Are indicted Americans innocent until proven guilty, or guilty first?

I posted a thread about the woman in the Kobe case having sperm from some other guy in her panties when she showed up for the rape kit the next day. I thought this was pretty important evidence. The turth is that I don't have a bias one way or the other, I just felt this was the type of thing that should be taken into consideration when considering this type of charge.

But I got several really NASTY responses, including a couple PM's, that claimed Kobe was a monster rapist, and I was supporting monster rapists.

This isn't true, I'm just objective because I feel that we are innocent until proven guilty and I definitely don't think that anyone should be tried in the court of public opinion.


PEACE!

The more money one has to hire a lawyer, the more innocent one can afford to be.

This basketball player at my college was accused of rape by this girl. It happened about three years ago. The girl had invited the guy over to her dorm room, and the next day she showed up at the police station and accused him of rape.

The guy said it was normal sex.

The guy was arrested, convicted, and sent into the Ohio Penitentiary (spelling?) system.

One year later a reporter went and interviewed the girl. She told the reporter that she had actually agreed to the sex, but felt like she had been used afterwards, so she made it all up.

The guy was released last year.

Just a little thing to think about.

Do a google search on University of Akron Raped Released

In just two years on the force, he has been involved in FIVE cases that were initially investigated as rapes, but where the alleged victim later recanted her story; one involved a situation frighteningly similar to the one you just described.

I don't think *any* rape victims falsely accuse their attackers, but I think *some* women DO falsely accuse men of rape. Where is the outrage for THEIR conduct, since if that sort of thing never happened, the evidence in *this* case wouldn't be being examined as minutely as it is.

.

have come to the point of being tried in the media, usually with the presumption of guilt over-riding any rule of law or reality.

In regard to Kobe, to O.J., to Martha Stewart, to Robert Blake, to the Jean-Benet Ramsey case and her parents: In most of these cases I've heard more than a few people comment on the guilt of the accused without knowing relevant facts from any source but the media.

I've served jury duty a great many tmes, and I know that what happens in the courtroom, what is deliberated in the jury, is rarely going to bear any resemblence to the histrionics reported in the press.

I don't support rapists. I support what laws we have in this country and if we find they're not working, I support revising them. But I in no way support the notion that an accused individual must prove their innocence rather than the reverse. It would be reprehensible in the extreme.

In Kentucky, enough money can delay any criminal proceeding up to and including murder. There are cases still waiting to go to trial 20 years later.

The sad thing is, it becomes just as reprehensible to presume that the accuser is lying as it is to presume the accused is guilty.

that there are a select few DU'ers who seem to consider an accusation of rape to be proof of guilt, so it is not surprising that you got some flames.

If this were some poor, black car thief, we'd be SCREAMING about his 'innocence' until he was proven guilty; however, because the charge is rape, and the defendant wealthy and well-known, some people suddenly turn into RWers.

How distinctly odd, for 'progressives'...

that there are just as many DU'ers, if not more, who seem to consider an accusation of rape is most likely and most often an indication the accuser is lying, and without any reasonable or verifiable facts to support such a theory of lying.

So, indeed, it's not surprising that some take offense to the notion that a victim is assumed guilty until proven innocent, having not been the one charged with a crime to begin with.

You mean the way you're doing right now?

... beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

Ever hear of indulgences - you had to buy them! Who did you say Grace was?

Two-tiered justice in America - call it Dollars for Darwin, and baby we are evolving. Want to share the Mastodon I just clubbed with my buddies--maybe my dreamboat will be so.....impressed that....(fade to black)

DISTRACTION, DISTRACTION ALERT!

:wtf:

This practice, among others prompted Luther to nail up 95 theses (topics which he was willing to debate about) on October 31, 1517. This is traditionally considered the beginning of the Reformation.

I think indulgences were mentioned in this thread, because it is possible to assert that the wealthy often buy their innocence.

I'm RC, so I knew what they were, but didn't get his point. Isn't it odd that someone who can actually *afford* good, experienced criminal-defense lawyers is somehow perceived as being guilty on that basis alone? It says something very disturbing about the lack of an effective criminal-defense bar in this country, as much as anything, if it's so rare as to provoke such a reaction.

Oddly enough, a *genuine*, spirited criminal defense of the sort that Kobe is receiving (and, theoretically, the same sort we *should* all be entitled to receive) looks just like what's going on in Colorado... :eyes:

even though she has not been charged with a crime?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term and doesn't apply to public opinion. You can thank the defense in matters involving rich and famous clients for tainting the public with misinformation intended to favor their client and sway public opinion in their favor, whether true or not. It was used quite effectively in the OJ case. We've seen as many attempts in the Scott/Laci case as well.

