Kobe Killed in Helicopter Crash

[MDJ]

- For what happened in Colorado, perhaps there was some karma, in him having four girls. As a girl dad myself, I really think it improves your perspective on all sorts of things. Frankly, since I grew up without a dad in my home, I believe being a girl dad helped me immensely. I’d like to think the same happened with Kobe.

The problem with saying stuff like this, and the whole "Girldad" thing, is the subtext that before you had daughters you didn't really see women as people. I realize that's almost certainly not what you're trying to say here- but what does "improve your perspective" actually mean? And the idea that daughters are some kind of penance on him for his rape is gross.

But having reflected on this for a week or so, I think he was a very special person. Like all of us, he had his flaws, and made mistakes (which I believe he truly regrets - as I do many of mine). While we should remember the full picture, I think it a huge mistake to be dismissive of what he contributed by framing everything with a label (and we only have to look to Washington DC to see where that gets us).

Raping a woman is not a "flaw." Pointing out that Kobe was credibly accused and charged with rape is not a political "label." It's an accurate depiction of who he was as a person. His charitable work and the person he was after are valid counterpoints- it's up to each individual to determine if that makes up for the rape. But the narrative that "we'll never know" what happened is just to make people feel better about venerating Kobe.

 

[GoDa]

You guys need to make your way to the main stage.

The Sox just traded Mookie for a guy that seems to have been involved in something at least as sinister as what you believe Kobe did.

* sorry - I was apparently banned from posting in this thread for the above comment. As it appears this does not prevent me from editing a post, I'd like to make a statement.

"First, I want to apologize directly to the individual involved in this incident. I want to apologize to him for my behavior in this thread and for the consequences he has suffered in the past hours. Although this time has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain he has had to endure. I also want to apologize to his parents and family members and to my own family and friends and most of all to the readers of Sons of Sam Horn.

I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this individual. As a lurker, no money has been paid to this individual or the site. Well... he hasn't agreed that this statement will not be used against me - so scratch that thought. Although I truly believe the statement above to be fairly inconsequential, I recognize now that he did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After moments of reviewing his mail, listening to some chill tunes, and even browsing around some other threads, I now understand how he feels and that he does not see the post as inconsequential.

I issue this statement today, fully aware that while my posting has been impacted, the impact of my posting remains. I can only hope that with time the "dopes" of Sons of Sam Horn will no longer see these words as a psychological or emotional drain on the site."

 

[santadevil]

If you read posts in those threads, you'll realize a lot of the same people are posting there too

 

[joe dokes]

You guys need to make your way to the main stage.
The Sox just traded Mookie for a guy that seems to have been involved in something at least as sinister as what you believe Kobe did.

It's being discussed. Your definition of "at least as" is different than mine. And, for the last time, Kobe admitted what he did.

 

[Average Reds]

You guys need to make your way to the main stage.

The Sox just traded Mookie for a guy that seems to have been involved in something at least as sinister as what you believe Kobe did.

And you need to stop trolling.

 

[mauf]

The problem with saying stuff like this, and the whole "Girldad" thing, is the subtext that before you had daughters you didn't really see women as people. I realize that's almost certainly not what you're trying to say here- but what does "improve your perspective" actually mean? And the idea that daughters are some kind of penance on him for his rape is gross.

A little off-topic, but this article is worth a read.

https://andieandal.com/dont-count-on-millennials-to-end-gender-bias/
The one-sentence takeaway is that Millennial men have more retrograde views on gender than Boomer men do. I don’t believe for a second that Millennial men are less evolved than their fathers were at a similar age; rather, the latter group has become more progressive as they aged. If I were to develop hypotheses to explain that, I’d start with fatherhood — seeing their daughters on the receiving end of the pervasive sexism in our culture makes men more sensitive to these issues. You’re right that it’s regrettable that a lot of men need this kind of first-hand experience to realize that it’s wrong to mistreat women, but I don’t think there’s much question that it’s true.

Obviously, I wouldn’t use these observations about broad social trends and more subtle forms of sexism to draw any conclusions about whether or to what extent Kobe Bryant evolved in the last 16 years of his life, and you were right to call out the poster who tried to do so.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Don't just poo-poo evidence. If you're taking the time to counterargue the facts of the case, you have a theory as to what went down. So, don't try to fence sit as an unconvinced weigher of truth, put it out there. And if it's too gross or retrograde to say out loud, then maybe reexamine your motivations and inclinations in trying to argue just the evidence.

I personally don't have any theory about what went down. The one thing I do know is Kobe Bryant was never convicted in a court of law of rape. Not by a judge, and not by a jury of his peers. So for me, I have a hard time saying Kobe = rapist. Kobe = alleged rapist? Sure, I'm fine with that. But, it's very easy to take a side in an argument when the side you are sitting on is the side that has, or more accurately, is constantly taking the moral high ground. The reality is neither you, nor anyone else knows what went on in that room besides Kobe and the girl, so everyone can have an opinion or a theory, but the thing is, we'll never know who's is right, so nobody should really be belittled for for having a potentially different view of the case. Again, I think he probably did it, but thinking he probably did it, and being absolutely, 100% sure, he did it, based on the evidence that the media has regurgitated from the prosecution's pleadings is a very, very different thing. Prosecutors get things wrong. Sometimes, prosecutors make things up (more on that in a second). I already pointed out that Kobe Bryant's defense team thought the prosecution was hiding exculpatory evidence from one of their key expert witnesses (a medical examiner). Instead of responding to that, the prosecution just dropped the examiner from their witness list. And then shortly thereafter, the case was dropped. So do we really know what kind of evidence Kobe's team had to argue in the alternative, besides the fact it was consensual? Do we know whether or not we had a prosecutor who was hiding things from the defense? We don't know any of that because there was never a trial.

I don't say any of this as a defense of Kobe. I'm simply trying to offer an explanation as to why some folks, a lot of folks, aren't willing to completely ignore everything he's done in his life, and simply label him a rapist and be done with him. I also understand why others feel the opposite. There are always two sides to every story. I mean, shit, this poor couple was accused in public by a DA in California of drugging and raping upwards of 1,000 women. A THOUSAND!!! The prosecutor claimed they had videos and evidence, and destroyed the lives of a surgeon and his girlfriend in the process. They even had 7 Jane Does willing to come forward and testify against the couple. They had illegal weapons and date rape drugs and video. If folks read the complaints in that case and then the 7 Jane Does decided not to testify, folks would still be here calling them rapists for the rest of their lives, because in today's world, apparently, an allegation is all it takes. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean what it once did. And you know what, it appears to have all been bullshit. The prosecutor apparently made the case up out of whole cloth.

https://www.insider.com/grant-robicheaux-cerissa-riley-rape-drug-charges-dropped-interview-2020-2
Innocent folks are charged and convicted in this country every single day. Kobe may or may not be guilty, but to insinuate that folks who think there are two sides to this story need to re-examine their motivations or inclinations is frankly, dangerous. There is a counter argument to that regarding black men/white women/rape that someone could just as easily argue should require you to re-examine your motivations and inclinations too, but maybe that's too gross or retrograde to say out loud. And no, I don't believe you're a racist, but that's the flipside of a statement like that.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I personally don't have any theory about what went down. The one thing I do know is Kobe Bryant was never convicted in a court of law of rape. Not by a judge, and not by a jury of his peers. So for me, I have a hard time saying Kobe = rapist. Kobe = alleged rapist? Sure, I'm fine with that. But, it's very easy to take a side in an argument when the side you are sitting on is the side that has, or more accurately, is constantly taking the moral high ground. The reality is neither you, nor anyone else knows what went on in that room besides Kobe and the girl, so everyone can have an opinion or a theory, but the thing is, we'll never know who's is right, so nobody should really be belittled for for having a potentially different view of the case. Again, I think he probably did it, but thinking he probably did it, and being absolutely, 100% sure, he did it, based on the evidence that the media has regurgitated from the prosecution's pleadings is a very, very different thing. Prosecutors get things wrong. Sometimes, prosecutors make things up (more on that in a second). I already pointed out that Kobe Bryant's defense team thought the prosecution was hiding exculpatory evidence from one of their key expert witnesses (a medical examiner). Instead of responding to that, the prosecution just dropped the examiner from their witness list. And then shortly thereafter, the case was dropped. So do we really know what kind of evidence Kobe's team had to argue in the alternative, besides the fact it was consensual? Do we know whether or not we had a prosecutor who was hiding things from the defense? We don't know any of that because there was never a trial.

