KOBE: MANIC SEX FUELED MY ACCUSER

nypost ^ | 1-14-04 | BARRY BORTNICK

[lulu67]

It may be possible that your friend is an ultra-ultra rapid cycler, but that is very rare. The regular definition of a rapid cycler is someone who has mood shifts 4 or more times per year. Is it possible that your friend has mixed-states, instead? That would be much more likely. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it is very unusual to cycle that quickly.

[#3Fan]

But nobody on this thread, which is what WE are concerned with, is saying she is delusional.

You said her perception of the event is altered in post #103. Do you believe someone with "altered perceptions" is delusional?

[Smogger]

No wonder nobody pays one bit of attention to anything you say.

Doh! There you go chatting with #3Fan again. Your gonna make yourself crazy like that.

[MPJackal]

"I don't see how you could say her previous state doesn't have something to do with his innocence if the facts bear him out".

That is what I am stating. If the facts say he is innocent, he is innocent. If the facts say he is guilty, he is guilty.
In other words:
"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams -

[#3Fan]

You are an absolute liar. No wonder nobody pays one bit of attention to anything you say.

Instead of personal attacks, why don't you defend what you said. You posted in post #103 that you think her perceptions have been altered. Is someone with "altered perceptions" delusional?

This is hilarious!

[#3Fan]

Doh! There you go chatting with #3Fan again. Your gonna make yourself crazy like that.

Especially when I bust her in a mistake. ROFL!!

[#3Fan]

[crickets]

[KellyAdmirer]

If you take out the word "might" (not "may," btw, it's good to be very precise about this, lawyers use words very carefully) in the sentence I quoted, he is pretty clearly guilty absent some kind of extenuating circumstance I haven't heard of, because then her version is correct as stated, and her version is that she was raped. The court already found a prima facie case of rape.

It was good of you to spell out your apparently unalterable bias in favor of the defendant. Thanks for doing that, if more people did that we would have better jury pools. Some of us still have an open mind, at least enough to think this should go to trial.

[Howlin]

Some of us still have an open mind, at least enough to think this should go to trial

Well, "some of us" does not include you, that's for sure, as evidenced by your posts on all these threads.

If you take out the word "might" (not "may," btw, it's good to be very precise about this, lawyers use words very carefully) in the sentence I quoted, he is pretty clearly guilty absent some kind of extenuating circumstance I haven't heard of, because then her version is correct as stated, and her version is that she was raped.

What a ridiculous assumption on your part. More proof that you're being fair, I suppose?

The court already found a prima facie case of rape.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? If you had been reading the articles posted from the Colorado newspapers, you'd know that MOST of the attorneys that KNOWW this DA think he never should have brought it to trial on the evidence he has.

Even the judge, in his order, said that the ONLY reason he was bringing it forward was becasue he was required to by law.

The scary part is that people like you DO get on juries.

[Howlin]

You posted in post #103 that you think her perceptions have been altered.

Post the rest of it, you fraud.

Nowhere did I say she was delusional; I stated the reason WHY I thought she altered her "perception" of what happened: somebody, most likely the guy she had just had sex with, found out she had had sex again, and she had to come up with something.

[Howlin]

Isn't that the truth; you'd think I would have remembered from the last threads.

[rdb3]

The pot calling the kettle black?

That would be too easy, so I'll pass.

No, it's a man (me) calling it like it is. Any other questions?

[KellyAdmirer]

The court found a prima facie case of rape. That is the only reason we are still discussing this. I suggest you brush up on your facts. So, no, I am not making this up. It doesn't matter what "all the lawyers in Colorado" or whatever think.

I'm reminded of a famous story about the IBM antitrust action, a convoluted struggle that lasted for decades. They were defended by the most famous firm in NYC. One day, there was a motion made adverse to IBM's interests, and one of the defense lawyers went into court and said, in essence, "Your Honor, I have spoken to all of my fellow partners at Cravath, Swaine and Moore, and to a man they think this motion has no merit." The judge looked at him and granted the motion.

And I submit that is people with apparently unalterable biases in favor of one side or the other, such as yourself, that undermine the jury system. But you were good enough to disclose it, thanks again for that.

[Howlin]

Well, I have misread your post. My apologies!

I thought you were saying that her mental state had nothing to do with the accusations.

I see now where I misread what you were saying.

Apologies, again!

[af_vet_1981]

No, I mean not "like" any other case. I mean this one. If he is found not guilty, will you concede that he is possibly not guilty, or will you maintain that he bought his acquittal?

Since you concede the point that his case is similar to the Bill Clinton case we move to the conclusion.

If I were sitting on this jury I would have to see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty or I would vote to acquit.

If I were commenting on FR I would have to see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he is innocent or I would continue to regard him as a rapist.

[Therapist]

She got what she wanted: a big piece of meat to temporarily satisfy her obviously voracious appetite.

[Howlin]

And I submit that is people with apparently unalterable biases in favor of one side or the other, such as yourself, that undermine the jury system. But you were good enough to disclose it, thanks again for that.

At least I'm honest enough to admit it and not try to present myself as unbiased while the very words I type belie that fact.

I'm a court reporter; I'd never get on a jury anyway; my job is basically to swear people in and watch them lie. The people who are making a mockery of the law are the ones pretending to be something they are not.

You'd make a fine juror.

[FITZ]

The defense itself is saying she was delusional. If you want to argue in the alternative, feel free. I will stick with the facts as presented.

Was she prescribed those medicines which are given to delusional people? It seems her doctor must have thought she was delusional also.

[woodyinscc]

I am not a Kobe fan, I have just been following the facts in the case(as we know them)!!!

[KellyAdmirer]

No, I would not make a "fine juror," because I also am in the judicial system as an officer of the court and am similarly barred from serving in most situations. But I have a way more open mind about this than you, that's indisputable.