 |
|
|
wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/11/2003 10:16:02 AM PDT by TommyDale
Kobe Bryant's defense team believes it has proof that the woman who accused him of rape had sex with at least one other man shortly before the alleged attack, the Daily News learned yesterday.
The revelation came a day after Bryant's lead defense lawyer, Pamela Mackey, caused an uproar at a court hearing by asking whether the woman's vaginal tearing was the result of "sex with three different men in three days."
Retired Eagle County District Court Judge William Jones said Mackey asked the question because she has physical evidence suggesting the tearing could have happened during an earlier sexual encounter.
"There was more than one man's semen found in her panties," Jones said. "That's what's behind all of this."
Jones said he learned of this from Mackey's co-counsel, Hal Haddon.
|
|
|
|
wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - |
|
|
|
|
Probably feeling "humiliated," in 1989, a mob of feral beasts descended on Central Park to attack joggers and bicyclists. They brutalized a female jogger while incomprehensibly chanting "Wild Thing" in their ghetto patois. The jogger, a 110-pound, white investment banker, was beaten so badly she was declared "dead on arrival" at the hospital. Her skull was crushed and she had lost two-thirds of her blood.
Her attackers spent the night in jail joking about the attack, singing a rap song and whistling at policewomen. In his written confession, Yusef Salaam said, "It was fun."
At the onset of the first Central Park rape trial, the New American, a black newspaper in New York City, ran a front-page headline about the jogger titled: "The Truth about the Whore." (According to the New York Times, the paper referred to her with "a sexual epithet.") The article spun out the "theory" that her boyfriend had attacked her. The editor "acknowledged that the article was not based on any specific evidence. 'That's why it was called a theory,' he said. 'A theory means no evidence.'"
Recently the media have been spinning out their own theories about the attack, using the same definition of "theory."
The newsflash being billboarded across every New York news outlet right now is that prison inmate Matias Reyes has confessed to being the jogger's sole attacker. Breathless news accounts claim that the police were shocked to discover that new DNA testing has now proved Reyes alone attacked the jogger and that the others did not.
This is completely false. Liberals so long to claim that every criminal is innocent, they forget that the Central Park rape case received a lot of media attention when it happened. The facts are easily accessible on Lexis-Nexis. The media can't engage in their usual lies about a phony DNA "exoneration" this time.
In fact, it was well-known at the time that the semen found on the jogger did not match any of the defendants. Headlines proclaimed: "Semen Tested in Jogger Case Was Not That of Defendants" (New York Times); "Semen, Suspects No Match, Says DNA Expert in Jog Case" (Newsday); "DNA Expert: No Semen Links To Defendants" (Associated Press); and "Expert Says Semen on Jogger Is Not Teens'" (The Record).
Whatever evidence convinced two juries to convict the five animals, it was not DNA evidence. As usual, the media simply waited a decade, and then rushed to print with old arguments for the defense claiming it is "new evidence."
Thus, in a stunningly dishonest article, the New York Times claims "results from a battery of new DNA tests, which show that Mr. Reyes raped the jogger, have all been consistent with his version of events." The new DNA tests are consistent with precisely one part of Reyes' story: Matias Reyes raped the Central Park jogger. This is not new information. It was always known that Matias Reyes was out there; the police just didn't know his name.
Consequently, the new DNA tests are also consistent with the version of events presented in court, subjected to attack by defense counsel, and believed unanimously by two multiracial juries. In her summation to the jury, prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer told the jurors: "Others who were not caught raped her and got away." The five primitives on trial were described as among those who attacked the jogger. No new evidence contradicts the five guilty verdicts
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3926
He has to be proven guilty of rape, a crime for which he can, in Colorado, go to jail for the rest of his life.
If the accuser had serial consensual sex with different men over a short period of time prior to her encounter with KB, any one of those men could have been the source of the vaginal tearing and bruising.
Does this inspire confidence in the prosecution's case if their "bombshell evidence" is suddenly called into question?
1. The prosecution intoduces evidence of redness and lacerations as proof that the sex with Kobe was not consensual.
2. Kobe's attorneys, on the belief the accuser had sex prior to the incident, ask if that could be the source of redness and lacerations.
And you think this is same as the cases you cite. Your bias is showing. For one, Kobe admits having sex with this woman. Further, the defense is introducing it to rebut specific evidence the prosecution tried to put forth.
I will add that your thoughs on blacks on juries and the accused's right to defend himself are an shinning example of prejudice.
Kobe was a jerk before all this happened, why his wife stayed with him, I'll never know. No amount of money would be worth having to live with most of these pro athletes.
That's not what it says. The implication here is that the defense is definitely going after the reputation of the young lady. Plain and simple, just like in almost all other rape cases. The finding of other DNA is almost a 100% guarantee that the accused will be found not guilty, based on "reasonable doubt".
Simply not true; her past sexual history is not relevant; that being said, sex within the previous 24 hours is.
And if the DNA had been only Kobe's he would have been found guilty.
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.