Monday, September 27, 2004

Kobe's accuser is pregnant

"Tha baby daddy" is a guy she met in drug rehab. Classy, huh?

The more that comes out about this case, the more it is apparent that this girl is looney-tunes, pure and simple. I understand that even crazy girls can be raped, but at some point, particularly as it pertains to the sexual history of the defendant, isn't it Kobe's right to point out that she obviously has loose morals and is easy to get into bed? I mean, particularly when she had sex the day after the purported rape, doesn't that indicate anything?

The only reason I mention this is that I had a conversation with my dad a couple weekends ago, and he thinks this girl got the short end of the stick in court. I couldn't have disagreed more - if anything, from what I knew about the case, she was lucky it got this far.

I'd welcome comments here, particularly from lawyers and future lawyers.

2 Comments:

At 6:15 PM, Blogger MSR said...

I couldn't agree more, Bo.

I believe that rape/sexual assault is the most difficult type of crime for a court to rightly determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Primarily, the questions involving consent (e.g. when is it given? when is it taken away?) are responsible for this difficulty. I've always asked the question: without overwhelming physical evidence and/or an eyewitness account, how does the prosecution prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I honestly think it's damn near impossible, but if the prosecution is going to base a case primarily on the claims of the accuser, then her credibility becomes a central issue. Consequently, how can one consider her sexual history irrelevant? The prosecution can't have it both ways.

 
At 9:32 PM, Blogger Tortfeasor said...

Couple of random points here:

-- Is it possible that one of the effects of the sexual revolution is the increased difficulty of successfully prosecuting a rape charge?

-- These cases make strange bedfellows. Feminists whose general politics are very liberal seek to restrict (eradicate?) the due process rights of the accused, almost to a strict liability regime in which the word of the alleged victim trumps all. In almost any other case, their politics would suggest an (over-) enlargement of due process rights for accused criminals.

-- The DA in this case is a total DA, as in dumbass. Have you seen this guy? I think he perceived this case as his big break, hoping to one day write a book and land a cushy anchor position on Court TV. Instead, he has exposed his snaggle-toothed lisp to the world for ridicule. Good work.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home