That's cool. Lot of conflicting statements made of the case.
Kobe Bryant - What’s his legacy?
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Indeed. There does seem to be more fuel to this than there is in most celebrity or athletes assault/rape cases, which are often easily dismissed as women trying to have a quick payday. I remember quite a few footballers accused in the past, including van Persie, but there was usually little substance.
I don't know how professional athletes can be this thick though. Even if it's just one night stand with a fan, surely you should be aware of the risk associated (not talking about this case as it seems different). If you want to feck around, you have enough resources to actually hire a professional hooker, get quality (I assume) service and not have to worry about consequence.
To me it seems like 2003 was a long time ago, as the Guardian puts it 14 years before the #MeToo movement.
I've come to appreciate having participated in these threads that Kobe Bryant meant a lot to fans, that he never had any other case brought up about him the remainder of his career which was stellar. That it must be hard to have had to be reminded of something that happened what can seem a long time ago to some. Maybe today his career might have been over but in his case it wasn't and he went on to become amazing, but that isn't really a reason to dismiss that he was human and as flawed as the rest of us mere mortals. But we can still praise what he went on to.
Which is why bullying her then buying her off was their tactic.
Information provision? Yes of course that was what these true egalitarians were doing.
I don't think anyone apart from Kobe fanboys don't think he is a rapist. He is as innocent as OJ and Michael Jackson were.
Your disdain for lawyers massively shines through in this post and others. If you don't think her sexual activity is relevant in a rape case I don't know what to tell you - it's literally the job of lawyers to plant reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.
Jfc....as if this thread needs to go downhill anymore!
Defence lawyers are at least doing their jobs no matter how morally reprehensible that can be. That a person's sexual history can be considered even vaguely informative when considering rape and consent is a wider criticism of society.
Yeah. His fanboys, me, and the judge. No one else.
That is rape. Even assuming there was initial consent, which is doubtful, it can be withdrawn at any time and then it is rape.
But that isn't what happened. I think we all know that.
The judge might think he's a rapist, we don't know that.
The judge dismissed the case because the victim was bought off for 2.5 million dollars. As innocent people tend to do.
You seem to have a lot of knowledge about things that aren’t really that straightforward. I don’t really have to say you are showing amazing inconsistency between how you perceive evidence/lack of evidence between this and Avery case. How do you know evidence was not planted here?
And for the record, I’m not a Kobe fan, I hate Lakers and I think he was 100% in the wrong here. Only thing I’m not sure about is the extent.
What piece of evidence do you think could have been planted in this case?
He was willing to settle for that but wasn't willing to admit his guilt and would have fought his case. She decided she's more happy with 2.5 mil and no case than a case and the possibility of a lot more money in a civil case had she won the criminal one.
None, to be fair. I don’t think there was enough evidence to prove guilt here, not enough to convict him clearly.
He did admit his guilt albeit with the proviso that his statement couldn't be used against him.
Well for one Kobe apologised, admitted his guilt and stated that the victim was truthful.
How would one provisio for the DA not to use this supposed admission of guilt against him?
The DA could have used it but there was no case to use it in as the witness was paid off to not testify. Keep up.
The agreement was not to use the statement in the civil case to further increase the damages.
Next you will be telling me OJ didn't do it, Michael Jackson wasn't a kiddy fiddler and Harvey Weinstein isn't a rapist.
Why would the DA need a witness if he has the written admission of the perpetrator?
Think our opinions on that widely differ yes, but that's okay. Also, it's not informative regarding rape or consent, but it's obviously relevant if you're assessing evidence.
You're making numerous leaps which you shouldn't make. That the witness didn't want to testify anymore doesn't mean the DA didn't have a case anymore, first and foremost. Second of all, you interpret Kobe's statement as an admission of guilt, so stop saying it was an admission of guilt. If an expert is saying that your criminal case will go away if you just say some (meaningless to him, for all we know) words in a statement, you just do that to get it all over with.
Apparently the apology was staged. She admitted kissing him and basically inviting the sexual interraction. the rest is a matter of he said, she said.
whether she invited the initial sexual interaction or not is irrelevant. she can remove consent at any point. given that she ended up bruised via choking, torn, and went straight to the police to file a report, there is no indication whatsoever that she consented to the entirety of the sexual act.
he got out of it because he's rich and could afford to essentially pay her off. what a world.
Have you read the Wiki page for a summary of how the case was initiated and proceeded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case
The Judge dismissed the charges because there was uncertainty, definitely the accuser had at that stage said she would not testify. On the same day Kobe delivered his statement.
How many times you going to tell us you not a Kobe fan and hate Lakers? Once would have been enough.
Don't really see a huge problem in mentioning this massive two times but I guess you nitpick where you can.
I do not see the point of mentioning it at all. I am sure there’s plenty of people posting in here who aren’t even basketball fans.
Well considering how many times it's been said that only Kobe fanboys can defend him in any way here, it's worth mentioning that I'm not one of them.
I also do not really see the point in you trying to present this as some sort of an issue.
She would have to testify as such in the criminal case against Kobe, which she opted not to do. At that point, there was little chance of a trial, much less a guilty verdict.
Not sure what you're trying to say?
She didn't want to testify anymore, judge dismissed the charges, Bryant issued an apology. Those are the only things we know for sure, and it's up to everyone to connect the dots.
To me, it seems that they reached a settlement, which means (i) she got promised an amount of money and was happy enough with that not to pursue charges, (ii) she was told she had little chance of winning her case before a criminal court or (iii) she eventually succumbed to the pressure of the general public and just wanted the whole case to be done with. It's probably even a mix of those three things. This, combined with the fact that judges dropped charges afterwards, indicates that they didn't have a case without her testimony (and I personally think Bryant would've won the case irrespective of whether he was guilty of rape or not).
The statement proves nothing to me, there are lots of innocent people who enter a plea deal just because it gives you certainty over your own faith. Issuing a public apology without admitting guilt is nothing compared to potentially facing a lifetime in prison. It's a no-brainer if you're offered the choice by your lawyers.
i don't disagree with any of that. not sure how it relates to my post though?
Highly unlikely given that the civil case payment agreement happened well after the criminal case was dismissed. The criminal case was dismissed in Sep 04 and the ciivil case was initiated in Aug 04, which suggests the accusers's legal team felt it would be more beneficial to go after money than a guilty verdict.
Reading you say that the DA could still have progressed the case I thought it was helpful that the Wiki with the process gone through pointed out it was the Judge who ruled the case out.
There's a lot of straight forward facts being misinterpreted on this thread and sometimes even misconstrued and I thought the posting of the wiki might be helpful because it gives a simple timeline.
It doesn't really matter what we guess about innocence and guilt, we were not involved in the case and no doubt facts on both sides remain lost to us the observers.
The criminal trial was before the civil negotiations, so the fact that he got out of the criminal trial is down to the accuser not being willing to testify, not because he had a lot of money. She could've testified in the criminal trial, but for whatever reason decided not to - which was the pivotal event in the entire process.
The burden of proof in the Uk is definitely supposed to be less.
Do some of you read what you post. Ffs.
Some of the first posts in this thread (haven't read the whole thing) and people wanting to keep the rape allegations out of it make for pretty uncomfortable reading. It should absolutely be discussed and to be honest, the rape case was the first thing that popped into my mind when I heard the news of Bryant's passing. It is not exactly the same, but one does feel reminded of gun advocates trying to silence any discussion of gun regulation in the wake of another shooting.
Care to explain? Unless you think Kobe wrote that statement himself?