ROCKSTAR

Gosh, I look through this forum's 8 pages and didn't find a thread for this. I know there was one before! Anyway, feel free to close this.

Rest of the article is here.

----

Wow, I'm all for a breakthrough! The prosecution once weak, is now weaker...

Can't wait for this trial, if there is one after all.

Elizajoey

I find it quite sad.
Last time, I checked the victim wasnt on trial, Kobe Bryant was.

This is just great, now women who would may have come forward and reported a rape will be even more scared to because they will be worried about what will be used against them. This law was suppose to shield victims.

Drekkan

It's a victory for justice, rape shield laws prevent fair trials for the defendent.

It goes to establishing reasonable doubt. If she had sex with, say, 5 other men inside a 72 hour window, then any one of those five other men could have been the one to rape her. Furthermore, the vaginal tearing (the main forensic evidence) could have been caused by the number of sexual acts.

Without it, it becomes much harder to prove reasonable doubt; you're effectively hamstringing a defense. Part of our system is that you can't do that, a defendent must be given every possible avenue to show themselves as innocent.

Furthermore, in a game of "he said-she said" credibilty is a huge factor. If you have laws that shield the credibility of the alleged victim, you need laws to shield the credibility of the defendent.

Ultimately, this isn't a case of a rape shield law. They're not trying to say she was a ho and deserved to get raped. They're saying that she had sex with several other men (even between the alleged rape and going to the police), so it's not unreasonable that one of them caused the vaginal tearing.

*Lauren

So if you want to rape someone, find a slut, and then your defence can call her a slut on the stand, right?

Kobe Bryant is the one on trial here, not the girl he allegedly raped. This is disgraceful.

Drekkan

No. If you're acused of rape, you should be able to say that she had sex with other people on the same day as you, so there's a reasonable chance someone else raped her. It's about reasonable doubt and the protections for the defendent.

ceilirose

There's also a reasonable chance she had consensual sex as well in the 72 hours prior to the alleged rape. It's sort of insinuating that this woman cries rape at the drop of the hat...and there's no evidence of that as far as I know.

The defense has been forcing this since day one and the whole circus atmosphere regarding her outing on the internet, sport's jock talking about her by name and the idea from some that Kobe could never have done because he's such a 'great guy' has been way over the top. It's done more to harm victims than anything else...and yeah this woman is on trial as much as Bryant is.

Anyway..the time in question is the 72 hours prior to the incident and including the time she reported the rape. If the defense can offer evidence that she had sex after the incident then her case is probably shot. It's true that she could have bled in another sexual encounter but what's lost here is that blood was also found on Kobe's T-shirt after the incident.

Hopefully the jury can just focus on what happened in that hotel room.

SuperDeluxe

What a huge ruling for the Defense. Not that I thought he was going to lose (all the other evidence that came out..especially finding another man's semen on her panties)

The Defense had felt that her injuries could have come from another man, so allowing this evidence into the case was crucial to give the defense a oppurtunity to explore that defense.

The more this case goes on..the more I think kobe is innocent.

And I cant really believe all the furvor that this ruling is causing. everyone keeps on saying..the rights of the victim. Hello! what about the right of the defendants? He is not guilty yet, so why shouldnt he get the same protections? And why do we keep calling the girl the 'victim'? The judge has already ruled that no one can call her that..because that basically says..Yes she was raped.

That has NOT been proven. So at this point..she is not a victim.

Kobe is as much a victim at this point as she is.

People want to keep pushing the rape shield law on this case, but if it was withheld, can you say mistrial? Kobe's defense has EVERY right to question her sexual actions around the time of the alleged rape. Like the Defense says, her injuries could have come from another man.

And no offense, when you say that you we're 'raped' the last thing you would do would have consensual sex again, so soon after the alleged 'rape'

and what also is lost here is a different man's semen that was found on her panties.

Her injuries could have come from different men, why shouldnt the defense be able to explore that?

Why should the jury just focus on what happened in the hotel room (which is basically a he said/she said arguement anyways)

Kobe will never get convicted. All it takes is one person that has doubt about the case..and its going to get thrown out.

Women who cry rape..or who make it up..are more harmful to other rape victims..than the taking down of the rape shield law in this case.

ceilirose

Call her an alleged victim at this point then..that would be correct.