The truth is semen can live up to three to five days in garments, even after washing, unless killed by bleach. It's not as if the woman wore soiled underwear to the hospital that day. I find it reprehensible that this suggestion by the defense has allowed such an offensive and predjucial rumor to fester. Not to mention the fact that this woman has been subject to death threats for daring to accuse a rising star of rape, by those that have NO EVIDENCE to suggest the charges are false. This woman has not been charged with a crime, however the DA has seen fit to bring charges aganst Kobe and has knowledge of the case and evidence that WE HAVE NOT BEEN PRIVY TO YET.

The only one who has been caught lying so far has been Kobe. First he said no sex took place at all. He said this to the public and to the police. It wasn't until after the DNA match came back that proved he did have sex with her that he admitted he DID have sex with her, then he said it was consensual. Changed his story to the public and with the police. (And bought a rock for the missus, of whom we now find were in the process of getting a separation/divorce in the months prior to this)

We know kobe has her blood on his shirt and that she had vaginal bruising and tears and bruising on her neck. Frankly, these rationalizations I see for such injuries taking place in other consensual acts is utter bullshit IMNSHO. (I'm not suggesting you have promoted such a justification, but if you have shame on you)

So, let's exercise as much objectivity in this case for the victim in this case as for the accused. So far what we know for sure is that kobe has lied and cheated on his wife, and the accuser has been injured and her life threatened, and had sex twice - and at least one of those times was consensual.

BTW I don't think anything justifies getting nasty PM's from DU members.

a little restraint, and a lot of patience, is called for.

The incredibly sad and ironic part of this whole case (and some other 'high profile' cases) is that we Americans are seeing an actual vigorous, spirited criminal defense by well-educated and experienced attorneys (something we are ALL, in theory, entitled to under the Constitution), and a majority of us don't recognize even what that looks like.

That's pretty sad. :scared:

playing to the media by offering deliberate disinformation to taint a possible jury pool with lies. What was being offered at this preliminary hearing was far different from what would be offered in a case where cameras were not rolling.

What I find disingenuous about your supposed altruism for the presumption of innocence is your apparent lack of willingness to consider any fact that negatively impacts kobe's credibility, but yet you are particularly anxious to leap on anything that may or may not impugn the integrity of the victim. In no other crime is the victim put on trial like a victim is in a domestic violence or rape case.

As I said before, the only one who has been PROVEN in a lie so far has been Kobe. First he said no sex took place at all. He said this to the public and to the police. It wasn't until after the DNA match came back that proved he did have sex with her that he admitted he DID have sex with her, then he said it was consensual. Changed his story to the public and with the police. Does that affect your judgement about HIS credibility? How do you feel about infidelity?

She has to prove her claim. He does not have to prove his innocence.

It amazes me that even the most liberal person will toss civil rights and justice to the side if it involves a PC court case. Anything to do with a sexual assault it seems. Nobody cares if priests were tried on 40 year old crimes, something we wouldn't do to anybody else in this country. Incredibly weak evidence on Kobe and the semen is important to show her vaginal tears could have come from someone else. Every person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter what the crime is. No matter how much money he has or doesn't have. It just shows me that so-called liberals can be just as biased as the worst kind of bigot.

And I'm a 45 year old mom with a grown daughter of my own so it's not as if I don't understand the concept of no. So anybody who thinks they might want to PM me and set me straight, don't waste your time.

So many here seem willing to toss the presumption of innocence to the winds in some sort of maddened "I can be more PC than you can" frenzy, something I find disturbingly illiberal and anti-libertarian (lower case intentional) for a group of so-called 'progressives'. Like the original poster, I too have been attacked because I have have the sheer audacity to defend and explain the legal process. There is a distinct desire here to treat rape in a manner not consistent with the Constitutional protections guaranteed all criminal defendants accused of crimes.

I was frankly incensed by the defense attorney's use of the victim's name in court, but that issue aside, I have seen no conduct by the defense which in any way 'crosses the line'; apparently the judge has not, either, because he has consistently overruled every prosecution objection regarding the 'line' of the defense's cross-examination. I seriously doubt that such a high-profile case would be handed to a 'mediocre' judge, so absent a showing of superior knowledge of Colorado's rape-shield laws, I will defer to his rulings and assume that they have been correct.

I have seen prejudicial statements on both sides.

