mtnester
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 05:49 PM
Original message |
So fellow ladies your previous sexual history |
|
Edited on Fri Jul-23-04 05:57 PM by mtnester
and activity can now, again, be used against you in court thanks to the Kobe Bryant defence team and a judge that does not understand the law or is a woman hater. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5499451/
|
Triana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 05:51 PM
Response to Original message |
TrustingDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 05:54 PM
Response to Original message |
2. well, surprise, surprise! Goober is back... |
|
not surprised at all, actually. The war is on, and it's against the people here in the homeland.
|
Spinzonner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message |
3. You're overstating the ruling |
|
and compromising your own issue.
It applies only to the time around the alleged rape and for the purpose of evaluating the evidence. There's no indication that it will apply to her 'habits' or lifestyle.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This is what she did ON THE DAY. This is pattern of behavior.
It would be outrageous to exclude this evidence and pretend the trial was fair.
I understand the point of exclusion. My cousin's rapist (whose explanation to her was that he believed she'd been gangraped by his friends the week before and he hadn't gotten his) was let off because the NJ jury was shocked that a seventeen year old girl was not a virgin (they included it all).
What the jury didn't hear, because it was EXCLUDED, was that the rapist was on parole for a rape in another state.
I'm not a believer in exclusion.
|
scarletwoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message |
5. DNA evidence from the "rape kit" showed ANOTHER man's sperm |
|
along with Kobe Bryant's. I think it's reasonable to allow this as evidence for the defense.
sw
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
that just because she had consentual sex with another man the same day, that kobe didn't rape her? the consentual sex deal is the issue here. i don't care if she had consentual sex with fifty guys that day, if kobe had sex with her against her will, it is still rape! i don't care if she is the biggest whore in america, she still deserves to decide with whom she will have sex. what does another man's sperm have to do with anything???
|
Dookus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
of course he could've raped her. But it allows the defense to question the evidence of genital damage and its possible causes.
|
rumguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Sex with two men on the same day without condoms? |
|
Is there really evidence of this? You a have to admit that is quite something if it's true...
|
kerry-is-my-prez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. They had old semen on her underwear. DNA stays on through several washings |
|
We might all have underwear that we haven't worn for a few years that could have old DNA on it. I have underwear that I haven't worn for several years in my underwear drawer. They don't take up that much space so I don't bother throwing it out too often.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
12. The Defense Is Contending That The Alleged Victim Had Sex |
|
with another man after she was allegedly raped by Kobe but before she reported it the poilice.....
If that contention is true her behavior strikes me as bizzare.....
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
seems weird to me, but i'm not condeming anyone else. yes, i too think it would be weird to have sex with my boyfriend so shortly after being raped, but that doesn't mean another woman couldn't do that if she chose to. and i don't think it would be wrong either. sort of like getting back on the horse after falling off maybe.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
21. She Destroyed The Evidence.... |
|
It sounds gross but a woman who's assaulted need to have an exam immediately.... She's not supposed to shower and certainly not supposed to have sex with someone else....
If that's the case we can't be sure who caused the damage....
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
TomNickell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
36. But, shouldn't the jury have all the facts? |
|
The man is, effectively, on trial for his life.
If the decision depends on the jury's judgment about her credibility and her behavior appears 'weird', shouldn't the jury hear all the facts?
Attitudes have changed a -lot- since the rape shield laws were passed. A jury can deal more fairly with a sexually active woman now than it would have done 25 years ago.
|
progressivebydesign
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. That's such bullshit... |
|
... a woman who has sex with her boyfriend or husband, but is raped two hours later is not considered "raped"? Men have no freakin' idea what it's like to be a woman.. if they did, they'd be ashamed of the shit they try to pass off as law.
|
Dookus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
read.
The fact is, the prosecution wants to introduce evidence of minor damage to the genitalia in order to indicate she was raped by Kobe. If that damage can reasonably be caused by something else, the defense has every right to make that case.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
then damage like that can never be proven in a rape case by a woman who was not a virgin at the time of the rape.
|
Dookus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
microscopic tears in skin heal all the time.
This has nothing to do with virginity.
