|
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E28682%257E2377432,00.html
Eagle - The critical element in the dismissal of the Kobe Bryant rape
case was his apology to the accuser - an apology that relieved him of
criminal liability and gave her no ammunition for a civil case.
Not long after questioning showed that many prospective jurors
believed Bryant was innocent, negotiations to end the case began. They
revolved around what Bryant's apology to the accuser would say and
what its implications would be for the criminal and civil cases
against Bryant.
Meanwhile, the prosecution was facing another difficulty: a scathing
motion in which defense attorney Pamela Mackey accused the prosecution
of withholding key testimony.
In that testimony, Dr. Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner
for New York City, said it was impossible for him to tell whether
Bryant's 20-year-old accuser had been raped.
Baden had given that testimony to prosecutors months ago. But the
prosecution, which had originally decided to call Baden to testify and
then dropped the idea, didn't disclose Baden's findings to the
defense.
Not until Aug. 27 did Mackey find out about Baden's opinions. She
filed a motion Tuesday to have the case dismissed, which was publicly
released early Wednesday.
By then, Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert knew Bryant's
accuser did not want to continue with the case.
What ensued was a frenzied afternoon of discussions involving the
terms of Bryant's apology.
The goal for the accuser's side, sources said, was to secure a public
admission of regret. Bryant's side was able to end his criminal
liability and ensure that nothing in the apology could be used in the
civil lawsuit the accuser had filed against Bryant in U.S. District
Court in Denver.
The result was a flat sentence in the apology that read: "She has
agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil
case."
The second problem the prosecution faced in the two days before the
case was dropped was a panel of jurors far from convinced of Bryant's
guilt.
The day before the defense motion regarding Baden, prosecutors asked
Judge Terry Ruckriegle to remove potential jurors who stated on a jury
questionnaire that Bryant is "probably not guilty" or "definitely not
guilty" based on what they had read, seen or heard.
David Lugert, an Eagle lawyer and former prosecutor, and jury
consultant Karen Lisko, said prosecutor Ingrid Bakke's request was an
indication that a number of potential jurors thought Bryant was not
guilty.
"The prosecution is perhaps concerned that they may have more jurors
starting out in favor of the defense, when typically the bigger
concern is that the criminal defendant is starting the game a few to
several points behind," Lisko said.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote
The result was a flat sentence in the apology that read: "She has
agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil
case."
'Puh-leeeeze don't send me to Canon City; I'll pay, I really will.'
The civil trial will never come to pass- Kobe can't afford to have her sit
in the witness box.
And, his statement can't be used in her civil suit- but it can if he sues
against her. His admission and confession precludes any retaliation against
her.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote
'Puh-leeeeze don't send me to Canon City; I'll pay, I really will.'
The civil trial will never come to pass- Kobe can't afford to have her sit
in the witness box.
And, his statement can't be used in her civil suit- but it can if he sues
against her. His admission and confession precludes any retaliation
against her.
Chas
You are nothing but a joke at this point Chazzy. A poor deluded pathetic
joke. Keep posting your desperate little tidbits cause seeing the depths you
have sank to is truly amusing! Thanks for the pleasure of seeing you reduced
to this level of desperation it has given me some good laughs.
|
| |
| |
In article <fZ%Zc.26229$CG3.1823223@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Nexus" <nexus@attglobal.net> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote
The result was a flat sentence in the apology that read: "She has
agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil
case."
'Puh-leeeeze don't send me to Canon City; I'll pay, I really will.'
The civil trial will never come to pass- Kobe can't afford to have her sit
in the witness box.
And, his statement can't be used in her civil suit- but it can if he sues
against her. His admission and confession precludes any retaliation
against her.
Chas
You are nothing but a joke at this point Chazzy. A poor deluded pathetic
joke. Keep posting your desperate little tidbits cause seeing the depths you
have sank to is truly amusing! Thanks for the pleasure of seeing you reduced
to this level of desperation it has given me some good laughs.
I think Chas would be at least partially correct if we find out that
Kobe paid her off big time, a la Michael ("I love tweenty -nine year
olds, there are TWEENTY OF THEM!!") Jackson. If we find out he paid her
20 -30 million, I will think he is guilty.
--
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/
Bush%20%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They
never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we," President george bush (AKA president dumb dumb)
|
| |
| |
The result was a flat sentence in the apology that read: "She has
agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil
case."
What was it someone once said about an insincere apology? Oh, yeah, they
hold no importance.
If you can't apologize for what you specifically did, then keep your mouth
the @$#* shut. Any vague apologetical remarks which don't detail what you
did, or why you did it, only hurt your standing.
"I'm sorry Mommy, I took this cookie but you can have it back."
"I'm sorry Mommy, for anything I may have done to upset you in any way by
what I may have been perceived as doing in the kitchen this morning."
Which sounds more sincere?
Once again, the case has been dismissed. Technically, Kobe could have come
up with something better than this. He's not stupid, is he?
|
| |
| |
|
