Kobe Trial News

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Ok, let me try these two examples.

1) A man goes into a bad neighborhood and organizes a collection for the poor. He does this every week and is well known around the neighborhood for doing this. On this given day, he raises $250 and gives $150 out to a few homeless people on the street. He says the last $100 was stolen from him by the Defendant. The Defendant, who is also homeless, argues that the victim gave him the money. In this case, the victim will be called a "saint" by the witnesses for the prosecution and a conviction is a near certainty.

2) A woman goes into a bad neighborhood to meet some guys. She does this every week and is well known in around the neighborhood for doing this. On this given day, she hooks up with a guy at a bar and has sex at his apartment. She returns to the bar to have another drink and another guy starts flirting with her. They leave together, but she doesn't want to have sex with him. He rapes her in his apartment. In this case, the victim will be called a "whore" by the witnesses for the defense and a conviction is a near impossibility.

Why do these cases come out differently?

I don't see it. To me, there would be an equal amount of suspicion of both alleged victims' stories.

G-Dawg: If I'm on the jury, the defense doesn't have to prove it, they just have to show me that it is a plausible alternative explanation.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I don't see it. To me, there would be an equal amount of suspicion of both alleged victims' stories.

G-Dawg: If I'm on the jury, the defense doesn't have to prove it, they just have to show me that it is a plausible alternative explanation.

There is equal suspicion in a case of a charity worker giving money out and having his collection robbed and a known "whore" going into a bad neighborhood, having sex with one man, and then saying another raped her?

I find it hard to believe that you would be able to judge those cases with equal degrees of objectivity. American juries have never been able to.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

G-Dawg: If I'm on the jury, the defense doesn't have to prove it, they just have to show me that it is a plausible alternative explanation.

I'm not a lawyer, so please excuse my vernacular. I should say "show evidence."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I find it hard to believe that you would be able to judge those cases with equal degrees of objectivity.

I just love it when someone insinuates that I'm a liar.

[GrantDawg]

dola: and my point being you wouldn't have to hear the fact he hands out money, or she sleeps around, if you have evidence pointing toward a reason for being "out to get" this particular defendant.

[QuikSand]

A few comments on this, for what they are worth.

I personally find the issue of "rape shield" laws to be one of the most difficult matters of public policy for me to resolve in my own mind. I am persuaded, to some degree, by the arguments on both sides of the issue.

As for John Galt's eloquent paraphrasing of the supposed parallel between rape and robbery -- I see the point, but I don't find the analogy that compelling. Not a criticism of the delivery, but I just don't think that the notion of "giving away money" has a societal place that is anything at all like what you'd call in that context "giving away sex."


One of my concerns with rape shield laws is that it seems to betray our suppose faith in the concept of a trail by jury. In an ideal world (bear with me here - this is a logical argument) I would not want to have any limitations on what kind of defense an accused could offer. I would want to believe that a jury would be sufficiently educated and reasonable that they would reject the sort of "she's a slut" argument as being ancillary to the case at best, and certainly not an argument demonstrating that the sex was consensual. In a perfect world, defense attorneys would find this to be an ineffective defese tactic, and it would go away on its own.

However, I think there's no denying that we don't live in that world, and that juries are indeed persuaded by that kind of evidence. And given that fact, absent an intervention into the system of evidence, we can expect an alleged rape victim to suffer attacks on her character and sexual past -- even if solely being used as a legitimate defense tactic -- that make her ordeal a harrowing one. This, no doubt, has a chilling effect on a true victim's willingness to pursue charges and testify.

I can see that point - and it's a powerful one. I think that is the simplest case to be made for needing laws of this sort.


At the same time, I remain persuaded by the general notion that an individual accused of a crime ought to be entitled to a full and vigorous defense. Certainly there is a line to be drawn between material that is relevant and that which servs only to be inflammatory -- but I think there is a very sound argument to be made that rape shield laws potentially go past that line.