I don't say any of this as a defense of Kobe. I'm simply trying to offer an explanation as to why some folks, a lot of folks, aren't willing to completely ignore everything he's done in his life, and simply label him a rapist and be done with him. I also understand why others feel the opposite. There are always two sides to every story. I mean, shit, this poor couple was accused in public by a DA in California of drugging and raping upwards of 1,000 women. A THOUSAND!!! The prosecutor claimed they had videos and evidence, and destroyed the lives of a surgeon and his girlfriend in the process. They even had 7 Jane Does willing to come forward and testify against the couple. They had illegal weapons and date rape drugs and video. If folks read the complaints in that case and then the 7 Jane Does decided not to testify, folks would still be here calling them rapists for the rest of their lives, because in today's world, apparently, an allegation is all it takes. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean what it once did. And you know what, it appears to have all been bullshit. The prosecutor apparently made the case up out of whole cloth.

https://www.insider.com/grant-robicheaux-cerissa-riley-rape-drug-charges-dropped-interview-2020-2
Innocent folks are charged and convicted in this country every single day. Kobe may or may not be guilty, but to insinuate that folks who think there are two sides to this story need to re-examine their motivations or inclinations is frankly, dangerous. There is a counter argument to that regarding black men/white women/rape that someone could just as easily argue should require you to re-examine your motivations and inclinations too, but maybe that's too gross or retrograde to say out loud. And no, I don't believe you're a racist, but that's the flipside of a statement like that.

All that you say is reasonable. Except, we have a professional in the thread. Someone who views these cases for a living. Prosecutes these cases for a living. Has been walked through the case and it's myriad of details and essentially been given access to information by other professionals in the context of an Educational/Seminar setting.

He's offered his opinion, and has offered among other insights "rarely do I get as much physical evidence in such a case". Is it wrong to assign higher credibility to the opinions of this professional - who while not present in said room, has a hell of a professional perspective? We've accepted the measured viewpoints in this thread of Gunfighter09 as to the potential goings on in the flight - and he wasn't there. But he has a perspective that few in this thread have. We value that expertise, the same way we used to bring in guests for AMAs. One doesn't have to agree with the expertise, but one also has to give it higher credibility in my opinion.

Just my two cents...

 

[Spelunker]

Folks that bring up his rape are the only ones that aren't "completely ignoring everything he did in his life".

 

[Marciano490]

I personally don't have any theory about what went down. The one thing I do know is Kobe Bryant was never convicted in a court of law of rape. Not by a judge, and not by a jury of his peers. So for me, I have a hard time saying Kobe = rapist. Kobe = alleged rapist? Sure, I'm fine with that. But, it's very easy to take a side in an argument when the side you are sitting on is the side that has, or more accurately, is constantly taking the moral high ground. The reality is neither you, nor anyone else knows what went on in that room besides Kobe and the girl, so everyone can have an opinion or a theory, but the thing is, we'll never know who's is right, so nobody should really be belittled for for having a potentially different view of the case. Again, I think he probably did it, but thinking he probably did it, and being absolutely, 100% sure, he did it, based on the evidence that the media has regurgitated from the prosecution's pleadings is a very, very different thing. Prosecutors get things wrong. Sometimes, prosecutors make things up (more on that in a second). I already pointed out that Kobe Bryant's defense team thought the prosecution was hiding exculpatory evidence from one of their key expert witnesses (a medical examiner). Instead of responding to that, the prosecution just dropped the examiner from their witness list. And then shortly thereafter, the case was dropped. So do we really know what kind of evidence Kobe's team had to argue in the alternative, besides the fact it was consensual? Do we know whether or not we had a prosecutor who was hiding things from the defense? We don't know any of that because there was never a trial.

I don't say any of this as a defense of Kobe. I'm simply trying to offer an explanation as to why some folks, a lot of folks, aren't willing to completely ignore everything he's done in his life, and simply label him a rapist and be done with him. I also understand why others feel the opposite. There are always two sides to every story. I mean, shit, this poor couple was accused in public by a DA in California of drugging and raping upwards of 1,000 women. A THOUSAND!!! The prosecutor claimed they had videos and evidence, and destroyed the lives of a surgeon and his girlfriend in the process. They even had 7 Jane Does willing to come forward and testify against the couple. They had illegal weapons and date rape drugs and video. If folks read the complaints in that case and then the 7 Jane Does decided not to testify, folks would still be here calling them rapists for the rest of their lives, because in today's world, apparently, an allegation is all it takes. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean what it once did. And you know what, it appears to have all been bullshit. The prosecutor apparently made the case up out of whole cloth.

https://www.insider.com/grant-robicheaux-cerissa-riley-rape-drug-charges-dropped-interview-2020-2
Innocent folks are charged and convicted in this country every single day. Kobe may or may not be guilty, but to insinuate that folks who think there are two sides to this story need to re-examine their motivations or inclinations is frankly, dangerous. There is a counter argument to that regarding black men/white women/rape that someone could just as easily argue should require you to re-examine your motivations and inclinations too, but maybe that's too gross or retrograde to say out loud. And no, I don't believe you're a racist, but that's the flipside of a statement like that.

The "I'm not going to say you're a racist, but...." would bother me if I hadn't already discussed that earlier in the thread.

I agree that there are sometimes false accusations of rape. I remember Duke lacrosse. I heard about that daycare in MA. Refuting a rape accusation by saying that sometimes meritless cases are brought is utter bullshit and you should know better.

OJ was acquitted of murder, but nobody here blinks whenever he's called a killer. Ray Lewis only pled to obstruction, but nobody here blinks when it's mentioned he was involved in a murder.

But, whenever someone is accused of rape or sexual assault, or being present while one is committed, people come out of the woodwork to argue evidence and intent and everything else.

Why do you think that is?

 

[InstaFace]

It's amazing how people get up in the morning expecting the sun to rise in the East when it hasn't been ruled that we can expect it to do such by a court of competent jurisdiction. Perhaps we should try that the next time a spouse accuses us of farting: well, innocent until proven guilty honey! You can't go labeling me as having swamp ass without first following the federal rules of evidence!

Or perhaps, equally amazing that people hold up "he hasn't been convicted in a court of law!" as a reason why we can't draw reasonable inferences based on available information and common sense, not to mention expert opinion in this instance. Not take away someone's liberty, but act as if it's generally understood and rather probable. But only in this category, of course. A-Rod still took steroids, right, even if the evidence was circumstantial and he was never convicted. I mean, none of us here were in the room sticking needles in his ass, so who can really say for sure, right?

 

[DannyDarwinism]

Regarding GoDa's questions, like Marciano said, most would require the links he says exist but did't provide to even begin to answer, but I did read the police interview transcript, (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/kobe-bryant-police-interview ) and I'd like to address a couple of points since he was replying to my post. Just a warning that some of this will be graphic:

- Her behavior before and after the alleged rape doesn't give me reason to doubt her credibility. I find it completely believable that she wanted to meet and possibly hook up with Kobe Bryant, but expressly did not wanted to have sex with him, or do so in the manner that he did. That her subsequent behavior didn't fit GoDa's notion of how a rape victim should act doesn't "give me any pause", either.

- Likewise her mental health history. People with mental health issues are unfortunately more vulnerable to sexual and other violent assault, in part precisely because predators are often savvy enough to sense and understand that no one will believe their victims. There's more literature on this, but here's a place to start if your curious. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/victimization.html

- As to her subsequent sexual encounter- as far as I know, she didn't accuse that guy of raping her. If there's a reason to think her having consensual sex soon after the incident makes it less likely that she was raped, I'm all ears, as long as it's not some version of "she's a crazy slut", because that's what a lot of the post reads like.

- As far as the bruises vs. one dime-sized mark discrepancy, as Preacher notes, Kobe admitted to choking her in the police interrogation. He said, basically, that it's what he does with some other woman he was sleeping with ("Michelle") and when asked about marks on her neck, he said "I have strong hands."

- Kobe also admits that at some point, she withdrew consent. He claims, after some pressing by the detectives, that this was after he asked her if he could come in her face ("It's my thing") and she said no. He claims that he just stopped entirely at this point, which doesn't really scan to me- that they're having consensual sex, he then asks if he can come in her face, she says no, and rather than just say "ok, understood" and continue on with the consensual, presumably mutually enjoyable, sex, he just stops completely and jerks off in a towel later. His answers to some of these questions are on page 28 of the transcript. Detective asks him did it stop at that point, he repeats the question to himself, "Um, did I stop? (inaudible) and I stopped. And then she asked me to (inaudible) I stopped...stood up and backed off and that was it." Followed by, "I thought she was cool, you know, I stopped. I stopped pumping and just stood there..."