Really? Has his sexual history and judgement been criticized? I remember earlier on this board people were saying that the woman should have expected as much because she went up to his room. What about Kobe's judgement and character? He was a married man, famous, with a small child and he invited a young woman he just met up to his room. Where's the criticism for that? If it's out there it's really muted. Sounds like the old double standard to me.

This might offend some people but I don't think it's against the law to have private consensual sex that might be considered rough and that could cause injury. So if that's the case then I don't see what it would have to do with her incident with Kobe. One thing has nothing to do with another.

I don't think it's lost at all. Isn't that why the rape shield law has been discarded?

What's lost is why Kobe had blood stains on his T-shirt. Does anyone have a reason for that?

Again they are - see my point above.

Maybe because that's the incident that should be investigated and tried and not what she did in the previous 72 hours?

You're right..he is going to walk and I'm not sure it will be because he's innocent either. He's got really good lawyers.

What's more harmful is women who are raped, see what's happening with the Bryant trial and then don't report it. After seeing all the stuff that has happened to her (let's not forget the murder threat) who can blame them?

Couple that with the fact that the defendant is considered to be a 'good guy' and has a gorgeous wife well...gee..it has to be the woman's problem, doesn't it?

SuperDeluxe

Umm I have heard ALOT of critisicm about Kobe. Maybe we are just listening to different media.




There ya go. It is possiable that Kobe and the woman had consensual sex, considered rough..and could cause injury..which would then answer you're question about blood on the t-shirt, correct?

It has plenty to do with her case with kobe however, since how can you prove that Kobe committed those injuries, when they could have just as easily been committed by like you said, consensual rough sex. The defense has every right to look at those options, You have to leave open any possiable explanation to what happened. To just focus on Kobe..and nothing before or after what happened, when those injuries..like you said..could have happened anytime, especially on circumstantial evidence.





You just answered you're own question. Consensual sex could lead to injuries.









By just focusing on the hotel room time period, you are already saying that Kobe was the one to commit these injuries, which in fact..could have been committed after the hotel room..or before the hotel room for that matter. You have leave open the possability that these injuries could have been caused by other men, especially bolstered by the fact of another mans semen found on her panties.




Well I honestly feel that a public defender would have been able to defend this case reasonably as well.


Right Right Right..its always the womans problem. People can keep on beating that drum (oh woe is me..women are sluts..we are hated), but that doesnt change what is going on in this case. I guess we are going to agree to disagree because you think all the hoops that the alleged victim has gone through, and that will deter future rape victims. (And lets be real here, if this was any average rape case, she would not have gotten the scrutiny by the media like she has). So yes, maybe this does mean that women who are raped by all-stars, might not in the future pursue cases.

BUT if this woman is faking this, and making this all up, for fame/money or whatever, that will truly hurt future women's rape cases I believe.

ceilirose

Maybe....where is it so I can read it for myself?

Not really. From what I heard on the news the defense is going to have to produce the person she had sex with in those 72 hours. If he's testifies under oath that it wasn't rough then it could still fall on Kobe's shoulders.

Conversely they could have had rough sex and it doesn't mean that Kobe didn't force himself on her.

It's going to depend on how this other person comes across to the jury and how the woman comes across as well. Who's believable or not.



But that is where the incident occured..it didn't have it's beginnings in the period of 72 hours prior to her reporting it. The defense has been canny enough to allow other evidence to be brought in. It's going to depend on how skillfully the defense can present it's version of history as to whether the jury will believe it.

Again..just because she had sex with another man doesn't mean Kobe didn't force himself on her. We can agree to disagree but the stereotypical thinking that this defense is coming from is really alarming. We're supposed to be moving forward and we're going back to the 50's where good girls didn't have sex and those who do...well you know they could never be raped..they had to have asked for it.



You're kidding right? With depleted state budgets and a public defender's workload you think that they could have devoted themselves 24/7 to the defense of Kobe? Kobe going to be spending some of his millions in this case and those lawyers will get a huge fee out of this.



It's what I've seen every rape victim's group say and personally for me..I would think twice, three times, ten times before pressing charges if it happened to me. Ask around and see what women say. I doubt they would automatically say yes. It would be a long, hard decision to make. If you and others chose not to believe it because you'll never have to face being a rape victim..well that's your choice. It still doesn't mean it isn't a real concern or problem for women today.



