Sports - Kobe Bryant Arrested For Sexual Assault ...?! - Page 16

Chi159 · 08-08-2003, 04:04 PM

The OJ Simpson case? I don�t mind if you guys briefly weigh in on that trial, but let�s try to stick to the topic at hand. All I�ll say on the matter is that A LOT of evidence was botched in that investigation and that the prosecution was severely overmatched.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drekkan:
You miss the point, Kobe's "Good Guy" image merely levels the playing field. In a court of law the defence can't present any evidence that goes against the character of the defendent; whereas that is usually the tactic of the prosecution (make the defendent into a horn monster).

I didn�t miss your point. Just didn�t agree with your full perspective. But, thanks. Because Kobe is a well known celebrity, I don�t think his �good guy� image merely levels the playing field. In most cases, I�d tend to think it would be very advantageous based on the image he exudes. You have celebrities and people who don�t even know Kobe vouching for his innocence based on it. That is a huge bonus. It will be difficult for the prosecution to portray Kobe as a �horn monster� because of this very reason. Now, it would be a completely different story if he was just some Joe Schmo off the street. But Kobe is not the typical defendant. I will say, though, if this case does go to trial, and it�s held in Eagle County, Kobe will definitely be at a disadvantage.

Quote:

You say she faces an uphill battle? I darn well hope so. That's the whole POINT of our justice system, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Duly noted. I�m well aware of the basic tenets of the American legal system. When I said the accuser faces an uphill battle, I prefaced that comment by saying IF Kobe is guilty (speaking hypothetically, of course) she would be at a disadvantage because of his celebrity. Based on public opinion, it seems as though more people than not side with Kobe and believe she�s lying. If you are going to accuse an individual of anything, of course you should be prepared to deal with all the ramifications that come with that accusation. That wasn�t what I was referring to, though.

Quote:

The burden MUST be placed on the prosecution; however, more and more in rape trials (I'm talking generally here), it's the defendent that seems that they have to prove that they DIDN'T rape the victim.

Yes, it�s the prosecution�s job to prove without doubt that the defendant committed the alleged crime. At the same time, to prove one�s innocence (especially if there is conflicting stories/evidence), I believe it�s the defense attorney�s responsibility to prove that the alleged crime didn�t occur. Especially in a case such as rape. That may not be how the legal system was intended to work, but that�s how it goes. There are many individuals who are falsely accused of rape, and there�s no doubt that this is an unfortunate byproduct of this standard. I�m not going to argue that.

I�ve said all along that I doubt Kobe will be found guilty for a number of reasons, but I�m not of the camp that�s willing to deem him innocent without all the facts coming out or even before the case has gone to trial. Nor will I be quick to question the accuser�s credibility due to her background or past cases similar to this one. There�s a lot that I�m sure the public is unaware of. This incident is a tragedy no matter how you look at it. No matter where the truth lies, someone ends up on the short end of the stick.

Kimba · 08-08-2003, 04:11 PM

Quote:

They were just biased in the O.J. case. There's never been a muder case with more evidence, his blood was everywhere at the muder scene and there were no other suspects and there was motive. I don't see how any reasonable person could find him not quilty.

Because the prosecution screwed up their case. That's how. As for bias, it could easily be said that whites were biased as well, since it was two whites who were murdered.

Clark and Darden were so married to that timeline that it screwed themselves. That was a bloody crime. Extremely bloody. Yet, in the white bronco, there were no smears of blood found on the vehicle. In OJ's house with WHITE carpet, there were no smears of blood all over. In his bathroom, they couldn't find traces of blood in the shower where the prosecution said he removed the blood. And don't get me started on the police ineptness. In their rush to MAKE their case, they ruined it.

In the end, it was Barry Sheck's (sp?) that made the case beyond a reasonable doubt. He concentrated solely on the physical evidence, and the gross inconsistencies the prosecution had put forward.

Basically, I always thought he was responsible. I thought he hired somebody to do it, and watched while it happened.

Regardless, I'm a black female, and I don't think Kobe's innocent, so that particular race poll doesn't apply to me.

Kimba

kid73 · 08-08-2003, 06:39 PM

In OJ case, it clearly proves that...even if you're found innocent in the court of law, you're not really innocent, and vice versa, even if you're find guilty in the court of law, it doesn't necessarily you're the guilty party.

Statistics did prove, even in capital punishment cases, there are those who has been convicted, has been released years after that, after the same justice system find out the real murderer.

***NikNak*** · 08-09-2003, 09:44 AM

That poll annoys me. Now the fact that if you are black or white, male or female, might/will weigh in on whether a person feels Kobe is innocent or not? Please. I take pride in the fact that I can think for myself and I don't have a blanket view that all black people are treated unjustly or wrong in this world... or, on the other hand, that they are always innocent, too. There is too much information about this case that the public doesn't even know yet (or maybe, never will) so I haven't reached a conclusion about the situation. But, believe me, it won't be just because I am a black female and want to see justice done for "another black person" in this world. Justice should be done, no matter what. Period.

