schutd
ASFN Addict
Or she has a crappy old washing machine. You guys know nothing about what that statement means. Could have been residual left by the wash. It doesnt speak volumes unless youve already made up your mind.
Kobe Bryant
- Thread starter Chaplin
- Start date
Or she has a crappy old washing machine. You guys know nothing about what that statement means. Could have been residual left by the wash. It doesnt speak volumes unless youve already made up your mind.
elindholm
edited for content
SirStefan, the problem is that you haven't yet acknowledged the distinction between "Bryant will be acquitted" and "Bryant didn't do it." Those positions appear to be identical in your eyes.
And that way of thinking will never survive in a field that demands the recognition of logical distinctions, what has and has not been proved, or which evidence leads to which conclusions. Trust me: I've taught LSAT prep, and I know what they're looking for.
From the beginning, you have maintained that if the defense succeeds in destroying the victim's character, that will prove that Bryant is innocent of the crime. This is absolutely incorrect. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore -- you'll either figure it out later, or you won't.
And that way of thinking will never survive in a field that demands the recognition of logical distinctions, what has and has not been proved, or which evidence leads to which conclusions. Trust me: I've taught LSAT prep, and I know what they're looking for.
From the beginning, you have maintained that if the defense succeeds in destroying the victim's character, that will prove that Bryant is innocent of the crime. This is absolutely incorrect. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore -- you'll either figure it out later, or you won't.
Character in this case:
1. An unmarried young woman who sleeps around.
2. A married professional basketball player who sleeps around on his wife (and child).
1. An unmarried young woman who sleeps around.
2. A married professional basketball player who sleeps around on his wife (and child).
Originally posted by SirStefan32
I don't remember you predicting Kobe's defense. Oh, that's right, you already convicted him without hearing the facts.
Show me once where I said he did it, you idiot. I have maintained all along that he may have done it. You and others have actually posted that he did NOT do it.
SirStefan32
Krycek, Alex Krycek
Or maybe she had two intecourses in two hours. That's more probable than the scenario you just invented.
schutd
ASFN Addict
Originally posted by SirStefan32
Or maybe she had two intecourses in two hours. That's more probable than the scenario you just invented.
Why? What do you know about the semen found in those panties?
SirStefan32
Krycek, Alex Krycek
Of course they are not identical Professor Lindholm. You can be aquitted on a techicality, or you can be aquitted if there is no sufficient evidence that he did it. I am aware of the difference, prof.
You taught LSAT, so can you answer a couple of questions for me?
In a "he said, she- said" case, how do you ever establish any solid facts? I think the answer is- you don't!
By proving that she is a psychologically unstable sexualy promiscuos girl, you prove that there is more than a reasonable doubt to get an aquittal. It is impossible to know what exactly happened- she knows and he knows.
We can look at the evidence and reach the logical conclusion.
LakeShowMan
Registered
I'll agree, that is the only evidence that so far has not been explained, of course just like everything else it could have been behind closed doors. Does that prove rape? I don't know.
Of course I have not heard you bring up the fact that the detective saw no bruising. Also, that yesterday it came out that the bellboy wasn't the first person to see her, that it was her shift manager who is quoted as saying that she was fine and went ahead and finished out her shift and counted out the tills. Or, that the detective actually asked why she didn't say 'no' and then she changed her story to say 'no' 3 times.
Do you see what I mean? There is so much information here that can't possibly be put together yet. We aren't privy to ALL the information, and from what the prosecution said he hasn't even brought forward his entire case (and I am sure neither has the defense).
I believe everyone is willing to believe what they WANT to believe. I would be lying if I said I didn't have a hard time believing Kobe did this, and hoped it wasn't true. Just like I think a lot of people who have completely disliked this kid from the beginning want to believe he is guilty, regardless of what they hear. However, I really have tried to bring as much of an unbiased ear as I could to the proceedings, and I refuse to say "I think" he is guilty or innocent before I hear all the facts. In past post I have said I feel everyone should do that, but the more I think about it, i know that is just not going to happen. Everyone has biases and more likely than not those biases are going to shape our perspectives on what we would lead ourselves to believe.
I wonder if those of you have already convicted Kobe, would be so quick to if this was same case with Kevin Johnson or Amare Stoudamire on trial for his life, instead of the hated Kobe Bryant? Oh well, I doubt I would get an honest answer.
Last edited:
SirStefan32
Krycek, Alex Krycek
I know it didn't belong to Bryant.
LakeShowMan
Registered
I have not once said I have made up my mind in any way, period.
schutd
ASFN Addict
But you dont know how long it had been there. You dont know enough pertinent facts to come to the conclusions youre coming to. Its outrageous that you make the hard and fast conclusions that you do. Im not saying that you might not some day be proven correct, but to do so now is beyond comprehension.
