|
|
|
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040909/LETTER/10909001
5Sympathy for Bryant
I, again, would like to commend you on an exceptionally well-written
editorial. I visit Court TV's message board regarding the Kobe case and your
editorial was posted there.
I disagree on one small issue. Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife. Most
evidence points toward this woman as having filed a false accusation. Who is
the real victim here if that is the case?
Mr. Bryant has to answer to his wife for the rest of his life for cheating
(and possibly his daughter at a later age), but if he has been falsely
accused why shouldn't people have sympathy for him? We don't have to like
Mr. Bryant for being a cheater, but if he has been wrongly accused why
should he NOT have the public's outcry and to imagine that this woman may
walk away with more money than she could ever hope to make in a lifetime for
(allegedly) telling a lie at Eagle County taxpayers' expense. It just isn't
right.
I believe the people of Eagle County should be outraged, at the very least.
Your column summed this case so well. It appears to have been about money
and fame, not about justice.
Your DA made a fool of your county in front of the whole nation and world. I
believe, as you, that most citizens living in Eagle County are far better
educated than what your DA showed to the rest of us. For the sake of Eagle
County and its citizens, I pray Mr. Hurlbert will NOT be re-elected come
November
Jennifer Horovitz
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/LETTER/10910001
2What a waste
Mr. Rogers: Your columns after the dismissal of this case have hit the nail
on the head. Props to you for standing up to call out the prosecutors and
the ... accuser whose (alleged) goal has been just for big money settlement.
I believe most Vail people feel the same way that this case is a farce and
the charge shouldn't have been filed. What a waste of the taxpayers' money
and the emotional drains.
Lisa Chiu
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040905/LETTER/10905000
5Angry? You bet
Your article "Eagle residents: Good riddance" states that Eagle residents
and others reacted with relief, and some anger, at the end of the criminal
case against Kobe Bryant.
Well I am sure Kobe Bryant is saying, "Good riddance to Eagle, Colo., too."
And I don't blame him, either. Some, like longtime Eagle resident John
Oleson, said Bryant shouldn't have been charged in the first place. "I think
he's innocent, and he shouldn't have been charged in the first place," he
said.
What do you expect? Kobe Bryant arrives in this town ... in good faith and
checks into his hotel room. He is immediately identified as a multimillion
dollar basketball player for the Lakers by a 19-year-old ... .
I believe she did in fact voluntarily had sex with him and then plan to
demand a large sum of money or file rape charges. Why is she still trying to
file a civil suit? She no longer has any credibility and has used up her 15
minutes of fame. ...
As the case began to develop, District Attorney Mark Hurlbert's case began
to unravel: botched investigations and unprepared on the hearing dates, the
contamination of DNA tests. The cards were against Mark Hurlbert from the
start.
By the time the jury was selected and with opening statements on Tuesday,
Mark Hurlbert placed his tail between his legs like a whipped dog and
requested that the court drop the case against Kobe Bryant. Forlorn and
dejected, Mark Hurlbert faced the media with his face-saving public
announcement, thanking everyone for covering up his incompetence and
arrogance on a case that never should have been filed in the first place.
Mark Hurlbert knows that when he lost the Kobe Bryant case, he will for sure
lose the upcoming election. Nothing he says will save his job.
This why Mark Hurlbert had to drop the Kobe Bryant case. How droll can he
be, thanking everyone involved? Look at how many outside law agencies he
needed to prosecute this case.
No wonder why the reaction in this town suggests anger at authorities
bringing forward case only to drop it at the 11-hour, and weariness of press
coverage.
Mark Hurlbert has a lot of gall and audacity to dare act like the town lynch
mob DA on a "Celebrity Witch Hunt" with the help of his law enforcement
cronies tried to convict and hang Kobe Bryant from the nearest tree like a
Wild West horse thief. If those celebrities and tourist visitors stop coming
to our small podunk town, we very could shrivel up like an expired silver
mining town and blow away like a Colorado shrub brush.
Now that Mark Hurlbert has ruined the life of Kobe Bryant and lost the case,
he will follow the footsteps of the Los Angeles DA. ...
