Can a Prostitute Be Raped?

I'm serious here.

Can a prostitute be raped? By many people's standards, I guess not.

I ask this simply because of the hypocritical "outrage" by many (mostly men) that the alleged victim in the Kobe Bryant case in Colorado may have actually had sex just before being with Kobe...and with different men. So what!

None of us knows what truly happened there yet. I am willing to wait and see what a trial may reveal.

But just because a woman has had sex with someone other than the person she accuses of rape is really no one else's business.

Following such ill logic, a prostitute could never seek justice in an American court after being raped, for after all, she could have had sex with other "different men" in the same time period as her rape. We had all be very careful that we don't accept such a dangerous concept.

Perhaps Kobe's attorney has some viable evidence and I'm willing to keep an open mind, but the comment that was thrown out gratuitously last Friday about the alleged victim having had "sex with three different men in three days" was outrageous and shameful. I can not see how that comment could possibly help Kobe.

(Note: This is a repost from an earlier thread which was appropriately locked as I should have used quotation marks to illustrate my sarcasm with a certain ugly term.)

Also, since I am reposting, I would like to ask, the following: Can a married mom be raped, if besides the semen from the rapist there is found in her undergarments the semen from her own husband? This is sort of the polar opposite extension of the same question where a prostitute is used in the example. The answer in both incidences is: of course, she can be raped.

The judge should have thrown the book at Kobe's attorney to make certain that women in this country need never be worried about having sex with any man, including their own husbands, for fear that it may be later used against them. This is a very scary concept and it seems to me that it is a point that is truly being missed.

Out here in Los Angeles, we have a certain Tom Likus who rails against all women to his mostly young male audience. He, of course, is the one who outed the accuser by name. His insisting that Kobe's attorney did the right thing is really sending a very, very bad message and there doesn't seem to be any challenge to this whatsoever.

Can a prostitute be raped? Can a wife be raped? Of course, but if semen from another man is enough to discredit her in a court room, where are we as a people?

Rape is forcing (by any method) a person to have sex against their will. If a person who makes their living by selling sex is forced to have sex when they do not want to, that is still rape.

and it should be treated as the crime it is.

Rape is a crime of violence and domination, it is not a sex crime.

Rapists are abusers, and need to be dealt with as such.

Stop means stop

end of discussion, for me.

Rape is forcing sex one someone without their consent. Battery need not be involved- as numerous court cases involving boss/employee rape has shown. Hence, it was the woman's right to refuse Kobe Bryant at any point, even in the middle of sex (which is a very broad definition.)
The sexually active do not lose the right to their bodily safety.

I think there have been cases involving prostitutes whose clients turned violent on them suddenly, and those were ruled as rape.

so if he runs out on the bill, I don't think it would be rape.

edited for typo

So can men.

... that you are asking about a *legal* issue. A thread on that question totally broke down into an emotion-a-thon last night, and it was frustrating as hell trying to accurately answer legal questions without provoking outrage.

I appreciate your concern, but it is more than just legal, it seems to me, for if women must now be worried because having sex with someone (even their husbands, imagine that) might be used against them after they are raped, then it rises to a extra-legal question that, in effect, sends a really scary message to women in this country.

But I don't know what to do about it, except change the laws. I kept getting lots of "Why is she allowed to ask..."" and "Why doesn't the judge...?", etc. questions last night; when I answered and provided legal references, etc., all it did was make it worse and the poster even angrier--- at ME. *sigh*

However and this is where everything gets sticky (no pun intended) when it is one person's word against the other's there are other factors to be considered. One would be does the accused have any priors? Granted that shouldn't be relevent either but it is. Also does the accuser have any history of other accusations also do they have a history of promiscuity? I know none of these should be relevent but they are unless there were other witnesses. It all goes to the veracity of the accuser.

has what to do with a question of rape? Is this some religious prejudice against those whose values and morals may differ from ones own?

I'm not the one making the rules I just observe.

your Nuremburg like defense for posting such leaves only the impression that you support such nonesense.....

can someone be prosecuted for raping a prostitute? There's the crux of the matter.

Just because something is for sale doesn't mean it can be stolen against the will of the seller.

in a civil lawsuit?

He said, she said

They do it in private and touch shit girls.. he said she said! Works perfectly for men doesn't it?

Are you agreeing with my point, disagreeing, or just trying to start something?

And thanks for the post.

Likewise a depressed person can be raped. Someone who tried to commit suicide can be raped. The mentally handicaped can be raped. Children can be raped. And a wife can be raped by her husband.

