Here is a believeable scenario for he Kobe story...

[Must_B_Free]

The two scenarios posed so far seem less than believable.
A. Kobe is a rapist.
B. That she cooked the story up for attention.

My scenario:

- Kobe arrives at the lobby.

- The girl is on duty.

- He makes eye contact and conveys a booty call.

- Later he calls the concierge, she goes up.

- Relaxation, attention and lovemaking transpire.

- When done, she's lying there starstruck at being Kobe Bryant's girlfriend.

- He says, "Thanks for the nice time, but it's time to split, baby."

- She says "What? Goddamn you, you mother fucker!" and perhaps strikes at him.

- He calls the bodyguards who forcibly remove her, perhaps grabbing her arms.

- She honestly feels raped because of how she was used and ejected, so it IS rape in her mind.

- She is visibly shaken up when she returns and her friends ask her what happened and she doesn't want to tell them.

- The police are called.

[robertarctor]

1. Sorry, but that doesn't jibe with the reports.

She was the concierge. She gave Kobe a "private" tour of the hotel earlier. When she got off work around 11, Kobe asked that she deliver his room-service meal to him personally. She obliged.

Other nearby guests' accounts state that after she entered the room, it sounded like someone was being assaulted forcibly.

My guess? Kobe raped her. Sorry, Laker fan, but your golden boy is in a heap of trouble.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. you mean like headboard pounding the wall and crys of

"AHHHHH....don't STOPP!!!......" maybe what they heard wasn't rape or assault.

[Must_B_Free]

3. please

she went into his room in her spare time.

Also if the assault happened as soon as she got in there - that's an awfully long time to physically detain someone with your bare hands, isn't it?

[Booberdawg]

5. Faulty logic

Men are stronger than women. Notice how big he is? Of course he could over come her. Perfectly reasonable.

He requested her to personally provide his room service. She obliged. He's a celebrity. Perfectly reasonable.

He has more reason to lie than she does, and he has already been caught lying.

Actually, your original premise in this thread is absurd.

[Must_B_Free]

7. logic? geez

Men are stronger than women. Notice how big he is? Of course he could over come her. Perfectly reasonable.

You made my statement into something it wasn't then fault me for "logic"?

I'll repeat if you you - If the attack started when she entered, then he has to physically hold her down for an hour. He cannot let go of her for a solid hour or she will run out of the room. That's a long time to detain someone, based on the details you provided.

He requested her to personally provide his room service. She obliged. He's a celebrity. Perfectly reasonable.

People are obliged to give away their time to celebrities when they are off work? How is that perfectly reasonable? Wouldn't she say no, if she weren't interested?

He has more reason to lie than she does, and he has already been caught lying.

Again, he has millions of dollars and a family, so he has more reason to lie. So that makes him guilty? Having a family and money makes one guilty? Where is the logic?

By that logic, she is the one that is guilty because she has the most to GAIN!!! Neither statement is logical.

Actually, your original premise in this thread is absurd

The only thing absurd is you, trying to pass your statements off as "logic".

[iverglas]

10. I'm so disgusted with what I see in this thread ...

that I'll have to restrain myself from much more, but just a bit.

He requested her to personally provide his room service. She obliged. He's a celebrity. Perfectly reasonable.

People are obliged to give away their time to celebrities when they are off work? How is that perfectly reasonable? Wouldn't she say no, if she weren't interested?

Are you unable, or merely pretending that you are unable, to distinguish between someone who "obliged" and someone who "was obliged"? Why would you ask someone who suggested that the woman "obliged" whether people ARE OBLIGED to do what she did? She OBLIGED: she "conferred a favour"; she "performed a service". Dictionary 101.

How is it perfectly reasonable for a concièrge to oblige a prominent, wealthy and very probably valued guest by performing a personal service like delivering a meal, you ask? How about: because that is her job. It is the job of a concièrge in a toney hotel to respond to the personal requests of valued guests.

Wouldn't she say no to delivering his meal (the thing we apparently know that she said yes to) if she were not interested, you ask? Well, maybe if she were not interested in keeping her job. You maybe have an idea how ornery the rich and famous can get when favours aren't done for them? And how unlikely it might be (I have no idea, in this case, but it's a possibility that can't be discounted by anyone engaged in wild speculation) that hotel management, faced with a complaining rich and famous guest, would agree that a woman employee's apprehension about her safety (if she'd happened to have any) was good reason for denying one of those favours? (Damned women ... they say they want equality ... if they can't take the heat ... .)

If the attack started when she entered, then he has to physically hold her down for an hour. He cannot let go of her for a solid hour or she will run out of the room.

Stuff and bloody nonsense. As I've mentioned, I was detained for longer than that. One good effective choking, a confined space, and the obvious threat of further violence if I made another move. And that was after an even longer time when I didn't know what was going to happen, and although I was uncomfortable did not make a move to get out of the situation, since my ability to do so was controlled and I was reluctant to precipitate problems. And the individual in question wasn't even somebody whom I had a vested interest in not annoying, the way a hotel employee has vis-à-vis a valued guest.