John Galt is right -- the fact that a woman has had consensual sex in the past, or has engaged in rough sex, or other things along those lines does not in any way prove that she consented to the act in question as a possible rape. But is information of that sort relevant to the question at hand in the case? In the Kobe Bryant case, as discussed above (I'm really not following it) I understand that bruises and such are part of the case evidence. If there exists evidence that the same woman had endured similar bruising from previous consensual encounters -- that sounds to me like directly relevant evidence that mas a material impact on what a reasonable jury ought to infer from the evidence of bruises. And it seems unfair that, in the name of protecting the alleged victim, we would exclude that sort of relevant information. (I'm not trying to hang my argument on this particular example - but it seems like a fair example of a wider range of things that could get caught up in laws like these)

Guilty or not, the accused is entitled to offer alternative theories of the alleged crime -- and in many of these cases, that alternative theory is that there was no crime, just a consensual act. While I'm troubled that this makes it difficult to actually convict and punish true violators, I'm also troubled by a stacking of the deck against the accused.


I may not have articulated my difficulty with the issue well -- but in my view, this is a terribly nuanced issue. I simply don't see how anyone who has through it through can just drop down on one side of the fence without any apprecitaion for the arguments of the other side.

Of course... that would be breaking FOFC tradition. So, uh... carry on.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

dola: and my point being you wouldn't have to hear the fact he hands out money, or she sleeps around, if you have evidence pointing toward a reason for being "out to get" this particular defendant.

Agreed. Either would make me suspicious though.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I just love it when someone insinuates that I'm a liar.

To argue for John: Ok, maybe you could (I believe you could), but are you the average person on a jury? Would and could everyone be as fair as you? (You know the answer is no).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

but are you the average person on a jury?

Nope. Been on four different pools, and been struck ever' time. What's funny is that only once out of those four times was I atempting trying to get struck.



JG wasn't talking about Joe Average Jury Guy, though. He was specifically talking about me.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Nope. Been on four different pools, and been struck ever' time. What's funny is that only once out of those four times was I atempting trying to get struck.



JG wasn't talking about Joe Average Jury Guy, though. He was specifically talking about me.

I agree he was, but his point was good even if his method wasn't.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I just love it when someone insinuates that I'm a liar.

It wasn't meant to insuate that. I'm saying 99% of Americans (including myself) would find it hard to think those cases are the same. And the historical record backs me up on that. I wasn't trying to call you a liar, just push the point a little further. I'm sorry.

edit: reading it again, I apologize again because I really meant to emphasize the "I" in "I find it hard to believe" as opposed to the "you" part. The following sentence about juries was meant to convey that emphasis. Oh well, the internet sucks for giving the proper tone and emphasis. Sorry.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Noop

Again with the name calling did you even read what I said? You misunderstood me. I want to see it tried fairly as well so those that make you sexist and stupid? Also hear getting threat has nothing to do with the case your just trying to draw sympaty(sp?) lets focus on the matter at hand. Try the case fair and down the line period. My statement was an opinion(Can someone tell if they still are legal) you seem to have a habit of jumping the "gun"... so what makes you so smart and me so stupid? Because you got a paper that says degree? Oh wait you follow along with popular opinion while I chose to form my own opinion not flawed by liberal or conservative(sp?) views. How about this since your the more "educated" save the name calling and try to speak to me as you would in person. Because I can assure you you wouldn't call me those names nor would I call you any names( I haven't yet) because if you were as smart as you think you were you would proper things. And know I am no expert myself.... Breath Easy

Your original post:

"Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape. She is going to destroy this man's life because she and he both made a mistake but she gets to live her life while Kobe is going to get served some hard time from behind from those skin heads."

Yeah, I'm the one jumping the gun . . .

And this has nothing to do with education - your opinion was based on NO facts and instead was based on an ugly bias (filling in for your lack of facts).

[Noop]

Yeah, I'm the one jumping the gun . . .

And this has nothing to do with education - your opinion was based on NO facts and instead was based on an ugly bias (filling in for your lack of facts).

And yours is based on facts? Did you read my other posts in this thread? Bias? I am not a Lakers fan nor am I a Kobe fan so where is my bias? So yeah you did jump the gun. Go hug a tree or something because your one of those guys who will further erode the rights of all males in this country.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Words, words . . . more words.

I just wanted to address the arguments you made about the defense being able to present any theory and the value of the jury system.

First off, I don't think it devalues the jury system to recognize its shortcomings. Juries aren't "objective" because people aren't "objective."

Second, irrelevant evidence needs to be excluded or trials would never end. Defense lawyers would argue EVERYTHING and introduce anything remotely relevant just so their client would avoid jail. At some point, a line must be drawn.

