|
|
|
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
"This defense team has put hearsay, rumor and speculation out into the
public,'' said Cynthia Stone, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition
Against Sexual Assault. "They've done it in the form of motions to the
court, which they know are very public documents. They've violated the
spirit of the rape-shield law.''
They've also violated the spirit of Judge Terry Ruckriegle's gag
order. Do we give them credit for zealously representing their client?
Or do we stifle an urge to vomit?
Unlike Bryant's lawyers, John Clune, the accuser's attorney, had been
honoring the gag order. But Clune felt compelled to make a public
statement in the accuser's defense two weeks ago, saying she did not
have sex with someone else hours after the alleged rape. Yep, Bryant's
attorneys had managed to make that allegation public.
Anyone still wondering who's really on trial here has their answer:
the accuser.
Late last week, the Colorado Supreme Court gave Bryant's lawyers the
OK to conduct an inquiry into the accuser's sexual past. Such
inquiries are exactly what rape shield laws are supposed to prevent.
Which prompts the question: What good are rape shield laws? The laws
were enacted in most states in the mid-1970s in an attempt to bring
some balance to rape trials. Before then, lawyers for an alleged
rapist would simply rip the accuser's character to shreds. Like
Bryant's lawyers are doing now.
"[Bryant] has the best defense team money can buy,'' Stone said.
Maybe it's time to institute a salary cap for defense lawyers.
A 1992 national study and a 1998 study in Colorado showed that only 16
percent of sexual assaults are reported. Someone who is punched in the
nose is more likely to go to the police than someone who is raped.
A 1990 study in Portland, Ore., found that of the 431 sexual-assault
complaints filed in the city that year, 1.6 percent were determined to
be false. (The same study found that 2.6 percent of stolen-vehicle
claims were false.) Those of us who don't presume the accuser is lying
have statistical evidence on our side.
"People have already jumped to a conclusion one way or the other in
this case,'' Stone said. "We don't know everything, and it's not our
business. Our organization believes in the presumption of innocence.
We want to see a fair trial for everyone, including the defendant. But
the pendulum has swung the other way [in the Bryant case]. We want to
see the case decided by a jury, not in the court of public opinion.''
Setting aside the question of Bryant's guilt or innocence, his
lawyers' strategy seems increasingly desperate to me. As if they feel
the rumors, the gossip, the innuendo they had circulated about the
accuser haven't been effective enough. As if they fear the medical
evidence the prosecution has is damning to their client.
Bryant's lawyers already have leaked their plan to portray the accuser
as having had a scheme to have sex with Bryant. They've leaked their
strategy to say her injuries came from having consensual sex with
other partners around the same time as the alleged rape. And now
they're alleging she plans to capitalize financially from the trial. I
wonder what they'll come up with next. There seems to be no end to
their accusations.
I understand that Bryant's freedom is at stake. But it seems to me his
rights are being protected just fine. Who's protecting his accuser?
|
| |
| |
http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-bryant16mar16,1,3313923.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-nba-lakers
Also Monday, Judge Terry Ruckriegle admonished attorneys on both sides to abide by his gag order.
The action was prompted by two recent news releases. On March 2, the woman's attorney denied defense claims that she had
sex with someone else hours after the alleged attack. And last week Dist. Atty. Mark Hurlbert responded to the Colorado
Supreme Court's rejection of his appeal to limit defense questioning of the accuser by saying he has "great concern
about the humiliation the victim is being asked to endure at the hands of the criminal justice system."
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com...
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
"This defense team has put hearsay, rumor and speculation out into the
public,'' said Cynthia Stone, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition
Against Sexual Assault. "They've done it in the form of motions to the
court, which they know are very public documents. They've violated the
spirit of the rape-shield law.''
They've also violated the spirit of Judge Terry Ruckriegle's gag
order. Do we give them credit for zealously representing their client?
Or do we stifle an urge to vomit?
Unlike Bryant's lawyers, John Clune, the accuser's attorney, had been
honoring the gag order. But Clune felt compelled to make a public
statement in the accuser's defense two weeks ago, saying she did not
have sex with someone else hours after the alleged rape. Yep, Bryant's
attorneys had managed to make that allegation public.
Anyone still wondering who's really on trial here has their answer:
the accuser.
Late last week, the Colorado Supreme Court gave Bryant's lawyers the
OK to conduct an inquiry into the accuser's sexual past. Such
inquiries are exactly what rape shield laws are supposed to prevent.
