When someone heard this they said, "That's BS. You know he killed her."
How do people make such judgements when they clearly know nothing about the case. The woman who said this actually thinks this is a murder case. Is this what people did with OJ Simpson. They have no idea one way or the other but claim he definitely did it or that he was set up by the police.
[ September 02, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
They like people around the country posting threads on how ignorant and mindless they are. S'agood feeling!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not surprised. Based on limited information, they had discovery problems and disagreeing experts. Throw in a reluctant witness and the filing of the civil suit, and it looked like there wasn't much chance of a conviction.
Of course, we can't know what they had up there sleeves.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If that was directed against me I personally haven't made my mind up regarding this case. I don't if the stress of accussing a superstar was made the victim bug out or if the alleged victim is really after Kobe's money which she might be finding out isn't much do to Colorado's strict laws regarding that. I didn't make my mind up about OJ Simpson either. The only thing I do know is that the information that has been released (most of it accidentally) has been in favor of the defense. I also know that just because information hasn't been leaked in favor of the prosecution doesn't mean that information doesn't exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
NFL, my post was just general info. Not aimed at anyone.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Sorry, I meant kaioshin00.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. Makes a lot more sense now, too.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Well, they dropped the charges.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Looks like with prejudice, too. He's off the hook now, except for money in the civil suit.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
In my ignorance I don't know what possible reasons there would be to include prejudice. It seems unfair to the victim that if they aren't emotionally ready now they can't be later, I mean this a rape trial not a case money laundering.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right to speedy trial, plus the expert witness discovery problems, are probably the rationale.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Okay. The whole speedy trial thing has always seemed kind of questionable though. I mean if they're not keeping him in jail... What if new evidence or witnesses were to appear? The finality bugs me.
[ September 01, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And what I said earlier about people prejudging goes both ways. Now I've heard, "That's bleeping awesome that Kobe's getting off." Of course he knows what Kobe was charged with so that's a slight improvement. I wonder how much gender has to do with prejudgement, quite a bit I suppose.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
This happens all the time.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I thought charges would be dropped after I read more detail yesterday about how the DNA and semen/blood samples didn't all match and how there were signs she had had sex with someone else in addition to Kobe.
The fact that she is now trying to only pursue a civil case and not a criminal one really makes it look like she is only in it for money..
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From what I've read, barring the prosecution having a videotape of the event or Kobe confessing, I think the case had no real shot. There was enough evidence in the likely defense case to raise reasonable doubt: The competing experts (one originally hired by the prosectution), the mixed DNA evidence, the allegation that she had sex the same night after the physically damaging rape.
I can't imagine testimony that would match up to that.
The civil trial will be brutal, if it gets that far. More can come in on both sides, Kobe can't take the 5th, and discovery is much more open.
Dagonee
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
farmgirl...in a criminal trial the girl has to testify, in a civil trial she does not. That was a reason her lawyers gave for dropping charges...she did not feel comfortable testifying in front of Kobe.
I am surprised that he apologized now that the criminal trial is done...but the civil one has not been concluded. While he did not admit to rape...he said that at the time he felt that it was consensual, but he said that he can now see that she did not feel that way. It is not a rape admission, but it is at least admitting that the situation was ambiguous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:farmgirl...in a criminal trial the girl has to testify, in a civil trial she does not. That was a reason her lawyers gave for dropping charges...she did not feel comfortable testifying in front of Kobe.
She has to testify in a civil trial, too, unless they're not suing for the alleged rape. There's no other way to establish lack of consent.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, the morning news that I heard said she had already agreed to testify in a civil trial, but not in the criminal one.
something about it being easier to prove in the civil arena -- burden of proof. Perhaps Dag can tells us the difference?
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In a criminal trial, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a very high standard, and is constitutionally mandated. One judge I saw this summer defined reasonable doubt as "doubt for which you have a reason that it is more than trivially probable."
The standard of proof in most civil matters is "preponderance of the evidence." The best translation is more likely than not. Although not really quanitifiable, it amounts to a 50% chance plus "something extra" that a fact is true. This is a very loose standard.
