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 ...
You mean because I'm the one telling it and you need for it to be a lie to prove yourself right?
Here you amend your comments to say she swore under oath twice for times you were present. You did not say that before either.
Exactly HOW does the fact that I left out the part where she swore under oath twice make that a lie?
I am aware that Bryant and the woman had sex.
Bryant initially lied to the police about it. That means everything else he says should be discounted and subject to verification.
It is not up to him to determine if he raped her. He needs to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so people less devious than him can determine if he raped her.
I find the whole criminal element and their support staff disgusting.
Who said women never lie?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Court reporters don't get near juries OR witnesses. All we do is swear them in and take down what they say.
Keep this up though; you're proving what everybody already thinks about you.
Why wouldn't they? If they are offered an alternative such as divorce where they wouldn't be beat to staying in a marriage where they would be beat ---- what on earth would make them choose being beat?
How can you swear them in if you don't get close to them?
Keep this up though; you're proving what everybody already thinks about you.
I know, I know, you're a court reporter and you know what everyone thinks all the time. lol
The photographs demonstrate some injury to the genital area and a bruise to the cheek. This demonstrative evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the people, are evidence of submission and force. The presence of blood on the victim's underwear and defendant's T-shirt are further evidence of submission and force ... The alleged victim's statement ... presents evidence of sexual intercourse against her will and subject to the application of force, resulting in pain and injury."
Does anyone have to spell it out for you further? The court found evidence of forcible intercourse that caused the accuser injury, sufficient to send this to trial. It is up to a jury to decide whether that means the man is guilty, and if so, of what. The standard at this stage is probable cause, a lower burden than at trial, but that standard was met.
Next question?
It does not make that a lie. It puts doubt into the equation. You keep amending your story. I don't find it credible but it doesn't mean that parts of even all of it are not true.
Many women stay in marriages where they are beaten occasionally.
Way too stupid for words.
I use a Stenomask so nobody, and I mean NOBODY can see my face.
Too funny.
Stop asking tough questions. You'll just confuse the witness.
Maybe they don't respect men unless they beat them occasionally. I don't know, ask them.
Guffaw!
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.