I think the overkill of adulation is going to hit that breaking point real soon and the pushback is going to be real. Let's not lose sight that Bryant was just a man. He happened to be good at his job but again, just a man. He's not quite Jesus Christ.
Kobe Killed in Helicopter Crash
- Thread starter glennhoffmania
- Start date
This is logical, but it ignores how massively beloved globally Kobe was/is. As a sports figure he’s on par with LeBron, Messi, and Ronaldo. For no shortage of people around the world he has always been a deity and nothing will change that. The global narrative has been written in stone and it ignores June 2003 to March 2005 of his life.
A moment of silence was held before the Madrid derby today.
the "rapist' is misplaced. It should have been put on the forehead IMHO.
No doubt about that! You would be hard-pressed to find another human being that transcends such an enormous level of recognition and adoration. He just happens to be a massive generational star.
Keeping it in perspective; there are quite a few people that adore Donald Trump at that level too.
I wonder if they were trying to frame it over the 24, so it sort of reads like the name on his jersey? Either way, I thought it was nice of them to use purple.
Entire post is one big 'yikes' but I've seen this sentiment a few times and it seems like some people are just operating off a different definition of rape. To reiterate, this is what Kobe said:
“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”
The way this should be translated is:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us wasn't rape, I recognize now that she thought it was rape at the time and still thinks it was rape."
Does that make it more clear? Who do you think should decide what is or isn't rape? The rapist or the person being raped?
It blows my mind that some people think that the only thing that can constitute sexual assault is the most malicious, violent rape and all other types of non-consent are some sort of benign misunderstanding.
So you're saying if one partner thinks the encounter is rape then it's rape? Hmm.
That’s actually the legal standard. Nailed it!
Edit: do people seriously think that both parties need to think it’s rape for it to constitute rape? Here’s a PSA from a prosecutor: it doesn’t matter what you think it is, if the other party is not consenting and thinks it is rape/sexual assault, that’s exactly what it is. Get consent first. Every time.
Last edited:
I just want to point out something with respect to this Kobe quote. When it was pointed out that he did make a public apology as part of that same quote which keeps getting redacted,, folks here belittled and dismissed it as something his lawyer wrote and read on his behalf in an effort to end the criminal case.
But when it suits the argument of those same people, they talk about this statement as if Kobe wrote it and spoke, and it constitutes an admission of guilt. So which is it? Is it something his lawyer wrote and read and not much should be gleaned from it from Kobe's perspective, or was Kobe truly sincere in his apology and also admitted he raped her in that statement? I'm confused.
FTR, I don't read that as an admission in any way. If it were, the prosecution should have re-arrested him and introduced it into evidence as such. Shit, a voluntary confession would be enough to convict, assuming the evidence is good, even without the victim's testimony. For me, I think his lawyer wrote it, his lawyer read it and it says just enough without saying too much (you know, how lawyers tend to write) and I'm honestly perplexed how deeply folks are looking into it, to the point where we are now saying he admitted he raped her.
What is going on around here? Of course his lawyers wrote it and one read it. But at the same time uncorroborated confessions aren’t admissible to establish a conviction, even if he read it himself. You need the victim to establish the lack of consent element of the crime and she refused to testify. None of the evidence other than her statement establishes lack of consent. Can’t use the uncorroborated confession to get there. Let’s just make up the rules of evidence as we go along.
You don't need a victim to testify in a rape/sexual assault case, even if the defense is contending the encounter was consensual. You can convict based on evidence alone. Sure, it's harder for the prosecution, but it's not impossible. You need a pretty air tight case on the evidence, but based on what folks are contending around here about the evidence in this case, it's open and shut, right? I haven't read up on the case law in many years, but IIRC, you can't rely solely on an extrajudicial confession to get a conviction, however, if you have substantial corroborating evidence underlying the confession, you can use it. If Myt1 was around, he'd probably remember the Latin term that I'm blanking on right now. And unless the Federal Rules of Evidence changed since I stopped going to court, Party Admissions are allowed, as are vicarious admissions made by an agent (ie. Kobe's lawyer) on behalf of a party, so we don't have any hearsay issues here either.
