Posted on 08/04/2004 10:56:48 AM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
According to Harvey Levin ("Celebrity Justice") from sources connected with both sides in Eagle, Colorado:
1) Kobe accepts a plea bargain for a non-sex crime misdemeanor such as Third-Degree assault. (misdemeanor, Kobe might get probation, wouldn't have to register as sex offender).
2) Kobe settles the civil case. Pays a financial settlement. Gives letter of apology saying, "that even though Kobe Bryant belived that he was doing nothing wrong, that she felt she had been assaulted in the hotel room, and for that he was sorry."
No plea deals struck, but parties talking about it.
As with Bill Clinton, OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, David Westerfield, Scott Peterson, and all the other members of the PerpAllStars, we have known it for some time.
What would that be?
The attorney said the woman doesn't want her sexual history brought out in open court.
You obviously have zero experience with the criminal court system. Very often times you must plead guilty to a lower offense so as to avoid getting hit with the bigger offense, regardless of how innocent you may think you are.
I notice that this plea agreement talk started after the stories about him groping a woman in florida circulated.
So he's going to file a civil suit where every single thing she's ever done would become public knowledge?
Rape shield laws do NOT cover civil cases.
And if both parties say that NORMAL sexual relations were consenual, doesn't that kind of make what happened clear?
The Florida woman was NOT on the witness list from the DA; what does that tell you?
It tells me that that was a leak from the accuser's attorneys trying to bluff Kobe.
That would be neat, if there were any, but there aren't.
What unnatural sex act did he demand?
I still think the sex charges could have been proven in court given the offensive nature of what supposedly transpired.
Bluff must have worked since he's now talking plea agreement. How many other skeletons does he have in his closet? The defense already brought out hers.
I don't believe a word of this.
Apparently to you.
Given her apparent history that week, I don't even know who caused the bruising on her neck.
To use a traffic analogy: rear-end crash.
A sexual act favored by homosexuals. And I don't think it is a coincedence that this story came forward after a new witness appeared yesterday http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/magazine/08/03/scorecard0809/index.html
Now now, you can stop the ignorant from remaining ignorant. You inform them of the actual facts and alas they just ignor you going on willfully ignorant.
There is absolutely NO testimony to that fact; nor has it been alluded to in the courtroom.
Harvey Levin hasn't been right yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.