Kobe Bryant

[scotsman13]

what is rape?
Main Entry: 2rape
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): raped; rap·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rapere
Date: 14th century
1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : DESPOIL
2 : to commit rape on

rape doesnt have anything to do with if she had sex before it has to do with the fact that she didnt want to have sex with kobe at the time. in other words when she says "no" it means that you stop and go no farther. there is only the question of if kobe had sex with her after she said no. that is the only thing that matters in this case? did she say no? kobe says he had sex with her, it is a matter of record. so any other proof that she had sex with someone else isnt even an issue.

it all comes down to did she say no. if she did it is rape.

can you rape a hooker? yes if they say no then there is no question about the fact that you raped her after you have said you had sex with them.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by scotsman13
kobe says he had sex with her, it is a matter of record.

so any other proof that she had sex with someone else isnt even an issue.

Excellent point.

 

[LakeShowMan]

Originally posted by scotsman13
what is rape?
Main Entry: 2rape
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): raped; rap·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rapere
Date: 14th century
1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : DESPOIL
2 : to commit rape on

rape doesnt have anything to do with if she had sex before it has to do with the fact that she didnt want to have sex with kobe at the time. in other words when she says "no" it means that you stop and go no farther. there is only the question of if kobe had sex with her after she said no. that is the only thing that matters in this case? did she say no? kobe says he had sex with her, it is a matter of record. so any other proof that she had sex with someone else isnt even an issue.

it all comes down to did she say no. if she did it is rape.

can you rape a hooker? yes if they say no then there is no question about the fact that you raped her after you have said you had sex with them.

So no matter what if someone says they were raped then that is that. You don't believe that there is anyone in the world that would lie about that, to prosper for it (ALERT-ALERT I am not saying that is what happened in this case)?

All that matters to you is that if someone 'claims' they said no, then it is rape?

Wow, are we lucky that you aren't king of the world.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by NDSunsfan
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

Yes, but you have to wonder if she would want to take it if it was that big.

In my experience, the girl will say that it hurts and please stop.

 

[LakeShowMan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by scotsman13
kobe says he had sex with her, it is a matter of record.

so any other proof that she had sex with someone else isnt even an issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
Excellent point.

Of course it is an issue. If their 'proof' that she was raped (trauma to her genitals) was comprimised, or even caused by someone else, then it is very important.

Her promiscuity hoever is not. The fact that she may be a loose woman has nothing to do with whether she was raped. However, if her having sex with somone else may have caused the injuries(or at least tainted said evidence) that the prosecution says was caused by Kobe than it is very important.

How can this not make sense?

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by NDSunsfan
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

Actually I've been thinking it would be a possible explanation for the bruising as well. I know this is pretty graphic, but if he's a big old guy going to town on her consensually I would think that should explain some of the bruising. There are any number of explanations for the blood as well. I mean once he admitted to having sex with her that evidence probably lost a lot of its strength.

Joe Mama

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by LakeShowMan
Of course it is an issue. If their 'proof' that she was raped (trauma to her genitals) was comprimised, or even caused by someone else, then it is very important.

Her promiscuity however is not. The fact that she may be a loose woman has nothing to do with whether she was raped. However, if her having sex with somone else may have caused the injuries (or at least tainted said evidence) that the prosecution says was caused by Kobe than it is very important.

How can this not make sense?

The other person may not have caused the trauma, but instead could come forward as a witness to the condition of her privates and say that he saw no bruising around her genitals when he was intimate with her. That could be what the prosecution is holding back, or divulged in chambers. (Just speculation, obviously there is still a lot to be resolved in this case)

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
In my experience...

 

[LakeShowMan]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
The other person may not have caused the trauma, but instead could come forward as a witness to the condition of her privates and say that he saw no bruising around her genitals when he was intimate with her. That could be what the prosecution is holding back, or divulged in chambers. (Just speculation, obviously there is still a lot to be resolved in this case)

Well obviously. My only point is that he said it is not an issue, when it most certainly is. Also the fact that you said it was a good point.

People are misconstruing that the defense is saying that her being promiscuios (sp?) is the reason she was raped, when the only reason they brought it up is that it brings into to question the physical evidence the prosecution claims it has.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
Actually I've been thinking it would be a possible explanation for the bruising as well. I know this is pretty graphic, but if he's a big old guy going to town on her consensually I would think that should explain some of the bruising. There are any number of explanations for the blood as well. I mean once he admitted to having sex with her that evidence probably lost a lot of its strength.

Joe Mama

But in my experience if it is hurting that bad, the female WILL say stop. Sorry to be graphic.

Maybe she was attempting to have consensual sex, Kobe tried, it hurt her and she said stop, and he didn't. That sounds plausible to me, and in a way, I can see why Kobe might think it wasn't rape (though technically it is).

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa

I'm not claiming that I'm built like Kobe, but I do have ample experience.

You've got to remember Brain, that I'm a heathen.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by LakeShowMan
Well obviously. My only point is that he said it is not an issue, when it most certainly is. Also the fact that you said it was a good point.

Gotcha.

Still, proof that she had sex with another person does not mean she willingly had sex with Kobe. That was what I thought was an excellent point. Kobe is on record saying that he and the woman had sex. At first he denied even knowing the woman, but eventually he came clean about them having sex. The question is - was it consensual or not?

I do see how this comes into play though, especially if it was sex with another person at about the same time (which hasn't been established, has it?). It could help either the defense or the prosecution, once it is looked into.