Again, my point isn't about Kobe's guilt or innocence, my point is that there are very, very conflicting views in this thread about how to interpret that statement. Was it truly an admission of guilt? Was it truly from Kobe himself? Are folks ignoring the parts they want to ignore, and paying attention to the parts they want? I have trouble reading that statement and saying "Kobe never apologized, his lawyer wrote that so we should ignore it" and then in the next breath pointing to the same statement and saying "See, Kobe admitted it, he's a rapist."
I don't think it's that complicated.
There's a legal standard and a moral standard for rape, and it looks like his lawyer tried to hit the ball right down the middle. I don't know what CO rape law looked like at the time, but this case predates me going to law school, and when we were studying it in crim law, a lot (most?) states had a force requirement under their rape statutes. Some found the requirement met by the act of penetrative sex itself, but there was still a wide gulf between "this person didn't want to have sex" - which to me is rape, and "this person was legally raped".
That's where I'm getting that Kobe admitted to rape - "she didn't consent," but didn't fully apologize and why his statement was not enough for a conviction without corroborating evidence. Non-consensual sex is rape. Not always legally, and here he doesn't admit force or threat of force. I forget if there's a mens rea requirement, but he doesn't admit anything about his state of mind at the time, only after reevaluation.
Not you specifically, but I feel like these discussions about obtaining or ascertaining consent always have this weird hypothetical air where men are worried they'll mistakenly rape someone. But, that doesn't seem applicable here. Forensic evidence showed non-menstrual blood. Blood isn't really a common occurrence during consensual sex. If she were on her period, she likely would've had to remove a tampon first or would have mentioned it. If you're having what you think is consensual sex with someone and notice blood, I feel like a good guideline is to stop and inquire whether the other person is okay and wants to continue.
From what I understand, this would have been very painful, and her reactions would pretty clearly indicate that she was not okay and not consenting. I feel like we all know that intuitively and experientially.
There's a legal standard and a moral standard for rape, and it looks like his lawyer tried to hit the ball right down the middle. I don't know what CO rape law looked like at the time, but this case predates me going to law school, and when we were studying it in crim law, a lot (most?) states had a force requirement under their rape statutes. Some found the requirement met by the act of penetrative sex itself, but there was still a wide gulf between "this person didn't want to have sex" - which to me is rape, and "this person was legally raped".
That's where I'm getting that Kobe admitted to rape - "she didn't consent," but didn't fully apologize and why his statement was not enough for a conviction without corroborating evidence. Non-consensual sex is rape. Not always legally, and here he doesn't admit force or threat of force. I forget if there's a mens rea requirement, but he doesn't admit anything about his state of mind at the time, only after reevaluation.
Not you specifically, but I feel like these discussions about obtaining or ascertaining consent always have this weird hypothetical air where men are worried they'll mistakenly rape someone. But, that doesn't seem applicable here. Forensic evidence showed non-menstrual blood. Blood isn't really a common occurrence during consensual sex. If she were on her period, she likely would've had to remove a tampon first or would have mentioned it. If you're having what you think is consensual sex with someone and notice blood, I feel like a good guideline is to stop and inquire whether the other person is okay and wants to continue.
From what I understand, this would have been very painful, and her reactions would pretty clearly indicate that she was not okay and not consenting. I feel like we all know that intuitively and experientially.
Just to help you out with the blood...
Detective Loyola: Okay. Did she, did you get any blood on you or anything like that?
Bryant: She didn't bleed did she?
Detective Loyola: Yeah. She had, she had a lot of bleeding.
Bryant: What, you got to be kidding, from where?
Detective Loyola: From her vaginal area.
Bryant: Did she cut herself or something, there's no blood on me whatsoever man, matter of fact I still have the boxers, (inaudible) boxers, they're all white, they're all white, there's nothing on them.
However, in fact, there was not a lot of blood. The accuser actually told the police it was a small amount. And, the police testified they did not even check the room for blood. Because of the described small amount, they expected to find none.
