|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/us_bryant_basket
"Given the timing and nature of the accused's sexual activity
following her encounter with Mr. Bryant, all of this activity is now
also relevant, wrote Bryant attorney Pamela Mackey.
Former Denver district attorney Norm Early, upon hearing of the
defense claim that Bryant's alleged victim engaged in sex so soon
after she was with Bryant, said, "If that's true, then it's over."
"How are you going to prosecute an assault case where someone is
having sex 15 hours later?" he asked. "It's going to be very
difficult."
But Cynthia Stone, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition Against
Sexual Assault, wasn't so sure.
"Even if this stuff is brought in and allowed as evidence, that
doesn't mean it's fact," said Stone. "It only means that it can be put
to the jury, for the jury to decide if it's important."
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
But Cynthia Stone, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition Against
Sexual Assault, wasn't so sure.
"Even if this stuff is brought in and allowed as evidence, that
doesn't mean it's fact," said Stone. "It only means that it can be put
to the jury, for the jury to decide if it's important."
A fact I'm sure she would NEVER concede regarding
the accusor's testimony.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
A fact I'm sure she would NEVER concede regarding
the accusor's testimony.
you say that's a "fact," but that's not for you to decide. we'll put it
before the jury here to decide if it's important.
|
| |
| |
brink wrote:
you say that's a "fact," but that's not for you to decide. we'll put it
before the jury here to decide if it's important.
Let me rephrase: "Even if this stuff is brought in and allowed
as evidence, that doesn't mean it's fact. It only means that
it can be put to the jury, for the jury to decide if it's
important" is something this person would likely NEVER say
regarding the accusor's testimony.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
brink wrote:
Let me rephrase: "Even if this stuff is brought in and allowed
as evidence, that doesn't mean it's fact. It only means that
it can be put to the jury, for the jury to decide if it's
important" is something this person would likely NEVER say
regarding the accusor's testimony.
actually i was joking... i knew i should've put a smiley at the end...
the question likely won't even be whether or not a subsequent sexual
encounter on the part of the accuser (within 15 hours) took place--it's more
likely that the question will be whether or not that will be admissible. if
it *is* admissible, the prosecution will more than likely admit to it but
then try to explain why it didn't cause any of the trauma submitted as
evidence of the charge of sexual assault.
so my comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the parsing of the
word "fact" into meaninglessness...
|
| |
| |
brink wrote:
actually i was joking... i knew i should've put a smiley at the end...
It was late -- I figured that neither one of our parsing
mechanisms were functioning correctly. :-)
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
***Top posting alert*** Wonder where Chas is...and why hasn't Chas chimed in
on this little morsel of information.
brink wrote:
It was late -- I figured that neither one of our parsing
mechanisms were functioning correctly. :-)
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote
***Top posting alert*** Wonder where Chas is...and why hasn't Chas chimed
in
on this little morsel of information.
I haven't understood there to raise an interesting question yet.
Most of the commentary seems to revolve around not missing a piece off a cut
cake; 'so what if she was raped, she's a tramp' is about the extent of the
analysis so far.
I think *all* evidence should be admitted; her panties, Kobe's statements to
the investigators, the various medical information about the trip to
Glenwood Springs- all that.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
I haven't understood there to raise an interesting question yet.
Most of the commentary seems to revolve around not missing a piece off a cut
cake; 'so what if she was raped, she's a tramp' is about the extent of the
analysis so far.
Not in the least. In fact, so what if she's a tramp?
The point you missed above is that if it DOES turn out
that she had sex after Kobe, then she lied. She lied
to the police detective, and she (via her mouthpiece)
have lied ever since. Given the big stink you yourself
made over what you interpreted as Kobe lying (ignoring
the fact that it was a pretty big stretch for you to
connect THOSE dots), it's rather hypocritical of you
to ignore this fact when it comes to her.
The second point is the sheer implausibility of a rape
victim seeking sex mere hours after she is attacked.
I know that in the past you tried to argue that comfort
sex is a completely reasonable thing for a rape victim
to seek, but I don't think anybody bought that line
then, and judging by the public reaction now that the
allegation is more widespread, I don't think anyone
else is suggesting it now.
I think *all* evidence should be admitted; her panties, Kobe's statements to
the investigators, the various medical information about the trip to
Glenwood Springs- all that.
Here I agree with you. I'm all for putting it out there
for the jury to decide, and trusting them to weigh the
evidence appropriately. What I -don't- like is attempts
to hide relevant evidence, which amounts to having a law
that allows one side to present evidence that the other
side is not allowed to refute.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
|
