|
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040825/NEWS/108250015
"The bottom line is this is about this victim having her day in court before
a jury and having the opportunity to persuade a jury she was indeed sexually
assaulted," said Norm Early, victim's rights advocate, television analyst
and former Denver district attorney.
"She's accused a celebrity of committing a sensitive, act and juries don't
readily convict celebrities without overwhelming proof," he said.
"Hopefully, the case won't be decided on the defense propaganda that has
been made since charges were filed and will be (decided) on what's presented
in the courtroom."
"It really remains to be seen whether the people of Eagle County blame her
more because of their distaste for her involvement with a married man or an
African-American, or whether they will blame him more for being a married
man and preying on one of their residents. Neither should be a consideration
for the jury," Early said. "In reality, either one of them may be."
"I think their opening statement will be riveting, compelling and will
reveal information not previously known to members of the public and jury,"
Early said. "You'll have a situation where jurors will be saying, 'This
sounds like a better case than I thought it was.'
"That can work to advantage of the prosecution," he added. "We already know
what the defense will be saying because it's been leaked."
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgkqa0$pb@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040825/NEWS/108250015
"The bottom line is this is about this victim having her day in court before
a jury and having the opportunity to persuade a jury she was indeed sexually
assaulted," said Norm Early, victim's rights advocate, television analyst
and former Denver district attorney.
I will be waiting for Mackey to expose this gold digger's lies....
"She's accused a celebrity of committing a sensitive, act and juries don't
readily convict celebrities without overwhelming proof," he said.
"Hopefully, the case won't be decided on the defense propaganda that has
been made since charges were filed and will be (decided) on what's presented
in the courtroom."
Where is the overwhelming proof?
WHere is any proof?
And what is the defense's propaganda?
"It really remains to be seen whether the people of Eagle County blame her
more because of their distaste for her involvement with a married man or an
African-American, or whether they will blame him more for being a married
man and preying on one of their residents. Neither should be a consideration
for the jury," Early said. "In reality, either one of them may be."
"I think their opening statement will be riveting, compelling and will
reveal information not previously known to members of the public and jury,"
Early said. "You'll have a situation where jurors will be saying, 'This
sounds like a better case than I thought it was.'
Didn't we hear the same pitch when the Prelim came around?
"That can work to advantage of the prosecution," he added. "We already know
what the defense will be saying because it's been leaked."
|
| |
| |
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
Early said. "You'll have a situation where jurors will be saying, 'This
sounds like a better case than I thought it was.'
Didn't we hear the same pitch when the Prelim came around?
even Silverman tonight is starting to respect her tenacity and to allow that
maybe she *was* raped. Something has hit the courthouse grapevine that puts
her case in a stronger light- wonder what it is.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ONudnXCOd5KgW7PcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
Early said. "You'll have a situation where jurors will be saying, 'This
sounds like a better case than I thought it was.'
even Silverman tonight is starting to respect her tenacity and to allow that
maybe she *was* raped. Something has hit the courthouse grapevine that puts
her case in a stronger light- wonder what it is.
Now that he said "maybe", he is off that #@($ list? You are so
consistent, Chas, very very consistent in your bias of this case.
Keep wondering. We heard the same #@($ in the preliminary too.
Bombshells right? There had been some bombshells in this case. None
in favor of the prosecution.
Want to know what a bombshell is?
Evidence, real hard physical evidence that suggest this gold digger
had lied.
Chas
Keep ignoring facts, they aren't helpful to your cause.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgkqa0$pb@dispatch.concentric.net>...
"I think their opening statement will be riveting, compelling and will
reveal information not previously known to members of the public and jury,"
Early said. "You'll have a situation where jurors will be saying, 'This
sounds like a better case than I thought it was.'
"That can work to advantage of the prosecution," he added. "We already know
what the defense will be saying because it's been leaked."
I recall last year, when the prelim came around, everyone expected to
see someone comeout to testify that how the gold digger was in
distress that night.
