clujer420

Congratulations, you have seen the light. There's virtually no way in hell that he is guilty of rape, and IMO this should not even go to trial. And by the way, do not tell me that the archives are there, because it's only going back 10 pages on my computer, and it does not go back to our initial Kobe discussions. I am not a liar.

Go find it. Aint gonna happen... For some reason my "Sex, Lies, and Politics" board only goes back 10 pages, and it doesn't have our original Kobe discussions where it was obvious that you felt he was guilty. Are you saying you don't think Kobe is guilty?

This game is beyond big. This is history in the making.

Good to hear. Sometimes what teachers will do is let's say the original exam was an objective exam (multiple choice), the make-up will be an essay exam, which most agree is more difficult. But yes, like you said, some points are better than a "0". Lesson learned -- don't sleep in when you have an exam, dumbass.

Our way WITHOUT question.

I thought you said you were a virgin? But like Jason said, virtually ALL college professors (whether it be a legitimate university or a JC) say there are no make-ups. They say that just as a formality, though. Most of them will be understanding if you have a legitimate excuse. Sleeping in is weak, so you're going to have to pray you've had good attendance (like Heather said), otherwise you're most likely screwed.

Sick whore. :puke :puke :puke

For the record, I really don't care how old the poster is as long as they contribute something semi-intelligent and insightful. But, it seems to me that more often than not, whenever there is a useless post, most of the time it's by one of our younger posters.

Wow, I'm surprised he didn't blame Steve Bartman.

Well all states offer benefits to illegals, but it's that CA has so many more than any other state that it really hurts us. If the Federal Gov't would realize that we need more border patrolmen and/or the military at the border, perhaps that problem would be solved.

LOL, Captain Janx (spelling?) strikes again. Listen to Stern tomorrow morning, and I'm sure they'll play that clip.

Ummmm....yes, I did call her a whore from the beginning. And guess what? I was correct, she IS a whore. Well, thank you for pointing out the obvious. Fact is, MANY athletes have been accused of rape, and outside of Mike Tyson (who IMO and many other's opinion did not do it) none that I know of have been convicted. Listen...the defense cannot prove that Kobe did not make those marks. You cannot prove a negative. So, what they have to do is show that there is REASONALBE DOUBT that Kobe made them. That is where previous partners around the time the "rape" occured come into play. If you cannot see that correlation, that's not my problem, because clearly the judge can see it, as he permitted the defense to go with the line of questioning. If the judge felt it was simply smear tactics, he would not have allowed it to continue. The defense's job is very clear -- show the jury that there is reasonable doubt. They do that, and justice will be served. If they cannot do that, justice will be served. Here are the FACTS... 1) The detective (who is speaking on behalf of the accuser) has changed his story. At first, she never said "no", but now he's saying that she did say "no", and that Kobe stopped IMMEDIATELY when she did. 2) Kobe "held her by the neck with both hands" while he pulled down her panties, lifted her skirt, and raped her. First of all, how can he hold her by the neck with both hands and pull down her panties at the same time? Does he have Gumby arms? And if he was holding her by the neck with both hands and raping her for 5 minutes, don't you think there would be marks on her neck? THERE WERE NONE. And don't you think she would try to fight him off by scratching and clawing at him? KOBE HAD ZERO MARKS ANYWHERE ON HIS BODY. The only mark on the woman was a small bruise on her cheek -- a bruise so small, in fact, that the detective DID NOT EVEN NOTICE IT when he first spoke to her. 3) Kobe had some blood marks on his shirt that came from the woman. That only proves that Kobe was in the room with her and that they had sex -- all of which he has admitted to. 4) The first person to see the woman after she left Kobe's room was the night auditor at the hotel. She came down to count her money before she went home for the night, and the night auditor has said that she "did not look nor sound troubled". 5) The woman was in charge of putting Kobe and his bodyguards in a room, and she chose to put Kobe in a room in a secluded part of the hotel, while his bodyguards were put in a completely different part of the hotel. To me, it sounds like she had this planned from the beginning. Remember, she knew he was coming and was "excited" because of it. 6) The woman had sex with at least 1 other guy in the hours prior to her encounter with Kobe. This is relevant for only 1 reason -- she had vaginal tearing that is being blamed on Kobe, and a mark on her cheek that is being blamed on Kobe. Is it not conceivable that the tearing and bruise on her cheek occured PRIOR to her meeting with Kobe? Is it not even possible? The answer is YES, it is possible. Looking at the above FACTS, I CANNOT see ANY reason why this should even go to trial. I'm quite certain it will, but unless the prosecution has a MAJOR bombshell that they are saving, I cannot see how this will end in anything but "not guilty". Go ahead, Steff, you're the expert, refute the above FACTS I have just stated.

You've been saying from the beginning that Kobe is guilty. If you deny that, you have more severe issues than I ever could have imagined.

She's been hot for a few years now. I remember one year she sang the national anthem at the AS game, and when I saw her cans it was instant boner-time.

LOL, that was nice.

Well, CA had the presence of mind to get a governor with a $38B defecit recalled and kicked out of office, so I HIGHLY doubt they are the dumbest state in the Union. Fact is, CA is more like a country than a state, so it's ran much differently than most other states are, as it's much more complex.