Which prompts the question: What good are rape shield laws? The laws
were enacted in most states in the mid-1970s in an attempt to bring
some balance to rape trials. Before then, lawyers for an alleged
rapist would simply rip the accuser's character to shreds. Like
Bryant's lawyers are doing now.
"[Bryant] has the best defense team money can buy,'' Stone said.
Maybe it's time to institute a salary cap for defense lawyers.
A 1992 national study and a 1998 study in Colorado showed that only 16
percent of sexual assaults are reported. Someone who is punched in the
nose is more likely to go to the police than someone who is raped.
A 1990 study in Portland, Ore., found that of the 431 sexual-assault
complaints filed in the city that year, 1.6 percent were determined to
be false. (The same study found that 2.6 percent of stolen-vehicle
claims were false.) Those of us who don't presume the accuser is lying
have statistical evidence on our side.
"People have already jumped to a conclusion one way or the other in
this case,'' Stone said. "We don't know everything, and it's not our
business. Our organization believes in the presumption of innocence.
We want to see a fair trial for everyone, including the defendant. But
the pendulum has swung the other way [in the Bryant case]. We want to
see the case decided by a jury, not in the court of public opinion.''
Setting aside the question of Bryant's guilt or innocence, his
lawyers' strategy seems increasingly desperate to me. As if they feel
the rumors, the gossip, the innuendo they had circulated about the
accuser haven't been effective enough. As if they fear the medical
evidence the prosecution has is damning to their client.
Bryant's lawyers already have leaked their plan to portray the accuser
as having had a scheme to have sex with Bryant. They've leaked their
strategy to say her injuries came from having consensual sex with
other partners around the same time as the alleged rape. And now
they're alleging she plans to capitalize financially from the trial. I
wonder what they'll come up with next. There seems to be no end to
their accusations.
I understand that Bryant's freedom is at stake. But it seems to me his
rights are being protected just fine. Who's protecting his accuser?
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com...
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
"This defense team has put hearsay, rumor and speculation out into the
public,'' said Cynthia Stone, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition
Against Sexual Assault. "They've done it in the form of motions to the
court, which they know are very public documents. They've violated the
spirit of the rape-shield law.''
Hmmmm.....
It wasn't the defense who sent their drunken night photographs
to The Globe.
The truth is that this case should never have been brought.
AT BEST, this is a he said/she said about a consensual
sexual encounter that got out of hand.
At worst, it is the case of a confused and disturbed young
woman gone wrong, or a blatant attempt at extortion.
In either case, the label of "rapist" is a stretch.
Alex
|
| |
| |
Maybe Kobe should hire some lawyers who just laid down and cry uncle. How
about a law firm that don't file any defense motions?
I have great sympathies for rape victims. But are they asking Kobe not to
defend himself in court?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
"This defense team has put hearsay, rumor and speculation out into the
public,'' said Cynthia Stone, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition
Against Sexual Assault. "They've done it in the form of motions to the
court, which they know are very public documents. They've violated the
spirit of the rape-shield law.''
They've also violated the spirit of Judge Terry Ruckriegle's gag
order. Do we give them credit for zealously representing their client?
Or do we stifle an urge to vomit?
Unlike Bryant's lawyers, John Clune, the accuser's attorney, had been
honoring the gag order. But Clune felt compelled to make a public
statement in the accuser's defense two weeks ago, saying she did not
have sex with someone else hours after the alleged rape. Yep, Bryant's
attorneys had managed to make that allegation public.
Anyone still wondering who's really on trial here has their answer:
the accuser.
Late last week, the Colorado Supreme Court gave Bryant's lawyers the
OK to conduct an inquiry into the accuser's sexual past. Such
inquiries are exactly what rape shield laws are supposed to prevent.
Which prompts the question: What good are rape shield laws? The laws
were enacted in most states in the mid-1970s in an attempt to bring
some balance to rape trials. Before then, lawyers for an alleged
rapist would simply rip the accuser's character to shreds. Like
Bryant's lawyers are doing now.
"[Bryant] has the best defense team money can buy,'' Stone said.
Maybe it's time to institute a salary cap for defense lawyers.
A 1992 national study and a 1998 study in Colorado showed that only 16
percent of sexual assaults are reported. Someone who is punched in the
nose is more likely to go to the police than someone who is raped.
