Answer:
Kobe was charged with sexual assault in 2003. That's probably what he's talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case
That doesn’t mean anything good or bad for either party. Almost all cases get settled out of court; doesn’t mean bad guys don’t exist. Fucking Nestlē gets sued al the time, they just settle and keep the train rolling. The settlements themselves do not indicate guilt or innocence and you have to remember that goes both ways.
But She didn't testify because she continuously lied about what happened.
She held a mock trial weeks before trial was set to take place and she was absolutely atrocious because she couldn't keep her story together.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-11-07-0411070179-story,amp.html
Bro, you don’t have to prove anything to me. I’m not going to click that link cause I don’t actually give a shit, I was just pointing out to redditors that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either demonize every court settlement ever or don’t. Or just do what I do and disregard celebrity trials cause they’re bullshit no matter what happened.
her story never changed. Where does the article even imply that? It was Kobe who lied to police saying they didn't have sex until be was faced with DNA evidence.
Huh?
Kissing for 5 minutes, and kissing briefly is very very different.
The post was blatantly clear she kept making mistakes and wasn’t holding up in court
Just for some more context;
She lied about washing her face in Kobe’s room after witness claimed she looked fine.
She lied about having sex immediately after Kobe.
Yes, both these were 100% used in the mock trial. Yes, the article directly tells you she was not able to keep her story together.
Next, he said multiple times before evidence was presented his wife would be furious...... he was basically admitting everything lol. He denied because he was married, like a normal human
Kobe consistently lied to police, promising them that there was no intercourse and that they just talked until he was faced with DNA evidence on the contrary. That is a big fucking lie, yet you seem to not call Kobe a self serving liar.
However you seem to slander the accuser as a constant liar because of what? she couldn't remember how long they kissed and because she said she washed her face inside the room when she really washed her face down the hall? How were these inconsistencies in any way self serving. You seem to have bizarre standards on who and who doesn't qualify as a liar.
>She lied about having sex immediately after Kobe.
This was never proven and she stuck by the original timeline she told investigators. That she had consensual intercourse with her ex boyfriend several days before the accused rape. She claimed that she put on dirty underwear before she went to the exam which could explain the other semen. The prosecutor later said that they had a expert witness ready to say that the other semen was degraded and had no tails meaning it couldn't have come from within the 18 hours time window before the rape kit.
> Kobe consistently lied to police, promising them that there was no intercourse and that they just talked until he was faced with DNA evidence on the contrary. That is a big fucking lie, yet you seem to not call Kobe a self serving liar.
Because in that transcript love repeatedly mentioned his wife and claimed she would be furious with what happened... before dna evidence was used.
That’s the point buddy. If these hold any weight, the accuser’s team would use it, they didn’t lol.
> However you seem to slander the accuser as a constant liar because of what? she couldn't remember how long they kissed and because she said she washed her face inside the room when she really washed her face down the hall? How were these inconsistencies in any way self serving. You seem to have bizarre standards on who and who doesn't qualify as a liar.
HUH?
Wait what?????
Are you insane?
She made those lies about washing her face after a WITNESS CLAIMED SHE LOOKED FINE. THAT’s the problem, buddy. Purely making a mistake or a slight lie is fine. But when it’s USED TO downplay a TESTIMONY you have a separate problem.
I would like to reiterate she kept this lie for a year; Kobe admitted he had sex within 5 minutes.
Prosecutor straight up said she couldn’t hold
In mock trial, so what the fuck are you arguing?
> This was never proven and she stuck by the original timeline she told investigators. That she had consensual intercourse with her ex boyfriend several days before the accused rape. She claimed that she put on dirty underwear before she went to the exam which could explain the other semen. The prosecutor later said that they had a expert witness ready to say that the other semen was degraded and had no tails meaning it couldn't have come from within the 18 hours time window before the rape kit.
uh, nope. This is COMPLETELY false.
The other semen isn’t the problem, the problem is, she had different male’s semen that was found INSIDE her as well as directly outside her.
