Instant messaging proving Kobe's innocence?

[Guest]

I've heard that the judge in Kobe Bryant's rape case is trying to get records of the accuser's IM's which apparently shoot down her claim of being raped. I think there's little question at this point as to who's telling the truth now, since the accuser isn't cooperating to release those IM messages. What a farce our criminal justice system has become that we've become so convinced that accuser=victim, and accusation=guilt that we have crappy laws such as the rape shield laws, and that only millionaires can have the resources to prove their innocence. I personally think that Kobe's accuser should be drawn, quartered, then her remaining abdomen/thorax/head should be sued until she has nothing left, then thrown in jail for perjury and make false police reports. x(

[VaHawk]

>I've heard that the judge in Kobe Bryant's rape case is

>trying to get records of the accuser's IM's which apparently

>shoot down her claim of being raped.

 

Yeah, more evidence that it is a MALE dominated society and justice system, where the "victim" is put on trial rather than the stupid assed, shitheaded male who can not understand the word NO! After all, it is comprised of only 2 little letters, that even a 3 year old could conjugate!

 

>I think there's little

>question at this point as to who's telling the truth now,

>since the accuser isn't cooperating to release those IM

>messages.

 

Yes sir!, it is always the responsibitly of the VICTIM to prove her/his victimness! It is NEVER the responsibility of the accused to refute/question such accusations in a court of law, and to face his/her accuser, especially when the accused is some "kind" of celebrity!

 

What a farce our criminal justice system has become

>that we've become so convinced that accuser=victim, and

>accusation=guilt that we have crappy laws such as the rape

>shield laws, and that only millionaires can have the resources

>to prove their innocence. I personally think that Kobe's

>accuser should be drawn, quartered, then her remaining

>abdomen/thorax/head should be sued until she has nothing left,

>then thrown in jail for perjury and make false police reports.

 

WOW! I really don't know WHY we even bother to follow the laws of the land, as dictated by the Constitution! After all, we have all those ALL KNOWING people, such as yourself, to prejudge the merits of any case, pass judgement as to guilt without hearing the facts first, and to pass judgement that the "accuser" should be drawn and quartered! What the hell, let's just abandon the fundamentals of the legal system, and defer all legal cases to the judgement of the public, without wasting time to hear the facts! Sounds like the

Basics of Lynching 101 - such a popular freshman course in the local community college!

[Guest laboheme]

>Yeah, more evidence that it is a MALE dominated society and

>justice system, where the "victim" is put on trial rather than

>the stupid assed, shitheaded male who can not understand the

>word NO! After all, it is comprised of only 2 little letters,

>that even a 3 year old could conjugate!

 

How do you know she said "no"? Wouldn't it be funny if within minutes of being "raped" by Kobe she sent an IM to a girlfriend that she had just been "fucked silly by a famous Big Black Buck", or sent one to another man saying "Kobe only did me from behind, will you now come give it to me straight, I am such a horny little bitch!"?

 

Let's see what if the IMs can explain the semen from three different men in her stinky little twat, otherwise I am interested in hearing how her medical witnesses are going to explain that Kobe's dick comes with three different kinds of semen. Aren't those Lakers just too, too much?!

[trilingual]

>Yes sir!, it is always the responsibitly of the VICTIM to

>prove her/his victimness! It is NEVER the responsibility of

>the accused to refute/question such accusations in a court of

>law, and to face his/her accuser, especially when the accused

>is some "kind" of celebrity!

 

Wow, this is an amazing and stunningly ignorant statement from one of our resident self-proclaimed conservative defenders of the Constitution!

 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system, so yes, it IS the responsibility of the alleged victim (or actually the state, which is the plaintiff in a criminal case) to prove that the alleged crime really happened. If it's proven, the alleged victim becomes an acknowledged victim (at least in legal terms).

 

VaHawk's also wrong that it isn't the responsibility of the accused to refute/question the accusations against him. That's exactly what the defense in a criminal trial is about: refuting the accusations. The accused party isn't required to testify against him/herself (that would violate another important constitutional provision, the 5th amendment) but s/he would be very foolish not to attempt to refute the charges, like by demonstrating an alibi, or otherwise showing that there is reasonable doubt that the accuser committed the alleged act (as in this case, where there is material evidence that the accuser had sex with more than one man in a short period of time bracketing the alleged rape).

 

Calling the accuser in this case a "victim" when the charges haven't been proved IS prejudicial to the defendant, especially in a small community like the one where this trial is taking place. It creates a presumption of guilt in the minds of the judge and the jurors, which is exactly why the prosecution wants to use the label. But until the trial is over and a verdict is reached, there is no legal basis for referring to the accuser as anything other than, perhaps, an "alleged victim."