A 1990 study in Portland, Ore., found that of the 431 sexual-assault
complaints filed in the city that year, 1.6 percent were determined to
be false. (The same study found that 2.6 percent of stolen-vehicle
claims were false.) Those of us who don't presume the accuser is lying
have statistical evidence on our side.
"People have already jumped to a conclusion one way or the other in
this case,'' Stone said. "We don't know everything, and it's not our
business. Our organization believes in the presumption of innocence.
We want to see a fair trial for everyone, including the defendant. But
the pendulum has swung the other way [in the Bryant case]. We want to
see the case decided by a jury, not in the court of public opinion.''
Setting aside the question of Bryant's guilt or innocence, his
lawyers' strategy seems increasingly desperate to me. As if they feel
the rumors, the gossip, the innuendo they had circulated about the
accuser haven't been effective enough. As if they fear the medical
evidence the prosecution has is damning to their client.
Bryant's lawyers already have leaked their plan to portray the accuser
as having had a scheme to have sex with Bryant. They've leaked their
strategy to say her injuries came from having consensual sex with
other partners around the same time as the alleged rape. And now
they're alleging she plans to capitalize financially from the trial. I
wonder what they'll come up with next. There seems to be no end to
their accusations.
I understand that Bryant's freedom is at stake. But it seems to me his
rights are being protected just fine. Who's protecting his accuser?
|
| |
| |
in article 6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com, s_knight8 at
s_knight8@hotmail.com wrote on 3/16/04 7:59 AM:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
...Those of us who don't presume the accuser is lying
have statistical evidence on our side.
"...Our organization believes in the presumption of innocence...
The dilemma of a he said she said case. How do you presume the accuser is
not lying and presume that Kobe is innocent?
George Evans
|
| |
| |
In article <405744b8$0$31941$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com...
Hmmmm.....
It wasn't the defense who sent their drunken night photographs
to The Globe.
The truth is that this case should never have been brought.
AT BEST, this is a he said/she said about a consensual
sexual encounter that got out of hand.
At worst, it is the case of a confused and disturbed young
woman gone wrong, or a blatant attempt at extortion.
And to think we're wasting all this money on a criminal
justice system when we could have just asked Alex.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com>...
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
Anyone still wondering who's really on trial here has their answer:
the accuser.
As I said, so many have not the slightest clue who is on trial.
Late last week, the Colorado Supreme Court gave Bryant's lawyers the
OK to conduct an inquiry into the accuser's sexual past. Such
inquiries are exactly what rape shield laws are supposed to prevent.
This is a closed pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility, not the
trial itself dimwit. The prosecution tried to block the judge from
even determining relevance.
[...]
A 1992 national study and a 1998 study in Colorado showed that only 16
percent of sexual assaults are reported. Someone who is punched in the
nose is more likely to go to the police than someone who is raped.
And what this have to do with whether any accused is guilty?
Absolutely nothing. This reporter is short on the grey matter but long
on rhetoric.
[...]
Those of us who don't presume the accuser is lying
have statistical evidence on our side.
Now there's an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Either Carol Slezak is an idiot or a liar. At *best*, if they are
properly done, stats tell you things about a group. They never even
potentially say anything about any group member.
As for the stats being done right, that's impossible as false rape
accusations are not counted, recorded, or usually prosecuted. There is
no accurate data on the false accusation rate. So this is a matter of
lying with innacurate stats. How nice.
"People have already jumped to a conclusion one way or the other in
this case,'' Stone said. "We don't know everything, and it's not our
business. Our organization believes in the presumption of innocence.
And "statistical evidence" of guilt.
We want to see a fair trial for everyone, including the defendant.
You mean the only one on trial? That being the case, who else are they
referring to?
But the pendulum has swung the other way [in the Bryant case].
There is no pendulum.
We want to
see the case decided by a jury, not in the court of public opinion.''
It's still in the pre-trial hearing stage Carol.
Setting aside the question of Bryant's guilt or innocence,
Which does not seem that big an issue to someone with "statistical
evidence" of his guilt.
his
lawyers' strategy seems increasingly desperate to me. As if they feel
the rumors, the gossip, the innuendo they had circulated about the
accuser haven't been effective enough. As if they fear the medical
evidence the prosecution has is damning to their client.
Odd, I seem to recall that the prosecution was defying the court order
to let the defense examine the medical evidence.