Rape is a crime of violence, not sex.

I am disgusted at the antics of Kobe's attorney. She is making it harder for all women who have been raped.

And again, I do not know if he's guilty.

I haven't followed the Kobe story at all, so had no idea that his lawyer was a woman. (most)Lawyers must have their consciences amputated during law school.

All the subject matter that she is being hammered for talking about was introduced *by the prosecution*. Would you hire a lawyer to defend you who didn't cross-examine the witnesses and ask questions about the evidence?

her efforts did produce a rather changed picture, i.e, we now know that when she told Kobe to stop, he *did*. *shrug*

One happens to be a women who works for the main attorney. Which is Haldon (sp) A very powerful man. He defended Pasty & John Ramsey in the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey.

Haldon doesn't lose.

... "the most ethical attorney I have ever known."

someone we don't know says she is ethical. WTF does that have to do with anything. Bush says he's President, I still ain't buying it.

Whether you like it or not, it's an extraordinary compliment.

was the one who used the victim/accuser's name in Court. I'm fairly sure she is also the one who brought up that she had sex before.

... that she had had sex before, when the detective testified to it; he is a prosecution witness. The prosecution is not allowed to play 'peek-a-boo' with evidence, and all the defense did was walk through the door the prosecution opened for them, as is their right.

It was not during the prosecution case but during the defense questioning of the witness.

The questioning that is done after the first side--- in this case, the prosecution--- has finished it's initial questioning (direct). it is then followed by re-direct and then by re-cross. The detective was the *prosecution's own witness*.

then why did you make the claim that the prosecution introduced it?

This is the *second* part of the four-part questioning of the witness: direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross.

Where was a trial in the Jon Benet Ramsey case? I missed that one.

I just can't get beyond what an insidious message that Kobe's attorney has tossed out into the public to just hang there unchallenged. That is the very essence of judicial oversight. That comment had nothing whatsoever to do with a pretrial hearing. The judge really should have done something about it.

It's all the prosecution's fault. If they had just said he raped her, none of this would be relevant. BUT, the prosecution said they had evidence of rape BECAUSE SHE WAS INJURED. This makes it relevant if she slept with guys around the same time. Get it?!!!!

Now, for all you people talking about the wife sleeping with her husband and then getting raped has no bearing on this case. It's easy to examine the semen and say, it's the husband's semen. So this argument doesn't cut it.

The prosecution just fucked up royally and it makes me sick that you guys are trying to blame Kobe and his lawyer for putting all women in jeopardy of getting raped.

Unfortunately, the "victim" in this case is now between a rock and a hardplace. If she knows who she slept with, then that person becomes a witness that can be subpoenaed by the defense to testify.
Why? Because the STUPID PROSECUTION made the injury a part of their case.

Kobe has every right to show that he didnot cause the injury.

The defense could never have cross-examined the witness on ANY of this stuff if the *prosecution* hadn't put it into the forefront. What part of Civics 101 and the Constitution's guarantees to criminal defendants didn't some of you people understand?

Without witnesses, their case comes down to two things. The testimony of the victim and the physical evidence. If they do not introduce any physical evidence, then it simply becomes a matter of her word against his. She says he raped her. He says it was consensual sex. He's a famous athlete with tens of millions of dollars. This gives her a motive to lie. Without any supporting evidence, the jury really cannot convict.

So the prosecution must introduce physical evidence. The most compelling would be any signs that the sex was not concensual. This usually takes the form a certain types injuries that usually occur during a rape. If these injuries are present, the the prosecution is going to want to use them. They are very damning evidence, so the defense is going to want to explain them away. While these injuries are common, they cannot also occur during "rough" consensual sex. If the woman had sex with another man prior to her encounter with Bryant, this might explain her injuries and the defense has the right to bring this up and it is not at all sleazy.

in the late 70's. I never reported it, because I was what was called "promiscuous". Believe me, there was no doubt I was raped...anyone remember Deliverance? but it was a small town with small minds and I knew at 19 years old...I knew I didn't stand a chance. So I was quiet. A few weeks later another woman in my town was raped....she was a rich college girl. There was a sketch in the paper that was undoubtably the same guy. She might have been just as promiscuous as I was, I have no idea. All I know is I have felt like total crap ever since then, cause I made no attempt to get this animal off the street.

to post this shows that you have put it in its proper perspective. there are literally thousands of women in your very same situation and it is an indictment of our culture and our society and certainly not of you or the other victims.

