KOBE: MANIC SEX FUELED MY ACCUSER

nypost ^ | 1-14-04 | BARRY BORTNICK

[Jimmyclyde]

January 14, 2004 -- DENVER, Colo. - Kobe Bryant's accuser allegedly suffers from bipolar disorder - and may have been in such a "manic state" at the time of the reputed attack that it boosted her sex drive and willingness to bed someone, the defense is charging. The basketball star's legal team, in court papers released yesterday, quotes John Ray Strickland, one of the accuser's ex-love as saying she is bipolar.

[Howlin]

He found a prima facie case of rape ONLY because he's required to by law. He said so himself.

And the victim "testified" at the trial through the detective; and the defense tore him up; and now she's stuck with having to testify word for word what the detective said -- and he was busy putting the best possible light on the testimony, not for her, but for the DA to get a win.

[Howlin]

Yeah, right.........LOL.

[KellyAdmirer]

I want Mr. Bryant to have the best defense he can afford. And I want an unbiased jury to decide his guilt or innocence. You already stated you think the case has no merit, so obviously your mind is closed.

[af_vet_1981]

No, I do not concede that point. I am asking you to render me an opinion as if OJ, Robert Durst, Bill Clinton, and every other celebrity defendant never existed. What evidence would provide reasonable doubt to you? An affidavit from another man that she was with him and not Bryant at the time of the alleged attack?

In that case I would settle for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A voluntary confession from one of them or barring that, a series of modern polygraphs supplemented by truth telling medication would do the job. Would you be satisfied with the truth ?

[Howlin]

"Almost all of the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing permits multiple inference which, when viewed either independently or collectively, and upon reasonable inference, do not support a finding of probable cause."

[#3Fan]

Oh, we can't argue with that one, he/she is a court reporter and thus is the authority here. ROFLMAO!

Court reporters know everything there is to know about drugs, delusion, and everything. lol

It's very disturbing to see someone connected to the court be such a fan of defense lawyers to the point of believing whatever they say without question. On another occasion she assumed a woman was automatically lying when she said she was beaten by her husband. How could she know this without knowing all the evidence? I wonder how many connected to courts automatically side with one side or the other when a case is tried?

[FITZ]

Being prescribed medicines do not mean she was delusional at a certain point in time.

They might not be allowed to consider it --- but if you are taking drugs given to delusional people, you yourself must believe you are delusional. She's obviously got some kind of problem or she would not have been given these drugs --- or taken them. I know someone who was given certain drugs because she was diagnosed with depression and she quit taking them immediately because she said they gave her hallucinations. Kobe's accuser actually OD'd on these drugs.

[Howlin]

On another occasion she assumed a woman was automatically lying when she said she was beaten by her husband. How could she know this without knowing all the evidence?

I know because I was there, you dolt. And I know she was lying because I was WITH both of them at the very time she sworn under oath that he beat her. And I heard her say "You will either stay married to me or you will go to jail because I will tell the police you beat me."

As I said, you are a liar.

[af_vet_1981]

It's very disturbing to see someone connected to the court be such a fan of defense lawyers to the point of believing whatever they say without question.

It is one thing to render an opinion on FR when you are not connected with the Crime and Punishment industry. It is quite another to expose yourself as biased when you do.

[KellyAdmirer]

I see you can't accept or admit that there was a finding of a prima facie rape case here along with all the dictum. Evidence is for a jury to review, as the judge rightly noted, and the judge, by law as you astutely point out, found that a jury could convict on it here.

[af_vet_1981]

Your first comments on this said :

In the last six weeks, I have had the opportunity to see the "Domestic Violence" arm of the legal system at work up close and personal; my son's closest friend asked his wife for a divorce and she promptly called the police and told him that he had been beating her for a year. She made the statement "You will either stay married to me, or I'll put you in jail." I heard her say this; I told the magistrate what I heard;

Your most recent comments say : I know she was lying because I was WITH both of them at the very time she sworn under oath that he beat her. And I heard her say "You will either stay married to me or you will go to jail because I will tell the police you beat me."

How would you know whether he in fact did beat her during the prior year ?

Are you making this up as you go ?

[Howlin]

and the judge, by law as you astutely point out, found that a jury could convict on it here

Now you're being completely disengenuous.

To begin with, that's not for the judge to say.

The judge said that BY LAW he is required to put the best light on the evidence the DA presented, but he even went so far as to say "Almost all of the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing permits multiple inference which, when viewed either independently or collectively, and upon reasonable inference, do not support a finding of probable cause," which, of course, if he didn't believe, he didn't have to say in his order.

But you keep twisting away.

[#3Fan]

I know because I was there, you dolt. And I know she was lying because I was WITH both of them at the very time she sworn under oath that he beat her.

You lived with them? You observed the couple 24 hours a day?

And I heard her say "You will either stay married to me or you will go to jail because I will tell the police you beat me."

This statement isn't proof he didn't beat her. Maybe she wanted the marriage to last to the point that she was willing to put up with the occasional beating. I'm not saying he did beat her, but you're quote from her doesn't prove he didn't.

As I said, you are a liar.

I think anyone that sees post #103 can decide that. You are the most disrespectful person I know on FR. Most of your posts are personal attacks. It does disturb me that you work in the court. Being that you attack more than anyone else here, I can just imagine how you treat witnesses that you side against. I'm sure you disrespect them also. I feel sorry for the ones that are telling the truth and you assume are not. It's hard enough going to court as an innocent person only to have the court employees wrongfully against the person.

[Howlin]

How would you know whether he in fact did beat her during the prior year ?

Because she sworn under oath TWICE that he had beaten her during the exact time I was with both of them. When I told the magistrate that I was with them, she then "amended" her complaint to say he had beaten her for a whole year. Even the magistrate didn't believe her, but he had to swear out the summons because that's what the law requires.

[Xenalyte]

A voluntary confession from one of them or barring that, a series of modern polygraphs supplemented by truth telling medication would do the job. Would you be satisfied with the truth ?

Would you want him to confess if he didn't do it?

[#3Fan]

It is one thing to render an opinion on FR when you are not connected with the Crime and Punishment industry. It is quite another to expose yourself as biased when you do.

Yeah, it wouldn't be so bad if she was the more reflective type but she's not. She is an attacker more than a thinker. I wouldn't want to be in her courtroom if I were innocent.

[FITZ]

How would you know whether he in fact did beat her during the prior year ?

It certainly sounds like a lie to me --- if the woman was beat --- then why isn't she filing for divorce? It sounds almost like extortion to me --- she doesn't want him to leave her --- which she would if he was actually beating her.

[Howlin]

I hope you don't think your opinion of me matters to me one bit; anybody who puts as much inaccurate stuff up as you do has no room to judge anybody.

And in case you don't understand the legal system, a court reporter has nothing at all to do with deciding a person's guilt or innocence.

But for the last 20 years I have watched people just such as yourself make a complete mockery of the law by twisting words and claiming that anybody who tries to defend themselves is trashing accuser. It's enough to turn a person's stomach.

[Howlin]

You're missing the point; a woman said it so it must be true.

[af_vet_1981]

This is the third time you have amended your comments about what someone else told the police. I'm staring to wonder ...