Also, I just might be the only or one of the few people that didn't follow or pay attention to the OJ Simpson case at all, so I personally had no opinion about it.

twoods · 08-09-2003, 11:57 AM

Well put Nik. I just hate how everything gets turned into an issue about race.

Chi159 · 08-09-2003, 02:26 PM

You're not the only one.

***NikNak*** · 08-14-2003, 05:25 PM

A letter from a reader of Sports Illustrated:

Try explaining to an eight-year-old that Kobe is on the cover because he is a loser, not a winner.

Ouch.

ROCKSTAR · 10-11-2003, 08:58 AM

The girl is now saying he almost chocked her, pushed her to a wall or something and whispered to her not say anything..

It's so unfair she doesn't have to testify...

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

SuperDeluxe · 10-15-2003, 03:01 PM

*busted*

Kobe Bryant's accuser showed up for her rape exam wearing underpants containing another man's sperm, a startling discovery that defense lawyers called "compelling evidence" the NBA star is innocent.

SuperDeluxe · 10-16-2003, 11:49 AM

More details of the cross examniation on the accusser.

Quote:

The young woman worked hard to figure out that Bryant was coming to stay at the resort where she worked as a concierge.

She stayed late at work that day so she could meet him.

With only four rooms occupied in the 56-room lodge, she assigned Bryant to one of the most remote rooms and put his bodyguards in the opposite direction.

She gave Bryant a tour of the lodge during which, she said, they flirted with each other.

Invited to visit Bryant's room later, she took a circuitous, private route there, going outside the lodge and using employee-only hallways.

She expected Bryant to "come on to her" if she went to his room.

She willingly joined Bryant in kissing and hugging in his room. Bryant, who is married, has admitted having sex with the woman but has insisted it was consensual.

When a detective first interviewed her, the woman did not claim that she said "No" to Bryant, and the detective even asked her why she didn't say "No." She said she physically indicated her unwillingness to have sex, placing her hands on Bryant's to stop him, and she told the detective that Bryant then stopped. In later interviews, she said she did tell Bryant "No."

Although a bellhop earlier had been reported to be the first person who encountered the woman after the alleged assault, and he allegedly found her distraught, a night auditor working at the desk where the woman returned from Bryant's room wrote prosecutors later that the woman seemed completely calm to her and did more work before going home.

When the woman went to a hospital the next day for a rape exam, semen was found in her underpants that wasn't Bryant's. The underpants she had worn on the night of the alleged assault contained a drop of blood.

A pubic hair, not Bryant's, also was found.

The woman has acknowledged having consensual sex with one other partner around the same time as the alleged assault. Defense lawyers, maintaining that there may have been two other partners, contend that could account for the injuries the woman said she received when Bryant assaulted her.

Police officers who visited Bryant's room after she complained that she had been sexually assaulted did not seize evidence from his bathroom, where the woman had said she had wept and bled.

"It's a picture entirely different than the picture the prosecution painted," Pozner said.

"What the defense scored was not a single point or a point here and a point there, but completely related points in the story showing a whole different version of what happened that night, and that version was based on the complainant's own statements," he said.

"It was a devastating day for the prosecution."

Katiebear · 11-11-2003, 11:08 PM

Actually the fact that he committed adultery doesn't surprise me in fact I'm surprised he's resisted this long given the temptations out there. And given his image it seems to come out of nowhere but given that he and his wife had problems etc even the strongest man can give in to sin its not really that surprising is it?

However rape? Its sound harsh to me. My gut tells me no, not because he's a celebrity, not because of his clean image. But because I look at a pattern of abuse when it comes to sexual assault/rape.

If he did commit rape? Why do it out of nowhere? I think up to a certain point there would be incidents leading up to this that would've come out saying that he has this pattern of behavior.

Where are the other women who had this experience with them? All the women that have come to his behalf have said he has always been gentle and never forceful etc.

Now that doesn't exonerate him (that should be based on evidence alone) but it does give him credibility that a leopard doesn't change his spots overnight.

However the evidence that the prosecution has on Kobe is really weak. I mean the accuser's story isn't exactly rock solid not to mention the dual panties and how she didn't show signs of distress from the witnesses, no screams etc. Plus how she didn't say no then later changes her story saying she did. Not to mention when she did say no he listened.

If this is all they have then why file this case in the first place?

Either way I hope the trial makes things clearer as to what really happened(assuming we'll ever know)

As far as OJ frankly I thought he did it and no I never bought into his image(did he really have one) he was always a con artist I don't recall anybody ever coming to his behalf during the trial did you? Not to mention if you looked at his face he showed no real remorse or reaction to anything. At least with Kobe I'm more inclined to believe him because my gut says so( I know I don't know him but still with OJ I had no qualms believing he did it)


Fan Forum > General Discussion > Sports > Kobe Bryant Arrested For Sexual Assault ...?!