I don't assume Kobe is guilty and simply feel that the scarlet letter treatment of the alleged victim is just as disturbing on a so-called progressive web site.

There are credibility issues with BOTH the victim and the accused.

The guy deserves a trial before being declared one way or the other.

Calling HIM the victim in the matter is a bit premature for such an egalitarian mind. :eyes:

You keep repeating that 'at trial' mantra like some sort of shibboleth, counselor, although you (should) know very well that this evidentiary hearing is to determine whether or not there will even BE a trial! The blatant "Oh yeah, I believe in innocence until proven guilty..." mantra here is almost always followed by a 'but', and any objective reading of the posts would sustain that conclusion. There is *no* 'but' at the end of the statement--- it's a 'period'.

the rest of your blather isn't worth a response.

But your playing 'peek-a-boo' with your presumed legal knowledge about what is actually occurring in this hearing is rather suspect. You don't seem to want people to understand that this is an evidentiary hearing, preferring to leave numerous instances of obvious legal ignorance just 'hanging out there' for the casual reader to accept as 'Gospel', when it is anything but.

The majority of my posts made it CLEAR this was a preliminary hearing and NOT the trial. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

Are you a criminal defense attorney? Are you even an attorney? Anyone can cut and paste from legal web sites.

The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if enough evidence exists for him to be brought to trial. In fact, since this is a charge of rape, her blood is on his shirt and he admitted she was there and sex did take place....on those merits alone, I suspect the judge will order a trail.

If anything, those that assume that the evidence pressented by his defense atty is somehow enough to see Kobe escape a trial are the ones with their LEGAL EXPERT hats on backwards.

I agreed that a trial will likely take place.

A bit sensitive on the remainder of the post; did I tweak a nerve, by chance?

... how many, many attorneys are *outraged* at the sheer audacity of a lay person's questioning their legal 'knowledge', as though they were somehow Roman augurs interpeting pigeon innards for the rest of us dolts; I have news for you--- any reasonably intelligent person can read what the laws say, read the annotations and cases to them and learn the terminology well enough to have as decent an understanding of the issues presented and legal reasoning underlying the same as can 99% of lawyers, if we wish to take the time.

I have and do, so save your "Are you a lawyer?" stuff for someone who would be either impressed or intimidated by it, because I'm neither.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... since I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about (which is what galls you the most, no doubt), but game, set and match to you on arrogance.

the prosecution made the right choice to make sure the defense had this information since it would set up grounds for an appeal for them to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence. :D

It would be a shame if Kobe walked due to prosecutorial error rather than a reasonable doubt as to his guilt in the matter.

I'm just amazed to see you finally concede that the prosecution opened the door, rather than letting some people here persist in their misconception that Kobe's 'evil lawyer' was somehow responsible.

I did suggest KOBE's lawyer was framing it in such a way as to chip away at RAPE SHEILD laws and was playing to the press to a certain degree in a deliberate attempt to BLAM the victim which had NOTHING to do with her using the available evidence to defend her client.

Maybe you should take notes on who is saying what if you are going to run around flaming.

I never ONCE stated the defense should not USE the info she had. I commented MORE on her line of attack and the fact that the prelim was MORE for the press than the case since using a detective to comment on MEDICAL facts certainly is outside his field of expertise and the fact that she had sex with someone TWO DAYS prior does NOT mean she was not raped.

She certainly did not explain the blood on Kobe's shirt so I suspect she KNOWS she's going to trial and simply wanted to take advantage of the fact the she could use the press to further smear and intimidate the alleged victim.

He has ruled repeatedly in the defense's favor when the prosecution has objected that the defense was 'trying to chip away at the shield laws'. Since he's the judge, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt; furthermore, we both know rape shield laws aren't impenetrable, and the defense is using well-recognized exceptions to them.

I understand the judge allowed the line of questioning following a closed door hearing. That doesn't mean his rulings are not open to challenge.

Wanna share those waffles?

So you DO have a pre-determined agenda in mind. :D THAT ruling didn't come out the way YOU wanted it too. :D

I didn't know what the ruling was, until I read it here. Tonight was a Kobe-free night on the news, for a change.:wtf:

LOL! THAT response doesn't make it sound like you are willing to accept what the judge decided anymore, now does it. :D

C'mon - admit it - you just got BUSTED!! :evilgrin:

Pssst! It's been clear all along. The only one you've been fooling is yourself.

Check the timestamp. I've not been busted.

:hi:

your statements in the matter.

