whitesoxfan99 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 The preliminary hearing began today and there was some pretty graphic testimony. Heres the link to the story. ESPN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I like the backdoor that the defense is trying to sneak through to admit the girls sex life into the case... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I like the backdoor that the defense is trying to sneak through to admit the girls sex life into the case... I liked when the judge asked Pam Mackey if she needed a muzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 The fact that she has bruises isn't good. I don't want Kobe to get convicted, but it's a tough case at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 The fact that she has bruises isn't good. I don't want Kobe to get convicted, but it's a tough case at this point. Apparently they are trying to blame rough sex with other guys on her bruises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Apparently they are trying to blame rough sex with other guys on her bruises. Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. I just caught a real quick analysis on Sportcenter. I can imagine what the circus will be like if and when he goes to trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Oh.. it'll be binded over for trial. Their only hope is that they trash her enough to get them to doubt her story. A shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I really don't want to get to into this story, because it is sad either way. If Kobe is innocent, then some girl tried to slander his name. If Kobe is guilty, then he is a rapist deserving a stiff jail term. It is such a sad story, and all I hope is justice prevails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../NEWS/310090101 "Legal analysts insisted there was no reason for Bryant's defense team to go through with the preliminary hearing. Early says their reason is now obvious. "The only reason they had this preliminary hearing was to smear the victim," said Early. "I've never seen anything like this. It was deliberate, it was despicable. That question was just sleazy." Early said Mackey put the question out there when she did, hoping the public would hear it. When it brought the proceedings to a screeching halt, it was the last thing people in the courtroom heard, and the soundbite that resonated in print this morning and on TV talkshows last night. "The defense hopes the public will hear that because out of the public will come the 12 jurors who will decide this case," said Early. "(Bryant's alleged victim) is suffering what every woman fears in a rape case. No one thought the defense would stoop this low." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 The more I hear about this case, the more it seems stupid. The defense it trying to make her look like a whore, which apperantly she it. The prosecution is trying to make him look like a goon, which he apperantly is. I know ya guys are going to say she's not a whore, but what kind of person goes into a married man's room after flirting with him and starts kissing and hugging him. What did she expects? I really want to hear no more about this case. Take it off ESPN, it is not sports. In the Matthew Shepherd thread, it was brought up he made a silly mistake and don't feel sorry for him by several members. I feel that way about this story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. Nah, I say he doesnt walk. This isnt being prosecuted in LA..........if they present the evidence, the jury will convict him. IF I was on the jury, I would choose the physical evidence(assuming they have it), over her sexual history. Whores get raped too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 The more I hear about this case, the more it seems stupid. The defense it trying to make her look like a whore, which apperantly she it. The prosecution is trying to make him look like a goon, which he apperantly is. I know ya guys are going to say she's not a whore, but what kind of person goes into a married man's room after flirting with him and starts kissing and hugging him. What did she expects? I really want to hear no more about this case. Take it off ESPN, it is not sports. In the Matthew Shepherd thread, it was brought up he made a silly mistake and don't feel sorry for him by several members. I feel that way about this story. What did she expect? She's a whore? And you don't want to get into it but you're commented twice..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. Nah, I say he doesnt walk. This isnt being prosecuted in LA..........if they present the evidence, the jury will convict him. IF I was on the jury, I would choose the physical evidence(assuming they have it), over her sexual history. Whores get raped too. I hope you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 What did she expect? She's a whore? And you don't want to get into it but you're commented twice..? I commented, then saw it on ESPN just a little bit ago. It was driving me nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I commented, then saw it on ESPN just a little bit ago. It was driving me nuts. That's fitting.. because I think you are nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Geesh I was just reading about this, according the victim Kobe made her kneel down and kiss his penis when all was said and done? Damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 That's fitting.. because I think you are nuts. Yeah, I am nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. Nah, I say he doesnt walk. This isnt being prosecuted in LA..........if they present the evidence, the jury will convict him. IF I was on the jury, I would choose the physical evidence(assuming they have it), over her sexual history. Whores get raped too. I hope