|
|
|
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
The woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault attempted suicide
twice to win the attention of an ex-boyfriend, and her charge against the
athlete is part of the same pattern of behavior, Bryant's lawyers claim.
Mackey's motion reveals for the first time that Bryant's alleged victim
participated in a follow-up interview with Eagle County Sheriff's Detective
Doug Winters July 9 - eight days after she initially reported her June 30
encounter with Bryant.
In that July 9 interview, according to Mackey's motion, "Detective Winters
suggested that there was a pattern to the accuser's behavior in that when
she 'attempts or thinks about committing suicide, she would call' her
ex-boyfriend. The accuser apparently agreed with the detective."
Mackey's motion adds, "The pattern of attention-seeking conduct established
by the accuser during the suicide attempts is substantially similar to her
conduct of June 30," the date of the Los Angeles Lakers star's alleged
assault on the 19-year-old woman.
Evidence concerning those overdose incidents should be admitted at trial,
Mackey argues, because such acts demonstrate the young woman's "motive" and
"scheme" for falsely accusing Mr. Bryant of sexual assault.
"Proof that the accuser makes herself a victim through purported suicide
attempts in order to gain the attention of her ex-boyfriend without regard
to the harm and worry that causes to other people is essential to the
defense's theory" of the case, Mackey's motion argues.
The defense motion concerning the accuser's mental health history appeared
the same day prosecutors filed a motion asking that Bryant's lawyers be made
to comply with Colorado law in any potential efforts to present evidence of
false sexual assault reports by Bryant's accuser.
There is nothing in either the open or sealed portions of the Bryant case
file that spells out a defense plan to do so. But Denver criminal defense
attorney Craig Skinner said the defense bid to include evidence of her drug
overdoses sets the stage for exactly that eventuality.
"They are basically saying she has a pattern of false reporting, and false
reporting doesn't just mean to the police, but also to her boyfriend," said
Skinner.
"They're letting you know that part of their defense is that she has a habit
of making false reports, whether it concerns suicide or rape, to get the
attention of her boyfriend - without regard to whom she steamrolls."
In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to
discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and
subsequent" to the night she met Bryant.
Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape
shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to
defend himself.
|
| |
| |
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being
treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined
as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy,
I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them.
Alex
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
The woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault attempted suicide
twice to win the attention of an ex-boyfriend, and her charge against the
athlete is part of the same pattern of behavior, Bryant's lawyers claim.
Mackey's motion reveals for the first time that Bryant's alleged victim
participated in a follow-up interview with Eagle County Sheriff's Detective
Doug Winters July 9 - eight days after she initially reported her June 30
encounter with Bryant.
In that July 9 interview, according to Mackey's motion, "Detective Winters
suggested that there was a pattern to the accuser's behavior in that when
she 'attempts or thinks about committing suicide, she would call' her
ex-boyfriend. The accuser apparently agreed with the detective."
Mackey's motion adds, "The pattern of attention-seeking conduct established
by the accuser during the suicide attempts is substantially similar to her
conduct of June 30," the date of the Los Angeles Lakers star's alleged
assault on the 19-year-old woman.
Evidence concerning those overdose incidents should be admitted at trial,
Mackey argues, because such acts demonstrate the young woman's "motive" and
"scheme" for falsely accusing Mr. Bryant of sexual assault.
"Proof that the accuser makes herself a victim through purported suicide
attempts in order to gain the attention of her ex-boyfriend without regard
to the harm and worry that causes to other people is essential to the
defense's theory" of the case, Mackey's motion argues.
The defense motion concerning the accuser's mental health history appeared
the same day prosecutors filed a motion asking that Bryant's lawyers be made
to comply with Colorado law in any potential efforts to present evidence of
false sexual assault reports by Bryant's accuser.
There is nothing in either the open or sealed portions of the Bryant case
file that spells out a defense plan to do so. But Denver criminal defense
attorney Craig Skinner said the defense bid to include evidence of her drug
overdoses sets the stage for exactly that eventuality.
"They are basically saying she has a pattern of false reporting, and false
reporting doesn't just mean to the police, but also to her boyfriend," said
Skinner.
"They're letting you know that part of their defense is that she has a habit
of making false reports, whether it concerns suicide or rape, to get the
attention of her boyfriend - without regard to whom she steamrolls."
In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to
discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and
subsequent" to the night she met Bryant.
Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape
shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to
defend himself.
|
| |
| |
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being
treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined
as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy,
I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them.
Alex
I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big
difference there. Simply because one is taking a certain medication,
doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this
particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any
number of different conditions.
td
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
|
| |
| |
Alex wrote:
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being
treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined
as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy,
I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them.
Alex
The real question remaining is, "When will the prosecution begin their
treatments for terminal stupidity"?