I understand that Bryant's freedom is at stake. But it seems to me his
rights are being protected just fine. Who's protecting his accuser?
From what Carol? She's out partying and having a great time.
Rich
|
| |
| |
In article <405744b8$0$31941$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
It wasn't the defense who sent their drunken night photographs
to The Globe.
I'm guessing you think you have a pretty good B.S. detector. Try
it out on this report:
"One set of photos ended up with the Globe and another in the hand's
of Bryant's defence team.
"Robinson maintains it was never her, nor her friend's intention to
sell the photos. She said she doesn't have the photos anymore and
they ended up in the Globe when another woman in Colorado sold them.
"'We never thought it would end up being such a big deal in the case,'
said Robinson, 21, adding she's not friends with Bryant's alleged victim."
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/03/06/372304.html
|
| |
| |
In article <6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com>,
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote:
Maybe it's time to institute a salary cap for defense lawyers.
Who wrote this? This is the most inane statement ever.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0403160759.4e83e6e6@posting.google.com>...
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol16.html
A 1992 national study and a 1998 study in Colorado showed that only 16
percent of sexual assaults are reported. Someone who is punched in the
nose is more likely to go to the police than someone who is raped.
So, are we talking about sexual assault, or are we talking about
rape? The most widely cited national survey, the NCVS, defines sexual
assault as follows:
"SEXUAL ASSAULT includes a wide range of victimizations, distinct from
rape or attempted rape. These crimes include completed or attempted
attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim
and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include
such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes
verbal threats."
http://www.rainn.org/definition.html
Reporting figures for things like "grabbing" and "verbal threats" say
nothing about the reporting rate for rape.
A 1990 study in Portland, Ore., found that of the 431 sexual-assault
complaints filed in the city that year, 1.6 percent were determined to
be false.
This is highly suspect. There is no cite for this study, so it cannot
be critically analyzed. An internet search for the source of the data
reveals only one cite:
Cited in Burns-Smith, G. Hunter, S. And Walsh, C. "Equal Justice? Not
Yet for Victims of Sexual Assault." Nebraska Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault Coalition newsletter.
Yes, that's right, the highly authoritative "Nebraska Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault Coalition newsletter".
And when we reference that newsletter, we find that it cites another
secondary source, which undoubtedly cites another secondary source, so
we can safely assume (until someone cites the original work) that we
are dealing here with yet another feminist circle-jerk vaporware
statistic like the "2% figure from the FBI".
Furthermore, the reference is to "sexual assault", not "rape", and we
are given no information on how sexual assault is defined. We are also
given no information on how falsity and truth were determined. And
even if we assume (like a mental retard) that the figures are correct,
the small sample size means that the study cannot be extrapolated to
the population at large.
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> schreef in bericht news:c37rg4$hka@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
In article <405744b8$0$31941$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>, Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote: I'm guessing you think you have a pretty good B.S. detector. Try it out on this report: "One set of photos ended up with the Globe and another in the hand's of Bryant's defence team. "Robinson maintains it was never her, nor her friend's intention to sell the photos. She said she doesn't have the photos anymore and they ended up in the Globe when another woman in Colorado sold them. "'We never thought it would end up being such a big deal in the case,' said Robinson, 21, adding she's not friends with Bryant's alleged victim." http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/03/06/372304.html
and they never made her do anything she didn't want to.
My original point was that these photographs weren't made
by the defense team and that no one made her go out on
the town and try to pick up strangers.
Alex
|
| |
| |
In article <4057b2a7$0$31946$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> schreef in bericht news:c37rg4$hka@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
Either way, these girls are friends with the guy in the photograph,
and they never made her do anything she didn't want to.
My original point was that these photographs weren't made
by the defense team and that no one made her go out on
the town and try to pick up strangers.
Your B.S. detector is slipping. Do you wonder at all why these girls
were taking pictures of the accuser? What, do you think they recognized
her from her picture in the paper? How do you think those photos got to
the defense and to the Globe?
|
| |
| |
In article <5aede0f4.0403161746.253c8004@posting.google.com>,
waldoweaver@hotmail.com (Waldo Weaver) wrote:
So, are we talking about sexual assault, or are we talking about
rape? The most widely cited national survey, the NCVS, defines sexual
assault as follows:
"SEXUAL ASSAULT includes a wide range of victimizations, distinct from
rape or attempted rape. These crimes include completed or attempted
attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim
and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include
such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes
verbal threats."
http://www.rainn.org/definition.html
|
| |
| |
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
The dilemma of a he said she said case. How do you presume the accuser is
not lying and presume that Kobe is innocent?