OP
OP
Chaplin
Better off silent
For someone I've always respected and admired, LSM, that statement is a trifle bit insulting.
Sure, I'll admit my bias against Kobe might figure into it, but that doesn't take away the fact that he is probably going to stand trial for that? Do I think he's guilty? I don't know, but it doesn't look good--whether he is found guilty or innocent, he still is a scumbag to me. If he's found guilty, then he'll be sitting in jail. And there is a good possibility that he will be found guilty. You can't deny that.
schutd
ASFN Addict
Nor have I. I was just reminding you about the blood. Stefan over here is going bonkers speaking in absolutes. You have never done that. The post you quoted above was directed at Stefan, not you.
You and I are on the same page. Does this new testimony cast any further doubt on the prosecutions case? Nope. Becasue we STILL dont have all the info.
LakeShowMan
Registered
I meant that to the people who have already said he was guilty. I am sorry if I intimated that it was toward everyone. I know there are many people that feel the way I do, and want to wait until they hear all the facts.
I really should have worded my post better. For that I am sorry.
Just so you, and everyone else know. If he is found guilty, or if the evidence leads me to believe he is guilty even if he gets off, I beleieve he should rot in jail for the rest of his life. That is my honest opinion. Nobody should ever force something onto another human being. Rape is just about the worst thing anyone can do to someone.
P.S. I have edited the original post, in the hopes that my point is more clear.
Last edited:
elindholm
edited for content
Of course they are not identical Professor Lindholm. You can be aquitted on a techicality, or you can be aquitted if there is no sufficient evidence that he did it. I am aware of the difference, prof.
Ah, we're resorting to sarcasm now. That will get you far; I'm sure your law professors will get a big kick out of it. But whatever, you'll go your own way. I should have stayed out of it.
By proving that she is a psychologically unstable sexualy promiscuos girl, you prove that there is more than a reasonable doubt to get an aquittal.
1. They will not "prove" that she is psychologically unstable or promiscuous. They will offer evidence in support of that conclusion. The victim is not on trial.
2. In your previous post, you concluded that Bryant "didn't do it." That is not the same as concluding that he will be acquitted.
We can look at the evidence and reach the logical conclusion.
Which conclusion is that? That he will be acquitted (which most of us, I think, already believed), or that he didn't violate the victim's rights?
Assuming the semen evidence is legitimate, all we know is that she had sex with at least two men within some reasonably short period of time.
One of those men was Bryant.
One of those men roughed her up pretty badly.
Are those two the same person? Maybe, maybe not. The confusion will protect Bryant from being convicted, but it will hardly prove that he didn't do it.
Ah, we're resorting to sarcasm now. That will get you far; I'm sure your law professors will get a big kick out of it. But whatever, you'll go your own way. I should have stayed out of it.
By proving that she is a psychologically unstable sexualy promiscuos girl, you prove that there is more than a reasonable doubt to get an aquittal.
1. They will not "prove" that she is psychologically unstable or promiscuous. They will offer evidence in support of that conclusion. The victim is not on trial.
2. In your previous post, you concluded that Bryant "didn't do it." That is not the same as concluding that he will be acquitted.
We can look at the evidence and reach the logical conclusion.
Which conclusion is that? That he will be acquitted (which most of us, I think, already believed), or that he didn't violate the victim's rights?
Assuming the semen evidence is legitimate, all we know is that she had sex with at least two men within some reasonably short period of time.
One of those men was Bryant.
One of those men roughed her up pretty badly.
Are those two the same person? Maybe, maybe not. The confusion will protect Bryant from being convicted, but it will hardly prove that he didn't do it.
LakeShowMan
Registered
Agreed.
Stefan is absolutely to the extreme, but he always has been.
Most of my posts and questions were directed at those that I have read that have already 'decided' Kobe is guilty, which is just as bad as 'deciding' he is innocent, IMO.
We have a lot more to get too. Right now it seems that other than the blood and her story, the prosecutions case is very weak, BUT one would thing the State of Colorado must have a lot more to bring forward. I guess most of us will wait and see what it is before we make our decision.
PhiLLmattiC
Last of a Dying Breed
Did you guys see this...kobe's team made a strong case
LakeShowMan
Registered
Still a long way to go if Judge Gannett decides that this case should go to trial. So far however, it looks like the prosecution has brought a pretty weak case against Kobe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI: Kevin Johnson did get into a strange situation himself with a young girl, but it never went as far as Kobe's situation. An unstable girl who looked up to KJ said that there was inappropriate touching, and that he showered with her. It was a huge New Times story, and KJ never denied it, and was even on tape discussing things with the girl. But no charges were ever filed, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Kobe...
