brighid

Now this is a lot of hyperbolic nonesense. What the vast majority of people in this thread (myself included) call for the breadth and depth of the evidence to be examined before coming to an educated conclusion, and that neither should be convicted of guilt or innocence until more information is known. What I, (and others) take particular offense to is the predictable and deliberate destruction of the alleged victims character without ANY credible evidence. This IS modus operandi and one of the prevailing reasons laws were inacted to protect the victims of sexual assault (given that 98% of them make truthful claims.)

This womans sexual history is irrelevant (even if it were true.) Her attempts at stardom by auditioning for American Idol are irrelevant. There is NO evidence that she is undertaking this endeavor for fame, attention or a "pay check." The prevelant accussations to the contrary are offensive.

She is an innocent victim until proven "guilty" of the alleged crime of falsely accussing Kobe, who has been the only one to provide solid proof that he hasn't been honest with his admission he did have sexual contact with this woman outside the confines of his marriage.

The only crime victims that seem to be attacked and second-guessed are victims of rape and sexual assault. We don't generally question the motives of people who were mugged, robbed, car jacked, etc. Even if SOME people (probably a much higher percentage then rape victims) make false claims. The fact that so many people are willing to attack her character and motives without anything but heresay and evidence prejudiced by ill conceived notions of women says much more about those making the accussations (and societies screwed up views on women and sex) then it says about the alleged victim.

Brighid

Amaranth

This is exactly the sort of bias that bothers me - The worrying about the "alleged victims" character, without a thought tossed to the alleged rapist. His name is already dragged through mud now, innocent or guilty. Why, exactly, does this issue seem not to be a problem? Futhermore, I somehow doubt that the defense will miss its chance to respond in kind to the prosecutions character finding tactics and not run the defendants name through the mud. If "He did it" is credible evidence to bring him up on charges as dirty as rape, I fail to see any reason why "I didn't do it" isn't fair turnabout to look into the accusers character and possible motives.

You claim neutrality, and state it often, I'll give you that: but do you honestly believe your one-sided defense holds to this stance?

It's funny how having a violent character is relavent in a murder trial, but your sexual habits aren't relavent in a sex crime. Would your song change if it came out that she was a virgin before the encounter? Would a man who had a history of sleeping with college women and then was accused of commiting statutory have an irrelevent sexual history?

Cute turn-around, but let's try to remember that one person is on trial, and the other is not.

Digging his own grave like that. Not overly relevent to why most people act as if men accused of rape are automatically guilty (or in this case, apparently not deserving of the same defense of character as the alleged victim).

I'd be interested to see a robbery case where the evidence was that the alleged robber went into the bank and left with money. In short, the crimes you've compared this to generally require some evidence beyond the accused having been at the scene and the accuser saying "he did it" to make it to trial. Rape cases like this one always appear to be simply his word versus her word, and a little thought on the subject will show you that people tend to question character and motives in such cases. Think insurance fraud.

In short - It's fair game to question a persons character and actions based on the heresay of one persons accusation of rape, but questioning the accusers motives based on the accuseds protests of innocence is wrong?

brighid

Excuse me? I suppose you haven't read much of what I, or others have written. I am not sure what part of "we cannot make an educated conclusion until all the facts are in about EITHER Kobe or this woman" you seem to not understand.

Focusing on one aspect of this case (while repeatedly saying we don't know enough to judge either) is not failing to toss a thought to the alleged rapist. Plenty of thought has been tossed his way. I wish to see neither of these individuals harmed and have, at least on one occassion stated that I do not feel these sorts of claims should be made public until after the evidence has been weighed and a guilty verdict rendered.

Unfortunately, the historical modus operandi is to attack the character of the alleged victim first and foremost. AS HAS been done in this case, without evidence and based on purely prejudicial speculation that is so identical to other cases that a near verbatim prediction can be made. Kobe isn't attacking her, but the media certainly is.


Yes, I do. There has been much more to defend this woman against then Kobe. Other then the accussation of sexual assault Kobe isn't been attacked as being an attention seeking, money grubbing, lying, braggart whore. The alleged victim in this case has. On what basis? Factual evidence or heresay and prejudicial speculation? Or simply to discredit her regardless of the factual evidence that has not been presented to the public?