Bob
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to
discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and
subsequent" to the night she met Bryant.
Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape
shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to
defend himself.
good luck. as i recall the CO supreme court has already upheld the
rape shield statute. basically in that case the alleged victim had
been shown to have previously filed a false rape claim. but that was
inadmissible under the shield statute...which personally i find odd -
i mean, if a jury is charged with determining whether a boy cried wolf
or really saw a wolf, shouldn't that jury be told whether or not that
boy had previously cried wolf?
i expect kobe's alleged victim's prior history will be excluded from
this case...and the defense knows it, which is why it is getting this
all out over the airwaves - got to get the info to the jury now since
it will not be admitted in court....
G
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
good luck. as i recall the CO supreme court has already upheld the
rape shield statute. basically in that case the alleged victim had
been shown to have previously filed a false rape claim. but that was
inadmissible under the shield statute...which personally i find odd -
i mean, if a jury is charged with determining whether a boy cried wolf
or really saw a wolf, shouldn't that jury be told whether or not that
boy had previously cried wolf?
Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man had
raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be
introduced?
Many things aren't allowed in at trial.
td
i expect kobe's alleged victim's prior history will be excluded from
this case...and the defense knows it, which is why it is getting this
all out over the airwaves - got to get the info to the jury now since
it will not be admitted in court....
G
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:56:57 -0500, tinydancer wrote:
Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man
had raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be
introduced?
Many things aren't allowed in at trial.
td
http://law.gsu.edu/lawlibrary/alr/mwhittaker.htm
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:56:57 -0500, tinydancer <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
Crying wolf evidence is obviously relevant so if the argument is purely on
those grounds, one cannot explain why rape shield laws exist. Rape shield
laws do exclude relevant evidence. Similarly, hearsay and other evidentiary
rules as well as the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment result in the exclusion
of relevant evidence. The question is whether such exclusions are justified
by other policy.
Anyone might disagree with the reasonableness of one or more of those
exclusions, but the reasoning behind them is generally not that hard to
comprehend.
If the court denies the defense motion to overturn the rape shield laws,
the decision won't be heard by an appellate court until after Bryant's
trial. I think Bryant's team is simply preserving a constitutional
issue in case of an appeal.
Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man had
raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be
introduced?
Many things aren't allowed in at trial.
I think that kind of evidence is usually allowed in sex offense crimes.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
Crying wolf evidence is obviously relevant so if the argument is purely on
those grounds, one cannot explain why rape shield laws exist.
They exist to send men off to Auschwitz or Attica, to destroy men.
Bob
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 09:42:46 -0800, gk1@lycos.com (gk1) wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>...
good luck. as i recall the CO supreme court has already upheld the
rape shield statute. basically in that case the alleged victim had
been shown to have previously filed a false rape claim. but that was
inadmissible under the shield statute...which personally i find odd -
i mean, if a jury is charged with determining whether a boy cried wolf
or really saw a wolf, shouldn't that jury be told whether or not that
boy had previously cried wolf?
i expect kobe's alleged victim's prior history will be excluded from
this case...and the defense knows it, which is why it is getting this
all out over the airwaves - got to get the info to the jury now since
it will not be admitted in court....
G
I expect much of it to come in to show her injuries could
have come from someone else.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
I expect much of it to come in to show her injuries could
have come from someone else.
The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument.
Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big
difference there.
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.)
I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction.
Simply because one is taking a certain medication,
doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this
particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any
number of different conditions.
Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder?
Alex
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:53:38 +0100, Alex wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm
not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering
the distinction.
Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder?
Alex
Thorazine can be used in the treatment of severe hiccups for ex.
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 09:42:46 -0800, gk1@lycos.com (gk1) wrote:
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtujlk.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
Crying wolf evidence is obviously relevant so if the argument is purely on
those grounds, one cannot explain why rape shield laws exist. Rape shield
laws do exclude relevant evidence. Similarly, hearsay and other evidentiary
rules as well as the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment result in the exclusion
of relevant evidence. The question is whether such exclusions are justified
by other policy.
hm. well as for rape shield vs. hearsay...if it is a FACT that the
person falsely accused someone in the past, that is different that
someone saying they overheard someone else say that the person had
falsely accused.
i.e. i believe relevant FACTS should be admitted unless there is some
sort of overwhelming reason not to admit them. i don't think the
potential embarrassment of the accuser outweighs the potential
incarceration of the accused and thus am against rape shield
laws...normally the sordid details of a case are only ever heard by a
handful of people. in cases like kobe's they are broadcast everywhere
well before trial - making the rape shield law moot except for those
few people who do not have access to mass media or who are capable of
excluding things they've heard from their decision where instructed to
by the judge.
G
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument.
Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it.