The same individual who did that to me had forcibly detained (and sexually assaulted) two women together at the same time the day before. In the open air. How can that be? Because each was afraid to try to escape for fear of what might happen to the other.

Fear is a powerful motivator. The fear may not always be objectively well-founded -- the assailant might in fact not react to an escape attempt with violence. But it is in his interests to convey the impression that he would, and the woman then perceives it as in her interests not to test him. He's already done something bizarre and unexpected to put her ill at ease; she simply has no way of knowing what else he might do, particularly if provoked.

I have paid virtually no attention to any details of this particular story, and I am expressing no opinion at all as to the credibility of either party's account of the facts. I have nothing approaching the information I would need even to make a guess, let alone have an "opinion".

I'm just disgusted by the stereotypical representation of a woman who has made a complaint of sexual assault, and utterly unfounded attempts to discredit her, that I keep seeing on this lovely progressive website. And unless others have already said what they had to say in the thread(s?) that disappeared, and have had enough, I suspect there will be more women reading these efforts over their morning coffee and reacting about the same way to these smears. Me, I happen to take them very personally, and very politically. They're an affront to me and to women.

.

[Booberdawg]

11. Like you pointed out

in your other reply, there was a lot of effort expended in the initial post to create this ridiculous scenario out of whole cloth. It is absurd. It made me angry too. Suffice it to say, there is more to do here with some personal agenda than the facts or any semblance of reality.

I decided not to respond any further to this poster. Ordinary reason and logic does no good in a situation like this. His/her mind was made up as soon as the charges were filed.

[iverglas]

12. yeah

I was confusing "multiple posts" with "multiple posters", I think. ;)

And hearkening back to the thread I'd been attempting to post in when the cataclysm came yesterday, and the number of other people who'd said similar things. Perhaps they've got it out of their system ... and now we'll just wait for whatever the next thing that somebody needs to have an uninformed opinion about might be ...

[Booberdawg]

4. Very damning

Other guests heard a disturbance going on in the room when she went in his room, she came out visibly shaken and crying, and still, a week later, she has visible injuries. She immediately reported the incident to her coworkers, went to the hospital and evidence was collected.

On the other hand, Kobe's first response was that "nothing" happened. Nothing at all. Then when it became apparent that he got nailed on DNA evidence, he admitted that sex did take place, but said it was consentual. (Conflicting with witness accounts of a struggle and disturbance overheard)

So, we know for sure Kobe has lied at least once, about sex taking place at all. Seems to me he has the most to gain by lying.

When I saw his denial at the news conference, his demeanor, facial expressions, eye movements, gestures, etc., struck me as total bullshit. His wife couldn't even bring herself to face the camera. That struck me as quite odd?? To be honest, I have never heard of him before. I don't follow sports. I don't pretend to know "everything" that happened in that room, but he convinced me he is a liar.

[Must_B_Free]

6. wow let me rebutt

Other guests heard a disturbance going on in the room when she went in his room, she came out visibly shaken and crying, and still, a week later, she has visible injuries. She immediately reported the incident to her coworkers, went to the hospital and evidence was collected.

How long was she in there? 1 hour was the least I heard. That's a long time to be forcibly detaining someone.

On the other hand, Kobe's first response was that "nothing" happened. Nothing at all. Then when it became apparent that he got nailed on DNA evidence, he admitted that sex did take place, but said it was consentual. (Conflicting with witness accounts of a struggle and disturbance overheard)

consental sex is nothing compared to rape, considering the allegations levied.

So, we know for sure Kobe has lied at least once, about sex taking place at all. Seems to me he has the most to gain by lying.


That doesn't mean he's lying

When I saw his denial at the news conference, his demeanor, facial expressions, eye movements, gestures, etc., struck me as total bullshit. His wife couldn't even bring herself to face the camera. That struck me as quite odd?? To be honest, I have never heard of him before. I don't follow sports. I don't pretend to know "everything" that happened in that room, but he convinced me he is a liar

It struck me that he went on completely unscriped... I could tell by the way he paused. I thought if a guy is not afraid to go on live tv in front of the world, and freeform his way through a statement, these aren't the kind of protective moves I expect from someone hiding something. He could have inadvertantly said something that complete implicated him, but he knew he was innocent so he said what had to be said.

[Booberdawg]

8. You are twisting the facts

to suit your scenario.

You insist on the assumption that for a rape to have occurred, the force must have started the very second she walked in the room, therefore he would have had to hold her down "for an hour". And, I do not accept your premise that she was in there and hour either.

Secondly, you justify his lying about sex taking place at all, and you justify this by saying sex IS nothing, if it is consentual compared to a rape allegation. No sale. He lied. It DOES count.

