (i.e. the alleged attacker's skin under his or her fingernails from scratching). However, the law is the law.

Remember though, for Kobe to rape this woman as defined by the law he would have to have understood her withdrawal of consent. She may have not wanted to continue, but not have properly communicated her desire to Kobe. Over the course of the day between the alleged incident and the report, she could have very well convinced herself that she did say "no" when in reality that never happened. It is entirely possible that this woman remembered the course of events as she wanted to during her interview with the police. While that is blind speculation on my part, I do believe from personal experience that people have a way of "romanticizing" past events. Just because she claims to have said "no" does not actually mean that she did say "no." Although we won’t hear his side of things until next year, the same goes for Kobe, as well.

The most telling revelations from the preliminary hearing (or is it Preliminary Hearing Vol. 1 now?) were first the bruising around the neck, or lack there of actually. I am no expert, but I believe that some bruising would have occurred if Kobe forcefully grabbed the alleged victim by the neck. Also very important are the sequence of events during the alleged attack. Again I am not an expert, but I am unsure about the physical possibility of Kobe's alleged hand movements. Finally, the question about the possibility of this accuser's injury being caused by sexual encounters with three-different partners in three-consecutive days relatively recent to the alleged attack is a bombshell if true.

While just speculation, that is my analysis and opinion of the situation. I don't really care if Kobe is guilty or innocent, but I do believe that he has gained the upper hand in the case thus far. I'm just interested because this case, sadly, is more interesting than everything else on T.V. Excluding H.B.O., of course. I also relish the shots of Kobe's super-hot wife. Who cheats on that?

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SoMiss2000 said:
well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


I won't even say it.

[rhinking to self]Get your head out the gutter.[/thinking to self]

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SoMiss2000 said:
well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


I won't even say it.

[rhinking to self]Get your head out the gutter.[/thinking to self]

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SoMiss2000 said:
well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


I won't even say it.

[rhinking to self]Get your head out the gutter.[/thinking to self]

[SoMiss2000]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
bigeastbumrush said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SoMiss2000 said:
well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


I won't even say it.

[rhinking to self]Get your head out the gutter.[/thinking to self]

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[SoMiss2000]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
bigeastbumrush said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SoMiss2000 said:
well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


I won't even say it.

[rhinking to self]Get your head out the gutter.[/thinking to self]

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[SoMiss2000]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
bigeastbumrush said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SoMiss2000 said:
well, if they don't show any substanial evidence, the defense are going to rip this girl to shreds.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


I won't even say it.

[rhinking to self]Get your head out the gutter.[/thinking to self]

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[driddy]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
KDRE said:
I know she didn't say she had scars. I believe that was some of the info that was leaked awhile back. The DA didn't realease any info up until now.

By the way Driddy, it was said that she didn't sneak up to his room, but she went when her shift was off. The bruises was said to be on her face, and not her neck, which a reporter on fox last night on Greta said it was a half a penny size mark on her neck also. If it was more, it could've just been that she is the kind of person that marks up easily. However it went, we'll see it, because the hospital and police took photos, long before any of her friends saw her.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

From the Latimes:
"But the woman also told investigators she went willingly to Bryant's room late at night, sneaking through the hotel kitchen to get there. And testimony indicated that there
were no bruises or marks on the woman's neck or shoulders a day after the encounter."

By her own account, she was sneaking up there.

"The woman drove home and made her allegations to police the next day. Winters interviewed her for a short time at her parents' Eagle home and later for about an hour at the Eagle County sheriff's office."

Second problem for the prosecution

"Under cross-examination from Bryant attorney Mackey, Winters said he saw no bruises on the woman during the interviews. He also said the woman told a nurse at a Glenwood Springs hospital that evening that Bryant had insisted she kiss his penis before allowing her to leave his hotel room &amp;#8212; something the woman did not tell Winters."

Third problem

"Winters also said DNA tests showed that the woman's blood was found on the inside of Bryant's T-shirt. The detective said she had told him she bled from the assault."

This needs to be explained as well, did the blood come from her chin, or did it come from somewhere else? If the "other" photos show tearing, then it can be surmised that it was collateral damage from a consensual act.

"Mackey aggressively challenged Winters' testimony and the physical evidence, which consisted of three photographs presented by Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory Crittenden. One photograph showed a small bruise on the accuser's left jaw; the others were of what the prosecution said were vaginal injuries from the assault.

Mackey suggested that small scrapes, visible only on a magnified, dye-enhanced photograph, were caused by a speculum during an examination of the woman's genital area by hospital staff."

Doesn't sound like a slam dunk to me, sounds like a prayer from behind half court with a hand in the face.

[driddy]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
KDRE said:
I know she didn't say she had scars. I believe that was some of the info that was leaked awhile back. The DA didn't realease any info up until now.

