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.

[#3Fan]

Way too stupid for words. I use a Stenomask so nobody, and I mean NOBODY can see my face.

Even while you're swearing them in?

[FITZ]

She could have totally ruined him, which is exactly what she had in mind.

That sounds very devious --- worse than just divorcing and taking half of more than half the assets. There should never be a situation where someone is forced to stay in a marriage --- just divorce, take half the assets and be done with it. If the marriage was abusive --- all the more reason for a divorce.

[#3Fan]

Stop asking tough questions. You'll just confuse the witness.

I'll try not to disrespect the witness either. :^)

[af_vet_1981]

You mean because I'm the one telling it and you need for it to be a lie to prove yourself right?

No, I mean because you don't sound credible telling this story. You leave out key facts. You add them in later. I really don't know whether to take you seriously. That would be for a district attorney's office to decide.

[Howlin]

The court found evidence of forcible intercourse that caused the accuser injury

My next question is why you are completely ignoring the words "when construed in the light most favorable to the people?"

And, btw, I know where that paragraph was placed in the order, so you're completely ignoring the fact that even AFTER he wrote that, he still wrote:

"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.

Now where did the JUDGE say that there was evidence of FORCIBLE INTERCOURSE?

[#3Fan]

Guffaw!

Not an answer.

[KellyAdmirer]

You said:

Now where did the JUDGE say that there was evidence of FORCIBLE INTERCOURSE?

The court said:

"presents evidence of sexual intercourse against her will and subject to the application of force, resulting in pain and injury."

If you can't understand plain English, that's your problem.

[Howlin]

No, I mean because you don't sound credible telling this story. You leave out key facts. You add them in later. I really don't know whether to take you seriously.

I can't tell you how heartbroken that makes me. I didn't tell this story for you to judge it or me.

That would be for a district attorney's office to decide.

She already did. Oh, but I guess I shouldn't ADD that, should I?

[Howlin]

Whoops, my fault on that one; I missed it in the first reading.

Well, then, of course, you are right.

But why won't you acknowledge that he at least said that he had to take it in the light most favorable to the prosecution?

[af_vet_1981]

I can't tell you how heartbroken that makes me. I didn't tell this story for you to judge it or me.

Of course you did. You tried to use the story to embellish your credibility on the Kobe Bryant rape trial, in which you are a Kobe fan.

She already did. Oh, but I guess I shouldn't ADD that, should I?

Do you mean you are going to amend your story yet again ?

[KellyAdmirer]

Yes, he did have to take it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no question about it. That is always the standard in preliminary motions. He said the issue is still an open issue of fact, one way or the other. Which is precisely what I believe, too, btw. Both sides will present additional evidence at trial and the jury will rule using a reasonable doubt standard that is very difficult to meet.

[JudyB1938]

No disrespect to you, but I think court reporters are seen as "fixtures", more or less. I doubt very seriously that even if most jurors could see your face that they would even pay attention to you. However, since you wear a stenomask, apparently the possibility has raised concerns in the past.

I never heard of stenomasks before, nor have I seen them in televised proceedings. Out of curiosity, what do they look like? How long have they been used?

[Howlin]

You tried to use the story to embellish your credibility on the Kobe Bryant rape trial, in which you are a Kobe fan.

What a stupid remark; are you under the impression that we have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt and to your satisfaction every single thing we post on this forum? (Be careful there: you just might be held to the samd standards!)

And, no, I didn't bother telling the entire story, step by step, minute by minute. I wasn't aware we needed timeline and affadavits and footnotes to describe an incident with which we're familiar.

Now here is my original post:

To: FITZ

I don't feel sorry for him either; he made his own bed, blah blah blah.

That being said, it doesn't mean this was rape. And further, I believe he's entitled to know just what HER mental state was at the time of this little incident.

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; and he told me that even though he didn't believe her, it doesn't matter: once SHE makes the charge, he is REQUIRED to issue a warrant, even in the face of evidence proving she is lying.

So now he is facing a trial for domestic abuse, of which he is most certainly NOT guilty, all based on the word of a woman who has sworn to destroy him.

How is that fair? Where are HIS rights?

It's a damn cult, I tell you.

88 posted on 01/14/2004 10:52:15 AM EST by Howlin (WARNING: If you post to me, Tard and Buttie Fred are gonna copy & paste it to LP!!!!!!!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Notice it was to FITZ, not to you.

And I am sure I should have put a disclaimer up, pointing out to the dimwitted amongst us that this was an ABBREVIATED VERSION of the incident, but I didn't realize that F. Lee Bailey was on the thread and would be questioning me about it.

I swear, Your Honor, I'll do better next time!

[Howlin]

I don't feel sorry for him either; he made his own bed, blah blah blah.

That being said, it doesn't mean this was rape. And further, I believe he's entitled to know just what HER mental state was at the time of this little incident.

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; and he told me that even though he didn't believe her, it doesn't matter: once SHE makes the charge, he is REQUIRED to issue a warrant, even in the face of evidence proving she is lying.

So now he is facing a trial for domestic abuse, of which he is most certainly NOT guilty, all based on the word of a woman who has sworn to destroy him.

How is that fair? Where are HIS rights?

It's a damn cult, I tell you.

[Howlin]

No offense taken; most people walk right past us.

They look like this, sort of:

That is the newer version; the one I have is older and covers my mouth and my nose.

If you watch the House and Senate floors, you can see their reporters walking around carrying a little recorder, using them. They are mostly used in the South, from what I understand. Most other places use the keyes or Real Time now.

[Howlin]

Well, that was my original point; and there were a ton of newspaper articles that just screamed about the judge's ruling, saying it made the DA look bad.

But I thought that the judge had seen all the evidence; isn't that what he meant when he said something about both what had been shown in court and in his chambers?

[woodyinscc]

I have disseminated from the facts of the pre-trial, and as I have said, only from the facts as we know them.

This means that the prosecutor better have a lot more then he has right now. I have not judged him innocent, the facts as we know them now would just make it really hard to convict him.

[af_vet_1981]

Notice it was to FITZ, not to you.

You can send private replies to FITZ all day and no one will care what you say.

[Howlin]

Well, I certainly do thank you for permission to do that. I'll be writing to FITZ all the time now!

Now, what else can I do on this here place that will suit ya?

[KellyAdmirer]

No, the judge has not seen all the evidence because not all the evidence was available then, and both sides may have been holding some back. For instance, this medical history was not available. In addition, he did not see the witness testify. It is a tactical decision how much evidence to present at the preliminary stages, because once it is out, it can be used to impeach. Both sides will have additional evidence at trial that the court has seen yet.

[af_vet_1981]

You initially called the magistrate by a male pronoun (he) but in more recent comments referred to the District Attorney with a female pronoun (she).

I told the magistrate what I heard; and he told me that even though he didn't believe her, it doesn't matter: once SHE makes the charge, he is REQUIRED to issue a warrant, even in the face of evidence proving she is lying.

That would be for a district attorney's office to decide. She already did. Oh, but I guess I shouldn't ADD that, should I?

Was there a magistrate (male) and district attorney (female) in your story ?