Linda White
Eagle
|
| |
| |
Mr. Bryant has to answer to his wife for the rest of his life for
cheating
(and possibly his daughter at a later age), but if he has been falsely
accused why shouldn't people have sympathy for him? We don't have to like
Mr. Bryant for being a cheater, but if he has been wrongly accused why
should he NOT have the public's outcry and to imagine that this woman may
walk away with more money than she could ever hope to make in a lifetime
for
(allegedly) telling a lie at Eagle County taxpayers' expense. It just
isn't
right.
Now, let's take the above and apply it to another instance...
A person who has been convicted on MULTIPLE counts of child molestation is
charged with something, and it comes out that it's possible, maybe even
likely, that the present charges are falsely presented.
Do we want a public outcry for the convicted pedophile, who happens to be
"innocent" of these new charges?
If so, we have no understanding of morality, if not, then it matters more
who the person is, and less about what the nature of the case is. Given
this ideology, a celebrity can justifiably commit murder, as long as he
keeps his "public" happy.
I believe the people of Eagle County should be outraged, at the very
least.
Your column summed this case so well. It appears to have been about money
and fame, not about justice.
The people of Eagle County may feel as they like. Kobe has given all the
details necessary for the public to formulate any opinion of him they so
choose. It being a free country, we are free to do so.
Maybe there ought to be a polygraph examination during the marriage ceremony
these days, but there are an awful lot of cheaters. Have we lost our
morality? I like to think it hasn't come to that. Maybe we just don't hold
as much value to our words as we once did. Years ago a deal meant "spit and
a handshake", now it requires a legal team, and confusing references that
must largely be translated before both parties can proceed.
Food for thought, but if your words mean so little to you, why bother
explaining yourselves so eloquently when you are caught doing something
wrong?
|
| |
| |
Chris wrote:
Do we want a public outcry for the convicted pedophile, who happens to be
"innocent" of these new charges?
Yes, we should, unless you want a criminal justice system in which we
should presume that unpopular people are guilty.
If so, we have no understanding of morality
How so? It's immoral to convict a pedophile when he's not guilty.
|
| |
| |
Mr. Bryant has to answer to his wife for the rest of his life for
cheating
for
isn't
Now, let's take the above and apply it to another instance...
A person who has been convicted on MULTIPLE counts of child molestation is
charged with something, and it comes out that it's possible, maybe even
likely, that the present charges are falsely presented.
Do we want a public outcry for the convicted pedophile, who happens to be
"innocent" of these new charges?
You said he (or she) had multiple convictions. One presumes, he (or she)
has served multiple sentences, ie. paid his (or her) debt to society.
Therefore yes, I expect a public outcry if he (or she) is falsely accused
of some new crime which he (or she) did not commit.
If so, we have no understanding of morality, if not, then it matters more
who the person is, and less about what the nature of the case is. Given
this ideology, a celebrity can justifiably commit murder, as long as he
keeps his "public" happy.
You are now entering the twilight zone.
|
| |
| |
If so, we have no understanding of morality
How so? It's immoral to convict a pedophile when he's not guilty.
Reread what I posted, and you will answer your own question. I didn't say
he was innocent of being a pedophile, but innocent of new charges.
So, let me ask you this...was Hitler merely unpopular?
Would you want a public outcry for him, were he to be later charged with
something that was false?
|
| |
| |
So, someone with an affliction which cannot be treated, cannot be
effectively curtailed under the present system of mental health's diagnosis,
is considered to be "alright", so long as he or she does the time in prison?
Would you want them near your kids? I'm all for letting people who served
their debt to society get a blank slate, but not if the crimes they
committed make them likely to do so again.
Do you even draw a line at all?
If so, we have no understanding of morality, if not, then it matters
more
who the person is, and less about what the nature of the case is. Given
this ideology, a celebrity can justifiably commit murder, as long as he
keeps his "public" happy.
You are now entering the twilight zone.
Right. And all those politicians who commit crimes are sent to prison? I'm
sure there's a prison for millionaires near you?
|
| |
| |
If so, we have no understanding of morality
Reread what I posted, and you will answer your own question. I didn't say
he was innocent of being a pedophile, but innocent of new charges.