Well, the sexual history of the VICTIM is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether or not a sexual crime did or did not take place. All it does is attempt to cast a shadow of a doubt in the minds of the jury/public that somehow a woman who has had sex before is a slut and therefore did something to deserve to be assaulted or raped. My mind wounldn't change if she were a virgin. Why should it? A man with a history of having sex with college women means nothing. Does that make him incapable of having sex with or desiring an underaged woman? No. Statutory rape (giving that a man can be convicted of the crime regardless if the act is consensual) is not identical to sexual assault or rape when consent is an something that was not obtained, and therefore it is not comparable.

Really? So do you think this woman isn't on trial? Surely you jest? Perhaps you haven't had the good fortune of being on the witness stand as your character is falsely impuned in order to discredit your truthful statements because the accussed is a famous athlete. I have and so if you think for a second this woman isn't on trial you are sorely mistaken. She is, at the very least, on trial in the very public eye and these unproved, prejudicial allegations (that have no credible foundation as of yet)splashed over every media outlet will damage her far more then any rape allegation will ever harm Kobe.

I don't see people acting as if he is automatically guilty. The majority of what I have read and seen on TV seems to be opposite, as well as what people have posted on this forum. I do think his adultery is relevent, not "overly" relevent as you say but certainly relevent to this case.


We don't know that there isn't more evidence beyond the accused saying this happened. It seems there is some physical evidence, so I don't think a determination can be yet made. Also given that only 2-3% of reported rapes are ever determined to be false probability is against the accussed.

Oh I have given it more then a little thought and unfortunately have a little bit more experience with this then I would ever care for anyone to have. The reason why a victims motives are UNIVERSALLY questioned has nothing to do with the probability that she/he might be lying. It has to do with defense strategy that does not necessarily rely on truth or evidence, but fallicous appeals to emotion and prejudice. Until some credible evidence can be provided that she is ACTUALLY after money, that her previous sexual experiences, suicide attempts and auditions for American Idol have ANYTHING relevent to do with this case I will err on the side of caution and wait for the real evidence to be presented so I can make up my own mind about his guilt or innocence, as well as hers. Thus far the evidence for her character assassination is as about a strong as the evidence for the existence of a God.

So forgive me if I take the position that no one knows enough to make an educated decision at this point while I defend the typical character assassinations of an alleged victim without convicting the alleged criminal.

I don't know if Kobe is guilty. Does it look good for him? Probably not.

Brighid

Derec

If the case is reduced to he said she said then her testimony is important in which her character is very relevant.

Quote:

There has been much more to defend this woman against then Kobe. Other then the accussation of sexual assault Kobe isn't been attacked as being an attention seeking, money grubbing, lying, braggart whore.

Sexual assault is a much serious allegation than attention seeking, money grubbing, lying, braggart whore. And if these things turn out to be true then they are very relevant.

Quote:

Well, the sexual history of the VICTIM is irrelevant

It can be releevant. Pervious false allegations and other bits relatved to sexual history of the ALLEGED victim have been blocked by rape shield laws.

On the other hand, sexual history of the defendent is admitted regardles of relevance. One prominent example is Bill Clinton.

Quote:

because it has nothing to do with whether or not a sexual crime did or did not take place.

Yes it can have something to do with it.

Quote:

All it does is attempt to cast a shadow of a doubt in the minds of the jury/public that somehow a woman who has had sex before is a slut and therefore did something to deserve to be assaulted or raped.

No, it casts a doubt whether the woman tells the truth or not.

Quote:

Really? So do you think this woman isn't on trial? Surely you jest?

No, she is not on trial. She does not face 4 years to life. Therefore the presumption of innocence does not apply to her unless she is found to be lying and charges are brought against her. However, DAs very rarely do that, unfortunately.

Quote:

Perhaps you haven't had the good fortune of being on the witness stand as your character is falsely impuned in order to discredit your truthful statements because the accussed is a famous athlete.

Witness != "on trial"

Quote:

I don't know if Kobe is guilty. Does it look good for him? Probably not.

If she is found to have bragged about his manhood it should be admitted.
If she is found to have a history of mental instablity it should be admitted.
If she is found to have brought previous false rape charges it should be admitted.

If a judge blocks this relevant evidence he might have a problem. Otherwise it looks good as of now.

UMoC

Amaranth

I think it's the parts following and preceding, that paint a picture of bias towards the alleged victim, that confounds that statement. A proper analogy of how this looks might be to mention threads in E/C in which protestations of scientific mindset are ignored when the protesters arguments are obviously faith based. One simply cannot tack "no offense" onto a long string of insults and expect anyone to believe offense was not their intent.

If it isn't failing, then it is at the least horrible presentation. If neutrality is your goal, then defending the victims rights not to have their character defamed throughout a whole thread with very little (none, that I recall) defense of the accuseds same right does not seem a likely way to achive it.

