|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135808,00.html
This is a partial transcript from "On the Record," Oct. 15, 2004, that has
been edited for clarity.
Watch "On the Record" every weeknight at 10 p.m. ET!
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Tonight, the woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape
identified herself by name. She did so in a revised version of the civil
lawsuit she filed against NBA star in federal court. And last week the
federal judge ruled the woman, 20-year-old Katelyn Faber (search ), must be
publicly named in the case as a matter of fairness, or presumably the case
would be dismissed.
Joining us in Los Angeles, Fox News political analyst and USC law professor
Susan Estrich. Susan is also the author of a brand-new book, "How to Get
Into Law School." Also in Los Angeles is victims' rights attorney Gloria
Allred. Welcome to both of you.
Susan, first to you. She filed this lawsuit against Kobe Bryant (search ) in
federal court, asking for money to compensate. This isn't a criminal matter.
And she wanted to file it as Jane Doe. Judge said, No, use your own name. Do
you agree with that?
SUSAN ESTRICH, USC LAW PROFESSOR, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I can
see the judge's argument. Here's my concern, which is the reason women are
not required in general to be named in rape cases because of the recognition
that there are still special stigmas that go with being a rape complainant,
and frankly, special burdens that rape complainants often face. And if you
have any doubt about that, although the case is different in many respects,
look what happened to the woman in this case and the death threats and the
unbelievable amount of trashing that went on about this woman.
And so many of us had hoped that the civil system might be an alternative
for some women, where the burdens were a little bit less, cases might be
easier to prove. All the reasons the defendant has protection when his
liberty is at stake wouldn't apply here. And for those reasons, you could
argue for a lower standard in the civil system, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: But Susan, what if she is simply a liar?
ESTRICH: If she's a liar she's going to lose.
VAN SUSTEREN: But why, at the get-go, give her - I mean, I recognize the
very nature of rape, compared to armed robbery or, you know, burglary.
ESTRICH: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: But why this - you know, we don't know whether she's a liar
until the end, until we've had the evidence.
ESTRICH: That's right. And the reason you would give her some benefit of the
doubt at the outset is precisely because we recognize that if she is a liar,
at the end, we're going to have plenty of time to hit her with sanctions,
hit her lawyer with sanctions, sue her for defamation, if that's what the
defendant wants to do. But at the outset, what a rape victim faces when she
comes forward is, believe me, not the same. And as I say, in this case, look
what's happened to her.
And if we can send a message - I'm not so worried about this victim. She's
had it and she's had a terrible time. I'm just worried about the other women
out there who may get the wrong message from this case.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gloria, your thoughts on this.
GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, it's interesting because
whether or not she's telling the truth really is not related to whether her
name should be on the civil lawsuit (search ). I do have mixed feelings
about it. Ordinarily, her - a person's name that is a plaintiff in a civil
lawsuit should have their name on the civil lawsuit, but there are special
considerations, as Susan has pointed out and pointed out very well.
VAN SUSTEREN: But wait a minute!
(CROSSTALK)
ALLRED: ... where there's a celebrity involved, especially, because I do
think that there - you know, there is certainly an imbalance of power and
there will be heightened public scrutiny. And there may be death threats.
And that is a concern. I'm concerned about whether women will be deterred
from filing and seeking access in the criminal justice system, in the civil
justice system, whether they will wish to assert their rights against
persons that they believe have sexually assaulted them.
|
| |
| |
SUSAN ESTRICH, USC LAW PROFESSOR, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I can
see the judge's argument. Here's my concern, which is the reason women are
not required in general to be named in rape cases because of the
recognition
that there are still special stigmas that go with being a rape
complainant,
and frankly, special burdens that rape complainants often face. And if you
have any doubt about that, although the case is different in many
respects,
look what happened to the woman in this case and the death threats and the
unbelievable amount of trashing that went on about this woman.
There's no stigma against the accused?
Kobe Bryant wasn't trashed?
Get fair, feminists.
And so many of us had hoped that the civil system might be an alternative
for some women, where the burdens were a little bit less, cases might be
easier to prove. All the reasons the defendant has protection when his
liberty is at stake wouldn't apply here.
So -- if the accuser is protected, it's a good thing,
but if the defendant is protected, it's a bad thing?
I rest my case.
|
| |
| |
There's no stigma against the accused?
Kobe Bryant wasn't trashed?
Get fair, feminists.
FYI, for some perspective, Susan Estrich has stated in the past that she was
raped some years ago.
Greg
|
| |
| |
There's no stigma against the accused?
Kobe Bryant wasn't trashed?
Where did she say there is no stigma against the accused? Or that Kobe
wasn't trashed?
Get fair, feminists.
So -- if the accuser is protected, it's a good thing,
but if the defendant is protected, it's a bad thing?
I rest my case.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:18:02 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
wrote:
Get fair, feminists.
You're asking them to do something they are strongly against.
|
| |
| |
"greg brown" <noway@way.com> schreef in bericht
news:2cCdd.2581$KJ6.2013@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Get fair, feminists.
FYI, for some perspective, Susan Estrich has stated in the past that she was
raped some years ago.
Even more than that, she stated that she was one of
the individuals to drew up this Rape Shield legislation.
Alex
|
| |
| |
FYI, for some perspective, Susan Estrich has stated in the past that she
was raped some years ago.
So has Andrea Dworkin. What's your point?
|
| |
| |
Where did she say there is no stigma against the accused? Or that Kobe
wasn't trashed?
Dummy, she wants to protect the accuser from this stigma and trashing,
but she does not want to protect the accused from the same thing.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:18:02 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
wrote:
You're asking them to do something they are strongly against.
Sometimes you have to ask for something, even though you know
you're not gonna get it.
|
| |
| |
"greg brown" <noway@way.com> schreef in bericht
news:2cCdd.2581$KJ6.2013@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Get fair, feminists.
Even more than that, she stated that she was one of
the individuals to drew up this Rape Shield legislation.
So, who's gonna draw up the *accused* shield legislation?
|
| |
| |
In article <GtRdd.325$_3.6226@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
So, who's gonna draw up the *accused* shield legislation?
Go for it!
|
| |
| |
Michael Snyder wrote:
So, who's gonna draw up the *accused* shield legislation?
James Madison?
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
In article <41780037.1AAF@assist.org>, Larry Coon <lcnospam@assist.org> wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
James Madison?
Given that Madison is dead, someone's gonna have to get off their
ass and stop whining and start lobbying, just like the feminists did.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
As if his divorce to Vanessa Williams wasn't enough controversy...
|
| |
| |
"PeterL" <peterl@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2toa4jF225muaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Where did she say there is no stigma against the accused? Or that Kobe
wasn't trashed?
but if the defendant is protected,AND A MAN it's a bad thing?
but if the defendant is protected,AND A womAN it's a good thing?
So -- if the accuser is protected,AND the accuser is a man, it's a bad thing,
I rest my case.
|
| |
| |
|