There was blood on his t-shirt. There was blood on the outside of his t-shirt, but it was not visible to the officers and was only detected through CBI examination. There were a few (3?) smears on the bottom middle inside of the t-shirt. 100% my speculation, but that's probably where he wiped his dick after the finished.
So, yes. There was blood. But it doesn't sound like, either from the accuser or from Kobe or from the blood evidence that there was blood flying all around and certainly not in amounts would've been likely noticed... or potentially given other factors even could've been noticed.
I see some of you putting a lot of weight in analyzing the post-dismissal statement as a 'gotcha' of his guilt.
The charges were dismissed with prejudice... at the urging of the accuser.
I could not find that it was ever indicated, but it seems pretty darn likely that the statement was issued with some degree of collaboration with the accuser/prosecution.
Detective Loyola: Okay. Did she, did you get any blood on you or anything like that?
Bryant: She didn't bleed did she?
Detective Loyola: Yeah. She had, she had a lot of bleeding.
Bryant: What, you got to be kidding, from where?
Detective Loyola: From her vaginal area.
Bryant: Did she cut herself or something, there's no blood on me whatsoever man, matter of fact I still have the boxers, (inaudible) boxers, they're all white, they're all white, there's nothing on them.
However, in fact, there was not a lot of blood. The accuser actually told the police it was a small amount. And, the police testified they did not even check the room for blood. Because of the described small amount, they expected to find none.
There was blood on his t-shirt. There was blood on the outside of his t-shirt, but it was not visible to the officers and was only detected through CBI examination. There were a few (3?) smears on the bottom middle inside of the t-shirt. 100% my speculation, but that's probably where he wiped his dick after the finished.
So, yes. There was blood. But it doesn't sound like, either from the accuser or from Kobe or from the blood evidence that there was blood flying all around and certainly not in amounts would've been likely noticed... or potentially given other factors even could've been noticed.
I see some of you putting a lot of weight in analyzing the post-dismissal statement as a 'gotcha' of his guilt.
The charges were dismissed with prejudice... at the urging of the accuser.
I could not find that it was ever indicated, but it seems pretty darn likely that the statement was issued with some degree of collaboration with the accuser/prosecution.
There isn’t any corroborated evidence of the lack of consent without testimony from the victim and as far as I know, there weren’t any otherwise admissible statements from her about lack of consent. Also, I’d imagine that his defense team would raise a confrontation objection since his accuser is otherwise available to testify and the state could subpoena her but has chosen not to.
Who is saying “Kobe never apologized, his lawyer wrote that so we should ignore it”? I don’t think I have seen that. “Ignoring it” isn’t the same thing as being critical of it. I have seen something much closer to “Kobe and his team did the absolute minimum to get the charge dropped while destroying the woman in the process, so (1) maybe we shouldn’t credit his lawyerly admission as if he had truly made amends for his actions, and (2) maybe the lasting consequences of rape should remain on the table for discussion in the same breath as his ability to get to the rim.”
Visited with my 79 year old mom yesterday. We were sitting at the kitchen table and talking when out of the blue she says "Too bad about that Brian Jacobbe." to which I replied a simple "Yep". She's not the most up to date on all that goes on in the world. I refrained from explaining how deep and difficult a subject this as is to her it was just an opening into idle chit chat. I can only wish that Bryant's death meant this little to more people.
Yeah, for sure I appreciated the effort. She's at that stage in life where things in her orbit don't change a lot so she was looking for something current.