As I said, that version just doesn't really scan for me. I guess it's possible that once he was told he couldn't come in her face, he was done completely and ended the heretofore consensual encounter abruptly and unilaterally, but it feels more like he's retconning the withdrawal of consent and his reaction to less incriminating circumstances for the detectives, and possibly himself. I understand if that's too inferential for other people to buy into, and I’m not particularly committed to my impressions based off the small amount of information I have seen, but that is my general sense for a couple of the issues GoDa raised.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

The "I'm not going to say you're a racist, but...." would bother me if I hadn't already discussed that earlier in the thread.

I agree that there are sometimes false accusations of rape. I remember Duke lacrosse. I heard about that daycare in MA. Refuting a rape accusation by saying that sometimes meritless cases are brought is utter bullshit and you should know better.

OJ was acquitted of murder, but nobody here blinks whenever he's called a killer. Ray Lewis only pled to obstruction, but nobody here blinks when it's mentioned he was involved in a murder.

But, whenever someone is accused of rape or sexual assault, or being present while one is committed, people come out of the woodwork to argue evidence and intent and everything else.

Why do you think that is?

I'm not sure why it would bother you. It's exactly what you're doing out of the other side of your mouth.

I'm not refuting a rape accusation by saying that sometimes meritless cases are brought. I'm pointing out the obvious because it seems to be getting ignored. This is why we have a Judicial system. However, I am refuting your accusations that anyone who doesn't see Kobe as a convicted rapist isn't some rapist-apologist, which is what most of your posts are implying. That's not fair to them either. He wasn't convicted. Just because you think the evidence, distilled down from nothing more than the prosecutor's complaint and the victim's accusations (not to mention, brought to you by a media that is, for lack of a better word, unreliable), is enough, then why bother with a trial ever? I mean, you talk about this case as if there is no other side, there is, we've just never heard it, because it never got that far. Why even have a defense bar if the standard is "Victim says X, prosecutor types up X, therefore Y is guilty?" Because that's all I keep reading other than the "He admitted he raped her" stuff, which anyone who knows anything about the law knows what his lawyer wrote and read on his behalf was far from a confession, but rather a requirement they had to comply with, and as Preacher pointed out in the previous page, is an affirmative defense to a rape charge. Mens Rea means something in the law.

As for OJ, he was found liable for their deaths in civil court, and he stood trial, and everyone on Earth heard the prosecution and heard the defense, so we have a whole lot more information in that case than we do in Kobe's. People have the right to have opinions, and in OJ's case, we had so much more information that those opinions are far more informed than they are in Kobe's case. Kobe's defense was never heard. I can't believe you don't understand the distinction. In fact, I know you do. Ray Lewis, you'll never hear me call him a murderer. I don't even know what "involved in a murder" means. Are you saying he plunged the knife into the victims? Are you saying he was there (that hasn't been refuted)? Are you saying he got blood on his clothes and got rid of them? From what I remember of the case, there was a melee outside a nightclub, two people were stabbed, Ray Lewis might have done it, his friends might have done it, but the interesting thing is only Ray Lewis was actually convicted of any crime (obstruction, for initially lying to police about being there, which while bad, is a far cry from actually stabbing someone) while the guys he testified against were acquitted, so to answer your question, fuck if I know if he committed a murder or not. I'm certainly not going to say he did when the prosecutor didn't think there was even enough evidence to even charge him. The reason nobody blinks around here when it's mentioned is because everyone here hates Ray Lewis, and he didn't fall from the sky in a helicopter last week, so there is no reason to discuss his legacy at the moment. I think it's pretty obvious that he knows more about what happened that night than he's ever said, but I don't think that makes him a murderer. I know a kid that stole some candy in middle school, and I might have even been there when he did, but does that make me a shoplifter because I didn't tell my parents or the police or anyone that he did it?

This has nothing to do with rape vs. murder or any other crime. I don't see anybody showing up around here to say Rae Carruth might not be a murderer, or Bill Cosby not be a sexual predator. Because, you know, they are, and they went to trial and were convicted of it. If you'd like, I can post 1,000 links of murderers who were accused, another 1,000 of whom were even convicted, and then later found not guilty or exonerated. The type of crime is irrelevant when it comes to a discussion about the Judicial system and the concept of one being innocent until proven guilty. I don't give two shits what kind of crime it is, people should be coming out of the woodwork to argue evidence, and intent and everything else. Otherwise, fuck it, someone says you did it, you did it.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

All that you say is reasonable. Except, we have a professional in the thread. Someone who views these cases for a living. Prosecutes these cases for a living. Has been walked through the case and it's myriad of details and essentially been given access to information by other professionals in the context of an Educational/Seminar setting.

He's offered his opinion, and has offered among other insights "rarely do I get as much physical evidence in such a case". Is it wrong to assign higher credibility to the opinions of this professional - who while not present in said room, has a hell of a professional perspective? We've accepted the measured viewpoints in this thread of Gunfighter09 as to the potential goings on in the flight - and he wasn't there. But he has a perspective that few in this thread have. We value that expertise, the same way we used to bring in guests for AMAs. One doesn't have to agree with the expertise, but one also has to give it higher credibility in my opinion.

Just my two cents...

I'm also an attorney, who worked on multiple rape cases on the defense side back in my younger days. Some guilty, some not. I can assure you there are a few of us with some experience.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I'm also an attorney, who worked on multiple rape cases on the defense side back in my younger days. Some guilty, some not. I can assure you there are a few of us with some experience.

I didn't assume lack of experience on your part. What I did was acknowledge the experience of the person who's been appointed to the Special Victims unit. That's a bit different than multiple rape cases, that's a specialty. You took the time to respond, but didn't address the actual point I made. Is it not reasonable to value the opinion of the expert in the room?

Note: 1) Special Victims Unit may not be the correct name, too much TV. 2) Damn, I don't envy anyone who sees that much um... damage/sadness on a daily basis. My heart goes out to Preacher for what he must see/hear.

 

[Marciano490]

I'm not sure why it would bother you. It's exactly what you're doing out of the other side of your mouth.

I'm not refuting a rape accusation by saying that sometimes meritless cases are brought. I'm pointing out the obvious because it seems to be getting ignored. This is why we have a Judicial system. However, I am refuting your accusations that anyone who doesn't see Kobe as a convicted rapist isn't some rapist-apologist, which is what most of your posts are implying. That's not fair to them either. He wasn't convicted. Just because you think the evidence, distilled down from nothing more than the prosecutor's complaint and the victim's accusations (not to mention, brought to you by a media that is, for lack of a better word, unreliable), is enough, then why bother with a trial ever? I mean, you talk about this case as if there is no other side, there is, we've just never heard it, because it never got that far. Why even have a defense bar if the standard is "Victim says X, prosecutor types up X, therefore Y is guilty?" Because that's all I keep reading other than the "He admitted he raped her" stuff, which anyone who knows anything about the law knows what his lawyer wrote and read on his behalf was far from a confession, but rather a requirement they had to comply with, and as Preacher pointed out in the previous page, is an affirmative defense to a rape charge. Mens Rea means something in the law.

As for OJ, he was found liable for their deaths in civil court, and he stood trial, and everyone on Earth heard the prosecution and heard the defense, so we have a whole lot more information in that case than we do in Kobe's. People have the right to have opinions, and in OJ's case, we had so much more information that those opinions are far more informed than they are in Kobe's case. Kobe's defense was never heard. I can't believe you don't understand the distinction. In fact, I know you do. Ray Lewis, you'll never hear me call him a murderer. I don't even know what "involved in a murder" means. Are you saying he plunged the knife into the victims? Are you saying he was there (that hasn't been refuted)? Are you saying he got blood on his clothes and got rid of them? From what I remember of the case, there was a melee outside a nightclub, two people were stabbed, Ray Lewis might have done it, his friends might have done it, but the interesting thing is only Ray Lewis was actually convicted of any crime (obstruction, for initially lying to police about being there, which while bad, is a far cry from actually stabbing someone) while the guys he testified against were acquitted, so to answer your question, fuck if I know if he committed a murder or not. I'm certainly not going to say he did when the prosecutor didn't think there was even enough evidence to even charge him. The reason nobody blinks around here when it's mentioned is because everyone here hates Ray Lewis, and he didn't fall from the sky in a helicopter last week, so there is no reason to discuss his legacy at the moment. I think it's pretty obvious that he knows more about what happened that night than he's ever said, but I don't think that makes him a murderer. I know a kid that stole some candy in middle school, and I might have even been there when he did, but does that make me a shoplifter because I didn't tell my parents or the police or anyone that he did it?

