Kobe Bryant: Guilty or Innocent?

Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Kobe Bryant: Guilty or Innocent?
By Musefinity (Musefinity) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

What are your opinions?

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit


The bruises on her, the power differential (physical and societal), the injuries to her body. The latter, IMO, can occur under benign circumstances BUT it would take quite a masochistic woman to endure that with a man she had just met.

The power differential is what strikes me more intuitively; I doubt that he is used to or okay with being refused in that manner. I find her story more plausible given what I've experienced with how men react in certain situations. (Trying to be delicate here - pardon any vague references.)

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit

Guilty because, regardless of the crime, he cheated on his wife. What a scumbag!

By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean he commited rape...

I don't know enough to make a serious opinion on this but the mentality behind rape is rather interesting. I always used to think it was sexual, but apparently it has to do with power, right?

By Musefinity (Musefinity) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

Yes. Right, Moojuice.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit


By Allena (Allena) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit


Moojuice said my thoughts exactly. There is a very large difference between commiting an act of adultry and an act of rape. While he did commit adultry (which I don't support if I come off sounding like that), he is on trial to see if he committed an act of rape. Furthermore the person who has brought the case against him said early on that when she told him to stop, he did! Had he kept going at that point he'd be guilty of rape without a doubt.

The person here who is calling rape has a very interesting sexual history concerning her. For the sake of Kobe, the best thing for him would be to have that history made public knowledge in court.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 03:36 pm: Edit

I don't know whether he did it or not but ti angers me that we blame the victim. So what if she was sexually active? She could still get raped, and I don't think it's any of our business what her sexual history is because I think it's irrelevant.

By Allena (Allena) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Actually for the most part her sexual history is not important. What is important is the fact that appearently after she was finshed "being raped" by Kobe, she had sexual relations with somebody else! Now while being a guy rape is never one of those things that really worries me, I'd assume very few women out there would go have sex after being raped.

There is a lot of evidence in this case that we don't know about. I'm sure that opinions would change about Kobe (and I mean this in either direction, either towards guilt of innocent) if we knew what it was.

Keep in mind, it is not important how many people on that jury think that he's guilty, as long as one believes that he is innocent, Kobe is fine. I see it being very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Kobe is indeed guilty.

I have not really followed this case that closely, if you guys really want a weird case look at the Michael Jackson one!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit


By Louis_Vuitton (Louis_Vuitton) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

I cant say if he was guilty

I don't know

Yeah sure he was creepin
and most likely white girl's a straight up ho

he'll probably get off though.


By Hardcohomeyg (Hardcohomeyg) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit


That girl is such a slut. Seriously, she had "sexual relations" with other guys right after her "encounter." She's just tryin to get attention. And on the topic of bruises, its not Kobe's fault that he's such a thick beast

By Musefinity (Musefinity) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Wow, Hardcohmeyg. Please tell me you're not being serious. If you're being serious I hope you get monkey-raped.

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 11:02 pm: Edit

I wasn't implying that the fact that he commited adultry is why he is guilty -- I just happen to feel strongly about marriage and the sacredness that should be respected within the relationship ("marriage", of course, also including civil unions between same-sex couples!) And, to be honest, I don't know much about the case or the parties involved, but what I do know is that cheating on your wife is a "no" in any situation.

To reiterate: kobe bryant, what a scumbag! He deserves anything (negative) that comes his way.

By Benzo415 (Benzo415) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

My presonal belief is that he is guilty. However, I think that if I were on the jury for this case, since this is a criminal trial I could not vote guilty yet because the prosecution has not entirely convinced me yet of his guilt. It is just my personal opinion, that is all. The $4M ring and the emotional instability of the woman make me believe his guilt more too.

OJ's crime was a lot more serious than Kobe's though (and I am much more certain of OJ's guilt). Still it digusts me how many people- especially women- still wear Kobe's jersey with pride. It especially makes me upset to hear the media still portraying him as some type of hero; a guy who fights the law by day, plays basketball by night. This is a guy trying to defend himself from rape charges, hardly a honorable and heroic act!

By Allena (Allena) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 10:22 am: Edit

Benzo, you actually hit a point that has really been bugging me. While, like I said, I think Kobe is innocent, I don't believe he should be seen as a hero.

Several Tv networks are banking on the fact that during the day Kobe spends him time in the court, and then at night he spends his time on the court. Not to mention that but everytime a trial date comes up, (not sure how this is if you live outside of the LA area, but I'm sure it still somewhat exists) you see thousands of people supporting the Kobe Bryant jersey.