By the way Driddy, it was said that she didn't sneak up to his room, but she went when her shift was off. The bruises was said to be on her face, and not her neck, which a reporter on fox last night on Greta said it was a half a penny size mark on her neck also. If it was more, it could've just been that she is the kind of person that marks up easily. However it went, we'll see it, because the hospital and police took photos, long before any of her friends saw her.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

From the Latimes:
"But the woman also told investigators she went willingly to Bryant's room late at night, sneaking through the hotel kitchen to get there. And testimony indicated that there
were no bruises or marks on the woman's neck or shoulders a day after the encounter."

By her own account, she was sneaking up there.

"The woman drove home and made her allegations to police the next day. Winters interviewed her for a short time at her parents' Eagle home and later for about an hour at the Eagle County sheriff's office."

Second problem for the prosecution

"Under cross-examination from Bryant attorney Mackey, Winters said he saw no bruises on the woman during the interviews. He also said the woman told a nurse at a Glenwood Springs hospital that evening that Bryant had insisted she kiss his penis before allowing her to leave his hotel room &amp;#8212; something the woman did not tell Winters."

Third problem

"Winters also said DNA tests showed that the woman's blood was found on the inside of Bryant's T-shirt. The detective said she had told him she bled from the assault."

This needs to be explained as well, did the blood come from her chin, or did it come from somewhere else? If the "other" photos show tearing, then it can be surmised that it was collateral damage from a consensual act.

"Mackey aggressively challenged Winters' testimony and the physical evidence, which consisted of three photographs presented by Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory Crittenden. One photograph showed a small bruise on the accuser's left jaw; the others were of what the prosecution said were vaginal injuries from the assault.

Mackey suggested that small scrapes, visible only on a magnified, dye-enhanced photograph, were caused by a speculum during an examination of the woman's genital area by hospital staff."

Doesn't sound like a slam dunk to me, sounds like a prayer from behind half court with a hand in the face.

[driddy]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
KDRE said:
I know she didn't say she had scars. I believe that was some of the info that was leaked awhile back. The DA didn't realease any info up until now.

By the way Driddy, it was said that she didn't sneak up to his room, but she went when her shift was off. The bruises was said to be on her face, and not her neck, which a reporter on fox last night on Greta said it was a half a penny size mark on her neck also. If it was more, it could've just been that she is the kind of person that marks up easily. However it went, we'll see it, because the hospital and police took photos, long before any of her friends saw her.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

From the Latimes:
"But the woman also told investigators she went willingly to Bryant's room late at night, sneaking through the hotel kitchen to get there. And testimony indicated that there
were no bruises or marks on the woman's neck or shoulders a day after the encounter."

By her own account, she was sneaking up there.

"The woman drove home and made her allegations to police the next day. Winters interviewed her for a short time at her parents' Eagle home and later for about an hour at the Eagle County sheriff's office."

Second problem for the prosecution

"Under cross-examination from Bryant attorney Mackey, Winters said he saw no bruises on the woman during the interviews. He also said the woman told a nurse at a Glenwood Springs hospital that evening that Bryant had insisted she kiss his penis before allowing her to leave his hotel room &amp;#8212; something the woman did not tell Winters."

Third problem

"Winters also said DNA tests showed that the woman's blood was found on the inside of Bryant's T-shirt. The detective said she had told him she bled from the assault."

This needs to be explained as well, did the blood come from her chin, or did it come from somewhere else? If the "other" photos show tearing, then it can be surmised that it was collateral damage from a consensual act.

"Mackey aggressively challenged Winters' testimony and the physical evidence, which consisted of three photographs presented by Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory Crittenden. One photograph showed a small bruise on the accuser's left jaw; the others were of what the prosecution said were vaginal injuries from the assault.

Mackey suggested that small scrapes, visible only on a magnified, dye-enhanced photograph, were caused by a speculum during an examination of the woman's genital area by hospital staff."

Doesn't sound like a slam dunk to me, sounds like a prayer from behind half court with a hand in the face.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

Regardless if she sneaked up to his room, if he raped her, he raped her.

And the whole, "Kiss it before you leave" doesn't really have anything to do with what happened before he said that. It just is a weird statement as SportsmanTO pointed out. It makes Kobe to look like a weirdo. So her not telling that to the police doesn't have much bearing IMO.

The whole bleeding issue, yeah, raping her wouldn't necessarily cause that. It's just that it's more ammunition for the prosecution.

I think if you look at Colorado newspapers you'll get a totally different story today as well.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Once again behold the All Things KOBE thread...

Regardless if she sneaked up to his room, if he raped her, he raped her.

And the whole, "Kiss it before you leave" doesn't really have anything to do with what happened before he said that. It just is a weird statement as SportsmanTO pointed out. It makes Kobe to look like a weirdo. So her not telling that to the police doesn't have much bearing IMO.

The whole bleeding issue, yeah, raping her wouldn't necessarily cause that. It's just that it's more ammunition for the prosecution.

I think if you look at Colorado newspapers you'll get a totally different story today as well.