Without evidence if you exclude Bryant claiming it to be consentual.

What facts did it take to get the trial to court - evidence the two had slept together, and her word. That's enough evidence to arrest a man, take him to court, and run his name through the headlines as an "alleged" rapist. But denial by the accused isn't enough evidence to go looking through the past for other possible motives from the accuser?

I'm sorry, but have you actually just tried to reduce rape charges to a status below defamation? And you're certain that your stance is unmistakably neutral?

Right, and Bryant has been brought up on charges that involve years in prison and a sex-offenders list if found guilty, let alone lawyers charges and his own defamation/invasion of privacy based on what looks to be heresy. Your adamant about defending her abused character - What about his?

Establishment of character and general modus operandi. If it was uncharacteristic for the woman to sleep around, it lends credability to the case. The inverse is also true. Male or female, this applies in my mind.

At least as comparable as rape is to a car-jacking. As to the point, I have a hard time believing that a jury would see no difference in such a case between a man who slept around with college women, and a man who was 20 years married and claimed monogimous. Credibility earned or lost, one way or the other.

Actually, I'm certain she isn't, unless it's for some other charge I'm unaware of.

Neutral. Completely neutral.

If the rape allegation fails to become a guilty verdict, then of course she'll suffer more for it. I fail to see how she suffers more if he is found guilty, however. As you insist on calling them both on trial (despite the fact that it isn't a civil case), you will understand when I say the one found "guilty" gets what is probably the deserved short end of the stick.

I went ahead and threw an "in this case" in there to differentiate between what I feel usually happens in rape cases, and what's happening so far in this one.

Ahh, so his infidelity is relevent to whether he deserves to have his name defended against rape allegations or not? Or is it relevent to whether or not he would commit rape? Care to clarity?

And, of course, we don't know if there is more evidence. Also, no need to justify bias one way or the other; just stop denying it.

And the supposed rape has how much more evidence in presentation?

brighid

IF ... which is yet to be determined and why all the information thus far presented is absolutely irrelevent UNTIL the time evidence can be presented to make an educated determination. UNTIL that time NONE of this should even be discussed in such a way as, for some people, it is fact! Discrediting the alleged victims character in an attempt to sully the potential evidence.



Again IF they turn out to be true. THUS far there is NO evidence that they are TRUE.

IT CAN be relevent, yes ... but there is no reason thus far to credibly suspect that it IS IN FACT relevent. There is no evidence that she has made previous false allegations of rape. However, whether she had sex with the football team last year is NOT at all relevent to a crime unrelated to that except that they both involved sex. I sure hope her "alleged" history is blocked by rape shield laws as it has no bearing on this case and can only be used in a prejudicial manner, just as past criminal convictions are barred for being admitted into evidence.


How on Earth does a woman's sexual past have ANYTHING to do with whether or not she is telling the truth? Is a non-virgin somehow a liar because she accussed a man of rape?


If the defendent has a history of sexual harrassment or sexual assault it is certainly IS relevent, whereas the alleged victim having had consensual sex is absolutely irrelevent. I don't think you want to use Bill Clinton as your poster boy for men being wrongly accussed of sexual assault and harrasment. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" turned out to be rather untrue.

She certainly is, and as you said IF she is lying she will certainly be on trial at a later date. Her testimony now carries the penalties that go with perjury. She IS on trial in the public eye which is very often more damaging then what takes place in court. Unless there is credible evidence to the contrary the pressumption of innocence should be extended to her (and Kobe for that matter) ... are you trying to say that because she doesn't face a direct prison penalty she should somehow be PRESSUMED dishonest? You are kidding me right? It would seem to me that the person facing the penalty of 4 years to life (which we all damn well know he won't get with a suspended sentence being THEE most likely case) is the one who has motive to be dishonest.


Perhaps you haven't ever been on the witness stand and therefore don't understand what it is like to be literally emotionally raped by either the prosecution or the defense ... to have every real or imagined part of your past put on PUBLIC record for anyone to read (even worse for her when the world is watching) ... this victim is on trial even if the DA never charges her with anything.

IF again is the operative word. Heresay shouldn't be admitted and a boy retelling a conversation he overheard at a party should be easily deconstructed as less then credible by any prosecutor with his/her salt.


Where on Earth did you get this? I have seen no report that she has made any previous allegations of rape, false OR otherwise. IF she made such allegations and they were proven to be false it should be admitted.