While right now I'm saying he is innocent, this man should not be made into a hero!!! He cheated on his wife and is a accused of commiting rape. Much like the problems I have in the Michael Jackson (I'm referring the the massive tail gate parties and the celebrations that are going up near his home everytime before he goes to court) case, I have the problem in this case that this is not a game! I believe that people really need to take this more seriously then they are, because these are very serious charges. Beyond that, even being accused of rape (and don't forget he is guilty of adultry) is very serious and no man should be made into a hero for that.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit

the prosecution has an extremely weak case...it is nearly impossible for them to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt due to the accuser's sexual history and questioning surrounding her mental well being

..she had sex with two other guys prior to kobe.. all in the scope of a week... its impossible to determine which guy created the bruises

..not only that but when she went to the hospital for her rape test, she was wearing dirty underwear with bodily fluids stained on them from a man other than kobe
... talk about class

she is a celeb groupie....she went to his room willingly, during hours in which room service was closed... why did she go? because she knew whos room it was

..i have a strong suspicion the charges are all strategic on the accusers behalf.... technicalities before she can file what she really wants, a civil suit

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I don't really know either way because I don't know the evidence. I did want to point something out here though. Everyone keeps talking about this girls sexual history and saying that she had slept with other guys the same night, etc. Why is everyone assuming that these rumors are true?

By Allena (Allena) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong (once again, I have not followed this case very closely) but I thought that it was at this point proven that she had "relations" with others shortly after she finshed up with Kobe.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit

How? I don't follow the case closely either (so I might have missed this), but living in Colorado I have no choice but to hear the updates on the news and I haven't heard anything that has convinced me it was anything other than things that were said about her by her peers.

Unfortunately, I think it will be a long time (if ever) before anyone could say with certainty what happened. The public may never learn all of the facts of the case, heck the jury won't learn all of the facts of the case because both sides are working hard to supress certain evidence.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

I don't really care about the case. It doesn't really matter anyways, since both of 'em are going to hell in a handbasket.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

It hasn't been proven that she had sex with someone following Kobe...whatever. Even if she's not the most pure woman on the face of the planet she can still get raped.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

A woman could have relations with any number of men, be mentally unstable, but can still be raped. Consentual sex has little to do with mental health history or her boyfriend.

By Rachelvish (Rachelvish) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

They are attacking the victim like no other... I don't think that's a good thing.. it almost seems like the victim is being put on trial often

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

"A woman could have relations with any number of men, be mentally unstable, but can still be raped."

good luck proving that one to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.. especially when you add into the twist that she is not accusing your ordinary joe smith of rape but rather a celebrity with an extremely clean background

she has nothing going for her other than bruises around that region...which is way too ambiguous to prove rape..
..maybe she likes rough sex...kobe is a big guy...maybe it was from one of the two guys she had sex with a few days prior to kobe...

there are no witnesses.. its the word of an accuser with a mentally unstable past and sketchy sexual history vs a well known, well liked, celebrity with a very good background

... i just dont see a conviction happening in this lifetime

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit

"They are attacking the victim like no other... I don't think that's a good thing.. it almost seems like the victim is being put on trial often "

well see it is an unfair to call her a victim.. there is no clear proof that shows she has even been raped.. and untill that happens (aka a guilty verdict) she will remain an "accuser"

and i think its fair game to attack her... afterall what if she is falsely accusing... than that makes kobe the victim now doesnt it

By Stonedpanda (Stonedpanda) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit

There was a Maxim (ok, it was in Maxim, but it was actually extremely well written) that analyzed the evidence. It reinforced my own viewpoint (based on my analysis of other evidence) that Kobe Bryant is innocent of rape.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

98% of women who say that they were raped are telling the truth. Only 2% falsely accuse.

ScubaSteve: while that all may be true, it does not change Bryant's guilt or innocence. The laws governing rape and the trial of rape are, IMO, horribly inadequate for trying the crime.

Attacking the chastity of the victim is used in nearly every rape or assault case; there was one in Massachusetts where a woman alleged that her supervisor groped her. The defense claimed that she was dressed provacatively, and asked her to model the shirt she was wearing. So she hauls out the Winnie-the-Pooh denim shirt... and the guy was still found to be innocent!

Raped or not, she is being victimized now: death threats, moving often, tabloids showing her picture, accusations against her sanity.

Moral guilt and legal guilt of sexual assault, IMO, are two very different things.

Rachel: I concur about the victim being put on trial. You would hardly see someone who is the plaintiff in a car theft case being accused like this - despite the nearly identical false reporting rates.