This has nothing to do with rape vs. murder or any other crime. I don't see anybody showing up around here to say Rae Carruth might not be a murderer, or Bill Cosby not be a sexual predator. Because, you know, they are, and they went to trial and were convicted of it. If you'd like, I can post 1,000 links of murderers who were accused, another 1,000 of whom were even convicted, and then later found not guilty or exonerated. The type of crime is irrelevant when it comes to a discussion about the Judicial system and the concept of one being innocent until proven guilty. I don't give two shits what kind of crime it is, people should be coming out of the woodwork to argue evidence, and intent and everything else. Otherwise, fuck it, someone says you did it, you did it.

You seem impassioned. Why don’t you reply when you don’t need to misrepresent what I’m saying.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Or perhaps, equally amazing that people hold up "he hasn't been convicted in a court of law!" as a reason why we can't draw reasonable inferences based on available information and common sense, not to mention expert opinion in this instance. Not take away someone's liberty, but act as if it's generally understood and rather probable. But only in this category, of course. A-Rod still took steroids, right, even if the evidence was circumstantial and he was never convicted. I mean, none of us here were in the room sticking needles in his ass, so who can really say for sure, right?

I'm right here. You can respond to me. You don't have to go the passive-aggressive route.

Here's what I wrote: "I don't say any of this as a defense of Kobe. I'm simply trying to offer an explanation as to why some folks, a lot of folks, aren't willing to completely ignore everything he's done in his life, and simply label him a rapist and be done with him. I also understand why others feel the opposite."

What part of that is telling anyone "they can't draw reasonable inferences based on available information and common sense."

You can draw whatever reasonable inferences you want. My problem is when you tell others that they can't do the same.

I despise Kobe. Have hated him as a player and as a person forever, so it pains me to even have this conversation. I THINK he did it. I don't know he did it. And if other folks want to believe he may not have done it, I don't understand why that bothers the Kobe=rapist folks so much? You aren't telling people that they should draw reasonable inferences, you're telling them that the only inferences that are reasonable are the ones you're drawing.

ARod publicly admitted to using steroids when he was with the Rangers. The better argument would be David Ortiz. You ready to convict him?

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I didn't assume lack of experience on your part. What I did was acknowledge the experience of the person who's been appointed to the Special Victims unit. That's a bit different than multiple rape cases, that's a specialty. You took the time to respond, but didn't address the actual point I made. Is it not reasonable to value the opinion of the expert in the room?

Note: 1) Special Victims Unit may not be the correct name, too much TV. 2) Damn, I don't envy anyone who sees that much um... damage/sadness on a daily basis. My heart goes out to Preacher for what he must see/hear.

I think Preachers' posts on the topic have been excellent, from a DA's perspective. I come from things from a different perspective, having been a defense attorney. I also don't know how much Preacher read about this case, but most prosecution experts at the time thought the evidence was terrible for the prosecution. Many of whom believed the case never should have been brought in the first place, and again, these were prosecutors and experts at the time saying this. I was practicing criminal law in 2003, so this case was something I studied and read everything I could get my hands on. If folks really, really want a true breakdown, and I'm talking about every court appearance, every ruling, every piece of evidence, this is the site for it. This case was not the slam dunk that it was portrayed as, and I think it's unfair to simply paint all Kobe supporters as if they are somehow condoning rape, which is how quite a few posters are portraying them around here.

http://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/COvKobeBryant-casehistory.htm

 

[Deathofthebambino]

- As to her subsequent sexual encounter- as far as I know, she didn't accuse that guy of raping her. If there's a reason to think her having consensual sex soon after the incident makes it less likely that she was raped, I'm all ears, as long as it's not some version of "she's a crazy slut", because that's what a lot of the post reads like.

I just wanted to talk about this one point quickly. Like I said, everything you could ever want to know is in the link I just posted. But the consensual sex that the defense was introducing into evidence was both before and after Kobe. It doesn't make it less likely she was raped, but it does cloud the evidence that the prosecution was presenting. We've seen a lot of posts talking about the blood and lacerations. What if those lacerations weren't caused by Kobe, but instead were caused by one of the other partners, or if the injuries, as they were, was because of a combination of the sexual encounters, rather than just evidence Kobe raped her? Normally, sexual history of an accuser is not admissible in a rape case, but this judge allowed it, not because he was helping the defense portray her as a slut, but rather because it's an alternative theory to what the prosecution was presenting. She also lied about those sexual encounters in earlier interviews, and neither of the men who she claimed she had consensual sex would submit DNA samples. And in regards to the injuries, IIRC, the prosecutions own expert witness was ready to testify that they could have been consistent with consensual sex, which is why they summarily dropped him as a witness and didn't notify the defense of his opinion (which is, of course, against the rules) and the Court never got a chance to rule on that motion because the prosecutors dismissed the case before that.

There's a lot there. A lot more than just "Kobe's defense team said her name in court" and "She had bleeding and lacerations therefore she must have been raped, etc." The reality is most of the leaks and other accusations that have been flung against Kobe's defense team were, in fact, leaks from the court or the prosecution themselves. The prosecution was bad, like really, really bad on this case. Her medical records were inadvertently released by the hospital, the court transcripts were inadvertently leaked to 7 reporters by a court clerk, etc. We've come a long way since then, both for victims and defendants, thankfully.

 

[Marciano490]

I think Preachers' posts on the topic have been excellent, from a DA's perspective. I come from things from a different perspective, having been a defense attorney. I also don't know how much Preacher read about this case, but most prosecution experts at the time thought the evidence was terrible for the prosecution. Many of whom believed the case never should have been brought in the first place, and again, these were prosecutors and experts at the time saying this. I was practicing criminal law in 2003, so this case was something I studied and read everything I could get my hands on. If folks really, really want a true breakdown, and I'm talking about every court appearance, every ruling, every piece of evidence, this is the site for it. This case was not the slam dunk that it was portrayed as, and I think it's unfair to simply paint all Kobe supporters as if they are somehow condoning rape, which is how quite a few posters are portraying them around here.

http://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/COvKobeBryant-casehistory.htm

To simplify things and keep them friendly, do you agree there is space between a criminal conviction and a “yeah, he’s probably guilty?” Because I don’t think anyone here definitively said he should’ve been convicted. I objected to people drawing inferences from bullying her out of the case. I also objected to people trying to poke holes in the evidence without actually coming up with a holistic analysis - not for court, for here.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

I just wanted to talk about this one point quickly. Like I said, everything you could ever want to know is in the link I just posted.

Damn, that is not an exaggeration.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

To simplify things and keep them friendly, do you agree there is space between a criminal conviction and a “yeah, he’s probably guilty?” Because I don’t think anyone here definitively said he should’ve been convicted. I objected to people drawing inferences from bullying her out of the case. I also objected to people trying to poke holes in the evidence without actually coming up with a holistic analysis - not for court, for here.

Of course, there's space between a criminal conviction and 'yeah, he's probably guilty." I fall in the latter category myself. Come on, nobody here said definitively he shouldn't been convicted? There is post after post after post already convicting him in this thread. Every time someone says "Kobe is a rapist," that's exactly what they are doing. There's a distinction to be made between that and "Kobe is an alleged rapist, but I think he did it." That statement can lead to a discussion about the actual facts of the case, while the first forecloses that discussion entirely.

I also don't know if anyone has inferred anything because she was bullied out of the case, which again is arguable, was she bullied out of the case, if so, by whom? Like I said, most of the leaks didn't come from Kobe's defense team, they came from the court, the prosecution, her own classmates many of whom were on record as saying they didn't believe her, and the hospital). Kobe's defense team wanted certain hearings held privately, while the prosecution fought to have them made public, and then when the testimony would turn against them, they asked the court to close the hearings. The case was insanity. Experts and prosecutors at the time felt the prosecution did her a disservice by even bringing the case, others think they only brought the case to get her money in a civil suit. All of this is in those links (fair warning, it'll take hours, if not days, to get through it all). Maybe folks are drawing inferences that the she withdrew from the case, not because she was bullied, but because the prosecution finally realized they couldn't win the case.

