Posted on 08/03/2004 10:07:35 AM PDT by Smogger
Interesting coincidence... the section you cited caught my eye too, including the court's comments that immediately followed it and consisted of a subtle reminder that the prosecution's obligation is to make decisions in the interests of justice based on everything it knows.
In effect he was saying, "we're here for justice, not just winning".
I also enjoyed this portion:
6 MR. HURLBERT: Judge?
7 THE COURT: I'm still here.
This is a judge who does not suffer fools gladly.
That would come as a shock to most prosecutors.
Yeah... I know... every once in a while you have to slap 'em.
I didn't read everything, but just what has been highlighted on this thread is simply devastating. If Mr. X's semen was found in the accuser's blood, there is no way to prove that Kobe caused the "injuries."
And, am I reading it right that Hurlbert knew back in March that the accuser had lied to him?
This has got to be one of the most inept prosecutions in the history of Colorado jurisprudence.
aint unaccountable persecution great? I wonder how many think her name should still not be known....
Did yall hear Catherine Crier's show?
She and both of her guests all agreed that
this "malicious" prosecution has no business
continuing to trial.
All three said "game set match" --- it's over Rover.
This girl had sex AFTER her encounter with Kobe,
and that alone makes it impossible to convict him.
One of her guests went so far as to declare Kobe
INNOCENT, not merely "not guilty."
I wonder if we get to hear the name now. Or do we encourgae unaccountable behaviour, because people think that there is only *upside*
What if she had not had sex with the other guy afterwards. What about all of the other info about her character that threw this into doubt early on....
I can't answer that... but Catherine Crier and her two lawyerly guests ALL concluded that the fact she did have sex within HOURS after Kobe and prior to her lending herself for the rape kit swabs, makes it IMPOSSIBLE to ever convict Kobe. His DNA is miniscule compared to the overwhelming DNA from the sex partner after Kobe, and that DNA was fresh, and on her legs also.
What about all of the other info about her character that threw this into doubt early on....
She's a liar and loose. Her story didn't pass the smell test right from the beginning. Way too many inconsistencies and outright lies.
Did you see some the early threads on this case?
I saw that; Kobe walked away from her.
And her name is not on the witness list. That has been leaked by the DA, no doubt.
Hurlbert to bypass big trial
By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 01, 2004 -
District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, who has been involved in the sexual-assault case against Kobe Bryant for months, announced Wednesday he won't personally participate in the prosecution during the NBA star's upcoming trial.
Hurlbert, who has been criticized for a lackluster courtroom performance on this case, will turn the trial work over to Ingrid Bakke, Dana Easter and Gregg Crittenden.
Hurlbert, a Republican, is facing opposition in the November DA's election from Democrat Bruce Brown.
I hadn't seen that. He knows the trial will not help him in his re-election bid.
After course, he waits to drop out AFTER a potential pubbie primary....
I wonder how the rat is? Woody sure has been playing this.
A whole new batch of documents were just posted
http://www.courts.state.co.us/exec/media/eagle/courtdocuments.htm
Wow,
The DA is a complete schmuck
http://www.courts.state.co.us/exec/media/eagle/08-04/RickJobinSummaryofAnticipatedTestimony.pdf
bump for a later read...
?
Dr. Johnson, the defense expert says the purple underwear did have blood. Further, she testified the yellow underwear were "heavily stained with blood". How well I remember early in the case posts that stated the underwear she wore to the exam having no blood and soon after we learned they did.
Re: the person who said nobody would don underwear with blood on them. No, they wouldn't. The prosecution theory is she put on the yellow underwear and was still bleeding--and now we have the defense witness saying heavily.
I'll wait to see if the male could have possibly been with the girl. If he's got an "alibi"---seems the wrong word since he's not on trial, but if he has proof he was not with her and was elsewhere between Bryant and the exam, there goes the defense theory.
his dna had better also get an alibi
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.