The antics of Bryants defense team are rather similar to those of the O J Simpson team in some respects and does highlight, yet again, that justice in our nation, and in the world at large, depends primarily upon how much money you have got and not whether you are innocent or guilty.

rich, poor, makes no difference to me. The rapist MUST be taken off the street. Far too many people allow these individuals to go about their 'business'. It takes gumption to go out and make an ID of the perpetrator, and go to court to ensure the person is sent away.

When one persons rights are violated, we are all violated, and we must ensure that we protect those around us.

Don't blame yourself. Your words go the very heart of why we must somehow push to have clearer and better defined rape laws and far better judges. It is unbelievable that even with so-called "rape shield laws" that a sitting judge (a man, by the way) could permit such an insidious message to be sent. It is this kind of crap that made you feel unworthy to report a goddamned rapist to the police.

This also touches on the crappy judges that this administration is filling the courts with.

It is the rapist's fault, not yours. You have no reason for guilt. I sincerely hope that we get to a place where women feel they can report sexual assaults and the police and 'justice' system will treat it the same way as other crimes. We're a long way from that.

with anyone else. "He said, she said" don'tcha know.

for your understanding. I can't believe I have been a member here for less that 2 days and felt comfortable enough to even speak of it! I have only felt comfortable enough with a few folks to ever speak of it. This is the best web site I have ever found

with prostitute. Not only can they be raped but with the women Iworked with being raped as children or young adults influenced their choice of livelihood...

For your consideration:

If(!!!!) she was a prostitute...well, that begs some questions about her veracity and possible motives. Such as profit from a civil suit against a very rich person.

I have known a few prostitutes in my day: one worked at The Mustang Ranch, and was one of the most realistic and astute businesswomen I have ever met. Wherever she is today, I sure hope life is everything you were aiming for, Charlie, and you got that ranch of your dreams.

Others? Pretty goddamned nuts and self-destructive, and certainly capable of trying to "get theirs" from a john named Kobe Bryant. I guess it takes all kinds, huh?

Now, if(!!!!) she had engaged in sex-for-hire, before the alleged rape, does that render any physical and medical evidence gravely suspect? I would have to say that it does.

I would have to say that if the defense can show that she was, on that night, actively engaged in prostitution and that Bryant was not her only tryst, then it's gonna be hella hard to get a jury to convict. Unless, of course, he has been charged with Gross Stupidity. If he is, then a conviction is a lead-pipe cinch.

... if she says it was rape. Your attorney should immediately urge you to confess and prepare your cell for you at the state penitentiary... :eyes:

Ich spreche Deutche

and even that defense attorney has not gotten around to saying she is a prostitute.

Sure can

I agree with you to a certain extent but I also believe that all of our actions do have consequenses. Now I didn't say (or mean) that the consequenses of her behavior would be that she is raped. What it does do, though is make it harder for her to prove that her injuries were caused by bryant. Doesn't mean that she deserved it - I don't think any woman deserves to be brutilized but it does make it harder to prove. Unfortunately, they didn't invite any spectators to watch so we have no third party to verify either side's story. It comes down to a he said/she said and physical evidence.

That is physical evidence.

If she had other partners, who caused the bleeding?

The notion of women as a standalone human being as opposed to property is relatively new, and while many cultures, including the west, have in their own way, taken some steps in that direction, we have still not progressed to the point of deep and internalized recognition that

1 - Rape is a crime of violence and has nothing to do with sexual desire

2 - A woman's value is for who she is, and has nothing to do with her physical appearance or how she expresses her sexuality, and she is not the property of her family, her significant other, or society as a whole

Thus, every rape case becomes to a greater or lesser extent, a property crime, and the task of the accused's defense is essentially to prove that no property was damaged to an extent that would warrant conviction.

If you followed the Australia rape rampage a while back, you may have noticed that most men who spoke out about it focused more on the ethnic aspect - they were more outraged that the other tribe had done this to "their" women than they were concerned about the victims themselves.

There is also a Droit de Seigneur aspect to things.

While I am not comparing groping to rape, my point is that as regards the recent Arnold show, do you think that if Joe Nobody down in the company mailroom groped several female manager types, that the local paper would lose subscribers because they reported the story?

1. Was someone coerced or forced into a sex act against their expressed will?

2. Who does the jury (or judge, in a non-jury trial) believe, based on the evidence presented?

Everything else is irrelevant.

Anyone who thinks a victim's past or present sexual history is relevant is unclear on the concept of the word "NO."

... when she said 'stop', Kobe did. That came out at yesterdays hearing--- reluctantly.

