It's purely speculation on my part... but I've seen their house, and I know how much the houses in their area cost... they're around Five hundred thousand. It's possible that he did pay the mortgage, but if they've lived there as long as I'm told they have, I just doubt that they had THAT MUCH left on their mortgage, that's all...they didn't have $230,000 left on their mortgage
Ok did your friend ask them what they owe on their house?
is their house not even worth 230K?
or is that just specualtion on your part trying to defend kobe.
If I made as much as kobe my wife's parents house would be paid for. I thinka person who could afford to do that should do that for his our her folks.
Tim, I like you, and you've always been pretty even keeled, but this is a bit much... we're Laker homers because we defend one of our own before he's been convicted?? Can I ask what YOU would do? Certainly not attack fellow Spurs fans who defended their favorite player until the end. I just don't get how you expect us to react... Should we be booing and hissing him like everyone else is dying to do, or should we presume his innocence like the law says we should until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty?Is there a sicker sight than Laker homers defending a potential rapist
Someone else said this and I completely appreciate it... Something to the effect of, "I THINK Kobe did it, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to me that he did, I just think that he did." That I can understand. Why can't you understand that some Lakers fans may believe the opposite and that it's OK to think that way?
2cleva,
You couldn't be more wrong (but as a Laker homer, not exactly a shocker).If she willing gave him oral sex, she can forget it.
If she said no or stop at any point, regardless what had happened up until said point, he still raped her.
Deal with it.
AHF
That, or he raped a girl and those who wish to protect him will go to any length to discredit the victim. Regardless, it seems to me that the quote evidences a Kobe-centric myopia that seriously understates the nature of the charges against Kobe, particularly because it relies on irrelevant information to assume that this was nothing other than "messing around."And Kobe's problem isn't economics, social, or racial. He just messed around with a girl who has serious issues.
I can assure you that the information about her "serious issues" is not going to get into the evidence at trial, because, by Colorado rule, it's not relevant to the charges against Kobe. Colorado Rule of Evidence 404 prohibits the introduction of "character evidence" to prove conformity with that character. Thus, if a defendant is on trial for DUI, the State cannot introduce evidence that the defendant got drunk every night. The same holds true for reports that this woman attempted suicide, tried to get onto American Idol, or anything of that nature. And don't get too excited if much comes out about this girl's sexual history -- Rule 412 makes that evidence almost impossible to introduce.
At this point, the information that is being reported serves only to feed the American appe e for salacious information. Kobe's attorneys/handlers/supporters are interested in getting that information into the public sphere, but only to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of those Eagle County residents who are in the pool of potential jurors. But the voir dire process will weed out most, if not all, of those who might be influenced in either direction by this information, so ultimately, it will play little or no role in how the case is decided.
It is interesting to me, however, that while the media is so busy digging up dirt on this girl, there seems to be very little effort aimed at unearthing whatever skeletons might be in Kobe's closet. So much for objectivity, I guess. . . .
if she said no is not on trial.
she says she said no.
he says she said yes.
what they said doesn't matter anymore.
it's what can be proved.
until the evidence comes out, nobody knows.
and even after the evidence comes out,
after the trial is over...
people will still come down on opposite sides of the fence.
they might have refianced it not to long ago. thanks for clearing that up
I will be honest here. if this was dave robinson I would be shocked. I would be looking at the evidence and reports and go from there. Only because he has a cleaner track record then kobe. and I might even defend him. depends on the reports. But I would say if he did it he should go to jail. I would have a hard time with him. any other spur player I would be doing the same thing I am with kobe. Kobe was one of my if not my favorite none spur player. I liked the gy. he was not as y but I think a little y is good. this has nothing to do with him being a laker. I wanted kobe on the spurs
mayeb people are tied of saying innocent until proven gulity because they believe the court system is corrupt and that stars will get off.
he in gulity or innocent already. no judge or jury has that right. he might get off but if he did rape her he is guilty. I hope he did not.
Quote: "You admitted, as a Laker fan, you'd want him to get off even if he's guilty."