I think it became pretty clear early on in this thread that anyone trying to have a holistic analysis of the evidence was going to be shouted down. GoDa tried to discuss some of the evidence in the post below about the blood evidence (which around here and in the media has made it sound like a river of blood, instead of an amount that couldn't even be seen by the naked eye). And well, nobody even acknowledged or responded to it:

Just to help you out with the blood...

Detective Loyola: Okay. Did she, did you get any blood on you or anything like that?
Bryant: She didn't bleed did she?
Detective Loyola: Yeah. She had, she had a lot of bleeding.
Bryant: What, you got to be kidding, from where?
Detective Loyola: From her vaginal area.
Bryant: Did she cut herself or something, there's no blood on me whatsoever man, matter of fact I still have the boxers, (inaudible) boxers, they're all white, they're all white, there's nothing on them.

However, in fact, there was not a lot of blood. The accuser actually told the police it was a small amount. And, the police testified they did not even check the room for blood. Because of the described small amount, they expected to find none.
There was blood on his t-shirt. There was blood on the outside of his t-shirt, but it was not visible to the officers and was only detected through CBI examination. There were a few (3?) smears on the bottom middle inside of the t-shirt. 100% my speculation, but that's probably where he wiped his dick after the finished.
So, yes. There was blood. But it doesn't sound like, either from the accuser or from Kobe or from the blood evidence that there was blood flying all around and certainly not in amounts would've been likely noticed... or potentially given other factors even could've been noticed.

Instead, he gets this kind of a response: - "As to her subsequent sexual encounter- as far as I know, she didn't accuse that guy of raping her. If there's a reason to think her having consensual sex soon after the incident makes it less likely that she was raped, I'm all ears, as long as it's not some version of "she's a crazy slut", because that's what a lot of the post reads like. "

I don't know, maybe it's me, but I'm not seeing a lot of willing participants in a discussion about the evidence of the case.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Damn, that is not an exaggeration.

I wasn't lying when I said I had literally studied this case. It was fascinating at the time from a legal perspective.

 

[Marciano490]

Of course, there's space between a criminal conviction and 'yeah, he's probably guilty." I fall in the latter category myself. Come on, nobody here said definitively he shouldn't been convicted? There is post after post after post already convicting him in this thread. Every time someone says "Kobe is a rapist," that's exactly what they are doing. There's a distinction to be made between that and "Kobe is an alleged rapist, but I think he did it." That statement can lead to a discussion about the actual facts of the case, while the first forecloses that discussion entirely.

I also don't know if anyone has inferred anything because she was bullied out of the case, which again is arguable, was she bullied out of the case, if so, by whom? Like I said, most of the leaks didn't come from Kobe's defense team, they came from the court, the prosecution, her own classmates many of whom were on record as saying they didn't believe her, and the hospital). Kobe's defense team wanted certain hearings held privately, while the prosecution fought to have them made public, and then when the testimony would turn against them, they asked the court to close the hearings. The case was insanity. Experts and prosecutors at the time felt the prosecution did her a disservice by even bringing the case, others think they only brought the case to get her money in a civil suit. All of this is in those links (fair warning, it'll take hours, if not days, to get through it all). Maybe folks are drawing inferences that the she withdrew from the case, not because she was bullied, but because the prosecution finally realized they couldn't win the case.

I think it became pretty clear early on in this thread that anyone trying to have a holistic analysis of the evidence was going to be shouted down. GoDa tried to discuss some of the evidence in the post below about the blood evidence (which around here and in the media has made it sound like a river of blood, instead of an amount that couldn't even be seen by the naked eye). And well, nobody even acknowledged or responded to it:



Instead, he gets this kind of a response: - "As to her subsequent sexual encounter- as far as I know, she didn't accuse that guy of raping her. If there's a reason to think her having consensual sex soon after the incident makes it less likely that she was raped, I'm all ears, as long as it's not some version of "she's a crazy slut", because that's what a lot of the post reads like. "

I don't know, maybe it's me, but I'm not seeing a lot of willing participants in a discussion about the evidence of the case.

I did respond to GoDa’s post. As did others.

And, yeah, Kobe is a rapist. OJ is a murderer. Tyreke Hill broke his kid’s arm. Gary Sheffield used steroids. None of them were convicted. I’m comfortable with those assertions. You’re implying they carry a legal significance that they don’t.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I did respond to GoDa’s post. As did others.

And, yeah, Kobe is a rapist. OJ is a murderer. Tyreke Hill broke his kid’s arm. Gary Sheffield used steroids. None of them were convicted. I’m comfortable with those assertions. You’re implying they carry a legal significance that they don’t.

You just said in your prior post that "nobody is saying he definitively should have been convicted." So you're saying he's a rapist, but he shouldn't have been convicted? Am I supposed to believe that you are somehow open minded and want to have a discussion about the evidence, based on that?

Once again, I don't care if you think Kobe is a rapist or Tyreek Hill broke his kids arm, or anything else. You can think anything you want. However, it doesn't make you any more enlightened or knowledgeable or "woke" than anyone else. It just makes you another guy on the internet with an opinion. I also believe Kobe is a rapist, but I willingly admit I don't know that for sure. And given what I've read about the case and the evidence, I'm not going to disparage or denigrate or shout down someone that may feel Kobe was innocent. It's actually a legitimate possibility.

I forgot about your response to his post, because you know, you didn't want to even quote it, and then proceeded to belittle him with statements like "It'd be easier to respond to GoDa's posts if he provided links to some of his claims. But, there wasn't much to take away from his last post, so...
We're agreeing there was blood. I'm not sure what quantum of blood he would find necessary to be convinced, but there's no disagreement that she was bleeding, she noted she was bleeding, it was an issue they raised with Kobe, and they found blood on his shirt."

Here's a link for you. http://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/P4/RMN_Troubling evidence_082604.htm

"The most difficult item of evidence for the defense is the blood on the T-shirt. That's the real toughie for them," said Paul Campos, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Law.

"Juries tend to function based on common sense, seat-of-the-pants judgments. They are made up of lay people. And the seat-of-the-pants, intuitive judgment people make in the context of a sexual assault charge is that blood equals violence, and violence equals sexual assault.

"Blood and sex is a combination that tends to freak people out a little bit."

A defense forensics expert testified at a closed pretrial hearing June 22 that the alleged victim's last menstrual cycle ended June 21, nine days before she met Bryant at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera. The amount of blood at issue on Bryant's T-shirt is minute.

When Detective Doug Winters was cross-examined about it at Bryant's preliminary hearing Oct. 9, he admitted that he didn't initially see it, when Bryant voluntarily surrendered his shirt to investigators.

"It took a forensic evaluation at CBI to notice that blood, correct?" he was asked by defense lawyer Pamela Mackey. Winters admitted that was true.

Denver defense lawyer Lisa Wayne, who has defended more than a hundred sexual assault cases, thinks Campos overstates the significance of the blood evidence.

"My understanding, what I can glean, is that it's a speck," she said. "It seems to me it's probably such a small amount that it's irrelevant to anything. The nature of intercourse with anybody is that some amount of blood could be what's left over; that just means nothing."

 

[Marciano490]

You just said in your prior post that "nobody is saying he definitively should have been convicted." So you're saying he's a rapist, but he shouldn't have been convicted? Am I supposed to believe that you are somehow open minded and want to have a discussion about the evidence, based on that?

Once again, I don't care if you think Kobe is a rapist or Tyreek Hill broke his kids arm, or anything else. You can think anything you want. However, it doesn't make you any more enlightened or knowledgeable or "woke" than anyone else. It just makes you another guy on the internet with an opinion. I also believe Kobe is a rapist, but I willingly admit I don't know that for sure. And given what I've read about the case and the evidence, I'm not going to disparage or denigrate or shout down someone that may feel Kobe was innocent. It's actually a legitimate possibility.

I forgot about your response to his post, because you know, you didn't want to even quote it, and then proceeded to belittle him with statements like "It'd be easier to respond to GoDa's posts if he provided links to some of his claims. But, there wasn't much to take away from his last post, so...
We're agreeing there was blood. I'm not sure what quantum of blood he would find necessary to be convinced, but there's no disagreement that she was bleeding, she noted she was bleeding, it was an issue they raised with Kobe, and they found blood on his shirt."

Here's a link for you. http://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/P4/RMN_Troubling evidence_082604.htm

Dude, I'm a lawyer too. Don't pull out these silly sleights of hand and try to convince me you're performing magic.

Do you want me to explain to you why I have a different standard for saying "Kobe was a rapist" and Kobe should be convicted, because you seem too smart to need a lesson on due process and the criminal justice system and the difference between a private citizen and the state making such determinations. But, it's a cute little trick you keep pulling out, prodding here and there for inconsistencies at the fringes thinking you're degrading the root argument.