Where are you getting your information? Do you really believe the prosecutors would bring a case where when she said no or stop that he stopped. Obviously, it will have to be decided by a jury but I seriously doubt that she says that he stopped when asked. Why are you so anxious to defend Kobe? The jury will decide based on the evidence.

The Chicago Tribune and CNN. I am only anxious to 'defend Kobe' because I am anxious to defend the Constitution. Furthermore, from your statements here tonight, it is clear you do not understand the purpose of a preliminary (evidentiary) hearing; the purpose is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime has even been committed.

Whether you like it or not, the detective *did* say that she told him that when she told Kobe to stop, he did.

So I'm stopping and I'm not going to attack back. I understand just fine and have extensive knowledge of the legal system.

...but your comments seem to indicate otherwise. You want to defeat the entire purpose of a preliminary hearing, if your statements are sincere. The defense is *entitled* to do precisely what they are doing, as the judge's rulings have clearly indicated when the prsoecution has objected.

where people are not going to think critically. Especially where a black man and white woman is involved.

Let's suppose she screwed someone shortly before or shortly after Kobe and that person was the one who caused the injury. Would it be relevant to Kobe's defense to find out?

Every time a 'Why are Kobe's lawyers...?' post has been posted to this thread about a legal issue, I have patiently tried to offer a lucid, legal answer, only to be met with some emotional "I feel" peice of flame, as well as the ever inclusive and trite "Guy just don't get it!". :eyes:

This isn't about *feelings*--- this IS about a criminal trial; if I were any less stubborn, I would have started beating my head on a rock until I lost consciousness long ago. :P

Where we are as a people if semen from another man is enough to discredit her in court is back in the Dark Ages and up that famous creek without a paddle.

FYI, I don't watch basketball, don't like sports stars, and could really give a darn about the whole case, but here's my take on this:

This woman went to the hospital approximately 12 hours after the alleged rape, and was found to be reddened and swollen, with minor tearing, in her vaginal places. Based on the assumption that swelling would have decreased over the 12 hour period, this led investigators to assume that the swelling and redness must have been much worse immediately after the attack, and they believed that this type of damage couldn't have been the result of voluntary sex.

These new allegations invalidate that belief. Any gynecologist will tell you that minor redness and swelling are normal after intercourse, and even minor vaginal tearing isn't uncommon following particularly "spirited" sex with well endowed men. It's even more common in women who have a LOT of sex, or who have sex with multiple partners. I have an...erm..."liberated" sex life, and I can tell you from personal experience that women who have sex with several men in a short period of time can be sore and swollen for days afterward.

So here's the defense argument, and it IS a valid one: Kobe Bryant was arrested based on two pieces of evidence 1) An accusation of rape. 2) Physical injuries indicative of rape.

If #2 can be proven to be a result of her voluntary sexual encounters with other men, then this turns into a case of "he said" vs. "she said". Our court systems operate on the concept of innocence until guilt is proven. By having sex with three guys in three days, the evidence of her physical condition becomes unreliable (whether or not it's fair, it's simple medical fact) and isn't useful for conviction. Since an accusation alone isn't enough to convict, there needs to be more evidence in order to put this guy away.

There is no legitimate right to defend yourself to an accusation of rape; you must confess immediately, as soon as the words are uttered. if your attorney's *dare* to give you the defense the Constitution says you are ebtited to, they are 'scum', etc. . /sarcasm off

Maybe you missed that part.

that particuarily 'spirited' sex can cause bleeding. I've seen it happen, firsthand. Blood from vagina != rape.

I have my doubts about the intent of the attorney, but the fact of the matter is that she does have a legitimate argument: the woman had lots of sex beforehand, and that's what led to the injuries.

how much blood was there? Was she bleeding profusely? Was she spotting? Spotting after intercourse is not terribly uncommon as serveral others in this thread have mentioned. Has anyone heard how much blood there was?

That's a bit more than just spotting.

There's a perfectly reasonable possibility for why that's so: he didn't have a towel handy 'after', so to speak. Trying not to be too graphic...

Doesn't that cause blood too?

but keep it up.

I am enjoying following your posts. Your common sense approach to this will drive certain posters mad with frustration...another aspect to enjoy.

I get so depressed when I see DUers reacting like Freepers to something.

I always thought (mistakenly?) that progressives were 'all for' the rights of crminala defendants, etc. ; seems that may not be *quite* true, if the case happens to involves rape. Like you, I've seen Freepers react less badly on the issue of the rights of criminal defendants. :eyes:

We all like to believe that DUers are the most intelligent progressive people in America. And the sad thing is, we probably are! But when shit like this hits the fan ...

