Bombshell: Kobe Accuser Had Sex with Key Witness

The Globe ^ | 11/20/03 | Globe

[Lijahsbubbe]

THE SOUVENIR SEMEN STAINED BLUE DRESS

LOL. Even that's cleaner than the twice worn panties.

[Sabertooth]

If, as I expect of them, they make no demands of their hero, then you're right. But they could always choose to turn their backs on the guy.

I bet they would if Kobe rapes an underage blind girl with cancer...

as long as she wasn't wearing anything too clingy.

[cyncooper]

What page and line number????

For what? The question was about testimony regarding the shirt, and those two links take a person right to the segments in question.

People are free to comprehend or not, as they wish, from there.

[Freedom2specul8]

Hi Cyn.... I can't believe her name and pic was publicized. That is precisely why many victims DON'T report rapes in the first place.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Then I assume you think the judge won't allow any evidence of sexual trauma to be introduced, either. Otherwise, she could have had sex with 6000 men in the previous 24 hours, and all the trauma evidence would have to be solely Kobe's fault.

I can see where we want to depart from the "she was asking for it" days, but I don't see howher sexual activity a day prior to and one day after the alleged rape is not relevant. This is a rape trial. It's about sex.

It seems that would be comparable to accusing someone of beating your child, when you have a history of beating your child, and that evidence is not allowed. Who put the marks there?

[nickcarraway]

I didn't say the evidence should be excluded, but let's be realistic about what it proves. If someone had consensual sex on a certain occasion that does not prove or disprove that they consented to sex on another occasion, does it?

If someone shoves a gun in my face and demands money from me, and the prosecutor can prove I gave cash to severalpeople that day, does it prove I wasn't mugged?

[cyncooper]

Are you saying unless the exact phrase "visible to the naked eye" is used, it's not? That defies common sense and logic.

I understand that when the testimony is "The nurse observed", or the detective, when speaking of the shirt says "you can definitely see it" to mean one can see it.

As to he implies he saw it when he first testified until Mackey cleared it up, that's not the way the testimony reads from the link I provided giving his direct. In fact the DA says "To this day you haven't observed that T-shirt" and the detective corrects him to say "I have" and they clarify and that's it.

It's all pretty straight forward.

[nickcarraway]

You are letting you emotions get the better of you. And, by the way, you are the one on the PC side. Don't worry, I heard this same, because I though O.J. was guilty.

You are now an official member of the Clinton kool-aid drinkers. No one has to be responsible for their actions, yipee!

[ArmstedFragg]

I didn't say they were.

I didn't say you did. Your correspondent did and you didn't correct it. Since the message addressed the entire communication, and since it's an open forum, it seemed like it'd be a tossup who to direct the reply to. Sorry my failure to guess right offended you.

[proud American in Canada]

" The transcript dosn't seem to have any significant, make that "clear and unambiguous" evidence of major trauma. Only slight tissue changes were noted and no pain killers were perscribed. "

Thank you.... I tried to read the transcript but did't have time to finish. Like you said, from what I did read I didn't see proof of , well "clear and unambiguous" evidence" of trauma.

And I would imagine the prosecution would "spend" necessary "ammo" at the preliminary hearing. It would have to.

[cyncooper]

No offense was taken. I was getting dinner on the table and didn't have time to look up the terms.

[nickcarraway]

I had a friend who was an apartment manager in Oakland. In that role, he got attacked and had to defend himself with a gun three times. Of coarse, Oakland prosecuted him for defending his life against a junkie who had a long rap sheet of violent crime. Of course, by your standards, he was guilty, sinc it had happened before. The PC the-only-good-victim-is-a-dead-victim crowd. Otherwise, the criminal is a good guy. If I belong to NOW, you must belong to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton's group.

[Freedom2specul8]

This is a great research tool for crime statistics. This case is why many victims don't report crimes..hence the need for this survey.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#ncvs
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
http://www.nvc.org/

[nickcarraway]

BTW you are now and official card carrying member of NOW.

NOW wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole. I am their biggest enemy: A pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-criminals-are-the victims Christian. I also believed O.J. was guilty, which is a big no-no on their list. Sorry. I also believe the United States is not an evil country that invaded Iraq with no proof. Sorry, if you think that means I, ``let my emotiond get the better of me.''

[Darlin']

Thank you for providing the links. I've just reread that section of the transcript and I think reading comprehension skills might be part of the problem.

When I read a spot of blood, a transfer stain, on a white T-shirt is so faint that it does not bleed through to the outside of a white t-shirt, I surmise a trace amount of blood at best. You, apparently, read the same passage and conclude, a blood bath.

[Freedom2specul8]

Just read your post... I have a neutral nonloaded question. If a prostitute is raped, should she be able to report it? :)

[ArmstedFragg]

If someone shoves a gun in my face and demands money from me, and the prosecutor can prove I gave cash to severalpeople that day, does it prove I wasn't mugged?

For your analogy to apply, it'd have to be modified as follows:

If the ONLY proof you'd been mugged was a bruise created by the mugger, and it turned out each of the several people you'd given money to had engaged in an activity that might have bruised you, there'd be considerable difficulty proving the bruise had been created by the mugger. It would then be your word against his, and the case would be decided based on the jury's perception of the credibility of each of you.

[Lijahsbubbe]

(361)Great post. Very well written! (you get an 'A')

[judywillow]

The basic bottom line here is that the DA is a total idiot. If the people of the jurisdiction aren't bright enough to have gotten rid of him five years ago then they deserve to have their tax dollars being spent paying the legal judgements which are going to ensue.

[proud American in Canada]

Look you two, do have to separate you'


In your corners, both of you~