No re-reading required. If he is innocent of THE NEW CHARGES,
then it is IMMORAL TO CONVICT HIM OF THE NEW CHARGES.
He (or SHE) has already been convicted of the old ones and presumably
served his or her sentence for them.
|
| |
| |
So, someone with an affliction which cannot be treated, cannot be
effectively curtailed under the present system of mental health's
diagnosis,
is considered to be "alright", so long as he or she does the time in
prison?
Did you see me use the word "alright"?
Would you want them near your kids?
Did you see me say I would?
I'm all for letting people who served
their debt to society get a blank slate, but not if the crimes they
committed make them likely to do so again.
Whatever -- that doesn't give you the right to use the court system
to convict people of crimes they have not committed.
Do you even draw a line at all?
Yes, in heavy black ink -- at convicting people of crimes they
have not committed. At using the court system to persecute people
because you don't like them.
[...]
Right. And all those politicians who commit crimes are sent to prison?
I'm
sure there's a prison for millionaires near you?
Politicians do bad things, therefore you're entitled to do bad things?
I don't think so...
|
| |
| |
In article <fkY0d.27737$Of3.27256@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Chris <RRUFIANGE@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
So, someone with an affliction which cannot be treated, cannot be
effectively curtailed under the present system of mental health's diagnosis,
is considered to be "alright", so long as he or she does the time in prison?
Would you want them near your kids? I'm all for letting people who served
their debt to society get a blank slate, but not if the crimes they
committed make them likely to do so again.
Interesting argument, but now it definitely has nothing to do with Bryant.
Unless you think adultery is a horrific crime, and people who commit
adultery are a public menace.
If we made it all right to convict someone who's innocent of a crime,
just because they've done something bad in their past, then pretty much
everyone who falls short of sainthood is going down.
Max
--
|
| |
| |
No, I dont think he is guilty of rape, but I do think he is guilty of
assault for choking the girl. I think she consented to sex, then he
bent her over a chair and choked her, and she was like "oh my god, why
is this psycho choking me?!!???!??!"
Do people think Kobe is guilty of assault?
--
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/
Bush%20%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3
"Conservatives love their country the way a four-year-old loves their
mommy. Everything Mommy does is good and anyone who criticizes Mommy is
bad." -- Al Franken
|
| |
| |
In article
<Bushin2004-B96C7C.13010512092004@newssvr23-ext.news.prodigy.com>
Osama Bin Bush <Bushin2004@bush.com> wrote:
No, I dont think he is guilty of rape, but I do think he is guilty of
assault for choking the girl. I think she consented to sex, then he
bent her over a chair and choked her, and she was like "oh my god, why
is this psycho choking me?!!???!??!"
Do people think Kobe is guilty of assault?
From what has been presented so far by both sides, I think that the only
thing that Kobe is guilty of other than adultery, is being stupid.
The sex was consensual, and the accuser had this planned, and then part
of her plan was to start a thing in the middle of it to threaten him,
possibly to get some money and create some attention towards her, when
she tried to carry out the plan of leaving the room "as upset she can
pretend to be", Kobe blocked her exit asking her not to tell anyone
about this, and then she left.
She didn't plan to charge him with this, that was not her plan, but when
she discussed it with her mom, they say an opportunity to step in the
spot light and make some money too, by causing an innocent man to lose
his freedom.
Kobe is stupid to fall for that in the first place, being a star, he
should know that he is always and will be always a target for such
skanks to shoot at.
He has to answer to his wife about cheating on here, but other than
that, I think that the man is innocent, and it is out of character, and
doesn't makes sense nor is logical.
|
| |
| |
Chris wrote:
If so, we have no understanding of morality
Reread what I posted, and you will answer your own question. I didn't say
he was innocent of being a pedophile, but innocent of new charges.
So did I.
So, let me ask you this...was Hitler merely unpopular?
Would you want a public outcry for him, were he to be later charged with
something that was false?
Yes.
|
| |
| |
No, I dont think he is guilty of rape, but I do think he is guilty of
assault for choking the girl. I think she consented to sex, then he
bent her over a chair and choked her, and she was like "oh my god, why
is this psycho choking me?!!???!??!"