He never said that TIMVP. He said he wanted him to to be set free, IF HE WASN'T GUILTY.
And don't put words in Laker fans mouths. I, for one, have changed my tune since this case first came out, and I personally think that Kobe might have done it. Only because I can't fathom/imagine a girl risking public humiliation or otherwise by coming forward. Rarely in a case like this (high profile or low profile) is there really any benefit to the woman in this situation. And there is only negativity to be gained. That is why so many women don't come forward in rape situations. The fact that this girl DID speaks volumes to me. THAT is why I'm leaning toward the side of Kobe being guilty.
Honestly TimVP, you've been bringing some of the worst posts that I've ever seen, with relation to this topic.
Kobe has no track record at all... he's never been in trouble, but he's had less time than Robinson has to stay OUT of trouble, so I understand your point.Only because he has a cleaner track record then kobe.
As for the rest of your post, I completely understand and agree with it.
Cleva, if I understand correctly, none of her past (suicide attempts, etc) can even be mentioned in court in Colorado.And it will be alot harder to discredit Kobe, especially considering the character witnesses and there is no one stepping up from his past negatively compared to the girl who has had do ented suicide attempts (not rumor, her own college police have reported) along with friends who even trying to help her, will be toasted under cross-examination.
Tawnia, if there house was bought for $500,000 15-years ago, they'd have more than $250,000 left to pay on their 30-year mortgage -- the typical mortgage in California. The beginning of a mortgage, the majority of your payments go to interest. So half way through, you have more than half the principle left to pay. (Though I don't believe The Star).
With a handful of very limited exceptions, that's precisely the case -- the ability to bring in that type of character evidence in cases involving sexual crimes is even more limited, because the law specifically protects the victims of sex crimes. Like I say, all of that information is legally irrelevant and won't have any bearing at trial, other than whatever pre-trial effect it might have on the potential jurors.Cleva, if I understand correctly, none of her past (suicide attempts, etc) can even be mentioned in court in Colorado.
probably not at the trial itself, but at the pre-trial hearing those kinds of things are usually allowed to come out. (directly or indirectly)Cleva, if I understand correctly, none of her past (suicide attempts, etc) can even be mentioned in court in Colorado.
the prosecution can overwhelm all of that if they have pictures of her with bruises, or actual testimony from other guests that heard something, etc.
kobe's past will also come up... like when he met his current wife and how old she was at the time. who else kobe has dated or been with... especially if the defense brings up anything about her.
tim - believe whatever you like while making up words if it helps you sleep through the night.
Kori - Some of her past can be used if its to prove/disprove the credibility of her claims. They can't bring up previous sexual history but if they can show a pattern of either calling out for attention falsely, or an unstable person who may have decided she said no after the fact, then it could be admissable.
The key is finding revelance. Kobe has two of the best attorneys in the county, who happen to also live in Eagle County. I'm sure they will find a way to get part of the history of the girl admitted.
For example, its been confirmed she did talk about his anatomy after the party. Witnesses for and against her agreed there. Question was context but that will probably be in court.
Also, any witness that the prosecution brings forth is going to have a close relationship with the girl. They will be grilled on the cross examination, especially when they have said things like she's not suicidal even though she's tried to kill her self twice.
Temple - Thats one ace Kobe does have - no history of doing anything like that. No teammate or media person can come foward saying they saw Kobe do anything. That helps his defense a lot.
bigzak/ducks - I agree completely.
Aggie - maybe he still raped her. But a jury would be alot less sympathetic if they knew she had consent to things such as that.
That's a rather weak hand. He's already admittted that she was in his room and that was after he initially lied about it to the authorities. He also lied about having sex with her. Now we have reports that she left his room distraught and with visible bruises and that a physical exam revealed further physical damage to her body.Temple - Thats one ace Kobe does have - no history of doing anything like that. No teammate or media person can come foward saying they saw Kobe do anything. That helps his defense a lot.
As for what she said at a party...to paraphrase James Carville it's not hard taking a wad of cash through a sleepy mountain town and getting someone to tell you what you want them to say.
