BuffettNews.com

ejr wrote: I have been on record here as disagreeing with the rape shield law that protects (or should have) her identity and stand by that. But regardless of her history, if she said no, that is all that matters so her history should not be relevant.

I wrote this earlier....you might want to re-read it. THIS is why the rape shield law was waived.

CaptainP wrote: ...the defense is trying to prove (and apparantly has the proof) that she also had sex with someone else IN BETWEEN having sex with Bryant and reporting it!!! THAT makes it sound like setting up someone for the money.

In other words, the time-line is as such:

1) (Allegedly) raped by Kobe Bryant
2) Went to a party, had sex with another guy.
3) Went to police and/or hospital, said she was raped.

THIS is why her sexual history is important in this case.

buffettbride wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

CaptainP wrote:He can't prove she said "Yes".
She can't prove she said "No".

Therefore, no reasonable doubt = no conviction.

Not if you are a celebrity in this society! Guilty until proven innocent.

OJ was innocent.

In the eyes of the US Government, he was NOT guilty. A court of LAW said so. Yet, somehow he was made to pay his NON-VICTIMS families millions of dollars by a seperate court. How does THAT work?

(Disclaimer: These are not neccesarily MY beliefs. Just an irony I like to point out)

CaptainP wrote:In the eyes of the US Government, he was NOT guilty. A court of LAW said so. Yet, somehow he was made to pay his NON-VICTIMS families millions of dollars by a seperate court. How does THAT work?

Refer back to the Criminal vs. Civil structure. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and Civil is by a "preponderance". There's a good point to be made that Bryant's accuser stands a better chance of success in a civil trial.

MojosMama wrote:
Refer back to the Criminal vs. Civil structure. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and Civil is by a "preponderance". There's a good point to be made that Bryant's accuser stands a better chance of success in a civil trial.

I understand that. I'm just pointing out the irony.

MojosMama wrote:There's a good point to be made that Bryant's accuser stands a better chance of success in a civil trial.

Maybe that was the game plan all along.

CaptainP wrote:

MojosMama wrote:
Refer back to the Criminal vs. Civil structure. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and Civil is by a "preponderance". There's a good point to be made that Bryant's accuser stands a better chance of success in a civil trial.

I understand that. I'm just pointing out the irony.

Isn't it ironic? Dontcha think?

CaptainP wrote:In the eyes of the US Government, he was NOT guilty. A court of LAW said so. Yet, somehow he was made to pay his NON-VICTIMS families millions of dollars by a seperate court. How does THAT work?

(Disclaimer: These are not neccesarily MY beliefs. Just an irony I like to point out)

Actually it was the state government, not the US government. And the not guilty verdict was in a criminal trial. The second one, when he had to pay damages, was a civil trial. Different (as in "lower") burden of proof.

This is my take on what I think happened.

I think she agreed to intercourse. Then I think she was probably not 'down' with everything that Kobe wanted to do. I think she probably said no to SOME of the activities but generally consented to basic every day intercourse.

So, at what point does agreeing to activity ABC but not agreeing to activity XYZ become rape? I don't think it does. This might sound sick and wrong to some women, but I don't think "no" necessarily means "not at all".

With an average Joe, I think you chalk it up to a lowsy sexual experience and get over it. However, because this was a celebrity, this girl probably feels entitled to some sort of recourse, and the only way to pursue it is via the legal system. It's not like she can confront him and ask for an apology as she may be able to do with an ordinary guy. She feels Kobe owes her something and this is how she is taking action.

I guess I just don't see this as a criminal thing.

CaptainP-I do understand your point. But even if she had sex with someone else right before and right after she did with Kobe, no is still no and it would still be rape. That is the law and that is what makes her behavior irrelevant.

buffettbride wrote:This is my take on what I think happened.

I think she agreed to intercourse. Then I think she was probably not 'down' with everything that Kobe wanted to do. I think she probably said no to SOME of the activities but generally consented to basic every day intercourse.