I'll dig up the source for the study that analyzed how often there is false reporting with rape and other crimes.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:17 am: Edit

"98% of women who say that they were raped are telling the truth. Only 2% falsely accuse. "

right.. but now look at it in perspective.. what % of reported rapes involve celebrities? And wouldn't you agree the probability for a falsely accused rape against a celeb may be slightly greater than that of your ordinary joe smith? Most falsely accused rapes probably are a result of motive..when the accuser has motive the chance of her embellishing the truth increases..

while the accuser did not know kobe personally before the alleged incident, the fact that he is a celebrity makes him a target..which creates motive..

now take it even further into perspective and include the fact that the girl has a rocky mental history and sexual past...fair or not, it wedges her into the stereotype of one who would falsely accuse

...the critical point in this trial will be whether or not the judge will allow evidence of the accuser's sexual past as immiscible... or has he already? I haven't been following the trial that in depth in the past few weeks

kobe might very well be guilty... i just feel that the facts surrounding the case are too overpowering to produce a guilty verdict

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 01:15 pm: Edit

I'll agree that the celebrity aspect COULD make her more likely to be among the low percentage of false accusers; I'm not sure that mental health history has much to do with that. Then again, the celebrity aspect would make some people LESS likely to come forward: they know that the publicity and notority will be horrible to live with. Think Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, et al are good examples. I'm sure there are a lot of times when they wish they had not said anything.

Concur that the guilty verdict will be tough - I think that there is about a 30% chance of conviction in any rape trial, and the defense is really tearing the girl apart.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." --Raymond Chandler

By Jblackboy05 (Jblackboy05) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 02:52 am: Edit

Kobe is innocent just like O.J., so lets just stop it at that. ol' girl is just a dirty goldigger trying to get paid.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

yea except for the fact that OJ was guilty as sin..

By Jblackboy05 (Jblackboy05) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Whatever scubasteve, O.J may have conspired to kill his ex wife, but as for murdering her I think not. Let's just leave it at that, I'll compromise on that point perhaps. And anyway why would he kill his wife while his children were in the house, and why would there be several eye witnesses that provided a reliable alibis ????

By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit

He's probably innocent, but even if he did force her she's got so much against her she'll lose. Plus, Kobe's got dream team lawyers which will get him out of it, and the fact that good lawyers can save a guilty man is the reason why I will NEVER do criminal defense.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

yeah but good criminal defense lawyers can also save seemingly guilty but in actuality, innocent men

..it's how are legal system works.. its not perfect, but it gets it right most of the time

someone once said that "its better to let 10 guilty men go free than have 1 innocent man spend a day in jail" (or something like that)

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

Good criminal defense lawyers are also available mostly only to the wealthy, the white, the suburbanites, etc. Kobe, being wealthy, will be able to afford much better lawyers. That isn't justice.

Prosecutors work for basically what teachers make. Public defenders make nearly nothing. Both are horribly overworked. That certainly influences quality of representation (for the victims and the defendants).

SCUBA Steve: first of all, I think you are quoting the Bible. If that theory were really in practice, we would not even detain people in jail pending trial - as they are innocent until proven guilty (i.e. burden of proof is usually on the prosecution). Taking it a bit further... if that theory were in practice, we would not have jails, given the chance that an innocent person is in them.

Trying a person for rape is very different than other crimes. Take OJ. There were dead bodies, and it was apparent that they were not suicides. So, you know that a crime was committed - the question in trial is who committed the crime. With rape, that is seldom the case (with the exception of women who are attacked on the streets or something) - many try to argue that no crime exists, i.e. it was consent existed. The same act can be criminal or benign - that is not the case with other violent crimes. With DNA testing, it is possible to see that the act took place; court determines (or should) whether or not that DNA evidence is admissible (i.e. if the identity is correct), and if it was a violent crime. That's different from an assault case - okay, the woman has bruises, but who made them and was he/she justified in doing so (self-defense, etc)? Not to ramble, but rape is the only crime in which the victim has to prove that a crime occurred. She is often blamed for the crime, though, as said above, there is the same false-reporting rate with other crimes. It is a situation in which the law simply has not caught up to reality.

Personally, I would love to see professional jurors try rape cases. Either that, or proof of consent should be on the defense - if you allege that someone stole your car, can someone just say, "No, you let me borrow it?" They would be expected to reasonably show that you did, in fact, lend them your car. Imagine if you occaisonally lent your car to friends, but someone you met briefly took your keys and stole it - and then used the fact that you lent the car to friends as proof that they did not steal it, but rather borrowed it? Would you need to haul out millions of witnesses to attest that you only let very close family members borrow your car, and that you are not the type to just loan it to some drunk guy in a bar?

Estimates vary, but about 25% of women will be sexually assaulted during college (about 80% of those when they are drunk), and about 1/3 of women will be sexually assaulted over their lifetime. Think about that - 1/3 of the women that you date will have had an experience like that. About 10% will report to the police. Conviction rates are remarkably low. If you are a guy and you date throughout college and beyond, you will encounter many women who have been assaulted. Most will not have said anything, save maybe to friends and you if you are close enough. Imagine now having 3 daughters - statistically, 1 will be sexually assaulted. Do you still have the same thoughts about the way that rape trials are prosecuted?

Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page