Do people think Kobe is guilty of assault?
Not if to him it was part of the sex act (as opposed to intended to hurt
her or force her to do something against her will). Not if he stopped
when she protested. Some people use choking as sex play.
|
| |
| |
No re-reading required. If he is innocent of THE NEW CHARGES,
then it is IMMORAL TO CONVICT HIM OF THE NEW CHARGES.
He (or SHE) has already been convicted of the old ones and presumably
served his or her sentence for them.
Re-reading was directed to "spammy", not to "Michael Snyder". Since he
asked a question that should have been found answered if he bothered to read
the post thoroughly, yet acted as though he didn't, re-reading is apparently
required.
Did I say it was moral to convict him of the new charges? If so, please
show me where.
|
| |
| |
No, I dont think he is guilty of rape, but I do think he is guilty of
assault for choking the girl. I think she consented to sex, then he
bent her over a chair and choked her, and she was like "oh my god, why
is this psycho choking me?!!???!??!"
Do people think Kobe is guilty of assault?
Assault while in the process of trying to have sex...
Wouldn't that be RAPE?
;-)
|
| |
| |
Do people think Kobe is guilty of assault?
Not if to him it was part of the sex act (as opposed to intended to hurt
her or force her to do something against her will). Not if he stopped
when she protested. Some people use choking as sex play.
Sorry, but US law disagrees with you on assault. Assault is what you do to
someone, not what you intend to do. If you choke someone, whether you feel
it's "ok" or not, you are choking them, which is an attack of some sort.
Hmmm...maybe she should have charged him with simple assault. Nah, Kobe's
lawyers would have still found a way to weasel out of it.
|
| |
| |
So, let me ask you this...was Hitler merely unpopular?
Would you want a public outcry for him, were he to be later charged with
something that was false?
Yes.
Yes to what?
Yes he was merely unpopular, or yes you'd want there to be a public outcry
in support of Hitler?
|
| |
| |
Interesting argument, but now it definitely has nothing to do with Bryant.
Unless you think adultery is a horrific crime, and people who commit
adultery are a public menace.
Why not call it a public menace? People who do it are not put in jail,
aren't always held liable even in a divorce settlement. Maybe if it were
considered alittle worse than it is, on paper, people might be more apt to
control themselves.
If we made it all right to convict someone who's innocent of a crime,
just because they've done something bad in their past, then pretty much
everyone who falls short of sainthood is going down.
I'm not saying it's alright to convict them if they didn't do the crime.
I'm saying we don't need a public parade of support for a man who cheats on
his wife, just because the accuser decided not to go through with the case.
Kobe should consider himself lucky, move on back to playing BBall, and shut
the @$#* up.
A confessed adulterer is still a weasel.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:25:52 GMT, "Chris" <RRUFIANGE@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Sorry, but US law disagrees with you on assault. Assault is what you do to
someone, not what you intend to do. If you choke someone, whether you feel
it's "ok" or not, you are choking them, which is an attack of some sort.
Hmmm...maybe she should have charged him with simple assault. Nah, Kobe's
lawyers would have still found a way to weasel out of it.
Because there were no evidence that even an assault occurred, other than
what she said, and we all know what sort of credibility she has.
|
| |
| |
In article <Vv51d.13419$54.190970@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Not if to him it was part of the sex act (as opposed to intended to hurt
her or force her to do something against her will). Not if he stopped
when she protested. Some people use choking as sex play.
And he "knew by the look in her eyes" that she consented to it,
right Mikey?
|
| |
| |
Osama Bin Bush <Bushin2004@bush.com> wrote in message news:<Bushin2004-B96C7C.13010512092004@newssvr23-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
No, I dont think he is guilty of rape, but I do think he is guilty of
assault for choking the girl. I think she consented to sex, then he
bent her over a chair and choked her, and she was like "oh my god, why
is this psycho choking me?!!???!??!"
Do people think Kobe is guilty of assault?
Once Katelyn Faber decided she was going into that room to be a dirty
slut with a much bigger and stronger man like Kobe, and then engaged
in consensual sexual acts with him, she forfeited her safety and
placed herself at the mercy of his hands, literally. A man's legal
liability should end once she engages in consensual sexual acts with
a man, either in his or her home. Some guys like to pull a female's
hair, Kobe just happens to be into choking chicks - to each his own,
as far as I'm concerned.