I'm still confused. Can we have a show of hands? Who here has "already convicted him" and who has "already declared him innocent"...?
Most of us are intelligent enough not to be on one side or the other.
The way you worded it implies that those who have already convicted Kobe are Suns fans. Where is that evident from the previous posts?
I have not convicted the man, but I do not immediately say "Oh, shucks, it's Kobe...he would never do something like that." I am a diehard Lakers fan, and a previously huge Kobe fan. I am a fan of the team, always will be, but am no longer a fan of the adulterous Kobe. Whether he did it or not, he lost my support as a basketball fan. Could he have done what he is accused of? Heck yeah. The adultery alone makes me question his character and possible actions on that night. Did he do what he is accused of? I have no clue, it will likely be up to a jury to decide that.
schutd
ASFN Addict
I agree. But again, Im just assuming based on non-quoted comments from a former prosecutor who was most likely NOT privvy to the information given in chambers. We'll have to wait and see. But those are some VERY interesting points.
SirStefan32
Krycek, Alex Krycek
Eric, sorry for sarcasm, I really didn't mean it to be insulting. I have a lot of respect for you, and I apologize if what I said sounded insulting. I am sorry, it wasn't intended to be.
LakeShowMan
Registered
I think maybe I overeacted with some of my statements. Trust me I have known your position from the start.
As far as bringing up the Suns angle, I was just trying to put into perspective to anyone who may have already made up their mind. This is a very sensitive case, and a sensitive subject. It is good to see most people have not already made up their mind.
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
I have my doubts now, I must admit. But that doesn't mean that any of this evidence will even make it to the trial due to Rape Shield laws.
elindholm
edited for content
Eric, sorry for sarcasm, I really didn't mean it to be insulting.
I'm actually pretty hard to offend, so don't worry about that. I will rise to whatever level of "hostility" the argument seems to be taking, but I rarely take anything personally.
But I think the bottom line is that you aren't really all that interested in what I have to say. Which is fine -- especially on the internet, we are all constantly bombarded by thousands of opinions, advice, "information," and what have you. People have to pick and choose.
I'm going to try to get the message now and stay out of this. I can't guarantee that I'll be successful, but I'll do my best. I think everyone already knows what my position is anyway, and whoever the people are that ever cared in the first place probably don't need me to keep repeating myself.
Emotions always threaten rational thought. The more people care about an issue, the less likely they are to think clearly about it.
I'm actually pretty hard to offend, so don't worry about that. I will rise to whatever level of "hostility" the argument seems to be taking, but I rarely take anything personally.
But I think the bottom line is that you aren't really all that interested in what I have to say. Which is fine -- especially on the internet, we are all constantly bombarded by thousands of opinions, advice, "information," and what have you. People have to pick and choose.
I'm going to try to get the message now and stay out of this. I can't guarantee that I'll be successful, but I'll do my best. I think everyone already knows what my position is anyway, and whoever the people are that ever cared in the first place probably don't need me to keep repeating myself.
Emotions always threaten rational thought. The more people care about an issue, the less likely they are to think clearly about it.
Excuse me, I'm going to try and bring up my point without being too graphic. But this has been on my mind for some time......
When they talk about 'genital bruising' or whatever they call it, can that be explained by saying she had sex with a 'big' guy (I'm talking height/etc/ and possibly other things too). It just seems to me that if she's a smallish built, young girl........ya' know.....is that a possible explanation? I realize it's probably not the kind of thing they'll want to discuss on TV, but do any of you think the defense will use that as some sort of explanation?
Sorry to even bring it up. Really, I'm not that creepy. Just surprised noone's brought it up. Maybe I'm the only weird one around here.....wait, don't answer that
Oh, and FWIW, I'm with Brian in Mesa, his admitted adultery is enough for me to have lost any and all respect for him as a man. I'm not really concerned about his legal guilt or innocence. In the big picture, it's inconsequential.
Brad
When they talk about 'genital bruising' or whatever they call it, can that be explained by saying she had sex with a 'big' guy (I'm talking height/etc/ and possibly other things too). It just seems to me that if she's a smallish built, young girl........ya' know.....is that a possible explanation? I realize it's probably not the kind of thing they'll want to discuss on TV, but do any of you think the defense will use that as some sort of explanation?
Sorry to even bring it up. Really, I'm not that creepy. Just surprised noone's brought it up. Maybe I'm the only weird one around here.....wait, don't answer that
Oh, and FWIW, I'm with Brian in Mesa, his admitted adultery is enough for me to have lost any and all respect for him as a man. I'm not really concerned about his legal guilt or innocence. In the big picture, it's inconsequential.
Brad