I wish to be sure sure the REST of DU knows I did NOT send you any Pm's. I do my debating in the open where others are free to comment

You are about as objective as WIlliam Bennett where the alleged victim is concerned.

You made comments about her MORALITY based on the fact that she had evidence of HAVING HAD SEX prior to the time she was raped. You are NOT objective and your statement was COMPLETELY sexist whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

As for Kobe, he is indeed entitled to trial by a jury of his peers in order to determine that guilt or innocence. Your statement was that he was going to walk on the charges. It seems to me if one believes that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt, then one would wait to see ALL the evidence AT THE TRIAL before coming to a conclusion...another pock mark on your objectivity in the matter.

You seem to think it is just fine to try the alleged victim in the court of public opinion and that is EXACTLY what you did with your post.

What we KNOW about the alleged victim is she has a history of mental health problems, tried out on a television program and had semen on her underwear possibly from consensual sex that she told the hospital occured PRIOR to the alleged incident with KOBE. THAT IS WHAT WE KNOW..everything else that follows is what you and others on DU made up.

Funny, for a guy who was presented PLENTY of evidence that Mother Theresa might NOT have been who she appeared to be and then threw a hissy fit.

Perhaps you have OBJECTIVITY confused with SUBJECTIVITY.

I haven't paid any attention to this tabloid seeming case...
and have NO strong feelings about Kobe either way. What I DO feel strongly about is dragging a womans sexual history into a rape case. I understand where you are coming from... Kobe deserves his day in court... but I'd need more first hand information to determine whether those panties mattered or not.

It's not important evidence. The important and ONLY question is, WAS SHE RAPED?
She could have been at a (voluntary) gang-bang the night before and it has absolutely no impact on whether Bryant raped her or not.

The defense is only cross-examining on the testimony and into the evidence the prosecution elicited in the first place. they must have some importance, don't you think, or why would the prosecution have brought the subject up?

Otherwise it wouldn't be such big news.

It calls into question her "proof".

It introduces doubt that any physical damage she sustained must have come from Kobe. Now you must consider the the possibility that the other guy caused the alleged physical damage, consentually or not.

if the prosecutor is saying her vaginal tears could only be caused by Kobe raping her. His defense can say how do we know the vaginal tears didn't happen at the gang bang the night before.

... since Kobe is obviously NOT Caucasian.

do you think she would have engaged in voluntary sex?
Kinda painful and dangerous, no?

Oh yes, it's Kobe.
God.
Babe magnet.

Depends on how bad the tears were.

Is there evidence of a "gang bang" the night before?

His defense will have plenty of opportunity at his trial to plant that doubt and for the person masquerading as a lawyer above by cutting and pasting above, the prosecution shared that info because by law he cannot withhold KNOWN exculpatory evidence if in fact he did, the judge could DELAY or STAY a decision in the matter.

... quite obviously, if your answers provide any clue as to your 'mastery' of the subject matter involved. If not, then you're playing peek-a-boo with your knowledge, which is even worse, given the rampant ignorance about the purpose and scope of this hearing, an ignorance perpetuated by the "30-second sound bite" media; you allegedly have the knowledge to educate those here who don't understand the purpose, and yet you willingly choose not to take the opportunity to shed light where there is darkness. Why? Doesn't fit your particular agenda?.

Remind me not to go to VoTech Ag State Law school, like you seem to have, at least for your Criminal Practice and Procedure and Evidence classes...

LOL! To whom? LOL! No, it appears as though you are whistling past the graveyard with some thinly veiled personal swipes intended to boost your own personal import on the subject AND making things up about the case as you go along and drawing premature conclusions.

Why would you try so hard to convince anyone that you have more expertise and/or authority in this matter than any other well-informed or educated layperson? Why is this so important to you? Why should anyone here place any more weight on your opinion than anyone else’s over the last couple days in these threads? I really don’t understand what your personal stake is in convincing us to see this your way?

Peek-a-boo?? Oh, c’mon. Are you going to say neener neener neener before this is over??

I happen to be dealing in *facts* and *law*, two elements in noticeably short supply in this and similar threads.

I'm saddened at your lack of understanding about what debate is. You don't have all the facts or legal knowledge. You have opinions like we all do. Remember only the jury will decide this but you seem very entertained kicking this thread and implying that other DUers who are asking to allow the victim/accuser a fair trial are against the law.

The agenda I am advancing is called the right to present a vigorous defense, as guaranteed by the US and Colorado constitutions.

"The agenda I am advancing is called the right..."

you are advancing an agenda. I could have sworn in your post #52 that you said you weren't. My mistake.

