Kobe Bryant's accuser's "post-assault" sexual history to be admitted in Court!

FOXNEWS | 7/23/2004

[sinkspur]

While her previous sexual history will not be admitted, the judge has just ruled that any post-KB-sexual activity WILL be admitted.

[Howlin]

These are the guys who will be offered to testify about the complaining witness's emotional state after the "assault". The general fact that they'd had a prior intimate relationship with her has been ruled admissible.

The bellhop and the ex-boy friend?

[Howlin]

It takes a real psycho to have sex within 24 hours of allegedly being raped

In this case, it would have been within 12 hours.

[woodyinscc]

What a joke this case is becoming!

Yes it is.!

The prosecutor thought he had a career enhancement case, and now should be planning for a strategic retreat. In the interest of justice(Bryant's judgement not with standing)this case should never get to trial. If the truth be known, the so called victim and her cohorts are in more legal jeopardy then Mr. Bryant.

[1smallVoice]

If she said no and he did not stop then he raped her. If he caused her to bleed on his shirt then that is proof she said stop and he could or would not stop.

Case closed. Kobe goes to prison like Martha.

Want to turn this into another OJ case, then thow in all the other crap. Really it is obvious that he raped her, unless you are inclined to think OJ did not do it either.

[woodyinscc]

If she said no and he did not stop then he raped her. If he caused her to bleed on his shirt then that is proof she said stop and he could or would not stop.

I will give you a pass, since you obviously have not read the facts, that have been stated in the pre-trial. When she said stop, he stopped.

[Howlin]

For what it's worth, the last line of the court order is a subtle reminder that there's still time to bargain.

For who?

[Howlin]

Like I said, could have.

So you're just adding salacious rumors to the story?

She hasn't testified, has she? Nope.

No, she hasn't; but the detective testified in her place and we have the medical reports.

No mention of anal anything.

Like onyx said, keep up with the known facts.

[Chieftain]

I'll keep up with these 'facts' if you keep up with Cpl Hassoun 'facts'. :)

[Howlin]

BTW, regarding going to Kobe's room at night that was part of her job. She was a hotel employee.

Absolutely NOT true.

She was off duty.

She stayed around to MEET him.

She snuck up to his room.

She was not there delivering towels.

[Howlin]

Then you'd be a great juror!

[Howlin]

What I heard on CNN Headlines was that it was the time immediatley surrounding the alleged rape. Maybe just that week.

[Howlin]

wasn't there blood on his shirt?....

Which proves what?

[Howlin]

women do that all the time and they don't expect to get raped for it....(going to a hotel room)

Not women who care about their reputations.

[Howlin]

gee, we have been hearing that from day one....

We sure have; and, as it turns out, so far, you haven't been right once.

[Howlin]

do you think that a jury should also be allowed to hear all extraneous misconduct in assessing a defendant's guilt?

You can bet if there was ONE IOTA of evidence that he had anything at all like this in his past we would be hearing about it.

[Howlin]

What makes you think I haven't kept up with those facts?

[1smallVoice]

So he stopped after he raped her or he stopped raping her? Why was there blood on his shirt? Who are you, Kobie's lawyer?

[1smallVoice]

cherry,

it proves there was a cherry or a horse involved.

[Howlin]

Could be. Makes as much sense.....LOL.

It only proves that they had sex, period.

[writmeister]

My question asked about the jury and not the general public. Under the rules of evidence, the jury would not receive evidence of extraneous misconduct unless it was admissible for another stated purpose such as proof of intent, motive .... Character evidence designed to show a defendant acted in conformity is not admissible.

The prior poster had said that he believed all evidence of a complainant's past should be admissible in order to assess credibililty. I simply asked if he thought that should also apply to a defendant.

We were discussing cases in general and not this case in particular. Both the prior poster and I agreed that the trial court's ruling was correct because the evidence of other sexual encounters was relevant to determining what caused the complainant's alleged injuries.