From the ESPN Wickersham article linked earlier in this thread, from the prosecutor's point of view
Which I will assume is a better point of view than your own personal
I don't really have a point of view here. I'm just having a conversation about the statement being attributed to Kobe (a statement that was made after the victim decided not to testify, so after the prosecutor's mind being made up that the case was dead). I've read everything there is to read about Kobe's case, and IMO, he probably did rape the girl. But, as an attorney, I have a hard time labeling someone a rapist based on an allegation and some evidence which can be interpreted very differently than the way it's been presented in the few articles that have been posted in this thread. I am pretty stubborn when it comes to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and frankly, I wish more prosecutors in this country felt the same way. If Kobe was alleged to have raped someone, was found guilty, subsequently jailed and then released years later when DNA absolved him, which happens literally every day, everyone would be lamenting our system of justice and crying tears for another innocent man wasting away in a jail cell. Here we have a case with an allegation of rape, evidence which isn't perfect by any means, and yet, folks have no problem saying they know for a fact he did it. I just can't get there, but then again, I don't really need to, because I don't like Kobe, didn't like him as a player or a person, so I'm not shedding any tears for him (although I'm truly upset about the 3 girls and the other parents that lost their lives on that chopper).. I do believe that if the prosecution viewed his statement as the confession that a lot of folks around here view it as, then coupled with the physical evidence, they may have been able to charge him even without the victim's testimony.. Once again, his "confession" came after the victim decided not to press the criminal case, but double jeopardy would not have applied, and they could have re-charged him. They may not have thought they had enough for a conviction, but I've seen prosecutors blow up folks lives in cases where a conviction was very unlikely (and a public trial, with all of the facts coming out in this case would absolutely have blown up his legacy), with less than what they had here.
That said, I have no issues with the discussion about the case with respect to his legacy, and I certainly have no issue with other people, particularly sexual assault victims, having a very different view of an allegation. That's their experience and they have a right to whatever opinion they choose to have. If someone says "an allegation is all I need, IMO, the burden should be on the accused, not the victim," then that's their position and it's guided by their experiences and beliefs and I don't begrudge anyone that. Any discussion about Kobe's biography should include a long section on the alleged rape in Colorado. Period.
I just have issue with the drumbeat of "He admitted it" posts. He didn't admit it. If he did, he'd have been charged. Folks are charged for rape and murder in cases where they killed the victim all the time, so the idea you must have the victim's testimony is just not true. They bring domestic violence cases, including rape/sexual assault cases involving family members, without the victim's testimony, all the time. The physical evidence, other witnesses, hospital clinician's statements, surveillance video, etc. and even a confession from the accused are enough to bring a case. I'm just arguing that Kobe did not confess, nor did he really apologize for that matter. His lawyer wrote a statement, that was required in order to get the criminal case tossed, and reading into that as anything more is a bridge too far, IMO. And I truly believe that had the prosecution viewed his statement as an admission, like many here do, they would have brought the case.
I think she claimed that when Kobe made sexual advances beyond making out, she told him "no" and resisted, right? If that's true, then he raped her, he was morally culpable for the physical and emotional harm done to her, and he should've been found guilty of rape in a court of law and punished accordingly. But the apology statement very clearly does not concede this point. Notice the two huge qualifiers when referencing her claims:
This is Kobe's lawyers hinting that what was actually expressed and acted out (verbally and non-verbally) between the two of them that night amounted to what a reasonable person would consider consent. They're suggesting that she's misremembering or outright lying about the fact that she perceptibly resisted or revoked consent after the initial mutual interest, while saying: "but she doesn't feel that she's misremembering or lying about it." It's a bullshit non-apology that maintains legal innocence, calls her account inaccurate, then pointlessly grants that she's being sincere (sincerely wrong). In other words: it's calling her crazy, or implying she's a liar while trying to take the high road and not say it explicitly. Why? If I had to guess, I'd say:
Kobe was always a self-mythologizing brand first and a person second. If he had been truly innocent -- or cared about clearing his name completely -- he wouldn't have hid this argument for his legal innocence so well in such a guilty-sounding statement. It would have been much more compelling -- and consistent with what he wants us to believe about his innocence -- for him to go scorched Earth on this girl. For him to say: "I'm ashamed of myself for doing this to my wife, but this was consenual, and shame on anyone who makes a false rape claim against anyone, let alone a black man, and in doing so damages the cases being made by actually credible accusers and sexual assault victims." But Kobe the brand needed to get people (women) -- who distrusted him for the affair, and were turned off by his defense strategy -- back on his side with an insidious statement that lays claim to the truth, while pretending it can conflict but also coexist with something called her truth, which he understands, and hears, and wants the world to know he thinks is valid -- just not valid enough to be actually true or to fly in court. So IMO anyone who thinks the language in that statement means Kobe was intending to give up legal or moral ground is underestimating how incredibly cynical Kobe was.
