http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040916/NEWS/109160018

The leak comes after prosecutor Dana Easter and District Attorney Mark
Hurlbert sat down for interviews with the Daily as well as The Denver Post,
the Rocky Mountain News and People magazine.

"Ms. Easter disclosed her version of substantial portions of the
interrogation of Mr. Bryant and improperly commented on and mischaracterized
the evidence," wrote Mackey.

Bryant's attorneys asked for and received a temporary restraining order to
seal the records associated with the case. The District Court must still
rule whether that temporary order will become permanent.

"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:cidr41$e7n@dispatch.concentric.net...



Seems like Kobe's case against the sheriff and DA
is getting stronger every day.
Alex

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message

What case? Has he filed a case or is this some fantasy of yours?

What case? Has he filed a case or is this some fantasy of yours?

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:<414aed8d$0$76525$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>...
What case? Has he filed a case or is this some fantasy of yours?

I thought the "gag order" that the leak would be in violation of was during
the trial? If that's the case, then the trial is over, and the leak is
perfectly legal.

If not, I suggest whoever has a copy of the interviews send them everywhere
you can, to make sure they remain available for anyone who might wish to
read them.
Censorship is wrong.

Chris wrote:
Because you don't pay attention.
1) There is still ongoing litigation.
2) Records from closed cases is OFTEN sealed. For example,
many divorce cases.
You don't understand the definition of "censorship."
Larry Coon
University of California

"As to the earlier comment that they shouldn't publish
information on an ongoing rape case, there are many problems
with that mindset. One, freedom of the press is given a
paramount importance, for good reason. There has to be a
damn good reason to exercise prior restraint of the press,
and your reasons for not publishing information on an ongoing
rape case doesn't cut it."
- Larry Coon

tjab wrote:
Note to Chris: tjab doesn't understand either. tjab
posted a quote from when I was talking about prior
restraint (what you called censorship), when I was
commenting on you calling something prior restraint
that wasn't prior restraint.

So do you think the transcript of Bryant's statement should
have been published or not, Larry?

..... Did you
mean, "Do you think that once the transcript
found itself in the Vail Daily's hands, they
should have published it?"

"Larry Coon" <lmcoon@nospam_cox.net> wrote
didn't they sort of answer that question concerning the prior leaks?
No one was punished, with any rigor, over the last leaks, and the media
constrained only from publishing her name, ims.
It would seem a selective enforcement to punish someone leaking the material
now, and not punishing them- or even investigating much- for the material
published before.
This isn't a divorce case- there are no privileged intimacies between any of
the principals, hence no expectation of privacy by any of them about
anything.

Besides, who's to say who leaked it?

All Kobe's supporters here seem
to think its coming out only helped him, and hurt her chances of getting
a settlement.

tjab wrote:
Just speculating here, but there were several different
traslations of the tape. Mackey said the one that was
released was one of the prosecution's translations. I
would think the defense would somehow manage to leak one
of THEIR translations.

Well, -if- she was thinking she could use the potential
airing of the tape as a bargaining chip toward a settlement,
then they have lost the opportunity to do so.

I haven't seen your answer to my question -- when you asked
me if I thought the transcript should be published, were
you referring to whether the Vail Daily should have published
it once they got it?

In article <414DB745.2DA@nospam_cox.net>,

So you agree that it's not likely to have been her or her attorneys.
That would leave the prosecutors. But what's their motive, if the release
of the tape is helpful to Bryant?

By the way, why do you think the tape went to the tiny little
Vail Daily, and not, say, the LA Times?

tjab <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:cikf68$kio@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
Well, -if- she was thinking she could use the potential
airing of the tape as a bargaining chip toward a settlement,
then they have lost the opportunity to do so.
Because the prosecution are sore losers. Kobe didn't want the tape released,
that's why the prosecution released it. It isn't necessarily "helpful" to
Kobe. It just doesn't prove anything either way. But then again, in a way,
that IS helpful to him, considering people like you were convinced the tape
proved he was guilty.