You just said what I've been trying to say for several days, only way better.

Word up to Padraig18, too.

:hi:

shows how far we have to go. Let me spell it out for you. A woman can agree to pull the train for 12 men. If she changes her mind after 11 and the last guy chooses not to accept no for an answer, then THAT WOMAN HAS BEEN RAPED!! Is that clear enough?

And if we have to have laws so written, then so be it.

I am really steamed at the judge in this case for letting that wicked comment slide.

And people were worried about Kobe getting a fair trial?

are clearly presuming him guilty.

Get it?

she better have some major cuts and bruises.... being in a coma might help.

Thanks for weighing in here with me Cheswick. I guess that nothing should surprize me much anymore, and yet here I am surprized that this judge let this crap slide and again sending such an intimidating message to women and girls that they'd better watch out before they ever, ever think of stepping forward...or God forbid, have sex with someone as men do.

The judge is merely following the rules regarding the admissability of evidence.

I disagree. The rape shield laws, in my opinion, were clearly ignored by this judge in not doing something regarding the repetitive mentioning of the accuser's name and the comment about the semen was really, really malicious and uncalled for.

Show me where the accuser's name is admissable.

When she kept mentioning the victim's name, he finally told her he'd hold her in contempt, and she stopped; she should never have used her name, I agree. But, the rape shield laws have many exceptions; unless you know something about Colorado's law that I don't, I'm willing to defer to the judge's knowledge on the issue. Do you know what section or provision he screwed up ruling on?

That's not good enough. He should have charged her with contempt. It sends a terrible and intimidating message and that is the heart of my thread here.

Essentially this is the message sent: Sure there are laws that protect the identity of an alleged rape victim (male and female) when and if they ever come forward, but it's really something that judges will only wink at after the identitiy has been exposed. Think about that a little bit.

I've been the victim of an attempted sexual assault. I've thought this through *thoroughly*.

presuming to know what it is? There is an exception to that rule and this case fits it. Padraig is right, the judge is merely following the rules. Get off his back. Get off Kobe's attorney's back. You simply do not understand and you are emoting over the thing.

The judge is, by *all* accounts, learned AND experienced; as such, I assume he knows what is or is NOT admissable in his courtroom, and until someone *proves* otherwise, that's that. The emotional "I feel that...rape-shield laws....blah, blah, blah...." doesn't mean doodly squat! NO state rape-shield law has changed the US Constituion's guarantees to criminal defendants, folks, whether you LIKE that fact, or not.:grr:

If a woman changes her mind and a man still has sex with her that's rape.

I think I can safely say that the vast majority of underwear-wearing women change them on a daily basis.

What I think happened is the accuser took off her underwear after removing them on the night she had sex with Kobe, and threw them in her hamper, where she had thrown a pair of panties she had worn after having had sex with some other guy.

I think that this evidence tells us that at the time she removed her panties and threw them in the hamper, she had not yet decided that she should have Kobe arrested for rape/had not decided if what had happened between them was really rape.

For some reason, she decided, afterwards, to accuse Kobe of rape. She retrieved a pair of panties from the hamper, and put them back on, but, alas, had picked up the wrong pair of panties, the ones which held the other guy's semen. What a mistake to make!!

What I conclude from this, rightly or wrongly, is that accusing Kobe Bryant of rape was, for her, an afterthought, some hours after the sexual incident between them occurred. This, and only this, raises the question about whether she is credible or not.

Some people may be interpreting this mutiple semen evidence as damning her for being promiscuous, but getting her panties mixed up indicates that at the time she took them off, she was living life according to her normal habits -- not what you would expect after a traumatic rape.

Why would she do that? *scratches head*

If anything, that speaks to the honesty of this woman. She took two pair. So what?

But the defense is entitled to inquire as to why. That's not 'beating up on her', anymore than if someone who shot his neighbor brought two guns in for the cops to look at.

She may well have been raped, but there's enough info out there to indicate that this woman is a real head case.

None of them seem to understand that the *only* reason the defense is even being allowed to inquire into this at this point is because the *prosecution* provided the information initially; her defenders all seem to think that the prosecution should be allowed to play some bizarre, one-sided game of 'peek-a-boo' with the evidence at an evidentiary hearing on probable cause... :eyes:

The ones she wore to the hospital had another person's semen in them. She probably didn't think they would test the panites she was wearing.

Did she change into a dirty pair or did she have sex with another man after the incident with Bryant?