Is he smoking a dog turd?

LMAO. Chicago's psychiatrists have plenty of patients that they can tend to, I see. What losers.

Yep. Kobe should take civil action against this whore's family if they have any money. His reputation has been forever tarnished. Completely agree as long as the case is closed. This girl has some issues but she is ruining Kobe's life. Yes he made a mistake, but no person should have to go through this if they are falsely accused. If she turns out to be looking for a payday, then I will give her a BIG :fyou I know one thing, I sure as hell wouldn't touch the whore....all I'd think is STD. Yeah really. I hope she doesn't have any diseases, because apparently Kobe did not use a condom (since it hasn't been mentioned that he did, I'll assume he didn't). But, if she did give him something, it'll be his own damned fault for being stupid and f***ing a dirty slut. :puke :puke :puke

Shouldn't that have been in green?

Do NOT lie. More than likely, your professor has heard every story in the book, and if you lie, you have no chance of having her let you make it up because she'll know you're full of s***. If I were you, I'd explain to her that you simply forgot because you had a lot of other stuff going on in your other classes. However, how did you forget about the test? Like, did you not go to class thinking you wouldn't miss anything, and then later you realized you had a test? Because if you have a history of poor attendance, you're going to be screwed. Your only hope is that she thinks you're a good student otherwise, and if she's kind, you might get lucky. If not, you're going to have to bite the bullet.

That will never happen.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nubrya...a-home-leftrail More evidence that the prosecution is full of s***.

Yep. Kobe should take civil action against this whore's family if they have any money. His reputation has been forever tarnished.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1639101 Wednesday, October 15, 2003 Scripps Howard News Service One side got holes drilled through it. That was the prosecution. The other side did great. That was Kobe Bryant's defense team. That's the analysis of Denver defense attorney Larry Pozner, who attended Bryant's preliminary hearing on sexual assault charges Wednesday in Eagle. Other legal experts who watched the proceedings agreed. "Clearly this is not a strong prosecution case," said Denver attorney Andrew Cohen. "Clearly the defense is going to have an awful lot of material to work with if and when the case goes to trial." Former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman said the prosecution's case against Bryant now appears so weak that it may hurt future rape victims, who may have a harder time persuading anyone that they were raped. "It's a major step backwards for those of us who believe strongly in the rights of sexual assault victims," Silverman said. Consider this testimony, the legal experts said, that was elicited by defense attorney Pamela Mackey as she cross-examined prosecution witnesses: The young woman worked hard to figure out that Bryant was coming to stay at the resort where she worked as a concierge. She stayed late at work that day so she could meet him. With only four rooms occupied in the 56-room lodge, she assigned Bryant to one of the most remote rooms and put his bodyguards in the opposite direction. She gave Bryant a tour of the lodge during which, she said, they flirted with each other. Invited to visit Bryant's room later, she took a circuitous, private route there, going outside the lodge and using employee-only hallways. She expected Bryant to "come on to her" if she went to his room. She willingly joined Bryant in kissing and hugging in his room. Bryant, who is married, has admitted having sex with the woman but has insisted it was consensual. When a detective first interviewed her, the woman did not claim that she said "No" to Bryant, and the detective even asked her why she didn't say "No." She said she physically indicated her unwillingness to have sex, placing her hands on Bryant's to stop him, and she told the detective that Bryant then stopped. In later interviews, she said she did tell Bryant "No." Although a bellhop earlier had been reported to be the first person who encountered the woman after the alleged assault, and he allegedly found her distraught, a night auditor working at the desk where the woman returned from Bryant's room wrote prosecutors later that the woman seemed completely calm to her and did more work before going home. When the woman went to a hospital the next day for a rape exam, semen was found in her underpants that wasn't Bryant's. The underpants she had worn on the night of the alleged assault contained a drop of blood. A pubic hair, not Bryant's, also was found. The woman has acknowledged having consensual sex with one other partner around the same time as the alleged assault. Defense lawyers, maintaining that there may have been two other partners, contend that could account for the injuries the woman said she received when Bryant assaulted her. Police officers who visited Bryant's room after she complained that she had been sexually assaulted did not seize evidence from his bathroom, where the woman had said she had wept and bled. "It's a picture entirely different than the picture the prosecution painted," Pozner said. "What the defense scored was not a single point or a point here and a point there, but completely related points in the story showing a whole different version of what happened that night, and that version was based on the complainant's own statements," he said. "It was a devastating day for the prosecution." Cohen pointed out that prosecutors haven't presented all of their evidence. At the preliminary hearing stage, they don't have to present it all, only enough to persuade a judge that enough evidence exists to try Bryant. "The question is going to be whether or not they actually have something when they finally lay their cards on the table at trial," Cohen said. "But it's hard to escape the impression this afternoon that there are a lot of problems with this case. "And those problems are either going to have to be addressed before trial, or Kobe Bryant's going to be acquitted." This story appeared in the Rocky Mountain News. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "What a skank" -- my mom LOL. This case should not even go to trial.