If she's not into choking, then she should draw up a legally binding
contract, effective upon each party's signatures, specifying which
acts are permissible and which arent. Only when the contract is
broken does she then have a case, but ONLY for breach of contract (a
civil case) - NOT any felony criminal charges.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozzman does not endorse, support, recommend, or encourage any illegal
activities that violate current federal, state, or local law. All
information posted herein is provided for informational,
entertainment, or humorous purposes only.
|
| |
| |
In article <ci5ovu$3jl@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <Vv51d.13419$54.190970@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
And he "knew by the look in her eyes" that she consented to it,
right Mikey?
She couldn't even remember saying no.
Get a clue.
|
| |
| |
On 13 Sep 2004 21:22:02 -0700, dokanor43@yahoo.com (ozzman) wrote:
Osama Bin Bush <Bushin2004@bush.com> wrote in message news:<Bushin2004-B96C7C.13010512092004@newssvr23-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
Once Katelyn Faber decided she was going into that room to be a dirty
slut with a much bigger and stronger man like Kobe, and then engaged
in consensual sexual acts with him, she forfeited her safety and
placed herself at the mercy of his hands, literally. A man's legal
liability should end once she engages in consensual sexual acts with
a man, either in his or her home. Some guys like to pull a female's
hair, Kobe just happens to be into choking chicks - to each his own,
as far as I'm concerned.
LOL
You're an idiot.
|
| |
| |
Because there were no evidence that even an assault occurred, other than
what she said, and we all know what sort of credibility she has.
This is not true. There were some witnesses that saw her go in the room very
excited and happy, and left the room very uneasy walking at a fast pace
(almost running) and upset. Also there was physical evidence of a sexual
assault.
This was on Court TV the other day.
|
| |
| |
BiG Orange wrote:
This is not true. There were some witnesses that saw her go in the room very
excited and happy,
Nope. Per the preliminary hearing testimony, she took
a circuitous and clandestine route to his room to AVOID
being seen. There has been no public report via court
documents/transcripts that anyone saw her enter the room.
and left the room very uneasy walking at a fast pace
(almost running) and upset.
There was a recent story (Wendy Murphy?) that said two
other guests saw her. This claim is apocryphal. No
other court documents/transcripts mention these guests,
and there are no other motions concerning them. The
article also cites that Pietrack saw Faber make a beeline
for the door. This is directly contradicted by preliminary
hearing testimony. Further, the hotel's night auditor
was the first person to see her afterward. She wrote a
letter to the DA saying Faber appeared completely normal.
Also there was physical evidence of a sexual
assault.
There was physical evidence of sex. The original SANE
report said it was not consistent with consensual sex.
The SANE nurses latter backed off that statement. The
prosecution hired Dr. Michael Baden to corroborate their
version of the facts. He instead sided with the defense.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
In article <10kcunflcm3bt48@corp.supernews.com>
"BiG Orange" <@> wrote:
Because there were no evidence that even an assault occurred, other than
what she said, and we all know what sort of credibility she has.
This is not true. There were some witnesses that saw her go in the room very
excited and happy, and left the room very uneasy walking at a fast pace
(almost running) and upset. Also there was physical evidence of a sexual
assault.
This was on Court TV the other day.
That's the prosecution story of it.
The witnesses were all her fiends, the bell man and the other 2 supposed
witnesses.
The evidence of the so called assault were not seen by anyone even the
detectives didn't notice it.
|
| |
| |
Nope. Per the preliminary hearing testimony, she took
a circuitous and clandestine route to his room to AVOID
being seen. There has been no public report via court
documents/transcripts that anyone saw her enter the room.
That's not what they said on Court TV. They said there were witnesses
staying in the hotel that saw it and were listed on the witness list.
|
| |
| |
BiG Orange wrote:
That's not what they said on Court TV. They said there were witnesses
staying in the hotel that saw it and were listed on the witness list.
Then read the preliminary hearing transcript.