Isaac
If the prosecution enters the evidence the defense is well within their
rights to question it.
Bob
|
| |
| |
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio) wrote:
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to
discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and
subsequent" to the night she met Bryant.
So, to no great surprise, it looks like she was having sex with someone right
after Kobe "raped" her, and that's where the 2nd guy's semen came from that
was found in her panties. Pietrack, the bellhop, is the likely source for that,
as he followed her home. Meaning he isn't going to be very useful as a witness.
RstJ
It also makes it really hard to claim that she was injured by being
raped, or that the alleged injuries show that she's telling the truth.
In fact, the existence of allegations of injuries, combined with @$#*ing
the bellhop on the way home, may show that she was lying.
Bob
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm
not, of course.)
I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction.
Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder?
Alex
Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat
depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual.
td
|
| |
| |
"nolo" <nolo@nospamthankyouv.com> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2003.12.16.21.09.27.385555@nospamthankyouv.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:53:38 +0100, Alex wrote:
Thorazine can be used in the treatment of severe hiccups for ex.
But what will a jury hear? The multiple sex partners, the relentless
partying (including after the "rape"), the multiple and recent
suicide attempts, possible earlier accusations of sexual misconduct...
The recent admission to a rehab type center...
I think all a jury will hear is "drug used to treat schizofrenia".
If any of the above makes it in. And that's all we have on her.
Where are Kobe Bryant's previous rape attempts? I mean,
reportedly Katelyn has accused men or rape before,
where are the girls Kobe has raped before?
Alex
|
| |
| |
Alex wrote:
"nolo" <nolo@nospamthankyouv.com> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2003.12.16.21.09.27.385555@nospamthankyouv.com...
But what will a jury hear? The multiple sex partners, the relentless
partying (including after the "rape"), the multiple and recent
suicide attempts, possible earlier accusations of sexual misconduct...
The recent admission to a rehab type center...
I think all a jury will hear is "drug used to treat schizofrenia".
If any of the above makes it in. And that's all we have on her.
Where are Kobe Bryant's previous rape attempts? I mean,
reportedly Katelyn has accused men or rape before,
where are the girls Kobe has raped before?
Alex
If the prosecution had a half an oz of sense they would have dropped the
whole thing months ago.
Bob
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>...
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's
rape
shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to
defend himself
Go, Bryant's defense!
That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that
is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term
individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection
from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from
many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms
all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own
accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so
unreliable, emotional and flighty as to need special protections not
afforded to men- the exact group that is most in need of protections
such as anonymity.
That is a long way to say "Go, Bryant's defense!".
|
| |
| |
Ellen Mercer wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>...
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that
is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term
individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection
from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from
many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms
all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own
accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so
unreliable, emotional and flighty as to need special protections not
afforded to men- the exact group that is most in need of protections
such as anonymity.
That is a long way to say "Go, Bryant's defense!".
You said it Ellen! All of the feminist special protection laws end up
classifying women as inferior and hurt all women in the long run.
Bob
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>...
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that
is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term
individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection
from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from
many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms
all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own
accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so
You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in
a court of law, but that men should not be? I can understand
the case for admitting evidence of past false rape accusations. But
quite frankly, I'd want to see the details of how not having to have
their lifes ripped apart in court to obtain evidence of questionable
relevance makes woman appear to be flighty to anyone other than Bob.
I personally have mixed feelings about rape shield laws because while
I appreciate the policy behind them, I think on the whole they are
unfair to defendants and inconsistent with the constitutional protection
for defendants. But by no stretch do I think rape shield laws demean
women.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio) wrote:
So, to no great surprise, it looks like she was having sex with someone right
after Kobe "raped" her, and that's where the 2nd guy's semen came from that
was found in her panties. Pietrack, the bellhop, is the likely source for that,
as he followed her home. Meaning he isn't going to be very useful as a witness.
Has the semen been definitively identified as being from the bellhop?
If I were Kobe's lawyer I'd want to know; does the rape shield law in
CO prevent evidentiary discovery as well as in-trial testimony?
|
| |
| |
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
news:3fdf9cfa$0$166$3b62cedd@news.wanadoo.nl:
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm
not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time
considering the distinction.
I actually take a drug that's intended for schizophrenics, but I'm not
schizophrenic. In extremely low doses it works as a soporific for
insomniac depressives, obsessives or anxiety cases who don't respond well
to other non-narcotic solutions like Trazadone. (I take something like
1/15th of the lowest starting daily dose schizophrenics get.) The one I
take isn't the only one that's used that way, and this type of
prescription is pretty common.