 

[scotsman13]

i am not saying kobe raped her, yet. what i am saying is that if she said no then he raped her. no ifs ands or but can change that. past history cant enter into the fact of her word based on colarado law. so the fact that she has ever sleep with anyone or even the whole denver broncos team 20 minutes before cant be entered into the case.

the state is showing the tearing as proof that it wasnt a joyful expernance for this girl. heck that she has sleep around should give more credit to her claim. as the fact that she is a person who has know the joys of sex and at this time while she was on the clock at work she said "no" and tried to leave. but kobe isnt used to being told no and never heard it or never acted on it.

now if you were to show me that she had past she had a history of lawsuits to try to get money, then that would be some proof that was what she was looking for in this case. but that type of evindance hasnt been show or even hinted at.

 

[Chaplin]

Lemme ask a question. If a guy who had sex with her before Kobe found out that she was with Kobe right after him, or any other number of partners before and after, would this guy stay silent? He might not want the publicity, but come on, guys are a-holes most of the time, especially if they are promiscuous ones--wouldn't this guy (or guys) have spoken up about it before now? Even if it is to try to con Kobe into giving him money for fessing up?

 

[elindholm]

He might not know it's the same girl. It's not my lifestyle, but I think it's fairly common for people to have sex one night and then be unable to recognize one another the next day.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by elindholm
He might not know it's the same girl. It's not my lifestyle, but I think it's fairly common for people to have sex one night and then be unable to recognize one another the next day.

I guess stupidity could come into it, but come on. Her absence from her job--heck, I bet it's an absence from her entire life, wouldn't signal who she is?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by elindholm
He might not know it's the same girl. It's not my lifestyle, but I think it's fairly common for people to have sex one night and then be unable to recognize one another the next day.

What planet are you from?

Oh, I forgot, you live in L.A.

 

[elindholm]

I guess stupidity could come into it, but come on. Her absence from her job--heck, I bet it's an absence from her entire life, wouldn't signal who she is?

No, what I meant was, the guy may not know who the girl is. "I had sex with some girl last night, I think, I don't know, I was so wasted. She might have been cute."

This kind of thing certainly does happen. Just not to me, tragically enough.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by elindholm
I guess stupidity could come into it, but come on. Her absence from her job--heck, I bet it's an absence from her entire life, wouldn't signal who she is?

No, what I meant was, the guy may not know who the girl is. "I had sex with some girl last night, I think, I don't know, I was so wasted. She might have been cute."

That was you???

Joe

 

[Tank]

Originally posted by elindholm
He might not know it's the same girl. It's not my lifestyle, but I think it's fairly common for people to have sex one night and then be unable to recognize one another the next day.

HAHA couldnt help but laugh. You just described my roommate

 

[elindholm]

I will say one thing, which is that if the defense starts offering evidence to show that Kobe Bryant has an unusually large penis, it will be the greatest moment in the history of sports.

 

[scotsman13]

better yet would be if they showed that he had a very small member. i mean think about it. if it is big then then it can hurt her but if it is small then then how could that pencil hurt her? not that would truely be worth a boat load of laughs.

 

[PhiLLmattiC]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa

I do see how this comes into play though, especially if it was sex with another person at about the same time (which hasn't been established, has it?). It could help either the defense or the prosecution, once it is looked into.

I think it did say see she had consensual sex with someone else around the same time as kobe. Some time before the assault.

 

[Glenn_Cameron]

<b>"Boy were we wrong."</b>

October 16, 2003

True justice calls for dismissal

Don Rogers

Upon further review ... Wow.

If Kobe Bryant's attorney Pamela Mackey didn't blow up the rape case against her client entirely, she raised enough reasonable doubts Wednesday that Judge Fred Gannett ought to consider stopping the show right now.

The rules of judicial engagement practically dictate he send the case to trial, since a preliminary hearing requires a low, low standard of proof. True justice for all, however, suggests strongly that the charge against Bryant should be dismissed.

The dearth of physical evidence (which can be reasonably explained in ways other than rape), the fact no one besides Bryant and the young woman witnessed the incident that led to her accusations, and frankly the alleged victim's ambivalent actions that night lead to real doubt there's a case for a jury to weigh.

Bryant very well could have raped the young woman exactly as she described. But the prosecutors can't merely suggest this possibility. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt he in fact did this.

Who knows, maybe they will. Don't forget that just a few days ago, Pamela Mackey was excoriated across the country for repeating the woman's name in open court and dropping that first bombshell by way of a question about the alleged victim's injuries actually coming from sex with other partners over three days before meeting Bryant.

We recall criticizing the defense in this space for putting their client through the ordeal with the prosecution's story even more sensational than nearly all of those breathless accounts in the news and entertainment media these past months.

Boy were we wrong. Seems only the sometimes-arcane traditions of the court can keep the case going on to trial from here.

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert hastened to tell the press after the hearing that he remains confident in his case and that what prosecutors produced in this hearing was but a tiny, "sanitized" snippet of the evidence they have against Bryant.

The difficult part is that he's shown his hand with the most important evidence - the injuries and DNA samples - and it is surprisingly weak. The mountain he presumably will pile on can only be a house of cards without an eyewitness to the event itself. The foundation is not only suspect, it looks slipshod.

The DA's best hope has to lie in a perversion of rape shield law designed to protect alleged victims' reputations from unwarranted attack. If what in real life would be relevant evidence about the injuries were rendered inadmissable at trial, it would be a shame indeed for the one provably dishonest party in this case to be "the people."

<b>Mackey turned the DA's A-B-C Prelim into a living nightmare. They passed the hat once to get this guy $200,000. When Mackey gets done with them they'll need 5 X that amount at least.

 

[Chaplin]

Was that from the Lakers website?

Oh, and welcome, Glenn...