It's available on thesmokinggun.com.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
In article <r9sck0185jvgvtifmn98knnileee9i7nfp@4ax.com>,
Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote:
In article <ci5ovu$3jl@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
She couldn't even remember saying no.
Wrong, as usual.
|
| |
| |
In article <41468484.7C7F@nospam_cox.net>,
Larry Coon <lmcoon@nospam_cox.net> wrote:
BiG Orange wrote:
Nope. Per the preliminary hearing testimony, she took
a circuitous and clandestine route to his room to AVOID
being seen. There has been no public report via court
documents/transcripts that anyone saw her enter the room.
There was a recent story (Wendy Murphy?) that said two
other guests saw her. This claim is apocryphal. No
other court documents/transcripts mention these guests,
and there are no other motions concerning them. The
article also cites that Pietrack saw Faber make a beeline
for the door. This is directly contradicted by preliminary
hearing testimony. Further, the hotel's night auditor
was the first person to see her afterward. She wrote a
letter to the DA saying Faber appeared completely normal.
There was physical evidence of sex. The original SANE
report said it was not consistent with consensual sex.
The SANE nurses latter backed off that statement. The
prosecution hired Dr. Michael Baden to corroborate their
version of the facts. He instead sided with the defense.
Funny how you're always fuzzy about what Baden actually
said. Please be specific. "Sided with the defense" could
lead a person reading it to infer a lot of things that
aren't true, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to leave a
false impression.
|
| |
| |
dokanor43@yahoo.com (ozzman) wrote in message news:<80af9e62.0409132021.35290129@posting.google.com>...
Osama Bin Bush <Bushin2004@bush.com> wrote in message news:<Bushin2004-B96C7C.13010512092004@newssvr23-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
Once Katelyn Faber decided she was going into that room to be a dirty
slut with a much bigger and stronger man like Kobe, and then engaged
in consensual sexual acts with him, she forfeited her safety and
placed herself at the mercy of his hands, literally. A man's legal
liability should end once she engages in consensual sexual acts with
a man, either in his or her home. Some guys like to pull a female's
hair, Kobe just happens to be into choking chicks - to each his own,
as far as I'm concerned.
If she's not into choking, then she should draw up a legally binding
contract, effective upon each party's signatures, specifying which
acts are permissible and which arent. Only when the contract is
broken does she then have a case, but ONLY for breach of contract (a
civil case) - NOT any felony criminal charges.
In your twisted world, he should be the one with the contract for
women to sign since he's a choker.
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<Vv51d.13419$54.190970@typhoon.sonic.net>...
Not if to him it was part of the sex act (as opposed to intended to hurt
her or force her to do something against her will). Not if he stopped
when she protested. Some people use choking as sex play.
Choking as sex play? I've heard of a lot of things, but that's
clearly you reaching to defend St. Kobe.
|
| |
| |
On 14 Sep 2004 10:32:33 -0700, erinperry30@hotmail.com (Astrid) wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<Vv51d.13419$54.190970@typhoon.sonic.net>...
Choking as sex play? I've heard of a lot of things, but that's
clearly you reaching to defend St. Kobe.
It's clearly you are not as informed as you think. Not everyone's
idea of sex play is playing french maid or talk dirty. Kobe's no
saint, no one claims he is. He commited adultry. What people are
defending is that he's not a rapist.
What people think is Faber is a poor victim, an innocent girl taken
advantage by this big bad celebrity. Faber is nothing but a gold
digging skank whore who now wants a big payday. She could get
milllions. Not bad for playing the part of a 'victim'.
|
| |
| |
On 14 Sep 2004 13:09:35 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
Funny how you're always fuzzy about what Baden actually
said. Please be specific. "Sided with the defense" could
lead a person reading it to infer a lot of things that
aren't true, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to leave a
false impression.
The prosecution dropped Baden because his findings did not support the
lies about the rape. So in that context, the defense can use Baden to
testify for the defense that the evidence could be consensual sex.
Its really hard to twist lies into truth when the evidence is out
there. The problem is that people like you rather believe in the
lies, ignoring the fact that Faber is an attention-grabbing and gold
digging whore, and Kobe's real crime was just adultry.
|
| |