It has to do with whether she's telling the truth, and whether any injuries inflicted (and they are microscopic injuries) could reasonably have been caused by someone OTHER than Kobe.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
the only way to prove there was no damage would be to be a virgin... those tears happen all the time, you said exactly what i said.
|
Curious Dave
(173 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:40 PM
Response to Original message |
7. This stuff makes me sick! |
|
All they're trying to do here is open the door for a "she is nothing but a lying slut out to trap poor Kobe" defense. And why do defense attorneys use the "lying slut" defense? Because sad to say it works. Makes me sick!
|
Dookus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
this isn't about her "sexual history". It's about the sexual contacts she had right around the same time as her encounter with Bryant.
If the prosecution is going to use "damage" to the genital tissues as evidence, then it's reasonable for the defense to ask if there are other possible causes of such damage.
|
Curious Dave
(173 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Genital damage. I'll concede the point on a technicality, but...
The idea that the genital damage resulted from consensual sex as opposed to having resulted from rape? Maybe, but then there is Occam's Razor... I think if I was on this jury I'd read that as an attempted to muddy the waters on the part of the defense (and I fully appreciate that in a case like that muddying the water is an acceptable tactic).
I do have to admit I tend to knee-jerk on these kind of cases. I suppose it stems from having been involved as a witness in a case where I watched a guilty sexual harasser go free because the defense successfully (but wrongly) painted his 3 (yes 3!) accusers as lying sluts.
|
Dookus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
and I would be the first to agree that a woman's sexual history has no relevance. But this isn't about her "history". It's about her actions immediately before and after the alleged rape.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
26. What If She Had Sex With Another Man Before Reporting The Assault? |
Alenne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 06:55 PM
Response to Original message |
15. This only applies to sexual activity after she says Kobe raped her |
|
but before her rape exam.
The defense says they have DNA evidence that another man's semen was found during the rape exam. The victim told police she had sex with a condom with only one person three days before the rape.
This evidence is very important because the prosecutor is saying there was a vaginal tear found. If she had sex after the sexual encounter with Kobe then the tear could have come from someone else.
This ruling does not mean the defense can bring up sexual encounters she had in the 10th grade.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
20. then they also need to prove |
|
under what conditions a vaginal wall will tear.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
25. I Can Think Of Several Conditions |
|
some of which have their basis is physiology....
|
Alenne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
Any credible expert will admit that microscopic vaginal tears can come from consensual sex.
|
wndycty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:02 PM
Response to Original message |
24. If vaginal tearing is introduced as evidence. . . |
|
. . .whether or not she had sex with someone else that week is relevant.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
28. Especially If She Had Sex With Someone Else Before Reporting The Assault |
|
That is bizzare..... And if that's the case I can't believe the prosecution brought charges...
But I believe this is a defense theory not fact....
|
bleedingheart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message |
27. Reasonable Doubt has acquitted many people |
|
so if the defense convinces the jury that there is reasonable doubt...then the defendant in many cases will walk free.
The sad fact is that guilty people are sometimes allowed to walk away only to repeat the crime but that is the price we pay in a democratic society...
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
|
Better to let a hunded guilty people go free than to incarcerate one innocent man...
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:07 PM
Response to Original message |
29. This is about the evidence of alleged physical damage |
|
Edited on Fri Jul-23-04 07:09 PM by jpgray
If she had another instance of intercourse before being examined, such evidence cannot be positively identified as the result of one encounter or the other, and so cannot be used without entering in all her sexual encounters that could have caused the damage.
|
indigobusiness
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:44 PM
Response to Original message |
34. As opposed to your future sexual history |
|
which we all could be convicted for.
|
TomNickell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-23-04 07:44 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Under the circumstances, it seems relevant. |
|
The ruling only covers 72 hours. Interpretation of the physical evidence depends on her activities in that period.
Used to be (a long, long time ago when I was young) that the defense attorney would try to show just that the woman was sexually active--spent the night with her boyfriend, or had an affair. That was supposed to sway a jury or at least discourage the next woman from coming forward. Rape shield laws are supposed to stop that. I don't know that the tactic would work nowadays anyway.
But, when you have a woman who has had multiple partners in a few days. Or a partner after the alleged rape, it seems to me that that is directly relevant to her credibility.
ie, "She slept with that schmuck, and that ugly mug and that fat bastard, but she wouldn't sleep with this handsome NBA star?"
I see the other side, but the accused has a lot at stake, too.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:01 AM
Response to Original message |