I'm being real. Do you think an average woman want's to see her sexual history discussed by strangers in a courtroom or in a newspaper? Having judgements made on her? Do you think it's any less real if it happens to a Jane Doe in anytown USA vs CNN?

Again..the woman is faking it and she's asking for trouble for her and all other woman. You've got some really big suppostions in there and they just are some of what woman have to deal with when they are in this situation. After reading that and knowing how many people out there immediately think that..do you really have to ask why women would be reluctant to report a rape?

SuperDeluxe

I wrote listen.. There was alot of verbal slaps at kobe (radio talk shows etc)



True, but I am sure Kobe under oath will also say that he had rough sex. All that is required is a seed of a doubt, thats why the judge always says..without doubt.



Right, you cant determine that because she likes rough sex, that KOBE didnt rape her..but you cant infer that he did rape her..because they had rough sex either.






I guess we are just going around in circles. Prosecution wants to focus on the hotel room, because well, they zero in, and not have the possability that there might be someone else that did the damage to her. Defense wants to explore ALL options, on what happened to her. I do not think it is fair to the defendant to have all his options to a search for the truth, just because, well thats where the prosecution deems what happened.

I dont really think its stereotypical thinking, I have talked to several women who have been raped, and the furtherest thing from their mind after getting raped, is having MORE sex after it.

Now there are exceptions, so you are sort of right, in regards too..just because she had sex 24-72 hours after getting raped, it does NOT neccessarily mean that she didnt get raped.

Oh can we please just drop the we're going back to th 19th centuray rules? Next you're going to say women shouldnt be allowed to vote. All because the defense wants to see ALL pluasable causes to what actually took place?





Actually I am not kidding. This case is falling apart for the prosecuation daily. I am sure they we're not pleased about the alleged victim telling police that she did not have sex between the incident and when she got checked..only to be blown up in their faces when they find semen and another mans pubic hair on her panties.

This claim would be a slam dunk if the judge decided to let the facts come out and based upon that.




Ahh okay, so now you turn this into a ..'you're a man, so you dont understand type of arguement' that is what it boils down to isnt it? I wouldnt understand the alleged victims point of view, so I have no clue what I am talking about?

I guess I could turn it around and say the exact same thing about the defendants right to a fair trial.

and yes I completely am aware of a woman's long/tough choice wether to prosecute or not, I understand the 'stigmas' that is attached to getting raped.




Ummm, maybe you didnt read what I wrote. Does the average rape victim and their sexual history get discussed by strangers in a courtroom..or a newspaper? No...So yes, it is less real, since we dont talk about Jane Does in the papers or on the internet..do we?


you have 2 options here..she is either faking it..or she is telling the truth. Don't tell me that women have not faked rapes, for the attention or what not. Anything is a possability, especially when it has happened before.

Again we are going to have to agree to disagree..I think if this alleged victim's story is false..it does more harm..then the actual..'thinking' she faked it.

ceilirose

OK..so it's all on talk radio? That's interesting since talk radio is really the home of conservative values. Local or national shows?



If he testifies..he doesn't have to as I understand it.



But the idea that she had sex after the incident is coming from where? The defense and it's news leaks, right? Maybe pundits on the news who are speculating about her actions, correct? This is like partisan politics..people in the media repeat the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter if it's true or not..people hear it long enough and they think it's the truth. Something like Berger stuffing documents in his socks.

If the defense is saying that she may have had sex after the incident then her case is shot as I said before. But the defense has to come up with a credible witness who can testify under oath to that, don't they? Or is just speculation that she could have had sex after the fact enough? I hope not.




Nope..not going to drop that argument because I think it's valid in this case. If you don't like it then don't read it but I'm not going to stop saying it because I believe strongly in it.

From your posts I'm getting the idea that you think Kobe is innocent anyway, it's all a waste of time and the case should be thrown out. I disagree strongly but I'm not telling you to stop saying it.



Again from what I heard on the news this morning there is a question as to when she had sex. Your saying it was after the fact and from what I've read that hasn't been proven. It's a theory but not a proven fact yet.



No I didn't say you didn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. I said you chose not to believe that a woman would or might have a hard time in going forward to prosecution for a variety of reasons. All the publicity in this case is a major reason for that reason. By your posts you don't seem sensitive to it at all. I said that it exists and I would feel the same way. If you don't feel that way that's your choice but it doesn't mean that those feelings aren't real and valid for a victim of this crime. And that it can contribute to a woman not reporting the crime.