Brighid

brighid

Who did I insult? Kobe? In defending the ad hominem attacks against the alleged victim I have insulted whom? It seems thus far those defending Kobe without anything but the assumption that this women MUST be, or is likely lying are the ones making the protestations against the scientific evidence ... considering none has been made available.



No defense of the accused? Saying that I don't think he should be judged until the evidence is presented, etc. isn't defending him? He is being accussed of sexual assault, a single charge. He has been lawfully charged with a crime and will receive a trial. I see LOTS of support for Kobe. His treatment thus far has been gentle in comparison to what I have seen of the victim including the allegations I have previously listed. I see no reason to further defend Kobe, as I pressume him innocent until the evidence can be weighed. I see plenty of reason to defend the victim from false and irrelevant allegations that are done to "poison the well."



We don't know much about the facts that have been used to make an arrest and warrant a trial. It seems, if the initial reports are correct, that there is some physical evidence. SHE isn't going through the news and accusing him of being an alleged rapist. The media is making a zoo of it as they always do, because of the prurient interests of a sick public. As I have said at least twice before I do not believe ANY of this should be made public until a guilty verdict has been equitably determined.

It may be a valid path of pursuit for the defense, in a court setting, if they have evidence (and not mere speculation) to support that line of thought. IT IS NOT an appropriate method to pursue in the public sphere without evidence. I am not for this in the case of the alleged victim or the alleged defendent.

I certainly have not attempted any such thing. I made factual statements as to what she is being accussed of and should be defended against. Isn't part of your problem that he is being "defamed" because at this point no one has any evidence as to whether or not rape actually occured? Defamation is a serious issue. I have never claimed an unmistakable neutrality, but merely an attempt to be neutral. Until I actually achieve omniscience I am afraid I am flawed just like everyone else and incapable of absolutes.



He has been brought up on charges, he hasn't been convicted. I am quite sure Kobe is capable of handling the legal fees he will incur. There isn't enough evidence available to us at this point to make the determination that it is only heresay, and therefore I will reassert my position for the umpteenth time that we cannot know anything for certain until that evidence is made available.

There may not be enough evidence to convict him criminally of this offense, but there might be. I am waiting to make that judgment until I can review the available evidence. I honestly do not see his character being attacked (in a similar fashion as the victim) by the mere allegation, especially given what I have read from his fan base, the support he has received from his team, his sponsors and his family. It is unfortunate that the media CHOSE to make a public spectacle of this. I do not agree with it and if anyone should be sued over this it is the attention seeking, money grubbing media out to sell a story and not present the truth.

The two should be equally protected from the intrusion of the public eye and the damage that goes along with it.

Brighid

Rusting Car Bumper

1) You are presuming she is a victim of Kobe Bryant without due evidence.

2) The "private life" being "dragged out" may very well be relevant.

nonsense. If indeed it is the case that it was consensual he shouldn't admit a thing especially if charges have not been filed. If charges are not filed its none of our damn business.

Of course by now charges have been filed but at the time this came up they had not been. Thus, he had no obligation to open his mouth to the public about the events at all.

DC

Amaranth

*sigh* My bad. That line was a continuation of my treatsie on why a single, small white line on a black canvas will not have convince most people the picture is white.

It seems to me Kobe is being called a rapist, and the girl a is being called a liar. Could you explain to me why defending one is more logical than the other in this dearth of evidence?

As I said - As I recall. This was less an explicit display of laziness on my part, and more an admission that you have likely made such statements, but they are lost in the sea that is your main thrust.

Agreed and disagreed. The right to a public trial seems relatively important, it's just sad that the media and public run with it like they do.

Agree and disagree - I think discovery of the alleged victims character is important if the prosecutions case is based mainly upon her testimony, whether or not evidence of ulterior motives has surfaced. If the case is based on physical facts, it is obviously irrelivent.

Agreed.

Then I'll chalk it up to bad presentation. UMoC should probably do the same.

Claimed? No. Inferred with the same snide tone as presented here? Yes.

These are exactly the sort of statements that confound me - You've just presented two outcomes, both of which strongly imply presupposition that the man is guilty. Why?

Sadly, they sometimes serve a useful purpose in their muckraking. Rarely, but sometimes...

xorbie

One thing to be noted is that the reason Kobe is not being attacked is because he does have a pretty spotless record. As a pretty high profile celeb, anything he does (especially the bad) will get all sort of media attention. If the guy even got drunk once, you can bet it would be top news that day. So the fact that nothing is out on him so far is demonstrative either of his good character or of his ability to shield his life from the media in a way that most celebrities can't. Makke of that what you will.