Breaking: CO Supreme Court denies Kobe accuser's appeal

[mountainvue]

http://www.cnn.com/

Colorado Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal of ruling that allows Kobe Bryant's attorneys to tell jurors about accuser's sex life. Details soon.


No story yet, just a banner at the top of the page.

[iconoclastic cat]

1. I take it this is your statement on our national malaise?

[mountainvue]

3. No.

I'm more interested in my state's view of alleged rape victims sex lives.

[cspiguy]

2. Justice Marches On! (good grief)

Thomas Jefferson is crying somewhere in the great Deist Beyond.

[DrWeird]

7. Why?

Seems like a good decision to me.

[mountainvue]

11. I'm a little hesitant

to reply to your question given your sig line.B-)

[DrWeird]

12. LOL.

"Thank you, bitch. Suck it dry. Suck it dry."

-Travis of the Cosmos.

It's not as effective without the thick Japanese accent.

But no, seriously...

[mountainvue]

36. These bastards

tried to trot out her entire medical history and were allowed to use the fact that she was on antidepressants at one point and "rumoured" suicide attempts. What percentage of the population isn't on atidepressants these days? No, what they're trying to do is assasinate this woman's character. And guess what? They've succeeded.

[CatWoman]

14. actrually, he put it there to taunt me

}(

[eyesroll]

4. Doesn't the ruling limit sex-life details to a few days before and after?

If that's the case, frankly, it seems relevant -- if semen, bruises, etc. could theoretically have come from consentual sex the day before, I think that's a legitimate defense.

If they're going back months or years, then it's a problem.

[Dookus]

5. I suspect this will fall on deaf ears...

but the case was NOT about her generic "sex life". It's about whether she had sex immediately prior to or immediately after her "encounter" with Bryant, and whether those other sexual contacts could reasonably account for a lot of the evidence the prosecution wants to present.

[mountainvue]

10. We"ll see.

I'm interested to read their decision.

[Dookus]

13. There IS no decision

other than one not to hear the appeal. The lower court's decision allows the defense to use information about the accuser's sexual activities during the 3 days leading up to her medical examination.

[mountainvue]

25. Yes.

Thank you.

[Chef]

6. Breaking

...we now return you to the Scott Peterson/Michael Jackson All The Time programing now in progress.....

[onehandle]

8. zzz...snore. nt

[mountainvue]

9. If it's so boring to you

then most certainly your efforts are better spent elsewhere.

[Jim Sagle]

15. It bores me too. And I'll say so any damn time I please.

[gatlingforme]

16. She was wise to file the civil case. Her lawyers for that are much

more intelligent than what she has in the criminal. Her rights were violated to an egregious level in my book.

[mountainvue]

23. I agree. n/t

[opiate69]

32. Re:"She was wise to file the civil case"

I disagree.. I think filing the civil case is a pretty strong indication that this whole accusation was nothing more than an attempt to collect a big payday.

[msanthrope]

33. Correct---Actually, a civil case will open her up to far more

discovery than a criminal trial would. I'd loev to be a fly ont he wall for that deposition.

I agree and I think the civil case is a desperate, last ditch effort at a payout from Kobe.

[mountainvue]

35. She's asking for $75,000. n/t

[gatlingforme]

42. The criminal case is still going forward, The judge in the criminal

case screwed up so many times that she really had no choice. IMHO.

[AnnInLa]

17. tainted evidence?

I understand some of the points about sexual activity before and after the accusation tainting the evidence, but, on Court TV, there was a very interesting panel discussion about this. It seems that many forensic experts say that semen residue can turn up on panties or on sheets or on clothes even after weeks, after having been washed numerous times. If this is so, what good is a 3-day-limit of investigating sexual activitiy?

I think the deeper questions is, "Is sexual activity of any sort, at any date, even relevant to the charge of rape?" Do you mean to tell me that if my husband and I have sex the day after I am raped, or 2 days after I am raped, or 3 days after I am raped, (or days before I am raped)...that it is relevant? You will say that it is relevant only in relation to tainting the evidence, but forensic experts cannot even agree about how long a semen residue can cling to cloth! The same argument holds true for people who exhibit bruises differently.

I think the stone-age thinking stills holds: A woman better damn well not get raped unless she has at least 3 sober, Republican witnesses. A woman better damn well not get raped if she has had consensual sex in the past 3 days. A woman better damn well not get raped by a sports or other well-known figure. A woman better damn well not get raped by someone who has money enough to hire expensive lawyers.

After all, even a prostitute has the right not to get raped. It is a matter of choice...choosing who can enter your body. It looks like women are losing that battle of choice too.

[theboss]

19. It is relevant in regards to the physical evidence

If there is evidence of bruising, etc, it would matter if she had sex with different partners that weekend. And it would also call into question the timeline of events.

I agree that this is getting close to treading on dangerous ground, but they are not putting her whole sex life on trial. Just that weekend. And rape shield laws were not designed to make it impossible for defendants to mount a defense.

[Pachamama]

20. What about the right to knowing about Kobe's sexual activities in the days

before the rape and his sexual past? Couldn't those be relevant? Or not?