So, at what point does agreeing to activity ABC but not agreeing to activity XYZ become rape? I don't think it does. This might sound sick and wrong to some women, but I don't think "no" necessarily means "not at all".

With an average Joe, I think you chalk it up to a lowsy sexual experience and get over it. However, because this was a celebrity, this girl probably feels entitled to some sort of recourse, and the only way to pursue it is via the legal system. It's not like she can confront him and ask for an apology as she may be able to do with an ordinary guy. She feels Kobe owes her something and this is how she is taking action.

I guess I just don't see this as a criminal thing.

So he wanted sex, she just wanted to spork?

ejr wrote:CaptainP-I do understand your point. But even if she had sex with someone else right before and right after she did with Kobe, no is still no and it would still be rape. That is the law and that is what makes her behavior irrelevant.

Like I said, she can't prove she said "No" anymore that he can prove she didn't. Other factors HAVE to be involved.

Remember, it is HER lawyers who are trying to keep information out of the trial. Kobe's team just wants all the information to be known. He wants to be judged on the entire set of facts. She wants him judged on a partial version. Looks like she has something to hide.

CaptainP wrote:

buffettbride wrote:This is my take on what I think happened.

I think she agreed to intercourse. Then I think she was probably not 'down' with everything that Kobe wanted to do. I think she probably said no to SOME of the activities but generally consented to basic every day intercourse.

So, at what point does agreeing to activity ABC but not agreeing to activity XYZ become rape? I don't think it does. This might sound sick and wrong to some women, but I don't think "no" necessarily means "not at all".

With an average Joe, I think you chalk it up to a lowsy sexual experience and get over it. However, because this was a celebrity, this girl probably feels entitled to some sort of recourse, and the only way to pursue it is via the legal system. It's not like she can confront him and ask for an apology as she may be able to do with an ordinary guy. She feels Kobe owes her something and this is how she is taking action.

I guess I just don't see this as a criminal thing.

So he wanted sex, she just wanted to spork?

Close. But not quite.

I think she wanted sex.

He wanted to spork, fork, spoon, knife (well, maybe not knife). I think he wanted more than she truly wanted to give. She may have felt pressure and tried it and then felt resentful afterward.

buffettbride wrote:

CaptainP wrote:
I guess I just don't see this as a criminal thing.

So he wanted sex, she just wanted to spork?

Close. But not quite.

I think she wanted sex.

He wanted to spork, fork, spoon, knife (well, maybe not knife).[/quote]

So...it sounds like Kobe is a Swiss Army Spork?!?!?!

IMO her sexual history has no business being put out in public. If it wants to be admitted in court as evidence that is OK but it should not be put out in public. No means No, no matter who she screwed in the past.

ejr wrote:CaptainP-I do understand your point. But even if she had sex with someone else right before and right after she did with Kobe, no is still no and it would still be rape. That is the law and that is what makes her behavior irrelevant.

When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?

I was thinking the case was in the toilet when the ASST. DA
came out and said" We will pursue this case as before"
when the Judge ruled the past history in.

CaptainP wrote:
So...it sounds like Kobe is a Swiss Army Spork?!?!?!

buffettbride wrote:

ejr wrote:CaptainP-I do understand your point. But even if she had sex with someone else right before and right after she did with Kobe, no is still no and it would still be rape. That is the law and that is what makes her behavior irrelevant.

When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?

and when the loving is going on when does NO not sound like OHHHHH

buffettbride wrote:When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?

From Black's Law Dictionary - In criminal law, the term refers to a sexual assault in which an offender forces an unconsenting victim to engage in sexual acts . . . (emphasis added)

Any sexual activity you don't consent to is rape. End of story.

buffettbride wrote: When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?

Any time you want to. What happens if you agree to sex with a guy and, during the course of the encounter, he invites a buddy or two in? Or decides to try choking you? People don't (usually - let's forget the money factor for this one minute) call rape when it's something that they are comfortable with or accepting of in any way. Trust me, the humiliation of reporting, questioning, etc. is just not worth it.