In addition, criminal trials carry great protection for defendants, including the right not to testify and the right not to have the refusal to testify mentioned in a negative light. Civil trials do not have this protection. The defendant must get on the stand if called, and if he takes the fifth, the plaintiff can say, "He must be hiding something incriminating."
In fact, there was a brief time when it was considered chic to call the defendant as the first witness in the plaintiff's case in chief. This backfired, because it allowed the defense attorney to cross examine his own client, which has a LOT of advantages to it. For example, this would let the defense attorney lead his own client in testimony.
Beyond that is discovery, which can be devistating. Often, the witness being deposed must answer all questions, with only form objections allowed. They can videotape it, and show parts of the videotape to the jury. There's a whole video-editing industry in editing for juries.
I think the victim will hava a much harsher time in a civil setting, but it will be less public and her attorney's will be able to do the same to Kobe. Which means this might be a case where everyone makes discovery as unpleasant as possible until someone settles.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
What I do not get is why people are acting as though Kobe is now off the moral hook. I have no idea whether or not he raped her, but he obviously broke his wedding vows. It would be nice to see the American public shun him for that, but probably too much to expect. He is far from the only celebrity to do so. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Unfortunately if we shunned everyone who broke their wedding vows there would be altogether too few people left unshunned.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Isn't a criminal case automatically dismissed with prejudice if the prosecution drops the charges? I can't think of any reason a judge would want to dismiss a case without prejudice if the state decides not to continue to prosecute.
Lots of reasons. If the prosecution wants more time to get evidence, or a witness disappears, or even if the prosecution finds evidence that may point to someone else and they want to investigate that.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
There is a difference between being totally accepting of a celebrity doing it and being compassionate towards someone you actually know who has made a mistake. Sure, his family, friends, and colleagues should still make every effort to treat him the same way they would like to be treated, but the vast majority of America does not know the man.
And even if you do know an adulterer, I would hope that at least some of his friends and family would let him know that his actions are not going to be condoned.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think celebrities do deserve to lose their celebrity due to moral failings, but not by fiat or some committee that sits in judgment. Ideally, the public would simply decide this person is no longer worth putting on a pedastel and start ignoring him again. When a person makes a good part of his living based on the premise that people want to emulate him (i.e., product sponsorhip), they should expect to lose some earning power when they do something that shouldn't be emulated.
But there's no reason for him to lose his main job over this, unless fans were annoyed enough to start boycotting. Not gonna happen as long a L.A. makes the playoffs.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
That is pretty much what I meant, Dag. Clinton should not have been forced out of office because of Monica Lewinsky. (Not getting into lying about it.) It did show that he did not have the moral character making him worthy of leading the nation, and should never have been elected in the first place.
I am not saying people should not attend Lakers games because Kobe is playing, but they should not buy his jerseys or line up for his autograph.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Of course, I know I buy books by adulterous authors all the time, so I suppose I am not any better. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: She has to testify in a civil trial, too, unless they're not suing for the alleged rape. There's no other way to establish lack of consent.
I guess thats what I get for listening to CNN for legal information Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BUT, a settlement is very very likely, especially with the apology. So CNN may have been saying she might "win" without testifying because Kobe is likely to settle.
She only has to testify if it goes to trial. For the criminal case to proceed, she HAD to testify. This is probably why she got them to drop it.
I read to day that the apology was part of the deal to dismiss.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you want to see some of the ramifications of speedy trial doctrine, check this out. (Login fedup@mailinator.com/fedup)
quote: When suspected thief Robert V. Funk escaped from the Fauquier County jail in 1988, he set off a chain of events -- and a key legal ruling -- that could lead to the dismissal of all remaining charges in Virginia against sniper John Allen Muhammad.
Muhammad's attorneys are using a 1993 Virginia appeals court ruling in Funk's case to argue that Muhammad's right to a speedy trial was violated because he wasn't brought before a Fairfax County judge after a Fairfax grand jury indicted him in November 2002. Virginia law requires that a person who has been indicted and held in custody be tried within five months unless the person waives the right to a speedy trial.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)