Geez; learn what the 'presumption of innocence' means.
The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not as it is in other formas
wherein the defendant must prove his innocence, or the trial is essentially
neutral and is a finder of fact.
The cops don't presume Kobe is innocent. The prosecution doesn't presume
he's innocent.
This guy in Fresno- coming out of the house, covered with blood, with nine
bodies behind him- he enjoys the same posture as Kobe before the Bar, with
the guarantees of his due process of the law and the presumption of
innocence because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
The public isn't required to ignore the story- nor to have opinions about
it, or refrain from opining. There is no criminal sanction available based
on popular opinion.
No dilemma.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c38dml$92o@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
In article <4057b2a7$0$31946$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>, Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote: Your B.S. detector is slipping. Do you wonder at all why these girls were taking pictures of the accuser? What, do you think they recognized her from her picture in the paper? How do you think those photos got to the defense and to the Globe?
handed it to the Globe in a golden envelope it doesn't make a difference. What is your next B.S. claim going to
be...maybe Bryant's defense team hired these girls to get the accuser drunk and then made the accuser throw herself at
this guy just so that they could snap a few pictures? I guess her own friends must be in on it also because they must
have drugged her just to get her into a bar in the first place... Listen clueless the accuser whether she is lying or
not does not need any help in making herself look bad - and P.S. that started way before Bryant ever entered the
picture.
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:_L-dnRe_roBddsrdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
Geez; learn what the 'presumption of innocence' means.
Chas explaining the "presumption of innocence"...what next. And way to group Bryant with a man who slaughtered nine
people and then walked out of the house covered in their blood...what were you saying about the "presumption of
innocence"?
The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not as it is in other formas
wherein the defendant must prove his innocence, or the trial is essentially
neutral and is a finder of fact.
The cops don't presume Kobe is innocent. The prosecution doesn't presume
he's innocent.
This guy in Fresno- coming out of the house, covered with blood, with nine
bodies behind him- he enjoys the same posture as Kobe before the Bar, with
the guarantees of his due process of the law and the presumption of
innocence because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
The public isn't required to ignore the story- nor to have opinions about
it, or refrain from opining. There is no criminal sanction available based
on popular opinion.
No dilemma.
Chas
|
| |
| |
In article <38Z5c.17013$E71.1130638@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c38dml$92o@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
Talk about B.S.! Why does it even matter how these pictures got to the Globe?
Even if it was Bryant's defense team that
handed it to the Globe in a golden envelope it doesn't make a difference.
What is your next B.S. claim going to
be...maybe Bryant's defense team hired these girls to get the accuser drunk
and then made the accuser throw herself at
this guy just so that they could snap a few pictures?
OK, let's talk about B.S..
Who says she "threw herself at this guy?" Oh yeah, the guy himself, the one
who's in trouble with his girlfriend for licking the accuser's face in the
Globe. (A guy who the girls who took the pictures knew, by the way.) But
guys don't lie about stuff like that, do they, Nexus?
What was it P.T. Barnum said?
|
| |
| |
in article _L-dnRe_roBddsrdRVn-jg@comcast.com, Chas at
chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net wrote on 3/16/04 10:10 PM:
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
Geez; learn what the 'presumption of innocence' means. The burden of proof is
on the prosecutor, not as it is in other formas wherein the defendant must
prove his innocence, or the trial is essentially neutral and is a finder of
fact...The public isn't required to ignore the story- nor to have opinions
about it, or refrain from opining. There is no criminal sanction available
based on popular opinion. No dilemma.
I was speaking about a hypothetical situation that might have occurred if
the CO Supreme Court had heard Hurlbert's case and ruled in his favor. Then
the trial that the jury heard would have consisted of Kobe's statements and
the accusers statements and the supervisors statement. No other evidence.
No other witnesses. So what would be your verdict, hypothetically?
George Evans
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c39vop$eu2@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
In article <38Z5c.17013$E71.1130638@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
Even if it was Bryant's defense team that
What is your next B.S. claim going to
and then made the accuser throw herself at
OK, let's talk about B.S..