As we've already heard that the woman is clinical depressive, this is
much more likely than her actually being schizophrenic (after all, if she
had *that* on her record, we've have heard that on Fox, not "she's taking
a drug for schizophrenics."). Just because a drug is generally prescribed
for one thing doesn't mean it isn't used otherwise, and absent an actual
diagnosis of schizophrenia, the jury damned well *will* consider that if
the defense tries to raise the mere fact that she's taking this drug. The
prosecution will make sure of it.
Fox's site doesn't give the name of the drug, and apparently the proof
the defense claim is sealed. I do know that Abilify and Seroquel are both
used this way. There are a few others, but I don't know the names. I can
certainly check, and will if the defense claims become more public.
--
--Robert
Q: What did the blind, deaf and dumb kid get for christmas?
A: Cancer
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:25 GMT, Robert Lee
<cranchingwire@piddlydiddlydoo.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
news:3fdf9cfa$0$166$3b62cedd@news.wanadoo.nl:
I actually take a drug that's intended for schizophrenics, but I'm not
schizophrenic. In extremely low doses it works as a soporific for
insomniac depressives, obsessives or anxiety cases who don't respond well
to other non-narcotic solutions like Trazadone. (I take something like
1/15th of the lowest starting daily dose schizophrenics get.) The one I
take isn't the only one that's used that way, and this type of
prescription is pretty common.
This is of course very true. When my son was a child he was
prescribed a very low dose antidepressant for migraine. It worked
although they don't really know how. The dose was too low to act as
an antidepressant but is widely used to treat difficult cases of
migraine.
I find watching the case from afar interesting (in small doses). If
the thinking of the jury is the same as the thinking that abounds on
usenet then it doesn't say very much for justice. Scary stuff!
Ann
As we've already heard that the woman is clinical depressive, this is
much more likely than her actually being schizophrenic (after all, if she
had *that* on her record, we've have heard that on Fox, not "she's taking
a drug for schizophrenics."). Just because a drug is generally prescribed
for one thing doesn't mean it isn't used otherwise, and absent an actual
diagnosis of schizophrenia, the jury damned well *will* consider that if
the defense tries to raise the mere fact that she's taking this drug. The
prosecution will make sure of it.
Fox's site doesn't give the name of the drug, and apparently the proof
the defense claim is sealed. I do know that Abilify and Seroquel are both
used this way. There are a few others, but I don't know the names. I can
certainly check, and will if the defense claims become more public.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:39:04 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument.
Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it.
Isaac
Got a link for me so I could read more about their decision? Its not
foolish to suggest injuries could have come from someone else.
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
not, of course.)
Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat
depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual.
Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-)
Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. For the
vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be
no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or
clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all
add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so
much so that she needs serious medicine.
Chainsaw
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being
treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined
as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy,
I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them.
I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat
schizofrenia.
Big
difference there.
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm
not, of course.)
I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the
distinction.
Simply because one is taking a certain medication,
doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia
in
this
particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat
any
number of different conditions.
Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder?
Alex
Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat
depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual.
Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-)
Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. For the
vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be
no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or
clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all
add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so
much so that she needs serious medicine.
Chainsaw
Ah, I see you have little to no education about such things. I worked in a
pharmacy, you'd be shocked as to how many people are on psychotropic
medications. IIRC nearly one half of scripts filled are for some sort of
mood altering drug. Take a look around you, you have no idea what
medications people are taking. With the stress in everyday life today, I
had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as
females.
td
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:18:03 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:39:04 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
Got a link for me so I could read more about their decision? Its not
foolish to suggest injuries could have come from someone else.
It's been discussed here including the posting of portions of the
court decision. Check google.
Essentially, the CO supreme court's logic is that if the defendant
is arguing that the injuries resulted from consensual sex, then it's
irrelevant that the alleged victim had sex consensual sex with someone
else. Under the defendant's own theory, no explanation for the injuries is
even necessary because the injuries indicate nothing.
Viewed slightly differently, the defendant would be offering evidence
which proves that the victim has had consensual sex before. That
evidence is simply not relevant to the issue of whether Kobe raped her.
Further, it's exactly the type of evidence the rape shield law disallows.
Now if the defendant wanted to contend that the injuries resulted
from non consensual sex, but came from someone other than the defendant,
then the injuries would be relevant, but in that case, the defense has
to spot the state a big chunk of their case.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:54:48 -0500, tinydancer wrote:
With the stress in everyday life today, I
had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as
females.
td
ahhh, now the actions of those middle management types are beginning to
make much more sense. Didn't occur that they might be all doped up on
prescription meds...
|
| |
| |
"nolo" <nolo@nospamthankyoumaam.com> wrote
With the stress in everyday life today, I
had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as
females.
ahhh, now the actions of those middle management types are beginning to
make much more sense. Didn't occur that they might be all doped up on
prescription meds...
or crossdressing at the pharmacy.
c.
|
| |
| |
| |