Third, an array of defenses need to be excluded because juries don't handle them well. Easy cases are non-falsifiable defense strategies (ie conspiracy theories): god told me to do it (which is different than the insanity plea based on the same argument), aliens run the government so I had to shoot the president, etc. Over time, it has become clear that juries (and judges) have inflicted an series of biases in rape cases and so laws became necessary to put a check on the system.

Fourth, the system is heavily regulated in procedure and substance such that jury verdicts are never really based on "all available evidence." Things such as time limits, hearsay exclusions, elements of the crime, and burdens of proof already shape the system and verdicts heavily. There is no "pure" jury system.

Overall, though, I agree that the issue is nuanced and I have written a couple articles in this area. My arguments here are based on my conclusions and perspective so they may seem to cut people short with opposing views. With the exception of Noop, that was not my intention.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by John Galt

With the exception of Noop, that was not my intention.

So basically your saying Fuck you to me..... Right........... I suggest you check yourself like that verizon logo.

[Huckleberry]

Is it really possible on here to ignore one poster's posts? Where do I find that feature?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Is it really possible on here to ignore one poster's posts? Where do I find that feature?

I have never done it myself, but I believe it is in your user options.

[Huckleberry]

Well, I guess he theoretically could make a worthwhile post in the future, but right now I'm finding it difficult to figure out how he manages to tie his own shoes. Assuming he does.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape.

Noop,

This is where you made it sound like you had already determined the truth (7th post of the thread). If that's your opinion, fine, but I don't understand why you have such a low opinion of her that she would cry rape and such a high opinion of him that he would never rape her. What do you really know about Kobe outside of his basketball playing or Shaq feuding or the alleged victim? What in this case makes you think that she's crying rape, that Kobe's rich and famous? That she has a vendetta against him that she's willing to ruin her life over? Maybe you can explain your reasoning because I don't understand why your initial reaction is so vehemently against her.

[Noop]

I do quite fine. Don't worry I'll just stick to sports where we blind homers willl just bash each other senseless....

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JAG

Noop,

This is where you made it sound like you had already determined the truth (7th post of the thread). If that's your opinion, fine, but I don't understand why you have such a low opinion of her that she would cry rape and such a high opinion of him that he would never rape her. What do you really know about Kobe outside of his basketball playing or Shaq feuding or the alleged victim? What in this case makes you think that she's crying rape, that Kobe's rich and famous? That she has a vendetta against him that she's willing to ruin her life over? Maybe you can explain your reasoning because I don't understand why your initial reaction is so vehemently against her.

Listen right now I am stuck between a rock and a hard place due to my own fault. Maybe I should have said what I said differently but I was not trying to make it seem like Kobe is not gulity or she was trying to do it for money. I am sorry I didn't grow up in the old days where people just accept everything as the gospel. Writing is not my strong suit I know this and on a message board where typing is the main way of conveying your ideas I am at a severe disadvantage. So I don't win if I should type something because I am seen as a sexist, stupid, evil, etc person but rather its not even like that. Do I think Kobe did it? No. I think it was something they both might have wanted. I she feels she was raped then by all means take it to court. But don't stop Kobe's defense team from trying to win the case for their client. Omitting things in my mind is fishy hence I am quick to doubt the case being presented. Again I am at a severe disadvantage because I am dealing with people dead set on their ways with like minded people which basically leaves me shouting to choir while the Elite just pile on cause its fun. I could care less because I could turn this into a flame fest if I wanted but I don't see the point of "net-beef"... If I offended anyone it was not my intent.... and I am quite sure I will still get bashed but hey thats life.

[The Afoci]

I agree somewhat with Noop. People seem to assume Kobes guilt all the time but say one bad thing about her and people crush you.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Noop

...The fact is these laws as well as many others make having sex a non-contact sport. Hell in the future we might just have to mail them the semen so they can have babies because the word rape is very wide in definition.

Don't worry Noop sex won't always be a single player sport for you.

[WSUCougar]

People are assessing the merits of the case as the facts are presented, while you (Noop) appear to be loudly voicing your opinion that she's just a gold-digging liar and Kobe is the victim. At the very least, Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife and embarassed himself, his team, and the NBA. He's made yet another spectacular role-model blunder. All of which is HIS FAULT.

At worse, he's raped a woman, which is one of the vilest crimes commitable.

So how can you see him as the victim?