Ummmmm.. no I did read what you wrote. I don't know where you live but I've seen rape cases written and talked about on a regional and local basis. Are you telling me that a woman being talked about in a coffee shop, bank, school, supermarket by strangers locally doesn't happen? That it's any less real or painful for the woman being talked about? Do you think gossip and innuendo only exists on a national or local level?

Well we can agreee to disagree. You think she may have faked it or lied or whatever. I think something happened in that room and I'm not sure if it was rape, rough sex, someone went too far or whatever. I'm just not immediately assuming that she 'faked' it so she could get fame, money or whatever. I'm also not assuming that Kobe didn't do it because of his fame or occupation or because 'everyone' says he's such a great guy. That's the difference.

Drekkan

Been gone most of the day, but now I'm back.

First, on criticism of Kobe. The best place to hear this was actually sport talk radio/TV, not conservative talk radio. There's a difference. They slammed him royally for screwing over his team, screwing over his family, and for possibly having broken the law in an incredibly stupid fashion. They used this as another example of his wild, and out of control, ego.

Second, over the blood on his shirt. Repeated sexual activites, or rape by another, could have caused the injuries. Consensual sex with Kobe could have reopened the injuries. That would explain the blood. The other explanation is caused by repeated sexual activity in a short time period.

Now, you forget why it's more then just the events of the hotel room. The forensic evidence (vaginal tearing) is usually indication of rape. However, it can also be caused by repeated sexual activity in a short time period. Thus, it establishes reasonable doubt for this key piece of evidence (someone else could have caused the injuries, or the injuries could have been caused by consensual sex).

Furthermore, if she did have sex after the alleged rape, then it would blow her case. Rape victims don't go out and have sex right afterwards, even before reporting to the police. In fact, it's the usual experience that most rape victims aren't comfortable with sexual situations for months or years after their rape.

You see, I believe in the system. The system that states that Kobe's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing should get between a defendent and his/her ability to prove their innocence. To prevent this with laws intended to coddle someone who wishes to deny another a good part of their life (as a 20 year sentence would do to a 20 year old man), and protect them from the consequences of false accusation.

*Lauren

You ever been raped? Everyone reacts differently. A friend of mine was raped, and she slept with someone else a weekafter, to get "the power back" (her words). The ******* who raped her, took her choice away from her, so by sleeping with someone else, she had her choice back.

There's no defentite way of reacting to a crime. That's how Lindy Chamberliand got convicted of her daughter's killing, because "no mother reacts like that".

I HATE the term "cried rape". No-one can cry robbery, no one can cry assult. Its a loaded term, and I hate it.

The statistics of women who make up rape, is actully very low. Something like 2% of something.

[quote]to have private consensual sex that might be considered rough and that could cause injury. So if that's the case then I don't see what it would have to do with her incident with Kobe.[quote]

ACtully, I disagree with this. If she had rough sex, with someone else that caused injury, then yes it has to do with Kobe. The injury would be used as evidence that he raped her.

That's irrelevant. She has gone through this.

USUAL SITUATIONS Not everyone reacts the same way. If she did have sex in between, it dosen't mean she wasn't raped. Maybe she needed comferting, and that was how she choose to get it. Not everyone reacts the same way.


I don't know if he's guilty or not. When it first happened, I though for sure, but since then, a team in Australia got accussed of gang raping a girl (I follow this team). It was only after I saw how it was treated, and how the media treated it, that I kind of woke up to the fact that it wasn't black and white. Which is stupid, cause I do know that, but have just never got it into my head. (no charges were laid. The media treated the woman really well, actully, almost too well, as she was made out to be something she's not, a virginal woman, when in reality, she had documented mental problems. Sad thing is, because of the media coverage (which got more coverage then 9/11), many people are convinced that it happened, despite the fact that there was no damn proof. ******* cops)

Drekkan

Ok, quick way of sorting this out. If having sex with 3-4 different men during a 72 hour period can result in rape like vaginal injuries of the sort she has, does that introduce reasonable doubt?

If she had rough sex with another man that resulted in these injuries, if that's a possibility, doesn't that introduce reasonable doubt?

If you think either of the above two is plausible, then there would be no choice but to allow the defendant's team to introduce her sex life in the 72 hour window into evidence. Otherwise you'd keep there from being a fair trial.