... you should have saved the powder.

expecting, then, that anyone posting in this thread is of a disposition to assault your position?

Or did you mean to imply that only I am somehow unarmed in a battle of wits?

I saod what i said-- no need to read between the lines. It was a simpla, declarative sentence.

Hee hee heee!!!!

Stop it, you're killin' me, here. I'm the one reading between the lines. Hooo hooo!

You claimed above that the defense used info supplied by the prosecution...that is because if the prosecution withheld such evidence at the prelim, it could have set up grounds for an appeal since the evidence could be considered exculpatory.

Go to whatever law school you want...just GO before you pretend to know what you are talking about. Obviously the prosecution believes they have a compelling case in spite of this info or they wouldn't be proceeding.

You haven't really shed much light....a little knowledge is dangerous...you are very much proof of that.

You cut and pasted from a legal website and pretended that doing so gave you the informational high ground in the argument.

Guess you just don't like being found out...do you?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've seen noone piling on. What we are saying is to let justice take it's course. That means not deciding this without all the facts.

I don't believe any woman who says she is raped. I do believe that she should have the right to the full legal system whether he's a rich athlete or someone else. Let the facts come out and let a jury decide.

before you further embarrass yourself

You didn't MENTION 'IT' because you wanted to be part of the 'pile on the evil, rich, black athlete' crowd


I think probably 99% of Du'ers can tell you that I don't pick on people for their color and deplore those that do.

The majority of my posts have not been about Kobe but about the very blatant stereotyping of the alleged victim.

Call me intellectually dishonest all you want if it makes you feel better. It beats the hell out of being intellectually bankrupt. ;-)

As far as the rest of your rant....I think it is quite revealing of your own bias in the matter.

:)

consensual sex prior to allegedly being raped. Only someone with serious issues toward women could have a problem with that. I suspect that may be the case with some DU'ers.

I have never stated every person accused of rape wass guilty of it, nor have I stated EVERY person who claimed to be raped was truthful.

Sorry if that disturbs you...NOT.

"...I have never stated every person accused of rape wass guilty of it, nor have I stated EVERY person who claimed to be raped was truthful..."

No, you haven't, although you've been remarkably reticent about mentioning either of those propositions.

If a black man is accused of attacking a white woman, than he is obviously guilty regardless of evidence to the contrary or being acquitted by a jury of his peers.

... that he should be able to hire excellent criminal-defense lawyers and assert his rights under the Constitution to a full-blown legal defense, including challenging both the evidence and victim's testimony. :eyes:

I was under the impression that she was black, but I honestly have no idea.

so that reverses your line of reasoning.

He is still black. And it is a big factor.

I did not realize that the woman is white.

Yep, we have seen this before - a black man is obviously guilty if a white woman accuses him. Especially in lilly-white Eagle County.

If he is guilty of rape, he doesn't get extra points from me for being Black. This is one place where Affirmative Action credits do not apply. If anything, the fact that he is RICH and FAMOUS has far more bearing on his status than his color.

Take OJ Simpson, for example. His money bought him a brutal double homicide. If he were a poor white bus driver, his ass would be in jail right now where it belongs.

Time magazine wouldn't have a scarier "more black" cover. Mark Fuhrman wouldn't have perjured himself on the stand, somebody wouldn't have planted fake DNA evidence, and after he was acquitted people probably wouldn't have still assumed he was guilty.

I'm not going to get in to a rehash of all the excuses for letting a murderer get 2 free murders. He was aquitted - he was NOT exhonerated. People don't assume he is guilty - people KNOW he is guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever. The evidence the apologists like to IGNORE proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

But this is not an OJ thread, and I'm not going to debate the OJ case. You can HAVE the last word because I am done with the OJ topic.

This is a rich, nearly pure white enclave. It is naive to think that Kobe's race is not an important factor.

Notwithstanding your OJ straw man.

bearing in this case than his color. The OJ case is a perfect example or this and not a strawman. The rich can literally get away with murder!

At least, if Jose Padilla is any indication.

I gotta say, it's guilty until PROVEN INNOCENT. I mean, the jury system in our country is FUCKED UP. And I will tell you, I have heard the words "They've charged him. There must be a reason," come out of JUROR'S mouths. And did you hear that they were recently DEBATING whether or not a juror on the Michael Peterson jury could be impartial after he TOLD them that he COULDN'T give him a FAIR trial!! Where's the freaking DEBATE in that?! oh my god, and don't even get me started on the juvenile system...
Duckie

Do you mean Scott Peterson?