Milton - Weak hand? Credibility is everything in this case. If the prosecution could string a line of people saying Kobe did wrong he'd be screwed. But if the defense can bring a long line of people who can vouch for his good character, that is help.
Despite what many may think, infedility isn't looked at as a crime by many, if any. And if his wife is there supporting him, it helps immensely.
But I should leave it alone. As many times as Kobe has raped the Spurs on the court, I see a lot of fans already KNOW he's guilty so a argument over legality means nothing.
How is he credible when he's been lying so freely?
I now know that you are a sad individual with a whack set of priorities. But it isn't surprising that you are so flip when it comes to rape. What matters most is your hero. Sickening.But I should leave it alone. As many times as Kobe has raped the Spurs on the court, I see a lot of fans already KNOW he's guilty so a argument over legality means nothing.
wasn't kobe's wife underage when they met? (statutory rape) if thats the case, that would be allowed, or at least it would come up.
as far as kobe raping the spurs on the court... lets just hope he doesn't cry like he did when we kicked them out of the playoffs... cause that kind of thing won't play well in prison. it'll get him alot of dates... but... or should i say butt... not much else.
2Cleva,
You must be operating under a unique set of evidentiary rules if you're so certain that much of this stuff will ever get into evidence.
For example, there are no rules of evidence that will allow the defense to get into suicide attempts unless the State opens the door to such evidence -- something I seriously doubt any prosecutor would ever do.
Reports of her being suicidal have little or no legal bearing on assessing the credibility of these allegations. Even if she attempted suicide once a month, it would have no probative value to assessing whether she was telling the truth about what she claims Kobe did. And whatever miniscule probative value it might have is heavily outweighed by the prejudicial value that same evidence might have.
Simply put, unless Hurlburt is a moron, that evidence will not get in.
As for character witnesses, it's usually pretty hard to bring in a witness who will testify solely to the good or bad character of a particular person. Generally speaking, you can call a character witness to impeach someone whose truthfulness has been directly called into question. But you can only solicit opinions about that person is generally truthful or not. It's damned near impossible to bring in a witness who will only testify that "Kobe is a great guy," or that "Kobe never gets into trouble," or that "Kobe spends all of his free time at church, and gives all of his extra money to dying children," or anything like that. The State would have to open the door to that type of evidence by attacking Kobe's character directly, but that doesn't seem likely to me. If I read Hurlburt correctly, he's going to rely on the physical evidence and the testimonial evidence of the victim (in her statements to police) and those who saw her immediately after the incident. They'll try to raise questions about Kobe's credibility during cross-examination, but I'm sure that they'll stay a long, long distance away from flat-out suggesting that Kobe is lying.
:eyebrowHey baby, I know a great hotel around the corner...
adidas11 said:
Actually, he (2Cleva) said something rather close to that: "As a Laker fan, I want to see him on the court and out of it. As a person, I want justice served." Since he made the distinction between himself as a Laker fan (where he simply wants to see Kobe exonerating and back in a Laker jersey) and as a person (where he wants to see Kobe jailed if he did indeed commit the crime), I think it's rather easy to see where timvp got that from. 2Cleva clearly implied that as a Laker fan, he simply wants Kobe to be cleared of the charge.Quote: "You admitted, as a Laker fan, you'd want him to get off even if he's guilty."
He never said that TIMVP.
Kori, I know that, but my impression was that they have lived there for over 20 years... now my friend could be mistaken, but that's what I've been told.Tawnia, if there house was bought for $500,000 15-years ago, they'd have more than $250,000 left to pay on their 30-year mortgage -- the typical mortgage in California. The beginning of a mortgage, the majority of your payments go to interest. So half way through, you have more than half the principle left to pay. (Though I don't believe The Star).
All she said was that he raped her. Not when she said no.if she said no is not on trial.
she says she said no.
he says she said yes.
She could of let him put bananas in her butt but if she then said "stop" or "no" and he then had sex with her, that's rape.
It doesn't matter if they had sex 5 times that night because if she said no more and he still did it, that's rape.
And what "she" says will be very important.
Exactly, LG. Some peeps can't read their own words.
Bump2
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote