Kobe Bryant Hearing Transcript: Sordid details of NBA star's alleged sex attack

The Smoking Gun ^ | November 7, 2003

[sinkspur]

Since he is a KNOWN liar who clearly had sex with the victim, the only remaining questions are "he said, she said". You have believed him from DAY ONE. Why? Given the Kobe is a LIAR FACT, why believe HE SAID over SHE SAID?

She had sex with two other men within 72 hours of having sex with KB. Her evidence of "vaginal tears" could have been caused by one, or both, of these other men. And, she put on underwear with the semen of a man not Kobe to go to her rape examination.

In addition, she never volunteered that she said "no" in the initial exam; she said, in the second interview, that when she asked KB to stop, he stopped.

Weak case, narses. Very weak. That's what the judge said when he bound it over for trial.

Weak.

[sinkspur]

Because he believes all rape victims deserved it until proven otherwise.

An accuser (not "victim") who says she was raped had damn well better be able to prove it.

And, having sex with two other men within 3 days of a purported rape complicates things, don't you think?

[Houmatt]

Excuse me, but the burden of proof lies on the defendant, whether or not they actually committed the crime. It is not about whether or not the victim can prove they were raped. If you think that is the way things are run in the court system, then you, Tom Leykis and Pamela Mackey have gotten everything bass ackwards.

[Chantal]

The comment about is wife awful and it is obvious that he is not homosexual.

Well, well Doug, what a surprise, I didn't know you were a Kobe fan. I guess according to you, fathering a child is proof that a man is not homosexual....boy you have a lot to learn. You may be smart in some area but dumb in some other.

[aristeides]

Bryant's lawyer's disgraceful tactics all require the client's -- Bryant's -- permission. Shows what kind of perp we're dealing with. If he's innocent, he's shown himself willing to show himself as disgraceful as a person can be.

[Houmatt]

Go back and re-read post #13.

[narses]

And you stood up for Kobe BEFORE you knew any of those details "Deacon". Why? What you knew on DAY ONE was a KNOWN LIAR said he didn't do it. You trashed her and defended him.

[narses]

"And, having sex with two other men within 3 days of a purported rape complicates things, don't you think?"

So a "loose" women cannot be RAPED?

[sinkspur]

Excuse me, but the burden of proof lies on the defendant, whether or not they actually committed the crime. It is not about whether or not the victim can prove they were raped. If you think that is the way things are run in the court system, then you, Tom Leykis and Pamela Mackey have gotten everything bass ackwards.

I want you to read this again, very carefully, nimrod.

The burden of proof in the American system of jurisprudence lies with the accuser! All proof has to come from the plaintiff, and, yes, the accuser does have to prove she was raped.

Pamela Mackey, Tom Leykis, and I, have it exactly right, and it is you who have things ass backwards.

Are you even aware of the basics of the American judicial system?

Maybe you're drinking, in which case I'll cut you some slack.

Otherwise, if you're sober, you're just plain stupid.

[sinkspur]

So a "loose" women cannot be RAPED?

She can be raped.

She has to prove it, and the other liaisons make that more difficult.

[cyncooper]

I remember reading an article about the testimony that said the nurses observed two 1 centimeter lacerations and "too numerous to count" 2mm lacerations.

Then this judge in his ruling cites the two 1 centimeter tears, but refers to "several 1mm lacerations". I'm reading the transcripts and the detective did say "2mm...too many to count". Looks like the judge got it wrong.

...

Well, before posting the above, I made sure to read Mackey's cross-exam to be sure there wasn't some mixup, but sure enough, she even notes the two 1 cm lacerations, and refers to 1-2 mm lacerations. I wonder why the judge reduced the latter to just "several 1 mm lacerations", when that was not the testimony.

[Skywalk]

These threads really show the difference in the worldviews of our fellow posters.

Tug McGraw's son(who's now a big country star) was accused of rape too a long time ago. He was acquitted because the accuser's story didn't make sense and likely, as with a lot of other women seeking to absolve their "sins" after the fact, accused him of rape.

Many men have been freed after being shown to be innocent by DNA evidence. Now, in many of those cases, a woman WAS raped, but in some there was no rape at all.

According to these idiots on this thread, a man is guilty until proven innocent and they will believe even the tiniest bit of evidence, while ignoring anything that would exonerate him. In fact, anything that damages the credibility of the accuser is dismissed with absurd things like "a loose woman can be raped!" No SH** Sherlock, but the EVIDENCE to throw a man in jail is complicated by a woman acting in such a manner. Also, without evidence of a real struggle it makes her story even less likely.

I hope that every single of one of their sons or fathers or husbands or brothers is falsely accused of rape. Actually, no I don't, because they aren't responsible for their moronic views.

But I guess despite my lack of history of sexual violence and that I'm a fellow FReeper, if I was ever accused by someone and it was posted here, that you guys would be ready to string me up.

Disgusting. There are several studies which suggest that the false reporting for rape is near 50 percent. FIFTY PERCENT! And this is not like some serial rapist who has several vics and DNA all over the place and physical injuries. It's a weak case against someone with no known history of this behavior. But he's a man, and a black athlete at that--must be guilty.

[narses]

But your posts from day one have been "He is innocent, she is a tramp". In fact, what has to be proven is 1 - sex, 2 - lack of consent. He has ZERO credibility. The State has physical evidence showing force. He has a lawyer willing to violate Colorado law to bring up her prior sex history and you cheer that conduct on. Her prior sexual contacts are NOT relevant absent evidence they were also forcible.

Tell us again why you keep defending the adulterer?

[narses]

No "deacon" the burden is on the STATE. Your knowledge of law is as flawed as your knowledge of Catholic Theology.

[sinkspur]

Excuse me, but the burden of proof lies on the defendant, whether or not they actually committed the crime. It is not about whether or not the victim can prove they were raped.

Galactic ignorance of the American justice system. Guilty until proven innocent.

No wonder Pamela Mackey runs rings around Hurlbert; he likely thinks the same way.

[Houmatt]

The burden of proof in the American system of jurisprudence lies with the accuser! All proof has to come from the plaintiff, and, yes, the accuser does have to prove she was raped.

The plaintiff?!? This is not a civil case. This is a case going to be tried in a criminal court.

In a criminal case, it is the task of the prosecution to present evidence the defendant committed the crime of which he is accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In which case, all they have to do is present the facts. It is the job of the defense to create reasonable doubt. It can therefore easily be seen the burden of proof is on the defendant to show he did not do the crime of which he has been committed.

Pamela Mackey, Tom Leykis, and I, have it exactly right in your justification of making the names of rape victims public so they can be ridiculed and shamed into silence.

Your attitude just plain sickens me. I pray to God none of your female friends or family members are ever raped. Because you have made it abundantly clear in an open forum just exactly what you think of women who get raped and how you would treat them.

[Chantal]

Pamela Mackay (or monkey) will do anything for a buck, even if it means ruining a teenager's reputation. She gives defense lawyers a bad name in other words she makes me sick.

[Houmatt]

Guilty until proven innocent.

Yep. You got it. It sucks, but it's reality.

[Chantal]

Tell us again why you keep defending the adulterer?

I'll answer that for him....he's a brother and a good basketball player.

[cynwoody]

Excuse me, but the burden of proof lies on the defendant, whether or not they actually committed the crime. It is not about whether or not the victim can prove they were raped.

Huh? Methinks public education in America needs an overhaul!

The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution, not the defendant nor the alleged victim. The accuser doesn't need to prove anything. She only needs to give evidence. The prosecution needs to use her evidence and whatever other valid evidence they can turn up to prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Or he dribbles right out of the court room a free man.