's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Developments in the Kobe case...(22 posts)

Developments in the Kobe case...ClydeTri
Oct 10, 2003 9:29 AM
So, the defense attorneys yesterday ask the police officer if the brusing that was visible could be from intercourse with three different men over the prior three days? Courtroom is shocked, judge takes all back to quarters. This apparently could never be asked in the real trial, but why not? If they are introducing something as evidence, the brusing, and if the defense has a legitimate cause of it other than Kobe, by not allowing that line of questioning arent they depriving him of a fair trial? I know the arguments about prior sex life, but this seems much different if there is any truth to it. After all, isnt the purpose of a trial to get to the truth of a situation? Why should her "rights" be more important than his? Last time I checked the accused rights are in the there anything in the constitution about protecting the accuser from having their character looked into?

And no, I am not saying that in a rape trial the accuser should be on trial, but, if they make an accusation, they should stand up to it.
re: Developments in the Kobe case...TJeanloz
Oct 10, 2003 9:42 AM
I don't know the legality of any of it. But to ask the Sheriff if the bruising was consistent with three men in three days seems ridiculous. The Sheriff isn't an expert in these things, he is in no position to answer that question.

Furthermore, it is inflamatory to phrase the question in that manner - as though three "different" men would be the cause of the bruising, as opposed to having a lot of sex with the same man.

I think there was a fair and reasonable way to ask and answer the question - and that wasn't the way the defense did it. She also apparently repeated the accusers' name SIX times, in violation of the rules of the court.
re: Developments in the Kobe case...ClydeTri
Oct 10, 2003 9:49 AM
On that we agree in first point of that is everybody in that town knows who it was, so, why the game of using initials? But, the judge is at fault here for allowing the attorney to get it away with it. After the second use I would find her in contempt and add a day of jail time each time she said it..the judge has to be in control...if they judge loses control you get a circus..can you say Ito?
The description of the "event" was disturbing...PdxMark
Oct 10, 2003 10:37 AM
Rape is of course heinous. No means no. Absolutely.

But the Sheriff's description of the event seemed to point to a situation that slid from one of playful flirting & kissing, to the start of sex with possible ambiguity over whether there was consent (or not), to an eventual clear request to stop that was ignored. This seems like the poster case for the dangers of poor communication and poor judgment (both his and hers) in intimate situations.

I don't know if there are levels of sexual assault in Colorado, but this seems like a poor fact situation for a crime that carries a life sentence.
The description of the "event" was disturbing...ClydeTri
Oct 10, 2003 10:39 AM
That is the gist of my argument..for such a serious crime with such serious sentences, the truth should be tried to be found at all costs....if she was possibly bruised from prior sexual activity, that should come out....
Why don't we just say this:TJeanloz
Oct 10, 2003 11:19 AM
Isn't it possible that she was raped just before Kobe raped her? Couldn't that have caused the bruising?

The defense attorney didn't present any evidence that she actually DID sleep with three guys - she just alluded to the possibility that such behavior MIGHT have caused similar bruising.

It's like being shot (and knowing who shot you), and having the defense attorney say: Isn't it possible that somebody else shot you before that, causing the wound that you have? Well, yes, it's possible - but it isn't necessarily the truth.
Why don't we just say this:Hot Carl
Oct 10, 2003 11:31 AM
Would someone who just got shot go right back out looking for a partner to play Russian roulette?
Why don't we just say this:No_sprint
Oct 10, 2003 11:33 AM
It's just a preliminary hearing. Any arguments made are meaningless other than to lay some groundwork for a future potential trial. Nobody is on trial, the judge just wants to hear witness testimony.
Yup - it's a nightmare for everyone...PdxMark
Oct 10, 2003 11:32 AM
For her, having decided at some point that it had gone too far... for him, not getting (or heeding) what she was communicating...
sounds like you have decided she is telling the truth....ClydeTri
Oct 10, 2003 11:35 AM
and kobe is lying..I have no earthly idea ..only two people know what happened in there.
Good for you ClydeTri...No_sprint
Oct 10, 2003 11:44 AM
Anyone who jumps to conclusions now is, well... not too intelligent.
sounds like you have decided she is telling the truth....PdxMark
Oct 10, 2003 11:45 AM
I don't know what happened. I just meant that even taking her story on it's face, there was plenty of ambiguity and miscommunication by both of them to make this seem far less egregious than the far too often brutal attacks that a life sentence is supposed to deter. I wonder why they are prosecuting such a harsh crime.
procedure, evidence...No_sprint
Oct 10, 2003 11:25 AM
I'm not a trial lawyer in CO so YMMV. Procedure various drastically throughout the states. This is a preliminary hearing. The rules in this hearing will be greatly different from the rules of procedure during an arraignment and much more so during criminal proceedings. There are no arguments of experts here only witness testimony for the judge to decide whether to arraign or not.

Next, the issue of evidence. In my opinion by far and away the most complex of all issues in the courtroom. I really won't even begin. The short story is gargantuan. Suffice to say that if there are claims of bruising, we'll hear all about it. Now, for the immediate investigating detective to say he didn't see one or a scratch, that's pretty strong.
No means no. It's as simple as that.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 10, 2003 11:25 AM
I guess it will be alright if the DA asks, "So Kobe, is this the first woman you've raped ?"
This whole things smells like there is going to be another rich guy who gets off.
Oct 10, 2003 11:33 AM
YOu are trying to read into what I said that he is not point is not if he is innocent or guilty, but that with such a serious crime all evidence should be looked at to try and determine what happened. Her recent sexual past MIGHT be important and it MIGHT not. That is for a jury to decide, but apparently the jury will never hear it.
Oct 10, 2003 11:34 AM
Don't presume the jury won't hear it. We'll all hear about it.
Some colleges have codes of conduct...PdxMark
Oct 10, 2003 12:32 PM
that require express consent before sex between students, or so I recall reading on the Internet a while back. Outside those colleges, express consent is far less common. How often do any of us get express consent from our spouse or significant other before sex? I would think that there are usually non-verbal communications.

So, yes, no means no. But it seems possible that he had that non-verbal assent that seems to be what many floks often rely on. Any assault would then have happened after she said no, rather than when it all started. That raises the interesting hypothetical... at what point after a woman says no, or "not tonight," does any intimate contact with her become rape? I don't know. There certainly is a point, and it seems that this case will be looking to draw that line.

It's all such a terrible mess...
How aboutmoneyman
Oct 10, 2003 12:57 PM
When she says "no" you stop. Right then and there. I can't imagine that's all that difficult to understand.

Agreed, and if you don't, it's prison for life nmPdxMark
Oct 10, 2003 1:21 PM
Some colleges have codes of conduct...MR_GRUMPY
Oct 10, 2003 1:03 PM
It should be a little like the " Food on the floor rule". You know, the 10 second rule.
Oct 10, 2003 1:09 PM
and what does a girl do if she consented to being tied up and has a gagger in? maybe blink 3 times?
That rule was just disproved!PdxMark
Oct 10, 2003 1:20 PM
If the floor's dirty, 5 seconds is too long and you'll be eating bugs. If it's clean, you have all kinds of time.