 

If and when VaHawk ever finds himself in Kobe Bryant's situation (facing a charge of pedophilia, for example) I'm sure he's going to want exactly the same protections that Kobe Bryant wants, and he's going to be a lot less eager to support the view that he MUST be guilty before being tried just because someone accused him!

[Guest]

>Yes sir!, it is always the responsibitly of the VICTIM to

>prove her/his victimness! It is NEVER the responsibility of

>the accused to refute/question such accusations in a court of

>law, and to face his/her accuser, especially when the accused

>is some "kind" of celebrity!

>

My dear, you need to read your most basic civics textbook. One of the most basic (supposed) tenets of the US legal system is that the accuser (i.e. the alleged victim) has the entire burden of proof. Of course, the "rape shield laws" do make a bit of a mockery of this concept by assuming the accuser is, in fact, the victim. As the defense lawyer in the Kennedy-Smith rape trial said (when he proved that the person who was accusing his client was lying) "I don't have to prove anything. I could just sit here like a potted plant, and if the prosecution doesn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must vote to acquit." Also, the defendant in a criminal trial has NO obligation whatsoever to testify under the US Constitution.

So, to paraphrase that SS Major from "Hogan's Heroes," I feel that the lying slut who dragged Kobe Bryant through all this should be "Court martialed, shot, AND sent to the Russian front!" (After a fair trial, of course!) ;-)

[trilingual]

I'm not ready to make a call on who's innocent or guilty in this case, but in a dubious case like this there's no basis for assuming at the outset that Bryant is guilty. On the other hand, I'd hate to think the prosecutor is so dumb that he'd bring a case with no chance of prevailing! So it'll all have to come out in the trial.

 

Of course, there are cases where the defendant is caught in the act (whether rape or some other crime) and it's not so unnatural to make some assumptions about guilt or innocence before the trial ever begins, although even in cases like that there are sometimes surprise twists and turns in the evidence that can change the mind of the jury and the public.

 

I'm willing to give the courts their shot at this!

[Guest]

>I'm not ready to make a call on who's innocent or guilty in

>this case, but in a dubious case like this there's no basis

>for assuming at the outset that Bryant is guilty. On the

>other hand, I'd hate to think the prosecutor is so dumb that

>he'd bring a case with no chance of prevailing! So it'll all

>have to come out in the trial.

>

>Of course, there are cases where the defendant is caught in

>the act (whether rape or some other crime) and it's not so

>unnatural to make some assumptions about guilt or innocence

>before the trial ever begins, although even in cases like that

>there are sometimes surprise twists and turns in the evidence

>that can change the mind of the jury and the public.

>

>I'm willing to give the courts their shot at this!

 

I agree with you that in practicality, a person (other than a judge or juror) is free to make whatever assumptions they want. I also agree this case is very fishy at best (and I'm not just referring to that slut's twat). Nevertheless, I don't think this all needs to come out in a trial. If I were the judge in this case, I probably would have thrown this case out by now (unless he knows something that the press doesn't know).

[VaHawk]

In your face SARCASM just shoots over that little gland you call a brain, doesn't it?

 

>If and when VaHawk ever finds himself in Kobe Bryant's

>situation (facing a charge of pedophilia, for example)

 

Since you are the one who jets all over the world, engaging in sex with multiple sex partners, in disease breeding saunas, no id requested, I'd be more than willing to bet that the odds of YOU being charged with pedophilia are 100 to 1 more likely than ME being charged with such crimes!

 

>going to be a lot less eager to support

>the view that he MUST be guilty before being tried just

>because someone accused him!

 

No you are wrong! I never accused Kobe of being guilty just because someone "accused" him! I do HOWEVER support rape shield laws, which was just upheld this week by the Colorado Supreme Court, that a woman's sexual history has NOTHING to do with her accusations of RAPE!

 

In other words, GET A CLUE, as NO means NO, and it doesn't matter if the NO was issued by a WHORE who turned 100 tricks that night and had 100 men shoot their dna into her! The ONLY point is whether the woman said NO and the perpetrator continued to proceed against her EXPRESSED wishes!

 

The ONLY thing the jury should consider, is that the accused continued in his actions despite the "alledged victim's" protestations!, PERIOD!!!!

 

 

>

[VaHawk]

In your face SARCASM just shoots over that little gland you call a brain, doesn't it?

 

>If and when VaHawk ever finds himself in Kobe Bryant's

>situation (facing a charge of pedophilia, for example)

 

Since you are the one who jets all over the world, engaging in sex with multiple sex partners, in disease breeding saunas, no id requested, I'd be more than willing to bet that the odds of YOU being charged with pedophilia are 100 to 1 more likely than ME being charged with such crimes!

 

>going to be a lot less eager to support

>the view that he MUST be guilty before being tried just

>because someone accused him!