Who says she "threw herself at this guy?" Oh yeah, the guy himself, the one
who's in trouble with his girlfriend for licking the accuser's face in the
Globe. (A guy who the girls who took the pictures knew, by the way.) But
guys don't lie about stuff like that, do they, Nexus?
What was it P.T. Barnum said?
You are an apologist ignoramus.
Who CARES what the guy said or what she said or what the Globe said.
How's this for a quote clueless - "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Whether one comes to an opinion after seeing these pictures is up to that individual but with that said NOBODY forced
the accuser to go into a bar, to have some drinks, and to sit in some guys lap as he licks her neck and they get
pictures taken of them.
Like I said the accuser needs NO help making herself look questionable - not before Bryant and apparently not right
after her "traumatic" event.
Try to at least keep up the false image of objectivity for the threads sake.
And you by the way would be exactly the type of person P.T. Barnum would be referring to.
|
| |
| |
In article <bE%5c.17165$E71.1167886@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c39vop$eu2@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
You are an apologist ignoramus.
Who CARES what the guy said
Apparently you do, since you cite his assertions as fact.
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3a9jn$i61@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
In article <bE%5c.17165$E71.1167886@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
Apparently you do, since you cite his assertions as fact.
Actually I was refering to what your next B.S. story would be but nice way to dodge the point. Why don't you respond to
my complete post. And just for you I will put back what you so conveniently snipped:
------
Who CARES what the guy said or what she said or what the Globe said.
How's this for a quote clueless - "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Whether one comes to an opinion after seeing these pictures is up to that individual but with that said NOBODY forced
the accuser to go into a bar, to have some drinks, and to sit in some guys lap as he licks her neck and they get
pictures taken of them.
Like I said the accuser needs NO help making herself look questionable - not before Bryant and apparently not right
after her "traumatic" event.
Try to at least keep up the false image of objectivity for the threads sake.
And you by the way would be exactly the type of person P.T. Barnum would be referring to.
------
|
| |
| |
In article <rC26c.17283$E71.1202455@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3a9jn$i61@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
Actually I was refering to what your next B.S. story would be but nice way to dodge the point. Why don't you respond to
my complete post. And just for you I will put back what you so conveniently snipped:
Actually, you cited the guy's story as fact. I'd say that makes you
pretty gullible.
------
Who CARES what the guy said or what she said or what the Globe said.
How's this for a quote clueless - "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Whether one comes to an opinion after seeing these pictures is up to that individual but with that said NOBODY forced
the accuser to go into a bar, to have some drinks, and to sit in some guys lap as he licks her neck and they get
pictures taken of them.
Like I said the accuser needs NO help making herself look questionable - not before Bryant and apparently not right
after her "traumatic" event.
And the fact that she was sitting in someone's lap in a bar means she
wasn't raped because? Does the idea that a woman could be raped and still
go out and have a good time a couple of months later piss you off?
Try to at least keep up the false image of objectivity for the threads sake.
And you by the way would be exactly the type of person P.T. Barnum would be referring to.
Slightly off topic, but have you seen the tabloid pictures of the President's
daughters partying in bars? What did you think?
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3b93b$f0r@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
In article <rC26c.17283$E71.1202455@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
Actually, you cited the guy's story as fact. I'd say that makes you
pretty gullible.
Actually I don't believe anyone unlike you who has NO objectivity in this case. The only fact is that she is in a bar,
in his lap looking happy while he licks her for a picture that she KNEW was being taken.
------
Who CARES what the guy said or what she said or what the Globe said.
How's this for a quote clueless - "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Whether one comes to an opinion after seeing these pictures is up to that individual but with that said NOBODY forced
the accuser to go into a bar, to have some drinks, and to sit in some guys lap as he licks her neck and they get
pictures taken of them.
Like I said the accuser needs NO help making herself look questionable - not before Bryant and apparently not right
after her "traumatic" event.
And the fact that she was sitting in someone's lap in a bar means she
wasn't raped because? Does the idea that a woman could be raped and still
go out and have a good time a couple of months later piss you off?
Once AGAIN please cite for me where exactly did I equate the accuser being in his lap as meaning that she either
was/wasn't raped? Didn't think you could. You are truly a sad case and should not start something that you obviously
can't finish.
Try to at least keep up the false image of objectivity for the threads sake.
And you by the way would be exactly the type of person P.T. Barnum would be referring to.