I'm not contradicting you... I'm asking for a clarification from those that know. It is my understanding that after the victim refused to testify there was a negotiation surrounding a potential civil suit. As part of that settlement, the victim asked the prosecutor to dismiss the case with prejudice. If it was dismissed with prejudice, doesn't that mean that the case could not be brought again - even if he announced to the nation he had done it? So his statement (even if we accept it as a complete and full confession) doesn't mean that the prosecution had the ability to bring the case again... right?
Can someone please correct me here if I'm mistaken.
You're right. Dismissing with prejudice means it's over. And the prosecution team wanted to try the case. They asked her to reconsider. So any claims of lack of evidence is not accurate.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/01/30/mark-hurlbert-kobe-bryant-vail-colorado-rape-trial/
Last edited:
Yes, that's correct. If the case was dismissed with prejudice, then double jeopardy would apply. That said, the civil suit should have had no bearing on the criminal case, and Kobe's statement was made in court, at the request of the victim, so it becomes one of timing. If the prosecution was on board with dismissing with prejudice, I would hope they reviewed the statement (which was basically the only prior condition the victim/prosecution asked for in return for dropping the charges) before actually dropping the case, otherwise, what would have stopped Kobe from turning around saying "Yeah, thanks for the dismissal, no reason to issue an apology now."
When the charges were dropped in the criminal case, the civil case had not been settled yet. From a legal perspective, the whole thing is very interesting. You can't use the threat of a criminal case to get the upper hand in a civil case, and the two should really never be intertwined. Even in the statement from Kobe, they make it clear that the statement could be used against him in the civil trial. There was a lot of discussion surrounding that at the time, because the rules protecting rape victims (although in 2003 in Colorado, there weren't many apparently) in criminal cases don't apply in civil cases, so Kobe's lawyers tactics in the criminal trial could have been stepped up tenfold in a civil trial with respect to attacking/disparaging the victim and her credibility. On the flip side, in a civil trial, the victim's attorneys could have potentially introduced evidence from any other women who claimed Kobe assaulted them (which would not have probably been possible in the criminal case without a pattern), so in some sense, both sides had incentive to settle the civil suit.
Of course, there were other issues going on at the time of the dismissal of the criminal case, namely the defense had filed a motion to exclude the testimony of one of the prosecution's expert witnesses claiming he/she had information that would have helped Kobe and they didn't disclose it. The prosecution responded by simply dropping the expert from their witness list, but there was talk about that also being a reason for the dismissal, as opposed to it just being because the victim refused to testify. Again, I don't want to relitigate the entire case here, but it is certainly an interesting case study for those that are interested in these sorts of things. I'm just glad that the laws have at least evolved since then so that victims of sexual assault are given more protection for coming forward than they were afforded in 2003.
The defendant could not have avoided testifying in a civil case. That's often a major incentive to settle for those with closeted skeletons and lots of money. Where (lack of) intent or mistake (as to consent) would have been among his defenses in a civil suit, past indiscretions may very well have been admissible. And unlike OJ, he wasn't judgment-proof.
He “was”.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
I didn’t see that line but there was definitely one for whether a TD celebration would somehow reverence Kobe and whether Jlo or Shakira would wear a Kobe Jersey. There was one other Kobe related prop but I can’t think of it at the moment,
So now his wife is going to burn his house down? Talk about adding insult to injury.
I've got to wonder how Kobe's ex-teammates are feeling right now considering he finally passed.
It’s too bad more posters critical of Kobe aren’t responding to GoDa’s post rather than making jokes. That’s the conversation starter that most are choosing to ignore.
Not a response to this post in particular, but the thread overall. Some miscellaneous thoughts:
- With criminal culpability, there is a spectrum. Even murder (involuntary, manslaughter, felony) recognizes this reality. Or, larceny... whether a felony or misdemeanor depends on dollar value, etc. To say someone is a “rapist” and that label is permanent and clear cut does not recognize reality.