You are not even engaging in a rational discussion, but rather think you can make a case if you can baffle the reader with bullshit. Somehow, I have a feeling you are like the the O J cultists, who would still insist he is innocent if shown a video of him committing the murders in cold blood.

You are awfully anxious to accuse the victim of a crime. The DA has indicted Kobe, not the girl, and says he believes he can proove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a forceable rape did indeed occur. He has all the facts that you don't. The odds are more likely than not that he did rape her.

[iverglas]

9. I'd hoped this crap had died with the system crash

But sigh, it was not to be.

I have been a victim of sexual assault and forcible confinement, over a period of considerably more than an hour.

Anybody want to assail my credibility without any basis, now?

We have courts, for two reasons:

- to prevent the lynching (literally or figuratively) of falsely accused persons;

- to prevent people who harm others from evading the consequences that society considers to be appropriate and necessary, whether through influence or intimidation, or by benefiting from bias against the victim.

What the hell is the point of having courts where society and the accused can present their facts and make their arguments, if we're going to engage in this kind of wild speculation and opinion-flinging? I'm not saying that guilty people are not sometimes found "not guilty" in court; I'm saying that I'm at a complete loss to know why anyone would want to trumpet an opinion about something s/he can't possibly know enough about to even hazard a reasonable guess.

On the wild speculation point, I've seldom seen anything quite as fantastic as the post that started this thread. What earthly factual basis was there for it? What would drive someone to expend all that energy dreaming up a scenario like that out of virtually nothing but whole cloth? Damned if "bias" isn't what springs to my mind. And that impression is of course reinforced when I see the woman in the scenario being referred to as "girl".

The criminal law used to provide that no man could be convicted of a sexual assault on the word -- the sworn, cross-examined word -- of the complainant alone. Some of us obviously haven't moved out of that particular dark age just yet.

The trier of fact in a criminal court -- usually a jury -- hears the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. They are instructed as to how to do that. They are also instructed as to the standard of proof that the evidence must meet before they may convict: beyond a reasonable doubt. If they -- the people who have heard and seen all the evidence, and observed the witnesses in person -- do not find the testimony of the complainant to be credible, they are unlikely to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The criminal and civil courts are merely microcosms of life in that respect. The stakes are higher than for many decisions of that kind that we must all make, and that's why there are rules for how the decision is to be made.

"Deciding whom to believe" is another way of saying "assessing credibility".

The credibility assessments made by the courts really aren't just whimsical coin-tossing exercises, and may not proceed from bias -- even though that's how we might assess the credibility of a used car seller in our private lives in a matter that affects no one else.

Here is a nice (long) practical guide to how it's done, prepared for the members of federal administrative tribunals in Canada. I can only hope that reading it might be a humbling experience for anyone who feels perfectly entitled to have an opinion about the credibility of the complainant in this case when s/he knows pretty much squat about the circumstances or the complainant.

http://www.ccat-ctac.org/en/conferences/docs/conference_text.pdf
Google's cached html version

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "credible" as meaning, "Capable of being believed; worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy."

There are certain things that the court (judge or jury) needs to consider in assessing credibility. Here's one list, from that text:

(a) the demeanour of the witness while testifying and the manner in which the witness testified;

(b) the character of the witness's testimony;

(c) the extent of the capacity of the witness to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which he or she testifies;

(d) the extent of the witness's opportunity to perceive any matter about which he or she testifies;

(e) the witness's character for honesty or veracity or their opposites;

(f) the existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive;

(g) a statement previously made by the witness that is consistent with his or her statement at the hearing;

(h) a statement made by the witness that is inconsistent with any part of the witness's testimony at the hearing;

(i) the existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness;

(j) the attitude of the witness toward the action in which the witness testifies or toward the giving of the testimony; and

(k) any admission of untruthfulness the witness makes.

It matters not a whit whether you or I or he or she believes what either party to any court proceedings says. We do not have the information we need and that the court will have, and most of us are quite inadequately instructed in the assessment of credibility to enable us to properly assess the credibility of anyone we don't know who is talking about something we did not witness, unless what s/he says contradicts something else that we actually know.

But we do make credibility assessments in our daily lives all the time, for our own purposes and according to our own private rules, whatever they are, in matters that do not affect other people's rights.

For instance, if I were to apply the factors in the list above, and perhaps especially factor (f), I might find someone who refers to an adult sexual assault complainant as "girl", and then produces one of the most stereotyped personas of a "girl" I have ever seen, not to be entirely credible.

But, not having all the information I'd need in order to make that assessment, let alone state it publicly, I don't.

When speaking, myself, I always remember that my credibility is one of my most valuable assets in this life, and take some pains, for instance, not to allow any bias I might have (as we all do) colour the judgments I express.

.

[wellstone_democrat]

14. Thank you

just thank you Iverglass

[GumboYaYa]

13. Maybe we should let the jury sorth this one out.

The jury will hear all the facts and make the most informed, if not always correct decision. Until then any theories of what happened are pure speculation and debating the facts of the case is meaningless.