Slightly off topic, but have you seen the tabloid pictures of the President's
daughters partying in bars? What did you think?
I don't think about it because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread. While you are busy trying to figure
out the conspiracy against the accuser my whole point is that no matter how the pictures got to the Globe or who said
what the accuser needs no help and certainly no conspiracy to make her actions look questionable when she was supposed
to be in seclusion from public and media trying to emotionally recover from her traumatic ordeal.
You will rationalize anything and everything you can to try and assume guilt on Bryant and for that reason I may as well
be having this conversation with a brick.
|
| |
| |
In article <pWi6c.19828$E71.1483560@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
I don't think about it because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread. While
you are busy trying to figure >out the conspiracy against the accuser my whole point is
that no matter how the pictures got to the Globe or who said >what the accuser needs no
help and certainly no conspiracy to make her actions look questionable when she was
supposed >to be in seclusion from public and media trying to emotionally recover from her
traumatic ordeal. >
"Supposed" to be in seclusion? According to who? You?
|
| |
| |
On 18 Mar 2004 10:51:12 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <pWi6c.19828$E71.1483560@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
you are busy trying to figure >out the conspiracy against the accuser my whole point is
that no matter how the pictures got to the Globe or who said >what the accuser needs no
help and certainly no conspiracy to make her actions look questionable when she was
supposed >to be in seclusion from public and media trying to emotionally recover from her
traumatic ordeal. >
"Supposed" to be in seclusion? According to who? You?
are you disingenuous or just dumb? according to the d.a., that's who.
in court filings he states that he is planning to argue that the
accuser is suffering from "post-traumatic stress."
surely even you and your buddies like cheezass can see that these
pictures are hardlly suggestive of anything resembling post-traumatic
stress, and in fact make the d.a. look about as stupid as could be.
oh, right, maybe it's a short-term effect... yeah, sure... or was
that long term...
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3cghg$409@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
In article <pWi6c.19828$E71.1483560@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
you are busy trying to figure >out the conspiracy against the accuser my whole point is
that no matter how the pictures got to the Globe or who said >what the accuser needs no
help and certainly no conspiracy to make her actions look questionable when she was
supposed >to be in seclusion from public and media trying to emotionally recover from her
traumatic ordeal. >
"Supposed" to be in seclusion? According to who? You?
Oh right I'm sorry - so let me get this straight the accuser spent two weeks on "vacation" clubbing in Calgary with a
friend while the DA is back in court arguing that the accuser was traumatized by her encounter with Bryant.
So the "vacation" pictures that she knew were being taken that clearly show her dancing, grinding, kissing and being
licked by this guy Dawson were all part of the master plan that the DA had to support the "trauma" that she was
suffering?
Besides your blind support of the accuser do you actually have any valid points other than trying to place the blame for
the Globe pictures on everyone but the accuser?
|
| |
| |
In article <snij50domv92gr8evbf5nbg4iulnvjn90e@4ax.com>,
agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 18 Mar 2004 10:51:12 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
are you disingenuous or just dumb? according to the d.a., that's who.
in court filings he states that he is planning to argue that the
accuser is suffering from "post-traumatic stress."
Hate to burst your bubble, but PTSD doesn't require a person to
go into seclusion, nor does it prevent a person from acting out.
|
| |
| |
In article <7Gk6c.20589$E71.1504667@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3cghg$409@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
Oh right I'm sorry - so let me get this straight the accuser spent two weeks on "vacation" clubbing in Calgary with a
friend while the DA is back in court arguing that the accuser was traumatized by her encounter with Bryant.
So the "vacation" pictures that she knew were being taken that clearly show her dancing, grinding, kissing and being
licked by this guy Dawson were all part of the master plan that the DA had to support the "trauma" that she was
suffering?
Where do you spend your "vacation?" In church?
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3cnu5$rdv@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
In article <snij50domv92gr8evbf5nbg4iulnvjn90e@4ax.com>, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote: Hate to burst your bubble, but PTSD doesn't require a person to go into seclusion, nor does it prevent a person from acting out.
effect on any jury in any courtroom.
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3cpmh$34c@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
In article <7Gk6c.20589$E71.1504667@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Nexus <nexus@at&t.net> wrote:
Where do you spend your "vacation?" In church?
Yeah your Church - The Holy Chapel of Saint Clueless.
|
| |
| |
| | |
