Investigator Testifies at Bryant Hearing

Chippawa Valley ^

[cyncooper]

BTW, all you chicks with tattoos on your backside - how good do you feel about them now?

There appears to be confusion over whether her tattoo was on her back or her ankle. Hold your fire.

[jwalsh07]

all of whom still miss him a lot even 13 years after his death.

No better testimony than that Torie, none at all.

[StarFan]

Tried to find naming the victim in Rape Shield Law but could not. However, to add to yours:

If the defendant intends to offer evidence of the victim’s previous sexual behavior, he is required to comply with certain procedural requirements for its admission and may not simply wait until trial to present the evidence. The defendant is required to make a written motion to offer the evidence, as well as an order of proof, and must do so no later than fifteen days before trial.

If, however, the court determines that the evidence is newly discovered and could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence or that the issue to which the evidence relates has only newly arisen, then the defendant may file a written motion to offer the evidence at a later date, including during trial. KRE 412(c)(1).

If the court determines that the offer of proof contains evidence within the specified exceptions of KRE 412(b), then the court shall conduct a hearing in chambers, meaning spectators will not be permitted to be present. Both parties are entitled to call witnesses and present evidence at the hearing. Evidence of past sexual behavior may be admitted only if the court finds that it is relevant and "that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice." KRE 412(c)(3).

If the evidence is admitted, however, the defendant is limited in the extent of the evidence offered and the manner in which he may present it: the court shall issue an order specifying the evidence which may be offered and "areas with respect to which the alleged victim may be examined or cross-examined." KRE 412(c)(3).

Seems to me that there are specific procedures that should have been followed. She chose to disregard all and simply mention 3 men in the guise of a question. Sneaky pete dispicable tactics.

[Howlin]

I thought there were pictures of bruises on her neck; now Carol McKinley on Fox is saying the bruises were vaginal (which we heard were microscopic), and a bruise on her jaw/face (which Stan Goldman said was very small).

Expert time!

[Howlin]

This was a hearing today; the rules may be different.

She is one of the most respected attorneys in Colorado. I just can't see her throwing away everything for Kobe Bryant.

[StarFan]

Now, my theory is the jaw bruise was from her head/face being held down on the chair According to her statement Kobe asked her not to tell anyone and when she didn't respond the first time, he grabbed her by her jaw.

[Toespi]

BUT, there are always behavioral precursors leading up to the actual act of rape. Rape is not a sex crime but an acting out of rage and control. I have yet to hear one person from his past indicate he had problems.

[sissyjane]

Now this is just a guess on my part...but todays proceeding was not in front of a jury,so maybe she has more leeway. As i understand it the judge became very upset and took all the lawyers into chambers after she made the three men claim. We dont know what he said to her, or what he threatened her with. I'm withholding judgement about any of this until it's in front of a jury.

[Howlin]

You won't have to wait that long; if it's not true, you'll hear about it next Wednesday; she better have had something to show the judge or she's in big trouble.

[KE]

Kobie's statement may be the straw that breaks this camels back. We'll see.

This tape may not be allowed into evidence for the real trial. Before the prelim. today one of the stations was discussing this and said in Colorado the police are allowed to tape someone when they are questioning him, even if the person doesn't know it. B U T, Kobe's attorneys are fighting this - they say that Kobe was only being talked to - he was not under arrest, and that it fell under a different Col. law - so it should not be admissable.

[It's me]

I have yet to hear one person from his past indicate he had problems.

---

The key word here is "yet."

[aristeides]

There's always a first time.

And for every rapist, there has to be a first time.

[It's me]

That's what I meant.

[PRND21]

I reported what the testimony was today.

Do you believe her?

[Torie]

Getting back on topic, if as I understand the "facts," and there is a high probably I don't, the only evidence is the testimony of the woman, physical injuries not initially discerned, but then discerned later, and the woman has a history of sex with various and sundry on a frequent basis(which would be relevant given the time lag), just how can this case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

[PRND21]

We'll see. I say he walks. Her nut case antics will sink her. Just an opinion, of course.

[jwalsh07]

I doubt Kobie will ever be convicted. I have severe doubts that he is innocent of raping this girl.

[jwalsh07]

Thats Kobe, not Kobie.

[Torie]

That is the difference between the perponderance of the evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt. There is a huge gap between the two standards, and of course, should be.

[Howlin]

I have yet to find the word "alleged" in any of these articles about what went on today.