Posted on 08/04/2004 10:56:48 AM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
The transcripts of the hearing about her sexual history and the outcome of the rape kit were "inadvertently" emailed by the court reporter to some of the press.
Nice try but I think it is a matter of refusing to accept the facts in this case not a matter of bad eyesight on her part.
Show me where I've defended one thing Kobe Bryant has done.
I am passionate about the truth, period.
A court transcriber or typist, sent the transcript to a media outlet or two, (maybe in error?).
A judge ruled it had to be released to the public.
This is my recollection.
History is her past. The only think that has come out at trial has been her contemporaneous sexual behavior. There has been no discussion of her sexual history that I have seen.
Since I love the truth, do you have anything to back that statement up?
Trust me, Kobe has done this before many times.
Besides Shaq had warned him to stop what he was doing, but Kobe is hard of hearing.
LOL!
Well maybe she can hear me shouting at her!
Damn, is she dense or what?
She was not a rape counselor; she was a victims rights' advocate.
And this "normalizing" thing is the goofiest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard.
If I hit my thumb with a hammer, do I hit it again to "normalize" the first hit?
Some emails were exchanged between the accuser and "Mr.X" and another man after the supposed rape.
Those hold the key to her state of mind after Kobe.
"I wouldn't advise him to plea to anything, nor to settle in a proposed civil suit. Send a strong message."
Unless, of course, he's guilty.
TRUST YOU?
On your credibilty?
ROTFLOL!
Dearie, you have yet to be right.
Right....right.........it's just the 72 hours around the incident; that 72 hours of hers would be a lifetime for most people. :-)
Some people on these thread are just willfully ignorant. The facts conflict with their preconceived notions and thus they chose not to deal with the facts of the case.
Don't you think a man deserves a defense when he's falsely accused of rape?
Why should you be trusted? You don't even know the facts of the case.
Isn't that stuff on O'Reilly last night and repeated here today amazing. Some people will just sit there an lie, lie lie to fit the facts of a particular case. But then what do you expect from people trying to keep evidence out of a trial.
Is it really willful ignorance?
Maybe so. But they sure are obtuse and vicious
posters of lies.
Drudge has some new links up on the case but most of it has already been stated here. Although on the cbs link the prosecutor says the transcripts slant the view against them. Lawyers being lawyers I am not sure how true that is though.
Yet, there are those who say it's just as normal as can be.
I don't buy it, and I have seen nothing concrete to dissuade me of my skepticism.
LOL!
You think you have "the actual facts" when you don't.
Pathetic.
It is one thing to form the opinion you have, quite another to act like you have the "facts" and proceed to mock others, when most of the "facts" we've been treated to from the defense get debunked time and again. Kinda makes you wonder why the defense feels the need to mislead. It makes me wonder, anyway.
My advice is get off your high horse.
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.