you're right. You "hope he's right"? Meaning you hope that he'll be found guilty? Listen...her sexual past is very relevant in this sense -- if she had sex with multiple partners close to the time that she had her encounter with Kobe Bryant, it's conceivable that her "vaginal tearing" was caused in part to "overuse". That area gets tender if it's used excessively, no? And it's possible that if it's tender and raw, and a "large" man is the next to use it, it would be more succeptable to tearing. Is that not reasonably logical? And is it not possible? I say it is. And BELIEVE me, the defense would not make that kind of an allegation unless there was some sort of evidence to back that claim up. They're probably going to call witnesses (possibly the guys she allegedly had sex with in the days leading up to her encounter with Kobe), and their testimony will be heard. To me, ALL the prosecution has (other than the word of a teenager who attempted suicide twice this year) is "physical evidence", and by what I've heard, the most damaging of which to the defense is vaginal tearing. If the defense can show that the damage could possibly be a result of multiple partners, all the state of Colorado would have left would be a bruise on her face -- a bruise that could have resulted from MANY different things. It's going to be a tough case to prove as is, and Kobe having a top notch defense attorney isn't going to make it any easier. Based on what I've heard, there's already reasonable doubt, so unless the prosecution has some sort of a bombshell in store, I think the outcome will be pretty cut-and-dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. Nah, I say he doesnt walk. This isnt being prosecuted in LA..........if they present the evidence, the jury will convict him. IF I was on the jury, I would choose the physical evidence(assuming they have it), over her sexual history. Whores get raped too. Assuming they have physical evidence is a big assumption. Kobe "held her by the neck while raping her for 5 minutes", yet there were no marks on her neck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Not exactly. PM never said she "did" have sex with others - which by the way is irrelevant - but said "could the injuries be consistant with having sex with 3 different men in 3 days" Which is now being commented on by the DA as "outrageous and untrue" (Good Morning America minutes ago). IMO.. this is just the defense doing their job. Get something, anything out there to cause doubt. Proper protocal was for her to advise the judge of her cross questions. She did not. This was all set up. Doesn't matter now. Jury is tainted. I think he did force her. But I think he'll walk. Nah, I say he doesnt walk. This isnt being prosecuted in LA..........if they present the evidence, the jury will convict him. IF I was on the jury, I would choose the physical evidence(assuming they have it), over her sexual history. Whores get raped too. I hope you're right. You "hope he's right"? Meaning you hope that he'll be found guilty? No, ass. I hope IF he IS guilty he is convicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Now we are starting to see why there were the questions about 3 different guys... A nurse is saying she had different seman on her underwear. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1638553 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Now we are starting to see why there were the questions about 3 different guys... A nurse is saying she had different seman on her underwear. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1638553 She admitted to sex with her ex 2 days before being with Kobe in her initial statement to police. What that means for the case against him, I do not know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Now we are starting to see why there were the questions about 3 different guys... A nurse is saying she had different seman on her underwear. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1638553 She admitted to sex with her ex 2 days before being with Kobe in her initial statement to police. What that means for the case against him, I do not know. Yet more instability on her part. What kind of woman has sex with 2 guys in 2 days (and that's all that's confirmed at this point, there could be more)? A normal, mentally healthy person does not do that type of stuff, and anyone who thinks that type of behavior is acceptable is likely a whore too. And if you don't think the semen of another guy on her underwear is a key piece of information and relevant to this case, I suggest you try to put your biases aside, because it is VERY key. Any objective person can clearly see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Mackey also managed to introduce something prosecutors didn't talk about last week -- a statement by the night auditor at the hotel who was the first person the accuser saw when she left Bryant's room. The night auditor sent police a letter saying she saw the woman as she came back to the front desk at the Cordillera Lodge & Spa. "What the night auditor says in her letter is the accuser did not look or sound as if there had been any problem," Mackey said. "Correct?" she asked Winters. "Yes," he responded. Winters also acknowledged the woman didn't tell him she told Bryant "no" when he interviewed her the day after the alleged rape. "I asked the accuser why she never told Mr. Bryant 'no,'" Winters wrote in his report. Last week, however, Winters testified the victim told him she told Bryant "no" repeatedly, and that Bryant even forced her to turn around and face him and say it at one point. ------------------------------------------ So not only is she having sex with guys like a hooker would, but the person telling her story doesn't have the story memorized yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.