The Nutty, Slutty Defense

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Bryant attorneys will use 'nutty, slutty defense'

Quote:

Sexual assault trial to begin Friday. . . .

“The defense can be characterized as the ‘nutty, slutty defense,”’ said attorney Scott Robinson, who has followed the case.

The aggressive defense has kept prosecutors reacting to a cascade of filings on everything from media access to the constitutionality of Colorado’s rape shield law to what the jury can hear about matters typically kept confidential.

The defense hasn’t won every skirmish. The rape shield, intended to protect the privacy of victims, still stands. Bryant’s attorneys weren’t allowed to see the woman’s medical records, and won’t be able to tell jurors about her two purported suicide attempts in the five months before her encounter with the Los Angeles Lakers guard. . . .

Legal experts said the criminal case will turn on whether jurors have more faith in Bryant’s story or the woman’s. Anything the defense can do to chip away at the alleged victim’s credibility is a point in Bryant’s favor. . . .

With regards to the civil lawsuit filed by the accuser, the Times cited a source close to Bryant as saying he is unwilling to negotiate a monetary settlement, even if a deal leads to the criminal case being dropped.

"He is not giving her 5 cents," the source told the Times.

Several sources told the Times that the accuser no longer has any reservations and is ready to proceed. The Times said Bryant's tough stance in the criminal trial could have convinced the woman and her attorneys to cooperate with prosecutors.

SPECULATION: I have a suspicion that the alleged "nutty slutty" victim filed the civil lawsuit two weeks before the scheduled criminal trial as a strategic maneuver. Going to trial and defending serious criminal charges is extremely stressful. I suspect that she was gambling that Bryant would offer her a very large monetary settlement as a means to avoid a stressful criminal trial and a possible jail sentence.

Without a monetary settlement, the alleged victim has now changed her stance (again) -- she no longer has reservations! How convenient . . . I mean, how wonderful for the prosecution. I think this indicates that the alleged victim desperately needs a conviction in a criminal case in order to nail her civil case for monetary compensation.

How successful do you think the "nutty, slutty" defense will be?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 880 • Replies: 5

No top replies

In my opinion, Kobe was either set up or he is a victim of a nutty, slutty woman who is looking to make a few million bucks at his expense.

I agree that the accuser thought Kobe would offer a monetary settlement in lieu of going through a trial. I think Kobe is innocent and I'm glad he and his attorney are standing their ground and are willing to take this case to trial.

0 Replies

My hunch is that the gal involved was expecting a long term liaison with glamour and excitement. What she got was a one night stand.

Neither Kobe or the woman were sophisticated in the ways of a man with a groupie.

Each of them felt misunderstood and exploited.

Now the whole situation is public property.

Very sad.

0 Replies

suspicious
Do you buy this at all? Is it credible:

Quote:

Prosecutors voiced concerns about whether Bryant could receive a fair trial after the judge was forced to release transcripts of a closed-door hearing in which a defense witness explained why she believes DNA evidence indicates the woman had sex with another man after Bryant but before her medical exam. The accuser’s attorney has denied that claim. . .

[J]urors can be told about the woman’s sexual activities in the three days before her hospital examination 15 hours after she was with Bryant. And defense attorneys have said the woman’s decision to file a civil lawsuit allows them to argue that the woman persisted in her accusation only for financial reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5789268/

DENVER - Crucial DNA evidence tested by defense experts in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case might have been contaminated, prosecutors said in a court filing released Wednesday, just two days before jury selection is to begin. . . .

Because Bryant has acknowledged having sex with the woman, DNA evidence is unnecessary for identification purposes. Defense attorneys have suggested the evidence would show the woman had sex with other men in the three days surrounding her encounter with Bryant, which they claimed was part of a pattern of behavior designed to gain the attention of a former boyfriend.

In the June hearing, Johnson explained in detail why she believes the DNA evidence suggests the woman had sex in the 15 hours after her encounter with Bryant.

The prosecution has suggested that semen from another man was transferred to the woman’s body when she put on unwashed underwear before going to the hospital.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818473/

Is it credible for the alleged victim to wait 15 hours to go to the hospital and then (after putting 15 hours of thought into going to the hospital and reporting the alleged crime) dig through her dirty clothes and pull out a pair of dirty panties to wear to the hospital?

If the prosecution doesn't KNOW why the panties were contaminated (and they ought to question their alleged victim and find out the answer) you would think they could come up with a more plausible suggestion for the contaminated DNA sample.

0 Replies

[/QUOTE]Is it credible for the alleged victim to wait 15 hours to go to the hospital and then (after putting 15 hours of thought into going to the hospital and reporting the alleged crime) dig through her dirty clothes and pull out a pair of dirty panties to wear to the hospital?

Quote:

I have been trained and worked as a volunteer for a local Rape Crisis Center. I was more valuable as a public speaker than as a victim counselor because I am a rational, logical person and rape victims--more often than not--do not always act in rational, logical ways.

Consentual sex with another man after rape is not uncommon. The "logic" is a "take the taste/hurt/experience away."

Waiting 15 hours before reporting the rape is not uncommon.

A woman has to determine in her mind whether it was really rape. She asks herself if somehow she led the guy on or invited the attack.

If she did her thinking at the home of a parent or a girlfriend or a lover, she may not have had clean panties with her. Also, she probably reported to the police station first and they insisted on the hospital visit (both for her protection against STD's and pregnancy and to collect hard evidence that unwilling intercourse had taken place).

As I remember the DA's office deliberated for nearly a week before deciding to file charges and pursue the case.

0 Replies

clean panties

Noddy24 wrote:

If she did her thinking at the home of a parent or a girlfriend or a lover, she may not have had clean panties with her. Also, she probably reported to the police station first and they insisted on the hospital visit (both for her protection against STD's and pregnancy and to collect hard evidence that unwilling intercourse had taken place).

I can understand wearing the same panties to the hospital that were worn at the time of the alleged attack. That makes sense. The authorities will want to take all evidence into custody.

I was not critizing the alleged victim for wearing dirty panties to the hospital. But, the fact remains that her panties and/or vaginal area contained the DNA of a man who was not the man she accused (Kobe Bryant). How does she explain the presence of another man's DNA? Did she have sex with someone else during that 15 hour period between the time of the alleged rape and her trip to the hospital?

The prosecution tried to explain the presence of the "contaminating" DNA of another man by suggesting that alleged victim changed her clothes before going to the hospital and that she put on a pair of "unwashed underwear" and somehow the DNA from Bryant was thereafter commingled with DNA from another man that was previously left on the "unwashed underwear."

Excuse me? I don't know of any woman no matter how traumatized she might be who would change clothes and, in doing so, dig through her dirty clothes and pull out a pair dirty panties to wear. When I'm looking for panties to wear, I open my panty drawer. I don't dig through the dirty clothes hamper.

The prosecutor's suggestion makes no sense to me. The prosecutor's suggestion is not evidence. Therefore, I am anxiously awaiting to learn facts (rather than a suggestion) to explain why some man's DNA (other than Bryant's DNA) was found in her underpants or person and collected and placed in the rape kit.

0 Replies

The Nutty, Slutty Defense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know