Dan Abrams also has a copy and played the tape on his show.

In article <8qSdnbQssM2AP9DcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
Besides, who's to say who leaked it?

All Kobe's supporters here seem
to think its coming out only helped him, and hurt her chances of getting
a settlement.

In article <414DB745.2DA@nospam_cox.net>,
Larry Coon <lmcoon@nospam_cox.net> wrote:
What, and make it obvious that they did it? You may be thinking,
but you're not thinking very hard.

In article <cikftu$8m0@dispatch.concentric.net>,
Don Tiberone <DonTiberoneNOSPAM@SKP.net> wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by people "like" me,

but I for one wasn't convinced of anything of the sort.

(I was pretty sure it would show him
initially lying about intercourse, though.)

Why do you think the prosecutors would (in your opinion) torpedo
the accuser's chance at a settlement?

In article <cikf68$kio@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
So you're saying that defense leaked prosecution's version of it to make
them look bad?
You're one crazy ass #@&@
.
I am sure that next you will accuse defense of misconduct or tampering
with evidence.
ROFLMAO.

Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote in message news:<0olrk09adgc02pqm8qe4gvk01kmhi19jmu@4ax.com>...
I wish you would take some time out and roll on the floor laughing.You
could also try some meditation to calm your frazzled nerves. Maybe a movie
would give you a breather too.

What, and make it obvious that they did it? You may be thinking,
but you're not thinking very hard.

So you agree that it's not likely to have been her or her attorneys.
That would leave the prosecutors. But what's their motive, if the release
of the tape is helpful to Bryant?

Either one.

By the way, why do you think the tape went to the tiny little
Vail Daily, and not, say, the LA Times?

Note to Chris: tjab doesn't understand either. tjab
posted a quote from when I was talking about prior
restraint (what you called censorship), when I was
commenting on you calling something prior restraint
that wasn't prior restraint.
Larry Coon
University of California

The case where the judge issued the gag order is finished, and thus, any
order he had issued persuant to the then ongoing case is null and void.

Do you attend the University of California or do you work there?
The records of those closed cases must be sealed as per either a specific
set of circumstances, as in the case of a juvenile court, or through a
direct order. Divorce cases are similar to juvenile, most people would
rather not have their personal lives open for strangers to read in an
archived transcript.
If you are a student, I suggest you study alittle more.

Note to Larry -
If some kinds of freedom of the press don't count, please point it out to us
in our Constitution. It doesn't matter what you were talking about when you
made the post, the important thing is you contradict yourself.

If not, I suggest whoever has a copy of the interviews send them everywhere
you can, to make sure they remain available for anyone who might wish to
read them.
Censorship is wrong.

It's not accurate for you to side with a guaranteed freedom in one instance,
and then belay it in another.

Chris wrote:
Like I said, you don't pay attention. There is still
ongoing litigation.

"Larry Coon" <lcnospam@assist.org> wrote in message
news:415031B2.61FC@assist.org...
So the DA in charge of that particular case has re-filed the charges? If
not, that case is NOT ongoing.

A judge in a now-dismissed criminal trial has absolutely no control over
civil litigation.

Seriously, are you a student, or an employee of the University of
California? Since you put that at the end of you post, you surely must have
wanted us to pay attention, right?

If I were you, I would have made a thorough google search on past
posts by Larry before asking these questions. On second thought, I
would never ask questions like these.

Huang Gang wrote:
:-) The funniest part is, I think he's taking
himself seriously.
Larry Coon
University of California

The judge's order was directly based upon the trial as it pertains to his
courtroom. Litigation holds no basis in fact. The order was issued in
regards to the case which he was presiding over.
Yes, I am absolutely certain that the judge's order does not affect the
civil proceedings, why, because his wording of the order made it very clear.
It's relevance to my statement would be apparent to you if you had read it.

I don't bother to do google searches on people who post here, as if I did it
would waste a considerable amount of time and effort. If you're going to
post something like University of California along with your name, you
should give your position within said organization. It's only prudent.