Posted on 01/14/2004 5:39:40 AM PST by Jimmyclyde
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:18:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It may well be a lie or it may be a case of threatening to tell the truth with consequences if he did not remain true to his marriage vows. I don't know and I don't see from her comments how Howlin knows either.
If the judge had found that a jury was unable to convict on the evidence presented, he would have dismissed the case. We then would not be discussing this.
Instead, he said that a jury was capable of convicting on the evidence presented. He also said in dictum that a jury was capable of acquitting despite the evidence. That is always the case, btw, it doesn't matter how overwhelming evidence is, the jury can always acquit. The judge was simply emphasizing that he did not think the evidence was particularly strong here, an observation in dictum with which I actually would tend to agree. In any event, the court as a matter of law found sufficient evidence against Mr. Bryant to send it to a jury, that is known as a prima facie case being made against him.
Prove it.
Are you back to claiming he was not even in the room with her ?
I want him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, after which I, the judge, get to decide if he raped her or not. He does not want to tell the truth. His fans do not want him to tell the truth. They simply want him to win the game.
And would you look at that! Now my son's friend is a wife beater whose dear wife has been hiding the fact that he's beating her just so she can stay married to him!
I tell you, the thought process among these Kobe Haters is amazing.
I have said you are not the reflective type, so of course I know that you are immune to criticism as far as changing your ways goes. Perhaps if you would listen to criticism and think about what people tell you you wouldn't be the way you are on these threads.
anybody who puts as much inaccurate stuff up as you do has no room to judge anybody.
Like what?
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 you can send signals, which as biased and sure of guilt and innocence as you are, I'm sure you do send signals to witnesses and juries, even if subtly. An innocent person wouldn't need that kind of stuff.
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.
Again you show a lack of discernment and that is very disturbing to know you are close to where guilt and innocence are judged.
How about finding that in the order for me and posting it right here.
That is absolutely not true in a lot of cases.
Thank you for proving once and for all that you know absolutely nothing about the legal system.
You think every woman who gets beat occasionally divorces her husband?! Again, your discernment is terrible! It comes from not listening enough in your life.
I have already shown your two sets of previous comments. I assume you have enough education to differentiate and see the pertinent information you left out of the first and added to the second to buttress your side of the argument.
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.
Here you amend your comments to say she swore under oath twice for times you were present. You did not say that before either.
I get the sense you are making this up as you go and don't find your story credible. That does not mean it is not, only that it does not seem to be credible.
Not if she wants to get back at him by having him put in jail.
And in this case, if she had had him put in jail without the benefit of a separation agreement, she would still be married to him in the eyes of the law and she would have had total access to all of their assets, event the ones that were his when they married, and his IBM profit sharing -- for her own personal use. She could have totally ruined him, which is exactly what she had in mind.
Aren't the "women never lie" crowd in a contradiction here, questioning your veracity....
You are next to juries and witnesses and you are very disrespectle and sure in your mind of guilt and innocence. I can't imagine you sitting there with no look on your face.
She is close to juries and witnesses. That disturbs me considering her personality and the fact guilt and innocence are determined just a few feet away.
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.