Then in came the Night Auditor who told the world how calm the Gold
Digger looked and how careful she COUNTED THE MONEY...
Of course, a case that barely get passed the prelim by only a
techanicallity can surely sound better in the opening statement.
After all, you only need to back up your opening statement AFTERWARDS.
The opening statement can sound solid and real and powerful and all
that..., but the defense will pick it into pieces with solid evidence.
|
| |
| |
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
even Silverman tonight is starting to respect her tenacity and to allow
that
maybe she *was* raped. Something has hit the courthouse grapevine that
puts
her case in a stronger light- wonder what it is.
Now that he said "maybe", he is off that #@($ list?
No; I just phrased it to omit 'even a partisan asshole like Silverman is
starting......'
You are so
consistent, Chas, very very consistent in your bias of this case.
I've seen a lot of rape by athletes, Huang; no 'gold-digging false
allegations' (although I don't doubt that it happens).
Yes; I think she's telling the truth- she didn't consent.
Want to know what a bombshell is?
Evidence, real hard physical evidence that suggest this gold digger
had lied.
Let's say she did lie, about some peripheral aspect not concerning the
assault itself- all that does is taint her credibility in a trial; says
nothing about whether or not she was raped by Kobe Bryant, except whether
the evidence rises to the standard of proof required by our legal system. We
protect the guilty as well as the innocent by setting the bar very high in
such matters.
Keep ignoring facts, they aren't helpful to your cause.
Keep believing these far-fetched, mutually contradictory, fantasies that
couch her as a demented genius with plans to cash in on her stupidity-
they're silly.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
The opening statement can sound solid and real and powerful and all
that..., but the defense will pick it into pieces with solid evidence.
You sound like the audience trying to save Tinkerbell in the last act of
Peter Pan.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ONudnXCOd5KgW7PcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
Early said. "You'll have a situation where jurors will be saying, 'This
sounds like a better case than I thought it was.'
even Silverman tonight is starting to respect her tenacity and to allow that
maybe she *was* raped. Something has hit the courthouse grapevine that puts
her case in a stronger light- wonder what it is.
Chas
I hadn't heard this but if its true my guess would be the recordings
the cops made of Bryant.
Mez
|
| |
| |
"Messalina" <messalinana@yahoo.com> wrote
even Silverman tonight is starting to respect her tenacity and to allow
that
maybe she *was* raped. Something has hit the courthouse grapevine that
puts
her case in a stronger light- wonder what it is.
I hadn't heard this but if its true my guess would be the recordings
the cops made of Bryant.
I just saw him doing a talking head for a newsshow- looking more like a
basset hound than usual.
The tapes sound like a good bet for the 'new' evidence-
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<yvqdnV5_seMqyrLcRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
You sound like the audience trying to save Tinkerbell in the last act of
Peter Pan.
Chas
Can't deal with what had been happening for over a year, eh, Chas?
Nothing went right for the prosecution since the Night Auditor showed
up.
Let me do the check list for you again.
1. No sign of resistence but her word.
2. No sign of distress but her word and the Night Auditor's word
against her.
3. Hard evidence of her lying to the police ala DNA found inside of
her by the Government Lab of all people.
4. Detective Winter's word, "Why didn't you say NO"
5. Her word, "He stopped when I touch his hands."
I will leave out all the prior planning, sneaking, and making out
because I don't think you have the heart to deal with it. You know it
is a sham from the get go but you can't swallow your bias to face the
facts.
How sad...
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<hqKdnafXW4rPyrLcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
even Silverman tonight is starting to respect her tenacity and to allow
that
maybe she *was* raped. Something has hit the courthouse grapevine that
puts
her case in a stronger light- wonder what it is.
No; I just phrased it to omit 'even a partisan asshole like Silverman is
starting......'
And why did you omit it when you preached against him every time
before? Consistency, ha ha ha.
I've seen a lot of rape by athletes, Huang; no 'gold-digging false
allegations' (although I don't doubt that it happens).
Yes; I think she's telling the truth- she didn't consent.