I responded to GoDa as I thought appropriate. He came in with a shitty initial take, ran off and apparently did a whole bunch of research and vomited it here without citation. Should I have taken his assertions as fact given that he's been more or less trolling this thread? Again, if you want to skirmish around the flanks and make protocol arguments, have at it. It's a distraction.

You and he keep mentioning only part of the issue with the blood. Which is consistent with your approach to this whole conversation. You parry here and there and engage part of the argument, misrepresent the other and then act like you've scored a pin fall. Analyze the blood in the proper context of her leaving the room, telling her coworker she was raped and then telling the police there was blood. It obviously wasn't so scant or meaningless that she didn't notice. What does that tell you? How many times have you had consensual sex with a woman who ended up bruised and noticeably bleeding?

And your description of me as preening around saying how woke I am is ridiculous, or, at best, irrelevant. I know exactly why this issue is important to me and people I care about. I've spoken about it here and am happy to reiterate it for you. If you want to sum that up as me being proud about how woke I am, have at it.

But, really, why does someone who thinks Kobe probably did it devote what I'm guessing is hours and hours to reading the record and making middling posts defending him? Like, what's your motivation? Because I've spoken on and will continue to speak on mine if it matters, but as quick as you are to peg what you think is driving me, you recoil in shock and indignation when I guess at what's driving you.

Woke or unwoke, whatever it may be, you're part of a long and apparently proud tradition of people coming in to "well, actually" rape accusations. Like every single accusation in the history of criminal law, there are deficiencies with this case. You've stated them repeatedly, though claiming you still think Kobe did rape the woman. The one actual expert in the thread disagrees with you. And, if you want to come in with a belated appeal to authority because you defended numerous actual rapists, throw me a docket number or a case summary.

So, what is your actual point?

What are you doing here?

I'm showing off how evolved and self-righteous I am. What's your mission, protecting the legacy of rich, dead rapists? Imagining an incivility in the thread or an intolerance to certain viewpoints? You want to discuss me not citing GoDa, find me one example of anyone being shouted down in this thread for impugning Kobe, because the only people told to shut up were the rape and sexual abuse survivors.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I think Preachers' posts on the topic have been excellent, from a DA's perspective. I come from things from a different perspective, having been a defense attorney.

According to what he posted earlier, Preacher has been involved in dozens of cases (trials?) as both a prosecutor and defense attorney.

 

[BroodsSexton]

@Deathofthebambino

That article you posted in your defense is garbage. The top half speculates generally on the effect of blood and sex, together, on juries. The meat and potatoes is two points:

When Detective Doug Winters was cross-examined about it at Bryant's preliminary hearing Oct. 9, he admitted that he didn't initially see it, when Bryant voluntarily surrendered his shirt to investigators.

"It took a forensic evaluation at CBI to notice that blood, correct?" he was asked by defense lawyer Pamela Mackey. Winters admitted that was true.

That’s a cute, out-of-context, lawyerly question. If we’re going to speculate on the evidence, I can imagine a few different ways that question could be asked and answered in that way and it have literally no effect on undermining the evidence.

Denver defense lawyer Lisa Wayne, who has defended more than a hundred sexual assault cases, thinks Campos overstates the significance of the blood evidence.

"My understanding, what I can glean, is that it's a speck," she said. "It seems to me it's probably such a small amount that it's irrelevant to anything. The nature of intercourse with anybody is that some amount of blood could be what's left over; that just means nothing."

Well, that seems like an objective, unbiased perspective!

One reason this matters, particularly in rape cases, is because of the propensity of people to say “[t]he reality is neither you, nor anyone else knows what went on in that room besides Kobe and the girl, so everyone can have an opinion or a theory, but the thing is, we'll never know who's is right, so nobody should really be belittled for having a potentially different view of the case...” the defense you raised in one of your earlier posts. That’s not how evidence works (as you must know, since people rely on notarized closing documents all the time even though they weren’t in the room when the closing took place, without a trial determine the legitimacy) and it’s an enabling argument that has covered up and protected rapists forever.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I didn't assume lack of experience on your part. What I did was acknowledge the experience of the person who's been appointed to the Special Victims unit. That's a bit different than multiple rape cases, that's a specialty. You took the time to respond, but didn't address the actual point I made. Is it not reasonable to value the opinion of the expert in the room?
...

I think Preachers' posts on the topic have been excellent, from a DA's perspective. I come from things from a different perspective, having been a defense attorney. I also don't know how much Preacher read about this case, but most prosecution experts at the time thought the evidence was terrible for the prosecution. Many of whom believed the case never should have been brought in the first place, and again, these were prosecutors and experts at the time saying this. I was practicing criminal law in 2003, so this case was something I studied and read everything I could get my hands on. If folks really, really want a true breakdown, and I'm talking about every court appearance, every ruling, every piece of evidence, this is the site for it. This case was not the slam dunk that it was portrayed as, and I think it's unfair to simply paint all Kobe supporters as if they are somehow condoning rape, which is how quite a few posters are portraying them around here.

http://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/COvKobeBryant-casehistory.htm

Wonderful response, very lawyerly. Where do I send the gold stars? I'm not a lawyer, nor did I play one on TV. I also didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Re: Not bringing the case - There is a difference from a prosecutor's point of view between not bringing the case because a) it's not a winnable case and b) we don't believe it happened. I hope the latter is never prosecuted, and the former too often seems to be a bullshit excuse that leaves victims without any chance of justice. Not bringing the case because it isn't winnable - that really isn't the discussion at hand though, is it?

Re: Defense vs Prosecutor perspective - the poster indicated that he has both defense and prosecutorial experience dealing with sexual assault/rape cases. Your post seems to minimize his perspective as just a prosecutors point of view. It would seem to me that someone with experience on both sides of the issue would see the facts more clearly, than someone who only has perhaps a view of the defense? It would seem to me, that your CV is the one with the limited perspective, unless you've also worked as a prosecutor of sexual crimes? It almost seems like given his recent appointment as a prosecutor for Special Victims, and his work on the defense side of these cases that he has a complete view of the domain... like an expert almost. But then I'm not a lawyer.

I've given this man status in my mind as that of an expert on the subject matter. So I ask again, as a lay person: Is it not reasonable to value the opinion of the expert in the room?

Edit: I'm not trying to attack anyone here. However as a non-legal mind, I feel like your posts are going beyond "Yes, there was an event that occurred. Yes, there were difficult circumstances around the prosecution. We can't be 100% certain." I feel your posts are arguing how things might or might not play out in court, viewing the situation solely from a defense point of view. I think beyond initial emotions, there has been enough measured posting for people to draw reasonable conclusions about what happened. In drawing mine, I've given weight to an expert, mindful that finding an opposing expert in any situation is relatively easy. I apply experiences from my own life, and get to a place where I'm comfortable with what I believe. At first I thought your posts were simply that there is more subtlety to the information in the case than initially meets the eye, and I valued that. But now, it feels like your goal is to muddy the waters with intellectual sleight of hand as it was called above. I presume that isn't your intent, I'm just not sure where you are trying to get the discussion to.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I'm showing off how evolved and self-righteous I am. What's your mission, protecting the legacy of rich, dead rapists? Imagining an incivility in the thread or an intolerance to certain viewpoints? You want to discuss me not citing GoDa, find me one example of anyone being shouted down in this thread for impugning Kobe, because the only people told to shut up were the rape and sexual abuse survivors.

LOL. I'm imagining an incivility, when you are asking if my "mission is to protect the legacy of rich, dead rapists." With that one sentence, you are literally the one inciting showing an intolerance to other viewpoints, and you've done it over and over again throughout the thread. That's the point I've been trying to make. But go ahead, believe anything you want, call Kobe a rapist, like I said, I've got no problem with those statements. You've now successfully shouted down yet another viewpoint.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Another Laker, helicopter crash, and discourse over rape thread turns tragic.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

@Deathofthebambino

That article you posted in your defense is garbage. The top half speculates generally on the effect of blood and sex, together, on juries. The meat and potatoes is two points:


That’s a cute, out-of-context, lawyerly question. If we’re going to speculate on the evidence, I can imagine a few different ways that question could be asked and answered in that way and it have literally no effect on undermining the evidence.

Well, that seems like an objective, unbiased perspective!