[The Afoci]

JG, I understand the desire to protect the victim, but to what point. At some point the accused also has to have the right to put up a defense and if they have evidence of her having sex the next day, rough or not, I would say that is something that should be used to defend him. I understand that we don't want to believe everything the defense says, but to blindly follow the lead of the victims team isn't any better.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

People are assessing the merits of the case as the facts are presented, while you (Noop) appear to be loudly voicing your opinion that she's just a gold-digging liar and Kobe is the victim. At the very least, Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife and embarassed himself, his team, and the NBA. He's made yet another spectacular role-model blunder. All of which is HIS FAULT.

At worse, he's raped a woman, which is one of the vilest crimes commitable.

So how can you see him as the victim?

Putting words in my mouth aren't we? I have said in the past she is in it for the money but I have not brought up that during this whole thing. Other then maybe there might be a civil suit. I never said he was a victim this goes back to my post about like minded people.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Don't worry Noop sex won't always be a single player sport for you.

I somethings sit on my hand so it feels like someone else.

[WSUCougar]

Update Report:

Cause Assessment: Hopeless
File Status: Closed

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Noop

I somethings sit on my hand so it feels like someone else.

I am usually the first one to criticize your lack of life experience in most matters Noop, but it seems that you have this topic well in hand.

[Glengoyne]

I don't know if Kobe did this or not. While I have seen mixed reports about the actions of the victim/accuser immediately following the alleged rape, the fact that she went to the hospital and police that night seems to make her more credible, in my mind, than say the gal that Tyson was sent away for raping.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I am usually the first one to criticize your lack of life experience in most matters Noop, but it seems that you have this topic well in hand.

SkyDog, if you are still reading this thread, I am afraid I must insist that Glengoyne be banned immediately for posting this bad of a pun.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Samdari

SkyDog, if you are still reading this thread, I am afraid I must insist that Glengoyne be banned immediately for posting this bad of a pun.

I tried to come up with something smart and erudite, but the image of Noop numbing his hand prevented me from doing so.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Noop

Putting words in my mouth aren't we? I have said in the past she is in it for the money but I have not brought up that during this whole thing. Other then maybe there might be a civil suit. I never said he was a victim this goes back to my post about like minded people.

Putting words in your mouth? You stated that "she was crying wolf" and was a gold-digger in the first thread. I've notice you keep trying to change your stance from what we think it is, but you leak out some info with each post that just hurts that.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I tried to come up with something smart and erudite, but the image of Noop numbing his hand prevented me from doing so.

Its hardly original. A friend of mine who used to be in the Navy said he learned it there.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It wasn't meant to insuate that. I'm saying 99% of Americans (including myself) would find it hard to think those cases are the same. And the historical record backs me up on that. I wasn't trying to call you a liar, just push the point a little further. I'm sorry.

edit: reading it again, I apologize again because I really meant to emphasize the "I" in "I find it hard to believe" as opposed to the "you" part. The following sentence about juries was meant to convey that emphasis. Oh well, the internet sucks for giving the proper tone and emphasis. Sorry.

Fair enough. Apology accepted.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Putting words in your mouth? You stated that "she was crying wolf" and was a gold-digger in the first thread. I've notice you keep trying to change your stance from what we think it is, but you leak out some info with each post that just hurts that.

I honestly dont recall saying she was a gold digger calling wolf. But whatever since your degree says your right. Breath Easy

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Noop

I honestly dont recall saying she was a gold digger calling wolf. But whatever since your degree says your right. Breath Easy

Read your first post. My degree? Don't have one yet. Give me two years.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape. She is going to destroy this man's life because she and he both made a mistake but she gets to live her life while Kobe is going to get served some hard time from behind from those skin heads

Hmm I still don't see it...

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Noop

Hmm I still don't see it...

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... "so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape".

[Chief Rum]

I don't know what happened in that Colorado hotel room, but I just feel it is morally wrong to not allow someone whose very life is on the line every fair opportunity to defend himself. If the girl's sexual history is relevant to what happened that night, I think it should be in there.

But then I know law isn't moral or even logical.

If her account of this is true, then I feel for the victim and Kobe should be punished fully to the extent of the law. But the trick is establishing what the truth is. And I find it hard to believe that excluding potentially relevant information helps us find the truth.

Unfortunately, the truth seems often lost in the courtrooms of today.

CR

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't know what happened in that Colorado hotel room, but I just feel it is morally wrong to not allow someone whose very life is on the line every fair opportunity to defend himself. If the girl's sexual history is relevant to what happened that night, I think it should be in there.

But then I know law isn't moral or even logical.