- To state someone does not change is equally ridiculous. I am (gulp, 50) and think of do-overs I would like from my teens, 20s, heck, even last week!
- Kobe was a sports celebrity at a very young age. Others have done so, too, but probably not under the spotlight of a marquee franchise (e.g., Garnett - Minnesota, LeBron - Cleveland). Earlier this season, LeBron made some comments about Daryl Money’s post on social media re: China, and in doing so demonstrated less maturity than Kobe has during most of his career.
- I grew up in Boston, but went to grad school in SoCal and remained for career growth. About four years ago, my daughter’s club soccer team played Kobe’s oldest daughter’s team (my daughter was 12 at time). After the game, Kobe spoke with girls and took pictures with everyone on my daughter’s team. This went on for about 45 minutes, all with a smile and no media. It really was a special memory seeing how much the girls enjoyed “being with a celebrity” and more importantly, how genuine Kobe was.
- Kobe lived in Newport Beach, while virtually all NBA players are much closer to “the scene.” Lonzo Ball, for example, immediately bought a condo in the Four Seasons residences right next to Staples Center. From a very young age, Kobe seemed thoughtful of the environment that would be most conducive to family life.
- For what happened in Colorado, perhaps there was some karma, in him having four girls. As a girl dad myself, I really think it improves your perspective on all sorts of things. Frankly, since I grew up without a dad in my home, I believe being a girl dad helped me immensely. I’d like to think the same happened with Kobe.
- I have no idea what happened with that girl in Colorado, or what has happened since. But since a day does not pass without some incredible story of forgiveness (e.g., a parent forgiving the drunk driver that killed a child), perhaps we should not be resolute in speaking on her behalf.
- Being in SoCal, there are countless stories coming out about his generosity - not just financial - toward the community. On the day he died, he was spotted in his local Catholic Church, alone, at 6am. That was clearly not a media ploy. It’s who he was.
I understand that some coverage (most of it) seems overboard. I think the spectacular nature of the death fuels that, on top of celebrity. But having reflected on this for a week or so, I think he was a very special person. Like all of us, he had his flaws, and made mistakes (which I believe he truly regrets - as I do many of mine). While we should remember the full picture, I think it a huge mistake to be dismissive of what he contributed by framing everything with a label (and we only have to look to Washington DC to see where that gets us).
Very infrequent poster, but wanted to share. I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s opinions here -
It'd be easier to respond to GoDa's posts if he provided links to some of his claims. But, there wasn't much to take away from his last post, so...
We're agreeing there was blood. I'm not sure what quantum of blood he would find necessary to be convinced, but there's no disagreement that she was bleeding, she noted she was bleeding, it was an issue they raised with Kobe, and they found blood on his shirt.
Second, he's putting a ton of weight on the fact the woman asked for charges to be dismissed with prejudice (again, cite?), but ignoring the fact that that was after 14 months of harassment and bullying by Kobe's team and the media. That seems a lot like giving a mob boss credit because he told the star witness he had henchman outside his children's school.
As for the statement, acknowledging she did not consent - whether he was aware of it at the time or not - is an acknowledgment of rape. I know that's not how some people want to define it, but sex without consent is rape.
We're agreeing there was blood. I'm not sure what quantum of blood he would find necessary to be convinced, but there's no disagreement that she was bleeding, she noted she was bleeding, it was an issue they raised with Kobe, and they found blood on his shirt.
Second, he's putting a ton of weight on the fact the woman asked for charges to be dismissed with prejudice (again, cite?), but ignoring the fact that that was after 14 months of harassment and bullying by Kobe's team and the media. That seems a lot like giving a mob boss credit because he told the star witness he had henchman outside his children's school.
As for the statement, acknowledging she did not consent - whether he was aware of it at the time or not - is an acknowledgment of rape. I know that's not how some people want to define it, but sex without consent is rape.