One reason this matters, particularly in rape cases, is because of the propensity of people to say “[t]he reality is neither you, nor anyone else knows what went on in that room besides Kobe and the girl, so everyone can have an opinion or a theory, but the thing is, we'll never know who's is right, so nobody should really be belittled for having a potentially different view of the case...” the defense you raised in one of your earlier posts. That’s not how evidence works (as you must know, since people rely on notarized closing documents all the time even though they weren’t in the room when the closing took place, without a trial determine the legitimacy) and it’s an enabling argument that has covered up and protected rapists forever.

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of other articles and opinions in the link I posted earlier. I just opened the first one I found and posted the link, but there are literally hundreds more if you don't like those expert's opinions.

The notary analogy doesn't really make sense, so I don't know how to respond to it. The entire reason we have notaries is so there is an independent, unbiased, licensed observer to the signing of documents, among other things. And the notary is doing that work under the threat of fines, potential criminal penalties and lawsuits if they commit misconduct. Nobody is saying you need to have an independent third party witness a crime for there to be a conviction. What I'm saying is that we don't know what happened. People are welcome to make up their own minds. My problem is one side seems to think their opinions are correct, and anyone who feels differently is "enabling" rapists.

From what I can tell, the only "evidence" that most people around here have cited as to Kobe's guilt is from a Daily Beast article, which is literally nothing more than a regurgitation of the allegations made by the victim and the prosecution. That's not evidence. Those are allegations, and allegations alone aren't enough to convict someone in court. Like I said previously, if people think it's ok to convict based on allegations alone, then we don't really need a Judicial system. This is not an "enabling argument," this is how the law has to work, in every instance. If it didn't, we're the wild west, or the Middle East.

Once again, I'm not defending Kobe. I don't care about Kobe. I'm defending the folks who don't share the same viewpoint of Kobe's case that others do, and their right to say that. There is a ton of misinformation and conflicting information out there on the case from the evidence, to the "leaks" to how Kobe's defense team handled things to how the prosecutor's handled things, etc. That said, I think it's pretty clear that folks don't want to hear that others may not feel as though Kobe is guilty or why they feel that way. Although, I should say it doesn't surprise me, because most of us, including myself, have far more experience with sexual assault victims/survivors than we do with people who were innocent and charged with a crime. I truly hope nobody has to deal with either scenario (or in some cases, ever again), because they both suck, really, really hard.

 

[garlan5]

It's amazing how people get up in the morning expecting the sun to rise in the East when it hasn't been ruled that we can expect it to do such by a court of competent jurisdiction. Perhaps we should try that the next time a spouse accuses us of farting: well, innocent until proven guilty honey! You can't go labeling me as having swamp ass without first following the federal rules of evidence!

Or perhaps, equally amazing that people hold up "he hasn't been convicted in a court of law!" as a reason why we can't draw reasonable inferences based on available information and common sense, not to mention expert opinion in this instance. Not take away someone's liberty, but act as if it's generally understood and rather probable. But only in this category, of course. A-Rod still took steroids, right, even if the evidence was circumstantial and he was never convicted. I mean, none of us here were in the room sticking needles in his ass, so who can really say for sure, right?

Would you apply the same theory with Deflategate or when Big Papi was accused in the Mitchell Report? You'll get both sides of the spectrum on both subjects. People typically go all in on 'their" side of the argument based on which side of the truth they want to hear. I'm not taking a side here just saying if you were neutral to either subject i mentioned i guarantee you have heard plenty of arguments with deep conviction on both sides.

 

[InstaFace]

Big Papi was not accused in the Mitchell Report, which is a distinction of some significance given the nature of the 2003 testing he was - by rumor - implicated in.

I'll address the rest later.

 

[Marciano490]

LOL. I'm imagining an incivility, when you are asking if my "mission is to protect the legacy of rich, dead rapists." With that one sentence, you are literally the one inciting showing an intolerance to other viewpoints, and you've done it over and over again throughout the thread. That's the point I've been trying to make. But go ahead, believe anything you want, call Kobe a rapist, like I said, I've got no problem with those statements. You've now successfully shouted down yet another viewpoint.

Shouting down? I engaged you in good faith repeatedly while you misrepresented this thread, my arguments, the facts and then “said but didn’t say” that maybe my viewpoint was racist while also saying without saying that some rape cases are entirely made up.

We know that some rape cases are entirely made up. People have been making that point forever. I think it’s a really odd thing to add here, and calling you on it isn’t shouting you down. And, frankly, if it is, then I own it. People doing what you’re doing here deserve to be shouted down. You’re making tired, retrograde arguments that are detrimental to society. If this counts as shouting you down, I feel no compunction about it, just as you appear to feel none about citing to an absurd rape claim as evidence of what exactly?

Really, though, at the end of the day I admire your passion on the topic. To defend people you think/know are guilty of rape not just professionally, but recreationally as well. I never really enjoyed civil litigation, so I’m jealous you found a legal angle you like pursuing in your downtime.

Is it really true that if you do what you love you never work a day in your life?

 

[The Fall of Troy Brown]

Is it still a defense attorney’s job to raise doubt even in strong prosecution cases, even, in fact, if they know the person is guilty?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Preacher]

Is it still a defense attorney’s job to raise doubt even in strong prosecution cases, even, in fact, if they know the person is guilty?

Asking for a friend.

Absolutely. Problem arises when putting a client on the stand you know is guilty. Can’t suborn perjury. The whole candor towards the tribunal issue.

 

[Rustjive]

This thread has taken an unbelievable turn. Defense attorneys are just incredible creatures. The line in question literally starts 'Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not' and somehow we've still fallen into this rabbit hole of talking about how much blood was discovered by whom on Kobe's shirt.

 

[Preacher]

From what I can tell, the only "evidence" that most people around here have cited as to Kobe's guilt is from a Daily Beast article, which is literally nothing more than a regurgitation of the allegations made by the victim and the prosecution. That's not evidence. Those are allegations, and allegations alone aren't enough to convict someone in court. Like I said previously, if people think it's ok to convict based on allegations alone, then we don't really need a Judicial system. This is not an "enabling argument," this is how the law has to work, in every instance. If it didn't, we're the wild west, or the Middle East.

This is a mischaracterization of our judicial system. An allegation alone is absolutely sufficient to convict an accused should that allegation be made by a victim during sworn testimony and subject to cross examination. Testimony from a victim is evidence in a court of law and primarily consists of an allegation of the criminal offense. It is up to the finder of fact to determine credibility of any witness testifying and weigh it against all other evidence. But if you think you need more than a victim testimony to secure a conviction in a sex assault case, you’re wrong. Of course, this case also had more evidence than just an allegation. The SANE results (primarily talking lacerations which could be from rough consensual sex but I don’t see them that often), the blood, the bruise to the jawline, the admission of sexual intercourse by the accused. That’s a lot of evidence, in my opinion.

Couple disclaimers while I’m here, since I’ve seen my screen name referenced. I have no special knowledge of this case. I was i undergrad when this was reported and probably barely paid attention to it at the time. I don’t want anyone to think I have some inside knowledge. I have worked dozens of sexual assault trials as a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Primarily, my experience is on the prosecution side. The vast majority of cases I’ve worked have been sexual assaults. An even larger percentage of the law enforcement reports I review involve sexual assaults. My wife has more experience than I do as a defense attorney and has successfully defended several clients accused of sexual assault. She’s scary good at it (I know this has nothing to do with my experience but we spend a lot of time talking cases and I’ve helped her strategize). She’s also prosecuted sexual assault cases. I am not currently serving as a Special Victim Prosector. I’ve been selected for the job and I start in July. I am experienced in taking these cases to trial and even defending these cases but I would never claim to be an expert in the Bryant case. I offer my opinions based on what I’ve read/heard coupled with my training, education, experience, and background.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Absolutely. Problem arises when putting a client on the stand you know is guilty. Can’t suborn perjury. The whole candor towards the tribunal issue.

Yes, but if you read this thread closely, you’ll learn that there are fatal epistemological problems everywhere such that nobody can ever know anything unless they were present (of course, we might not necessarily believe our sense of sight either, given what we know about eyewitness identification) so no thinking defense attorney, practically speaking, ever runs into that problem. Plus, they can’t be guilty until after the trial, by definition, so you’re in the clear!

(Actually, I believe the issue isn’t putting on a client you know is guilty, but rather putting on a client and asking them questions when you know they are going to give perjured testimony. Hence the proper thing to do is put the witness on and ask “Sir, did you have something you wanted to say to the jury?” and let him go...)

