|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Now, not only will the victim suffer the humiliating experience of having her sexual past -- a past that has nothing to do with this case -- announced before a courtroom,"
Except that one might say that allowing 72 hours of sexual history direction prior and after the allegedy rape has something to do with the case. The fact remains that if evidence is presented on physical damage to her body as the result of sexual intercourse that occured recently, that all sexual activity must be revealed.
They don't want to go into the past ten years of sexual history. She should be glad the judge allowed it, if he hadn't, one would have bet that the constituationality of the law would have been brought to court. The right to a fair trial should always superside the right to not having your choices be revealed to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She should be glad the judge allowed it, if he hadn't, one would have bet that the constituationality of the law would have been brought to court.
Exactly. The prosecution presented the accuser’s injuries as evidence that she had been raped. The judge couldn’t possibly bar evidence that Kobe wasn’t necessarily the cause of those injuries and still retain any credibility (except among hard-core feminists).
It’s the same as if, let’s say, I accused someone of assaulting me. I use a bruise on my arm as evidence of the assault. Should I be able to bar witnesses from testifying that I played a game of tackle football just before the alleged assault (an alternate explanation for the injury), claiming that it should be inadmissible because the football game was private behavior and has nothing to do with the assault?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm proud that Glenn wrote such a well written piece that got coverage, showed facts, and presented the accused's side of the issue.
Nice work Glenn!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Kobe case is going to go down in history as a precedent-setting, watershed DEFEAT for feminist gender hatred and will begin the long-needed reversal of legal injustices against men in sexual assault cases.
The survey currently tabulates 49% of respondents saying the accuser's sexual history must be admitted; how else to determine if she is blaming an earlier assault on him?
(Note that this is stated as an earlier assault and "victimization" of the woman -- not her slutty and promiscuous self-abuse!)
26% say no previous encounters have anything to do with this case.
For feminists, who demand that women can only be victims, it's paramount that her sexual record not be admitted. Because if it is, every logical person of either gender will arrive at the fair conclusion.
The prosecution's argument is like having a person stick her finger into a fire again and again, then when the fingers finally get burned, appealing to the judge .... the fire violated me! It's not MY fault! All my previous irresponsible experiments with fire are not relevant!
In other recent good news in the contest about admissable testimony, the judge ruled that the prosecution cannot refer to the accuser as "THE VICTIM" in court. (A big defeat, because feminist lawyers always use language to control and manipulate the jury's perceptions...)
Still being decided is the defense's petition to allow testimony from the accuser's girlfriends, who allegedly witnessed two of her suicide attempts and have critical knowledge about her precarious mental health.
Can you say -- PREDATORY DRAMA QUEEN PARASITE soon to be exposed in full public view?
The prosecution's already weak case is falling apart day by day. They know it. They have billable hours to collect.... And their client is also falling apart psychologically... they know she could not withstand cross-examination for even a single day!
(I predict a last-minute plea bargain that will pay the parasite off for a few million, all records sealed, and Kobe gets 1-2 years probation.)
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:50 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"In December, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied an appeal by Ralph Taylor, who is serving a 13-year sentence for rape. The court held that evidence of the victim's alleged prior false allegations of rape was inadmissible because it was sexual conduct within the meaning of the state's rape shield statute. In that case, the defense proffered the testimony of two friends of the alleged victim, both of whom claimed that she had previously falsely accused another man of raping her. The court explained that admitting such evidence could "inflame the jury."
These cases and others illustrate that the well-intended laws enacted over the past three decades to protect women have become tools of injustice wielded to gain convictions in questionable cases."
Feminism is legal sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the main factors that is in the defence's favor in this "he said, she said" all too common scenarios is that for *ONCE* the defence has the financial resources equivalent or better than the prosecution.
Also, Kate Faber, the accuser, for those who have been in Outer Mongolia for some time, got $17,000 in somekind of "victim" fund pay out! I thought you had to be proven a victim before you got any compensation? That is a pretty good incentive to yell rape after the fact. I wonder how many other alledged rape victims got the same amount?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