You think. You don't think in investigation.
You look at the facts and make a judgement base on the facts.
Scienticfic deduction, not what you seen.
I seen a lot of gold diggers and a lot of rape victims.
But I don't announce Kate Faber to be a gold diggerand not a rape
victim until she filed the civil suit well before the criminal trial
begins.
Remember, Chas, facts not words.
The facts are against her story. She had lied at least twice. You
can't make a judgement call base on what you feel.
Kobe Bryant is rapist because you seen a lot of rape by athletes?
Read that sentence and see how stupid it sounds.
You think she is telling the truth that she didn't consent? Does her
action and her testimonies reflects that?
Want to know what a bombshell is?
Evidence, real hard physical evidence that suggest this gold digger
had lied.
Let's say she did lie, about some peripheral aspect not concerning the
assault itself- all that does is taint her credibility in a trial; says
nothing about whether or not she was raped by Kobe Bryant, except whether
the evidence rises to the standard of proof required by our legal system. We
protect the guilty as well as the innocent by setting the bar very high in
such matters.
Oh, covering your tracks already? The prosecution will lose the case
because the legal system. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Let me quote that deceitful Norm Early who tried to sound independent,
"We convicted a lot of rapist when there was no rape shield law."
Now, as you put him at such a high regard, take his word for it. If
it is a sound case, Kobe Bryant will be convicted. If he is
innoncent, he will go free.
Remember, Chas, she lied about the very core of this case. Consent.
Did she say "NO"? She had two versions of that fact already. Argue
against this and you lose, Chas. Don't you think that if she intended
to withdraw consent, she should have at least communicated it. And we
surely know she intended to consent to sex as evident by her own word,
"expecting something to happen."
So, it is not some peripheral aspect we are talking about. Do you
understand that? If it all it matter was consent, then Kate Faber got
credibility problems on this very matter.
Keep ignoring facts, they aren't helpful to your cause.
Keep believing these far-fetched, mutually contradictory, fantasies that
couch her as a demented genius with plans to cash in on her stupidity-
they're silly.
Far-fetched, mutually contradictory, fantasies?
Let me remind you, one more time, all the leaked stuff, they are going
to show up in court, anyways. If not in the criminal court, then it
will be in the civil court. Those will be sworn in, proved, physical,
hard to argue against evidence.
And against them, you have one gold digger's word.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
Can't deal with what had been happening for over a year, eh, Chas?
Oh, it's great theatre; I'm enjoying it immensely.
I don't often see such committed political agendas and starstruck athletics
fans. I read his in misc.legal, so the celebrity aspect is sort of foreign
to my specialized interests.
Let me do the check list for you again.
1. No sign of resistence but her word.
Yes; or maybe two; 'Please stop' springs to mind; 'let me go', 'get out of
my way', 'I'd like to leave now'- none of which are 'no', but all establish
the degree of consent she'd extended.
2. No sign of distress but her word and the Night Auditor's word
against her.
A trained rape investigator, only working as an auditor for pin money and to
pay off gambling debts, yes?
3. Hard evidence of her lying to the police ala DNA found inside of
her by the Government Lab of all people.
Actually, she still denies the scenario promulgated by her detractors; her
lawyer denies it, and they've gone forward in two courts knowing they'll
have to confront it.
Seems tenacious, if nothing else.
4. Detective Winter's word, "Why didn't you say NO"
5. Her word, "He stopped when I touch his hands."
He was in the midst of a sexual assault when he stopped- that's about all
you can really derive from that information.
Has a woman ever told you to stop when you were already conjoined? If she
did, what had given you the idea that she consented prior, and why did she
retract that consent?
Does it seem probable to you that the accuser would retract her consent in
the midst of an event she had initiated willingly?
I will leave out all the prior planning, sneaking, and making out
because I don't think you have the heart to deal with it. You know it
is a sham from the get go but you can't swallow your bias to face the
facts.
Still haven't read the civil complaint, have you?