 

[RetractableRoof]

This is a mischaracterization of our judicial system. An allegation alone is absolutely sufficient to convict an accused should that allegation be made by a victim during sworn testimony and subject to cross examination. Testimony from a victim is evidence in a court of law and primarily consists of an allegation of the criminal offense. It is up to the finder of fact to determine credibility of any witness testifying and weigh it against all other evidence. But if you think you need more than a victim testimony to secure a conviction in a sex assault case, you’re wrong. Of course, this case also had more evidence than just an allegation. The SANE results (primarily talking lacerations which could be from rough consensual sex but I don’t see them that often), the blood, the bruise to the jawline, the admission of sexual intercourse by the accused. That’s a lot of evidence, in my opinion.

Couple disclaimers while I’m here, since I’ve seen my screen name referenced. I have no special knowledge of this case. I was i undergrad when this was reported and probably barely paid attention to it at the time. I don’t want anyone to think I have some inside knowledge. I have worked dozens of sexual assault trials as a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Primarily, my experience is on the prosecution side. The vast majority of cases I’ve worked have been sexual assaults. An even larger percentage of the law enforcement reports I review involve sexual assaults. My wife has more experience than I do as a defense attorney and has successfully defended several clients accused of sexual assault. She’s scary good at it (I know this has nothing to do with my experience but we spend a lot of time talking cases and I’ve helped her strategize). She’s also prosecuted sexual assault cases. I am not currently serving as a Special Victim Prosector. I’ve been selected for the job and I start in July. I am experienced in taking these cases to trial and even defending these cases but I would never claim to be an expert in the Bryant case. I offer my opinions based on what I’ve read/heard coupled with my training, education, experience, and background.

In case my post referring to you as an expert has given you pause: to be clear I view you as an expert in this domain with a perspective as both a defense attorney and a prosecutor. I don't view you as THE expert, but as AN expert who's offered an opinion about case from having some portions of it laid out to you at a seminar.

 

[Preacher]

(Actually, I believe the issue isn’t putting on a client you know is guilty, but rather putting on a client and asking them questions when you know they are going to give perjured testimony. Hence the proper thing to do is put the witness on and ask “Sir, did you have something you wanted to say to the jury?” and let him go...)

You’re absolutely correct. You can’t prevent your client from testifying if that’s what he/she wants to do. So you put them on and have them testify in the narrative. Luckily, I’ve never had to do that because it would be pretty awkward.

 

[Devizier]

Yes, but if you read this thread closely, you’ll learn that there are fatal epistemological problems everywhere such that nobody can ever know anything unless they were present (of course, we might not necessarily believe our sense of sight either, given what we know about eyewitness identification)

I honestly did not think we were going to migrate into Cartesian territory here.

Generally speaking, I'm of the "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" line of thinking. And the Kobe rape case did/does a lot of quacking. If that makes me a lantern attorney, so be it.

 

[BroodsSexton]

You’re absolutely correct. You can’t prevent your client from testifying if that’s what he/she wants to do. So you put them on and have them testify in the narrative. Luckily, I’ve never had to do that because it would be pretty awkward.

I always wondered what happens if there’s an attorney on the jury...who would see the narrative and say “ohhhh this guy must be a liar.”

 

[Preacher]

I always wondered what happens if there’s an attorney on the jury...who would see the narrative and say “ohhhh this guy must be a liar.”

Or if you have a bench trial. The judge knows what's up.

 

[Ale Xander]

I always wondered what happens if there’s an attorney on the jury...who would see the narrative and say “ohhhh this guy must be a liar.”

This is why they are almost always removed at voir dire.

 

[Doug Beerabelli]

Gayle King getting some major flack due to bringing up the rape issue in an interview with Lisa Leslie about Kobe.


https://pagesix.com/2020/02/06/gayle-king-furious-with-cbs-for-viral-interview-about-kobe-bryant-rape-case/

 

[slamminsammya]

The idea that we can't apply moral labels to people absent a criminal conviction is one of the stranger takes I've seen. If DotB is right any human who existed historically outside of a modern criminal justice system cannot be rightly called a rapist or a murderer or any other thing they did. Oof!

 

[Deathofthebambino]

This is a mischaracterization of our judicial system. An allegation alone is absolutely sufficient to convict an accused should that allegation be made by a victim during sworn testimony and subject to cross examination. Testimony from a victim is evidence in a court of law and primarily consists of an allegation of the criminal offense. It is up to the finder of fact to determine credibility of any witness testifying and weigh it against all other evidence. But if you think you need more than a victim testimony to secure a conviction in a sex assault case, you’re wrong. Of course, this case also had more evidence than just an allegation. The SANE results (primarily talking lacerations which could be from rough consensual sex but I don’t see them that often), the blood, the bruise to the jawline, the admission of sexual intercourse by the accused. That’s a lot of evidence, in my opinion.

Couple disclaimers while I’m here, since I’ve seen my screen name referenced. I have no special knowledge of this case. I was i undergrad when this was reported and probably barely paid attention to it at the time. I don’t want anyone to think I have some inside knowledge. I have worked dozens of sexual assault trials as a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Primarily, my experience is on the prosecution side. The vast majority of cases I’ve worked have been sexual assaults. An even larger percentage of the law enforcement reports I review involve sexual assaults. My wife has more experience than I do as a defense attorney and has successfully defended several clients accused of sexual assault. She’s scary good at it (I know this has nothing to do with my experience but we spend a lot of time talking cases and I’ve helped her strategize). She’s also prosecuted sexual assault cases. I am not currently serving as a Special Victim Prosector. I’ve been selected for the job and I start in July. I am experienced in taking these cases to trial and even defending these cases but I would never claim to be an expert in the Bryant case. I offer my opinions based on what I’ve read/heard coupled with my training, education, experience, and background.

I appreciate the response Preacher. Just to be clear, someone can be convicted based on an allegation (although I would argue that with literally no other evidence, a conviction is extremely difficult unless you have a really, really credible witness/accuser). But, the distinction I've been trying to make is people aren't even looking at the evidence, or the defense's evidence. Most are looking at the media's interpretation of the allegations. Surely, you aren't bringing a case as a prosecutor based on the allegations and evidence contained in a Daily Beast article, because the stuff contained in the media on this case is very different from what actually took place in court and what was in the evidence. I could go on for days about the media's portrayal of these types of cases, but it's not important, however one example from this case that's never reported is in regards to Kobe's defense team repeatedly using the victim's name.

What most people don't know is prior to that preliminary hearing, Kobe's defense team had filed a motion to have the hearing made private. It was the DA who opposed that Motion, resulting in the courtroom being open to the public. Then after the DA made his case, he filed a Motion to close the hearing, ostensibly so the public only heard the prosecutions side of things, and not the defense. That Motion was denied, and subsequently, her name was said in open court by Kobe's defense lawyer. These types of things happened throughout the case, but were never really reported by most of the media.

If we need to get into our CV's, because it appears people need that before appreciating a position, I worked on roughly two dozen sexually-based crimes on the defense side, thankfully never first chair (ranging from "flashing" to violent sexual assault) during my first few years following law school, which happened to coincide with the timing of the Kobe case. The partner I worked for was a former prosecutor who spent years on the other side, both at the federal and state level, before going into private practice, so while my direct experience after law school was on the defense side, I was trained by someone with experience on both ends, not that any of this really matters. Thankfully, it's been a long time since I have been involved in any sort of litigation.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

The idea that we can't apply moral labels to people absent a criminal conviction is one of the stranger takes I've seen. If DotB is right any human who existed historically outside of a modern criminal justice system cannot be rightly called a rapist or a murderer or any other thing they did. Oof!

I would be right if that was the take I had. I have no problem with people applying whatever label they want to Kobe Bryant. As an attorney, I have trouble personally calling someone a rapist absent a conviction or alternatively I'd need to see a slam dunk case that for whatever reason didn't result in a conviction (ie. OJ). This is especially true when a case is lost on a technicality or due to shoddy police or prosecutorial work. I don't think that's a strange position for someone in the profession I'm in, given the experiences I've had. Alleged rapist? Probably did it? I have no issues saying those things about Kobe and I certainly have no problem with the Gayle King's or anyone else that brings it up. However, for me to go so far as to say "Kobe is a rapist," I'm stating a fact, and I have difficulty stating facts when I don't know them to be true. I don't have an issue with someone calling Kobe a rapist though. Never did, never will. I hate Kobe, always have, always will. I have an issue with folks attacking others who don't view Kobe as guilty, because the case isn't open and shut. If it were, I would probably be willing to call him a rapist, even without a conviction, however the case was far, far from that.