 

No you are wrong! I never accused Kobe of being guilty just because someone "accused" him! I do HOWEVER support rape shield laws, which was just upheld this week by the Colorado Supreme Court, that a woman's sexual history has NOTHING to do with her accusations of RAPE!

 

In other words, GET A CLUE, as NO means NO, and it doesn't matter if the NO was issued by a WHORE who turned 100 tricks that night and had 100 men shoot their dna into her! The ONLY point is whether the woman said NO and the perpetrator continued to proceed against her EXPRESSED wishes!

 

The ONLY thing the jury should consider, is that the accused continued in his actions despite the "alledged victim's" protestations!, PERIOD!!!!

 

 

>

[trilingual]

>Since you are the one who jets all over the world, engaging in

>sex with multiple sex partners, in disease breeding saunas, no

>id requested, I'd be more than willing to bet that the odds of

>YOU being charged with pedophilia are 100 to 1 more likely

>than ME being charged with such crimes!

 

Actually, I don't jet ALL over the world, just a few select parts of it. And reading is obviously not one of the skills they teach trailer park kids in Lynchburg (or is it Wheeling?). Anyone who has acquired that skill and frequents M4M as much as you do knows that I've REPEATEDLY pointed out in many postings on this site that one of the advantages of using the escort saunas in Brazil is that the management carefully checks the IDs of the escorts it allows to work there. The saunas are enormously lucrative businesses, and the owners have an awful lot to lose if they're closed because underage guys are working there. (Brazil does enforce its laws about sex with minors.) The sauna owners have a built-in incentive to be sure the escorts who work in their establishment are legal. You're much safer going to one of the escort saunas than to one of the regular sex-with-other-clients saunas where nobody's age is checked!

 

>No you are wrong! I never accused Kobe of being guilty just

>because someone "accused" him! I do HOWEVER support rape

>shield laws, which was just upheld this week by the Colorado

>Supreme Court, that a woman's sexual history has NOTHING to do

>with her accusations of RAPE!

 

Just re-read your postings. You sure have assumed guilt. And the rape shield law really isn't at issue here. Even in Colorado, it is still up to the judge to determine what evidence will be admitted at the trial. I agree that the accuser's sexual history isn't relevant if we're talking about what she did a month (or years) before the alleged rape. In this case, what she did within 24 - 72 hours before and after the alleged incident is relevant, as she is claiming vaginal bruising as evidence of the alleged rape that could have been the result of intercourse with other sex partners during that period. By now it's well known that there is evidence that she did have other sex partners before and/or after her encounter with Kobe Bryant. My guess is that the judge will allow that evidence. Information about her sex life before then is indeed irrelevant and shouldn't be allowed.

 

>In other words, GET A CLUE, as NO means NO, and it doesn't

>matter if the NO was issued by a WHORE who turned 100

>tricks that night

 

No argument, assuming she really DID say "NO." That's the entire crux of the case, but it's a difficult thing to prove in a he-said/she-said situation with no witnesses. That's why circumstancial evidence is important in this case. And we'll just have to wait and see what all of that evidence is.

[trilingual]

>Since you are the one who jets all over the world, engaging in

>sex with multiple sex partners, in disease breeding saunas, no

>id requested, I'd be more than willing to bet that the odds of

>YOU being charged with pedophilia are 100 to 1 more likely

>than ME being charged with such crimes!

 

Actually, I don't jet ALL over the world, just a few select parts of it. And reading is obviously not one of the skills they teach trailer park kids in Lynchburg (or is it Wheeling?). Anyone who has acquired that skill and frequents M4M as much as you do knows that I've REPEATEDLY pointed out in many postings on this site that one of the advantages of using the escort saunas in Brazil is that the management carefully checks the IDs of the escorts it allows to work there. The saunas are enormously lucrative businesses, and the owners have an awful lot to lose if they're closed because underage guys are working there. (Brazil does enforce its laws about sex with minors.) The sauna owners have a built-in incentive to be sure the escorts who work in their establishment are legal. You're much safer going to one of the escort saunas than to one of the regular sex-with-other-clients saunas where nobody's age is checked!

 

>No you are wrong! I never accused Kobe of being guilty just

>because someone "accused" him! I do HOWEVER support rape

>shield laws, which was just upheld this week by the Colorado

>Supreme Court, that a woman's sexual history has NOTHING to do

>with her accusations of RAPE!