Just to follow up with what @Marciano490 laid out, we know about the blood on the shirt, we know about the lacerations observed in the SANE, again, too numerous to count (this is a bit unusual because normally you can get a definitive number or at least a range). We know they both had some inconsistencies in initial reports. I don’t put a lot of stock in this because it’s fairly common for both the accused and the victim. We know he admitted to strangling her. He claimed it was consensual. The semen from a third party really is useful for the defense to establish and alternate theory of injury. It has nothing to do with whether or not she consented to sexual intercourse with Bryant.
The request for dismissal with prejudice could have been a part of the settlement as was the apology (I don’t know because the settlement hasn’t been released and is covered by the NDA). The apology is an admission that while he thought it was consensual at the time, he realizes now (looking back) that it was not consensual to her. Which means it’s an acknowledgement that he now realizes in her mind, it was rape and not consensual intercourse. This is an insertion of a reasonable mistake of fact defense. That is, if I have a reasonable belief that an individual is consenting to sexual activity, it is a defense if they later claim that they were not. Not an honest mistake of fact but an honest and reasonable mistake, as in reasonable person standard. He basically said, I’m sorry that you think what we did was rape. It’s not a straight up admission of guilt in a legal sense but it is an admission or acknowledgement that to one party of the intercourse, it was rape. So, he is acknowledging that he now knows she didn’t consent. Legally, if one party didn’t consent it’s rape or sexual assault (jurisdiction dependent on wording). If the mistake of fact is raised, the government must establish that the mistake wasn’t reasonable. He’s admitted to all elements of the offense while raising an affirmative defense. And I think it depends on how you view the evidence whether Bryant’s assertion that he thought the act was consensual is a reasonable belief to a reasonably prudent person.
If your position is that, you can never convict unless the victim tells a 100% verifiably true story every single time, has no motive to fabricate any part of their allegation, never had sex with anyone prior to the accused (or at least evidence of the sex will not be discovered during an invasive forensic exam), never had a history of mental health problems, always maintained unwavering support of the government’s case (to include willingness to testify and be present at all stages in a trial), you will never convict. It’s an unrealistic standard. If sex assault cases were that rock solid, they would all end in guilty pleas. The reality is, it’s difficult to establish what happened between two individuals behind a closed door when they both tell sometimes wildly different stories. That’s what makes these cases so difficult.
The request for dismissal with prejudice could have been a part of the settlement as was the apology (I don’t know because the settlement hasn’t been released and is covered by the NDA). The apology is an admission that while he thought it was consensual at the time, he realizes now (looking back) that it was not consensual to her. Which means it’s an acknowledgement that he now realizes in her mind, it was rape and not consensual intercourse. This is an insertion of a reasonable mistake of fact defense. That is, if I have a reasonable belief that an individual is consenting to sexual activity, it is a defense if they later claim that they were not. Not an honest mistake of fact but an honest and reasonable mistake, as in reasonable person standard. He basically said, I’m sorry that you think what we did was rape. It’s not a straight up admission of guilt in a legal sense but it is an admission or acknowledgement that to one party of the intercourse, it was rape. So, he is acknowledging that he now knows she didn’t consent. Legally, if one party didn’t consent it’s rape or sexual assault (jurisdiction dependent on wording). If the mistake of fact is raised, the government must establish that the mistake wasn’t reasonable. He’s admitted to all elements of the offense while raising an affirmative defense. And I think it depends on how you view the evidence whether Bryant’s assertion that he thought the act was consensual is a reasonable belief to a reasonably prudent person.
If your position is that, you can never convict unless the victim tells a 100% verifiably true story every single time, has no motive to fabricate any part of their allegation, never had sex with anyone prior to the accused (or at least evidence of the sex will not be discovered during an invasive forensic exam), never had a history of mental health problems, always maintained unwavering support of the government’s case (to include willingness to testify and be present at all stages in a trial), you will never convict. It’s an unrealistic standard. If sex assault cases were that rock solid, they would all end in guilty pleas. The reality is, it’s difficult to establish what happened between two individuals behind a closed door when they both tell sometimes wildly different stories. That’s what makes these cases so difficult.