I mean if Kobe had consensual sex with 5 different women in the days leading up to his encounter (or days after) is that relevant? Would that mean he didn't commit the rape? I think its awful what this girl has had to go through publicly and sadly, all women and victims of rape have been hurt by this case. I don't care if she had sex with 100 men, if it was consensual. Rape is rape and the defense of Kobe Bryant trying to imply that because she may have had sex before and even after the rape doesn't make what happened between her and Kobe not a rape. Instead she gets victimized again and again....and then the system won't even hear her appeal...Nice....

Does anyone think that there are going to be rape victims in the future who are frightened to come forward because of what has been done to this girl? Isn't that what the Rape Victim Shield Law was supposed to do, protect these women?

[TheWraith]

21. You're making a lot of false assumptions.

For one thing, you're assuming that it's a cold hard fact that Byrant raped her. It isn't. That's what trials are held to determine.

For another, it is highly relevant if she went home and, the next day, had sex with her boyfriend. It isn't a normal reaction for a rape victim, as well as damaging the chain of evidence.

Bryant's history isn't relevant because there's nothing really evidenciary about it. Nothing about his sexual history can prove or disprove anything about the accuser's claims or the physical evidence, whereas hers may be able to.

Bear with me for a second. Suppose that she had consensual sex with Bryant. Then suppose that she goes home and either ends up telling her boyfriend, or she tells someone else who tells the boyfriend. The boyfriend gets angry with her for cheating on him and rapes her. She's goes to the police with the injuries to prove it, but she decides that she'd make out better if she accused the NBA star of doing it, maybe getting fame and a fat check out of the deal. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happened, but we can't say that it definitely didn't happen, either. That's why you have to assemble all the evidence.

By the way, it is a manifest travesty of justice to go screaming for the lynch mob the second a woman makes an accusation without waiting to hear the evidence. The right to a fair trial is not suspended because the accuser is a woman. Whether you choose to believe it or not, women are also capable of lying, even about matters as serious as this. That's why rape-shield laws are designed this way, to give the accused the ability to defend themselves. Here, now, this one worked properly, striking the right balance between privacy and fairness.

[LisaL]

26. Let's face it.

With all that money he has, even if he kills someobody, he would get off.

[TheWraith]

27. Maybe, maybe not.

Money can help someone tip the balance in their favor, but not always. My personal suspicion is that it will end in a hung jury, but that's just a guess.

[LisaL]

Doesn't look like there will be a trial right now

I don't think it will even make it to the jury.
My point is, he would have gotten off regardless, because of money and fame.

[Dookus]

28. Helped

Martha Stewart so much, didn't it?

If this case is dropped, as seems likely, it's not because Bryant has money. It's because the prosecutors are unable to put together a convincing case.

[mountainvue]

24. That was my whole point.

Notice the two male posters who are "bored" by this subject.:eyes:

[TheWraith]

40. Please don't throw around general insults.

It may have been rude of them to say that this is 'boring,' but don't imply that men could never understand your viewpoint. It's untrue, and it feeds the stereotype of feminist man-haters.

The fact is that the law worked the way it was intended to, to provide information if it is relevant to the case. It's an alledged sex crime. Take away the sex, and it is an alleged crime. Investigating an alleged crime requires evidence. The fact that in an alleged sex crime it's more personal doesn't change the fundamental neccessities of the legal system.

[Mike Daniels]

43. I thought they were bored because it didn't deal with Bush or politics

It's amazing how people will go out their way to post their dismissal of other people's interest in issues that aren't necessarily of a political nature.

Honest to God people, if you don't like a topic then don't post a statement on that thread. I seriously doubt most people who do post on a thread care whether you think the thread in question is relevant or not.

[Debi]

22. Actually...

The defense expert testified that 'Mr. X' semen was found inside her vagina and on her inner thighs, not just in her panties. She testified that 'dirty underwear' would not cause semen to go inside the wearer's vagina.

[mountainvue]

37. I can't find that anywhere.

Do you have a link?:)

[gatlingforme]

30. The prosecution is the culprit here, Not only did they not represent

this VICTIM in an intelligent manner, they let the judge get away with the biggest BS I have ever seen. It's BULLSHIT what the judge did and what the prosecutors have done. It's a calamity that she must now take to another level, civil and money --- the court seems to recognize money more so than their own responsibilty.

[mountainvue]

38. The civil suit judge

is Richard Matsch, a judge I have a lot of faith in.

[gatlingforme]

41. Good, I hope she gets a fair trial in that one!!!!!!! n/t

[jpgray]

31. I believe the semen was found in her vagina as well (nt)

[theboss]

18. This is probably a good decision

I largely agree with rape shield laws. But they shouldn't shield common sense. If she had sex with multiple partners that weekend, it certainly impacts the evidence. I would assume the judge would instruct the jury not to view this as character evidence (tough chance), but I think it is very relevant to the proceedings.

[Uzybone]

29. Bullshit case

not to rehash it, but she clearly was trying to smear a famous athlete. I think she has done a lot of damage towards those who have actually been raped.

[leesa]

34. Who cares? Let's trumpet it 24/7 and drown out the Bush Crimes!

[mountainvue]

39. But see, the gradual

erosion of certain women's rights are one of the hallmarks of Bushco, like when you have pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills due to religious beliefs and the ongoing underhanded tactics to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, to name a few, all in the name of piety.