Originally posted by: josphII
last week the person whos picture was wrongly associated with the accuser was on The Factor and OReilly talked with her for a good chunk of time about how is affecting her life and how she learned about it, yada yada, then he did a 180 and asked her if the accuser was a good person or not. The girl was a bit taken by the sudden tough question and you could litterally see her start to sweat. she was finally able to muster out something along the lines of "well lets just say she isnt exactly the type of person i would hang out with", OReilly presses "ok so you too didnt have a lot in common, but is she a good girl?" and the lady responds "im not gonna comment" and lemme tell you it doesnt take an expert psychologist to read that girls emotions and to see that she doesnt think very highly of the accuser.
and lemme say this. any reports of bruises or such have been so extremely vague you cant possibly extract any information from those reports. i really dont know how you, digitalsm, can say that if the reports are true then....(whatever). the reports have given such little information and been so vague you cant possibly draw any information from them, yet somehow when you read these reports you are able to gather all the facts!
I can bet if he gets convicted you will say he is innocent still. Vague? How is saying a bellhop saw red marks on her face and neck vague? Especially when said reports also state the DA has photographs of bruises on the womens face and neck(Ive heard also on the arms and back)?
Like I said, the womens past is not admissible in court. Shes not on trial, her sexual past is not admissible, and unless the defense can prove she was unstable the day of the event, her alleged oding wont be admissible either. Just because a women is sexually active doesnt mean she cant be raped. Just because she may or may not have attempted suicide doesnt mean she cant be raped.
If Kobe is convicted I can already see you saying he was railroaded. This case like I have said before, will not come down to he said she said, there is more than enough evidence for it to come down to that. His word isnt anymore credible than hers. To say it is. is stupid.
The DA has evidence, it will come out at trial. Plain and simple, this case will come down to expert witnesses, witnesses(such as the bellhop), and evidence. It wont come down to his word or her word. He will be aquitted or convicted because of those three things, not because of his word or her word.
You are biased. All along you said thats not Kobe, Kobe couldnt have done this etc. I dont care one way or the other. Im just saying the reports Ive read, paint a pretty clear picture and if it is indeed the case, and Ive said we should wait till trial several times in many different threads, it doesnt look good for him. If there is bruising on her face and neck, as well as vaginal/anal tearing, its going to be pretty tough time for Kobes defense. The DA doesnt have a smoking gun, but they allegedly have a lot of pieces of evidence that when pieced together, will present a compelling case.
You just flat out defending Kobe is just as wrong as those saying hes guilty. Ive never once said he was guilty nor have I said he was innocent. Ive said if the leaks are true, it doesnt look so good for him.