I don't know. Changing into a dirty pair sounds strange. She was going to get an exam and women usually like to be clean for those. It is a possibly that she had sex with someone else after the incident with Kobe. Anyway she probably didn't think they would check the underwear she was wearing because they didn't have anything to do with the rape.

If this is true, it does not deflect from my original point: that the underwear of two sezual encounters had been mixed together, i.e. placed on the same pile after disgarbing, and she did not know which was which when she decided to charge Bryant with rape afterwards. At the time of undressing after the Kobe encounter, she treated the "rape" underwear in the same manner as she did the "normal" panties. I believe that if she had believed that she was raped at the time she undressed, she would not have thrown them in the hamper, or otherwise mix them with her usual stash of dirty panties.

That's why all of this is evidence and fair game. Someone else speculated that she might have gotten the other ones to make sure there was semen evidence to charge Bryant not knowing that DNA could determine whose semen it was. I'm not advocating this position but what you said is clearly telling.

I was thinking the same thing. If you knew you were raped, wouldn't you have taken care with those panties, etc.

When I was younger and cosumed by work or school, I often forgot my laundry. So I would wake up and get dressed and sometimes have a problem. I finally focused on the mundane and realized I had no clean clothes. Well, sometimes I would do some quick handwash and wear wet panties and sometimes--GASP--I wore dirty underwear. I challenge almost anyone here to tell me they haven't worn less than clean clothes at times. Laundry is easier for me now, so of course I wear clean clothes. But when I had to carry my clothes on the bus to the laundramat...well I wasn't as obsessed.

It has nothing to do with the rape or the validity of the accusation. That will be decided by a jury.

If I had been raped the night before, I may have been scared to go to a laundramat alone. (I'm terrified of laundramats at night...many rapes have occured there.)

And the jury can decide *if* there is a trail; the puprose of the preliminary hearing is to determine if there is enough evidnce to constitute probale cause and even *have* a trial.

and wore a fresh pair, but a friend or police officer or medical official told her to find the underwear she was wearing the night of the incident with Bryant, so she fished through the hamper, and she couldn't be sure which pair it was, so she brought both?

is it possible that the "other man" pair HAD been laundered or washed out in the sink but cleaning didn't remove all traces of DNA or hair? Maybe I've watched too much Forensic Files. It's amazing what they can do with microscopic traces of evidence these days.

Also, I heard or read that when the prosecution objected to the "three men in three days" allegation, saying that was contrary to the evidence, the defense dropped it from that point onward.

These are among the many reasons while I'll wait to form a judgment until the facts are in.

It may be okay for a student to get away with being a little musky every now and then, but people who work with the public, especially in a high class resort as she worked in are expected to maintain very high standards of grooming.

What does "being afraid to go to a laundramat" have to do with Kobe Bryant??? This is absolutely irrelevant in this particular case, although it may be relevant to other cases.

I don't see it as a "moral issue." The panties are a matter of forensic evidence, and from what I have read, the panties which she brought as evidence did not contain the semen of Kobe Bryant. If you want a charge of rape to stick, or otherwise prove sexual relations, submitting the right pair of dirty panties as evidence is invaluable. Making an error here is very serious, and deprives her case of an important link of evidence which is needed to prove her case.

Dirty panties are forensic evidence, not an "obsession" of mine or anyone else's.

about the dirty panties and what that means that yes I do think it is an obsession of many on this board. I agree that it is forensic evidence and it does matter. She brought panties with DNA from Kobe and another man from what I read. Again, let it be presented in court before the evidence is judged.

And yes, fear of laundromats is relevant. I haven't seen you post much on these 'rape' threads the last few days. If you read them (maybe you did??) the implication was that there was something suspect about wearind dirty laundry. My post was trying to say that there are lots of reasons for not cleaning your clothes like you are scared of laundromats.

I'm a huge Lakers fan, and Kobe has been my favorite player of all time. That support is on hold right now. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty; I'll see what the jury says and accept it. If he's guilty, I'm no longer his fan; if he's innocent, he'll be my favorite again.

I agree that it means nothing that the accuser may have had sex with other people.

Thanks.

"I agree that it means nothing that the accuser may have had sex with other people."

A boxer can't be assaulted.

Regardless of what any of us *feel* about this case, the *law* is what applies; none of here feel that it's right that * is in the WH, but he is there, last time I looked.

This is an adversary hearing; the Constitution set it up that way. By definition, it's not going to be pretty and nice. It's not the way it works, folks. Kobe Bryant is facing a Class 1 felony charge that, if he is convicted, could cause him to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison. Regardless of how much sympathy we may feel for the victim, we cannot lose sight of the fact that even rape shield laws do not abrogate the guarantees the US Constitution makes to criminal defendants.