Sad.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Huang Gang" <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote
No; I just phrased it to omit 'even a partisan asshole like Silverman is
starting......'
And why did you omit it when you preached against him every time
before? Consistency, ha ha ha.
Do I need to repeat my opinion of him every time I write?
I didn't like Craig Silverman from before this case ever started (his public
persona- I don't know his private life). I also have an opinion of Haddon
Firm- long before they represented the Ramsey's, much less Kobe Bryant- and
an opinion of Norm Early formed over a long time of watching him.
You think. You don't think in investigation.
Sure you do.
You look at the facts and make a judgement base on the facts.
Scienticfic deduction, not what you seen.
Actually, if we forego examining her complaint, and Kobe's affirmative
defense instead of a complete denial, she has the win. It's her consent to
give; they both admit that she denied giving it- or he wouldn't have stopped
in mid-event. He drew blood, got it on his shirt, lied to the police and
gave the best story he could come with after two others didn't work.
I seen a lot of gold diggers and a lot of rape victims.
You come from Hong Kong? - yeah; no #@($.
But I don't announce Kate Faber to be a gold diggerand not a rape
victim until she filed the civil suit well before the criminal trial
begins.
The criminal case is being affected by mistakes and misteps. Her attorneys
have made the decision to go forward now- I don't think she'd make the
decision in conflict with them.
Money is the only means to redress damages in our system- outside of
injunctive relief to tell him not to do it again. Ask her if she'd rather
see him done as he did her- see what she says she'd prefer.
Remember, Chas, facts not words.
The facts are against her story. She had lied at least twice. You
can't make a judgement call base on what you feel.
Yes; Kobe lied about material information- obstructing justice as long as he
could. She may have lied about another sexual encounter that was consensual
as contrasted with her experience with Kobe-
His lie is far more germane to the event than hers is.
Kobe Bryant is rapist because you seen a lot of rape by athletes?
Read that sentence and see how stupid it sounds.
You wrote it, buddy-
Live with it.
You think she is telling the truth that she didn't consent?
They both confirm she didn't consent. He stopped- knowing that she hadn't
consented, and that confirmed by her pushing him away.
What's your problem understanding that he's already admitted that?
Does her
action and her testimonies reflects that?
Well, yeah.
And so does his.
Oh, covering your tracks already? The prosecution will lose the case
because the legal system. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
No; I think it'll be judged on the evidence- and she'll win if justice
prevails. A loss on technical grounds, like not admitting his taped
conversation with the detectives or something, only means that germane
evidence was excluded on legalistic grounds, not factual.
Let me quote that deceitful Norm Early who tried to sound independent,
"We convicted a lot of rapist when there was no rape shield law."
They did- what's yer pernt?
Now, as you put him at such a high regard, take his word for it. If
it is a sound case, Kobe Bryant will be convicted. If he is
innoncent, he will go free.
How do you derive that from Early's quote?
Remember, Chas, she lied about the very core of this case. Consent.
Both she and Kobe relate that he stopped in mid-event, when she pushed him
away.
Do you believe that she withdrew her consent in mid-act, or that Kobe acted
precipitously?
Did she say "NO"? She had two versions of that fact already. Argue
against this and you lose, Chas. Don't you think that if she intended
to withdraw consent, she should have at least communicated it. And we
surely know she intended to consent to sex as evident by her own word,
"expecting something to happen."
When she kissed him, perhaps she found she didn't like it. She tried to
leave the room, and finally was able to make him understand her lack of
interest by pushing him away after he got a bit forward.
Classic sexual assault.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote
"Huang Gang" wrote
Can't deal with what had been happening for over a year, eh, Chas?
Oh, it's great theatre; I'm enjoying it immensely.
I don't often see such committed political agendas and starstruck athletics
fans. I read his in misc.legal, so the celebrity aspect is sort of foreign to
my specialized interests.
I read Misc.Legal pretty much exclusively as well and at *least* the Kobe
situation is arguably on topic--- despite the fact so many of the
posters/threads arent <g>
--------
have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
|