If her account of this is true, then I feel for the victim and Kobe should be punished fully to the extent of the law. But the trick is establishing what the truth is. And I find it hard to believe that excluding potentially relevant information helps us find the truth.

Unfortunately, the truth seems often lost in the courtrooms of today.

CR

Chief, I think you've begged the question, though. Is the evidence really relevant? If you think it is, why isn't analogous evidence in a robbery "relevant?"

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... "so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape".

Gold digger part.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Noop

I honestly dont recall saying she was a gold digger calling wolf. But whatever since your degree says your right. Breath Easy

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...32&postcount=7

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Chief, I think you've begged the question, though. Is the evidence really relevant? If you think it is, why isn't analogous evidence in a robbery "relevant?"

I don't really want to get involved in this, and I confess I didn't read the robbery stuff thouroughly the whole way through, and I don't really understand it. My basic thinking on the issue as I see it (I've tried not to pay attention, but it's everywhere) is that since the jury will probably percieve the victim having bruises after sex as evidence she was forced and raped, then evidence showing she liked rough sex and/or had had similar bruises from past consensual sexual experiences should be allowed to show an alternative explanative.

I heard from one person that she had sex the next day or something like that, and if true, I think that should be allowed as evidence.

Rape allegations suck, especially when they involve a famous/rich person, because they are such a subjective he said-she said thing, but in the end, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution. Kobe doesn't have to prove a single thing, not because he's a famous athlete or because he is rich and black, but because he is the defendant.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Chief, I think you've begged the question, though. Is the evidence really relevant? If you think it is, why isn't analogous evidence in a robbery "relevant?"

I never said it wasn't. If it establishes a pattern, then all of that should be permissible. I know the courts don't work that way. I'm just saying from the perspective of making the absolute truth the goal to which we strive and then acting from that truth, excluding potentially key evidence with a man's life on the line is just downright wrong.

This is a life we're talking about. This guy can spend much of his life and all of his "prime life" years in prison, so if we're going to do that to someone, shouldn't we be sure the girl is telling the truth?

CR

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I never said it wasn't. If it establishes a pattern, then all of that should be permissible. I know the courts don't work that way. I'm just saying from the perspective of making the absolute truth the goal to which we strive and then acting from that truth, excluding potentially key evidence with a man's life on the line is just downright wrong.

This is a life we're talking about. This guy can spend much of his life and all of his "prime life" years in prison, so if we're going to do that to someone, shouldn't we be sure the girl is telling the truth?

CR

Right now, rape cases that actually go to trial are few and far between. Of those that are reported, only a few ever achieve guilty verdicts. Unless you believe 99% of rape victims are lying, the playing field is already tilted heavily in favor of the defendant.

As to the specific questions, what do these patterns prove? If a woman engages in rough sex 100 times, but only says Kobe raped her, doesn't that make her story more credible (not less)? Why doesn't giving away money 100 other times prove that a victim of robbery is lying?

As I said above, allowing all "character" evidence in for a rape trial guarantees that every prostitute, person who is into BDSM, has an "alternative" sexual lifestyle, or is otherwise promiscuous will become a constant target for rape because no jury will ever convict.

Yes, we want to know if this woman is lying about Kobe. Introducing evidence about every Tom, Dick, and Harry has nothing to do with that (unless Tom, Dick, or Harry caused the bruises in question).

[Chief Rum]

I never said it was ideal. I am just saying it is merely contradictory to seeking the truth, which ideally (if not realistically) is what we should be doing.

I'm not going to argue legalities with a lawyer. I know where you're coming from, and I know you have it right, as it pertains to law.

I'm just saying that absolute information leads to the best understanding of what happened. And if we're going to throw a man's life away, then maybe we should try and achieve that level of understanding and determine just what happened, rather than ignoring potentially important information.

CR

[digamma]

One distinction that needs to be made (SkyDog alluded to it earlier) is that there is a difference between showing she had had rough sex in the past (even the immediate past) as a means of showing she liked it and showing she had had rough sex in the time immediately before or after the incident with Kobe to show that her injuries may not have come from the case at hand. The first is character evidence and is rarely, if ever, admissable in rape cases. There is an argument that the second should be admitted.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Update Report:

Cause Assessment: Hopeless
File Status: Closed

What he said.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by John Galt

What he said.

I guess he isn't allowed to alter his opinion in anyway. Odd really.