This is a drama that will be played out according to the US Constitution and the laws regarding evidence and trial procedure of the State of Colorado.

It's just the way it is.

As far as Kobe is concerned, I think e-b-o-k!

Say those letters out loud but slowly. Get it now. I think it's ebonics. Not that I speak it though. I just thought it was cute because it's his name spelled backwards and I wanted to be the first to post it. :silly:

Merely having had consensual sex with a man before the rape is NOT evidence that no rape occurred.

The defendant in any criminal case is entitled to a vigorous defense, but blaming the victim goes over the line.

and anyone can be terrorize!

just asking

to tell me I'm asking for trouble! B-)

So yes, prostitutes can be raped. I think the way you related this to Kobe's case, however, is wrong. Right now, the prosecution is saying that Kobe caused the injuries to this young woman's vagina. It is up to his defense team to seek out evidence which may prove that the injuries came from another source. Her sexual history--at least for the days surrounding the incident---is relevant.

What we have to remember is that everyone is not open and honest as we'd like to hope. Sometimes, people do lie. Sometimes, people do set up situations for future benefit.

P.S. Have you ever seen the movie Rosewood?

if she had sex 5 minutes before she got raped. It's not like the girl woke up and said oh I think I'll get raped today! Rape happens, it's a terrible and violent crime and it has nothing to do with whether a woman had sex 2 days before or 2 hours before or 2 minutes before. It doesn't diminish her credibility at all, and frankly, as a MALE, I am so disgusted at this culture in our society which tends to look at rape victims with a large degree of skepticism! :mad:

or at least the history immediately preceding the alleged act have to do with injuries to her sexual organs.

Specifically, the prosecution alleges Kobe physically injured her. Because the "hung like a horse" defense likely carries little weight with a jury, Kobe's lawyers are trying to create reasonable doubt by implying those injuries could have been caused by someone else.

If you were to preclude the defense from delving into what she did in the hours preceding (or following) her time with Kobe, you would be effectively denying Kobe the right to defend himself, and his right to defend himself is just as important as her right not to have her sexual history printed on the front page of the NY Times. It's a balancing act that's impossible to balance.

Someone actually understands that the defendant has the same rights here as he would if the charge were, say, auto theft! I'm impressed! :thumbsup:

Rather elitest, too.

Well said. The post indicates that the person who posted it has already convicted Kobe and objects to any defense he may have.

Why don't we just make a law that says if a woman (or man) accuses someone of rape, then we just send them straight to prison with no trial. After all, what use is a trial if you can't deal with relevant evidence?

prostitution is essentially transactional, therefore the prostitute has to consent to the transaction-money has to change hands.
She or he can be compeled through threats and physical coercion to commit acts that they otherwise would not otherwise engage in....




I'm talking purely about Johns who refuse to pay after the fact or use coercion and non-payment in certain encounters.

Maybe some of our knee-jerk reactors might learn something.

If not, I'm really looking forward to the day when all men have to have a witness in order to have consensual sex.

It scares me crapless how our 'progressive/liberal' brothers and sisters here on the board are eager and willing to scrap the Constitutional rights of criminal defendants, just because they happen to be accused of rape. :scared:

trial today. Hope this thread is still alive when I get back.

That 's my answer to that inane question.

Does a snake crawl? Does the wind blow? ...

It is not the defenses contention that the fact that the woman may or may not have had sex with another man negates the possibility of rape. It is that the physical evidence may not be reliable.

:thumbsup:

Nicely put. Methinks people are getting upset because they now sense that there may not be a conviction in this case.

If what I am hearing is correct. There may not be enough evidence to go to trial.

The judge weighs the evidence in such a way that he resolves any resonable doubts in the State's favor, in order to make that determination.

Jeez...kudos to the Enlightened in this thread...

Boos all round to those still roasting their marshmellows at the pyres of witch trials...(you people in the same Party???)

NEXT TOPIC:
A Woman has a right to consult with her doctor on any goddamn medical procedure she sees fit...

Now your upt to date with the 20th century...little boys and girls

Maybe folks have gotten past the 'I feel...' stage enough to rationally discuss the legal questions involved. I'm not *betting* on it, more like *hoping*...maybe. :eyes:

:kick:

because of society's notions about sex, especially with women.

sexual criminal history, on the other hand, should be fully admissible.

granted i did not read this entire thread but enough to get its tenor.