And this is the route you were initially trying to go down before you read the thread, then apologized for where you where going...and now you want to go down it anyway?
A different poster has covered your thoughts, so you don't need to post them?
It's been covered over and over, by many posters already, before and after GoDa posted, I'm unsure of what else you want at this point
Preacher has laid it out more than once and people are willfully ignoring it. If you can't trust someone that has more expertise in this area that anyone else on this board, why encourage others to continue to post their uninformed "opinions" on it
Drive by the wreckage even slower, hoping to see the gruesome outcome?
I can't tell if people are just unfamiliar with concepts of proof and evidence because it's tidier on TV, or if they're uncomfortable with an understanding of consent that doesn't privilege willful blindness or obtuseness, or if it's just that rape cases are sometimes more difficult to make out (both for evidentiary reasons (it's always harder to prove intent) and because of the shitty way we tend to handle them).
We've all seen the OJ trial and the impeachment hearings. Any piece of evidence can be explained away or diluted or handwaived or addressed with some misdirection, so reiterating Kobe's talking points and acting as if a valid counterargument has been set forth doesn't make sense to me. Like, there was blood. Yes, not a gallon, but enough that she noticed. Yes, her entire neck wasn't black and blue, but she was marked and that's not normal in a sexual encounter which one party deems rape. Yes, she didn't tell every person she passed what happened immediately after, but she did tell one coworker right away. Yes, she ultimately stopped cooperating, but it was after 14 months of Hell and a civil settlement.
And, yes, Kobe didn't straight up say "Under the CO statute I raped that woman," but he did admit the sex was not consensual. Aka, rape.
In a court, obviously, the defense doesn't have to come up with an alternate story. The burden is on the prosecution. But, here, people are just niggling away at fairly compelling evidence yet not giving any narrative that describes why the things they admit happened did indeed happen. Like, what's the story where a woman goes up to a VIP client's room because he asks her to show him around, leaves the room with vaginal bleeding coming from numerous lacerations, immediately tells a co-worker she was raped, has a bruise on her neck, then goes to the police and cooperates with the prosecution for over a year.
Don't just poo-poo evidence. If you're taking the time to counterargue the facts of the case, you have a theory as to what went down. So, don't try to fence sit as an unconvinced weigher of truth, put it out there. And if it's too gross or retrograde to say out loud, then maybe reexamine your motivations and inclinations in trying to argue just the evidence.
We've all seen the OJ trial and the impeachment hearings. Any piece of evidence can be explained away or diluted or handwaived or addressed with some misdirection, so reiterating Kobe's talking points and acting as if a valid counterargument has been set forth doesn't make sense to me. Like, there was blood. Yes, not a gallon, but enough that she noticed. Yes, her entire neck wasn't black and blue, but she was marked and that's not normal in a sexual encounter which one party deems rape. Yes, she didn't tell every person she passed what happened immediately after, but she did tell one coworker right away. Yes, she ultimately stopped cooperating, but it was after 14 months of Hell and a civil settlement.
And, yes, Kobe didn't straight up say "Under the CO statute I raped that woman," but he did admit the sex was not consensual. Aka, rape.
In a court, obviously, the defense doesn't have to come up with an alternate story. The burden is on the prosecution. But, here, people are just niggling away at fairly compelling evidence yet not giving any narrative that describes why the things they admit happened did indeed happen. Like, what's the story where a woman goes up to a VIP client's room because he asks her to show him around, leaves the room with vaginal bleeding coming from numerous lacerations, immediately tells a co-worker she was raped, has a bruise on her neck, then goes to the police and cooperates with the prosecution for over a year.
Don't just poo-poo evidence. If you're taking the time to counterargue the facts of the case, you have a theory as to what went down. So, don't try to fence sit as an unconvinced weigher of truth, put it out there. And if it's too gross or retrograde to say out loud, then maybe reexamine your motivations and inclinations in trying to argue just the evidence.
I will only speak for me. I responded to other, similar posts of his, with no effect. At some point, not giving the fire any more oxygen is the best option.