 

Just re-read your postings. You sure have assumed guilt. And the rape shield law really isn't at issue here. Even in Colorado, it is still up to the judge to determine what evidence will be admitted at the trial. I agree that the accuser's sexual history isn't relevant if we're talking about what she did a month (or years) before the alleged rape. In this case, what she did within 24 - 72 hours before and after the alleged incident is relevant, as she is claiming vaginal bruising as evidence of the alleged rape that could have been the result of intercourse with other sex partners during that period. By now it's well known that there is evidence that she did have other sex partners before and/or after her encounter with Kobe Bryant. My guess is that the judge will allow that evidence. Information about her sex life before then is indeed irrelevant and shouldn't be allowed.

 

>In other words, GET A CLUE, as NO means NO, and it doesn't

>matter if the NO was issued by a WHORE who turned 100

>tricks that night

 

No argument, assuming she really DID say "NO." That's the entire crux of the case, but it's a difficult thing to prove in a he-said/she-said situation with no witnesses. That's why circumstancial evidence is important in this case. And we'll just have to wait and see what all of that evidence is.

[SouthBeachBtm]

May I go on record in full support of the rape shield laws. Victims of such violent crimes are entitled to extra protection under the law.

 

Honestly, I do not know if he is guilty or innocent. If I had to guess, I'd say innocent. Wealthy celebs, especially black ones are often targetted for scams. Since the 1800's black men have been falsely accused of rape and railroaded to a lynching or prison time. In modern times, Black celebrities seem to have a bulls eye on their backs. Few white celebs are targetted in scams like this, but when they are, and they are not found guilty, I never hear any out cries from mainstream America about the severe injustices.

 

What we do know is that he is guilty of adultry. We are all men here, we know that is common place occurance. But if he did indeed do this crime, he should receive the severest punishment under the law.

 

Rape is one of the worst crimes a person can committ. I have no mercy for someone who does that.

 

However, if he did not do it, he will have the greater burden of proof. People will rush to judgement and never change their minds of his guilt, no matter the virdict.

 

I wish their was a way to protect the privacy of legitimate victims and at the same time be able to go after false accusers. Once again, our legal and judicial system has failed us in remedying this problem.

I will wait to hear all the evidence before coming to my own personal verdict.

[Guest]

>May I go on record in full support of the rape shield laws.

>Victims of such violent crimes are entitled to extra

>protection under the law.

>

Nevertheless, I cannot think of a more important governmental mandate than to provide someone with a fair trial, and, above all, to ensure that innocent peoples' lives aren't ruined with false felony convictions. I certainly support excluding a woman's sexual history when this history is truly irrelevant to the case. For example, if a woman is pulled into the bushes while jogging in Central Park, people hear her screams, and her blood and the defendant's are co-mingled, then it's irrelevant whether she's a whore or Mother Teresa.

The Kobe Bryant case is a perfect case, however, to illustrate the hazzards of rape shield laws during trials of date rape cases which are purely "He said, she said," and a jurist will vote largely on whom he believes (whether this should EVER be considered as evidence beyond reasonable doubt is an issue I won't even bring up at this time). From what I've read, Kobe's accuser was well-known to go into the hotel room of any man who asked her to, and get her brains fucked out. In fact, she apparently had two other men's semen in her twat. I've never heard any evidence of anyone hearing screams of "NO!" or other evidence (other than the slut's saying so) that the sex was not consensual. In other words, the case purely rests on credibility.

It's quite clear that, if the evidence doesn't 100% prove Kobe's innocence, there's certainly no question but that there's VERY reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The only way the prosecution has of winning is by (falsely) portraying the accuser as an innocent Virginal 19 year-old, and Kobe as the nasty adulterer. Unfortunately, judges and DA's are elected positions in most states, and there's great political pressure for convictions in these cases, even when everybody knows the evidence is "fishy."

 

 

>What we do know is that he is guilty of adultry (sic). We are all

>men here, we know that is common place(sic) occurance(sic). But if he

>did indeed do this crime, he should receive the severest

>punishment under the law.

>

Adultery is not illegal to my knowledge.

 

>Rape is one of the worst crimes a person can committ(sic).

 

I can think of a worse one: bearing false wittness and attempting to utterly destroy an innocent man's life for personal gain. A rape victim can eventually get her life together (although there may be some permanent scars), and has society's support. If an innocent man (especially one of Kobe's stature) is thrown in the jail as a rapist/sexual offender, his life is utterly destroyed beyond repair.

 

>

>However, if he did not do it, he will have the greater burden

>of proof. People will rush to judgement and never change their

>minds of his guilt, no matter the virdict(sic).

 

And that's exactly why an accused's right to a fair trial is so incontrovertibily important, even if it means that a guilty man sometimes has to go free. (And why the accuser ostensibly has the burden of proof in the US legal system).

>

>I wish their was a way to protect the privacy of legitimate

>victims and at the same time be able to go after false

>accusers.

 

In all seriousness, I think that those who falsely accuse another of a crime should have to serve the time that the person they accused would have spent in prison had he been convicted.