Her conduct immediately prior to, during and immediately after the rape isn't relevant? Not saying she DID, but (theoretically) if she had had sex after the alleged rape, but prior to reporting it, would not be logically relevant?

dont report their rape for some period of time, week, month etc., and have sex again in that time? is there a statute of limitations of 5 minutes for rape cases. you better report it right away or else youre screwed.

regardless, i wasnt speaking on this case alone, but in general. i find that all too often women are asked "what did YOU do to put yourself in that situation" when it comes to sexual assualt.

and ive known two guys (separate occasions) that were accused of raping a girl. one was my ex-boyfriend from high school and the other was my ex-boyfriend's brother.

regardless, because of the justice system's flimsy-ness on rape, we need to strike at the heart of the problem. nothing women can do - learning self-defense, not walking alone, watching their drinks or not drinking at all - is going to stop a guy who thinks that rape is ok. men (as 90% of rapes are done by men, including those to men) need to stop rape.

no means no. pass it on.

I'll not disagree with you at all. I would hope that you would gather my purpose in these posts, that being to define and explain the legal issues involved, etc.

Men must indeed be the ones to stop rape.

that disclaimer in all your post in this thread because you come across, especially in that exchange with solomon, as an sexist asshole.

just being honest.


fellas need to do a little role-playing. imagine your wife, daughter, sister, mother, trully is raped (lets assume in this hypothetical that it is beyond a doubt), but for whatever reason, she isnt believed. she was alone, drunk, didnt report it in time, knew the guy etc. how would you feel? and im expecting a knee-jerk, not logic.

and try this one, i do this one alot. you are walking home, at night, alone. and a guy comes up walking in the same direction. black white brown, doesnt matter. there could be people around or the streets completely empty. what do you do. i know i tense up hella quick. i quicken my step, i put my keys in between my fingers, i size him up. i do this every time im walking alone. and rapes between strangers happen only 20 percent of the time. but just imagine how that feels to constantly need to be on guard because you never know how a guy is going to react.

and granted im pretty friendly with people and im pretty confident in myself and try not to let fear rule my life. but im not stupid.

They are not talking about her having sex with 10 guys in sixth grade. If she had sex right before and/or after she said Kobe raped her that information is relevant if the prosecutor is saying vaginal injuries came from Kobe. The defense is saying how do we know the vaginal tears didn't come from one of the other people she had sex with during the same period.

The prosecution has stated that the panties stand for "Proposition A" on direct examination; on cross-examination, the defense has an equal and corollary right to inquire as to whether or not the panties may, in fact, stand for "Proposition B".

absence. If people would only listen to what the detective testified to. That she never said "no" before the sex began, and when she said "stop", Kobe stopped.

So everybody quit with the "No means "No" bullshit. It doesn't apply in this case. Face reality. SHE DIDN'T SAY "NO", okay??!!!

Prejudice, prejudice prejudice. Now flame me for saying it. My response will always be my signature line.

And I agree with the observations you make. The answer to your final question, where are we as a people is: we are in the thick of the dark, fighting the long defeat. It's sad, and true. Fight a good fight.

"When your executioner comes, stand tall with pride, and do not give him cause to gloat, maintain dignity honor, and righteousness."

"You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down."

"When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal."

I believe the fall is all that's left. And I believe that it matters how we fall. So keep fighting the good fight.

I was on a Jury in Toronto (OK -it's Canada) in the '70's when 'rape' was wtill a legal term. It's not now.

On trial was a former 'John' of the prostitute who climed he raped her.
Thing is, and all the Jury members were astounded (and secretly admiring), she showed up in court in her 'work' clothes, all leather, tarty make-up, short skirt, black stokings! We even mentioned amongst ouselves off the record that this probably wasn't a good thing to do in her case. She admitted she was a hooker.
We found the guy guilty based on the evidence!
I was proud of the jury.
Actually I think her ploy was deliberate AND it worked. Guy was guilty as hell, even though he'd formerly been a paying customer.

neat, eh?

Good for you guys! :thumbsup:

And no means no, even when you are paying her.

The question you seem to pose is how is woman's character or lack thereof relevant.

In theory a woman could have consensual sex with three men over the course of an hour (or hopefully two...) and still be raped if the fourth one was told no.

While character is always an issue in any legal case where one persons word is judged against another, sexual behavior should not be used as a measure character, especially in cases of rape.

Now if she has a history of lying in this or other regards then perhaps her credibility as a witness is at risk.

The jury will be presented with competing sides of the story and will have to decide who to believe.