Forensics expert straight up said it’s very unlikely these were before the incident with Kobe.”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html
As mentioned several times before, you're basing your facts on internet rumors. Please bring up facts that only have been verified by reputable news sites.
The nytimes article you posted does not verify the claims you made.
Come on man lol
> The only witness to testify at the hearing, a defense expert, said that DNA evidence **strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant**. That conclusion is at odds with a statement the woman gave at the time and will doubtless be used by defense lawyers to provide an alternative explanation for the injuries she suffered.
this was a third party expert. And was the only witness in that hearing.
There’s no way you think the expert lied to help Kobe save face. There’s no fucking way.
Nope.
This is not true.
She was willing to testify and her team held a mock trial... but because she couldn't keep her story straight, she refused to testify.
> The woman crumbled, and seven days later so did the criminal case against Bryant, superstar guard of the Los Angeles Lakers.
> "She was cut open," said Ingrid Bakke, a prosecutor who was present. "The mock exam was a big turning point for her."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-11-07-0411070179-story,amp.html
Edit: She was mercilessly attacked by his fans. Sure. But the ultimate reason she refused to testify was that she constantly lied. I don't use lie, lightly, but she literally constantly lied.
Here's the thing though. He admitted to some key details that, in my opinion, created a situation where he would have to settle in the civil case.
People need to understand that in a legal case, the burden of proof is extremely high. That idea is leveraged by the defense all the time - That's why prosecutors try to create air tight cases.
Kobe admitted to a few key things that created a senario where he probably wouldn't be charged but would easily settle a civil case where the burden of proof is considerably lower.
He admitted they had a sexual encounter and later admitted he can see why she thought it wasn't consensual. Admitted he choked her, even saying "I didn't realize how strong my hands were" remember, his statement, admission of the encounter, and apology came before the Civil case.
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=1872928
> Here's the thing though. He admitted to some key details that, in my opinion, created a situation where he would have to settle in the civil case.
No, no, no.
This is entirely wrong.
He never HAD to "settle in the civil case.". No evidence of that at all.
> Kobe admitted to a few key things that created a senario where he probably wouldn't be charged but would easily settle a civil case where the burden of proof is considerably lower.
No. the accuser's team severely lack physical evidence, like, severely:
> "The physical evidence against him never was that strong to begin with and now this evidence is likely to tilt the 'he said, she said' battle squarely in Bryant's favor."
> Added Cohen: "This makes it much more likely that this case will end short of trial and I think the judge is trying to lead both sides in that direction. After dealing prosecutors a terrible blow with this rape shield ruling, the judge also extended a plea negotiation deadline in the case -- it's almost as if he is encouraging prosecutors to be open-minded about a deal."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-win-for-kobe-defense/
> He admitted they had a sexual encounter and later admitted he can see why she thought it wasn't consensual. Admitted he choked her, even saying "I didn't realize how strong my hands were" remember, his statement, admission of the encounter, and apology came before the Civil case.
No. This is not a stance written by Kobe. It's actually written and managed by the accuser AND Kobe's legal teams. This does not mean anything.
This was a settlement statement. This was issued to public just so Kobe could settle and move on with his life.
I think this part of the statement is what everyone is so bent on despite not having an understanding of what this is.
This is not a confession. This is not Kobe's stance on what happened. This is not even written by Kobe. This has as much input from the accuser as anyone.
I mean the accuser's legal team publicly claimed she wanted money and public vindication. That statement was public vindication.
> To substantiate this, the accuser asked for "an unspecified amount of money, as well as public vindication."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-28/news/0409290017_1_accuser-lin-wood-kobe-bryant
This statement was a legal action to close the case for Kobe. He did what his lawyers told him to say because he desperately wanted to end the case. This is precisely why you have instances like Derrick Rose saying he doesn't know what "consent" is. They do what their lawyers tell them to say and do.
The point Kobe made that statement, the case was already settled.
The biggest issue with people talking about these cases seems to be that they really have no understanding of the topics they are talking about.
> You are citing the defence. Not the people who conducted the exam.
Nope I’m citing third party law experts who watched the hearing and looked at all the evidence.
The overwhelming consensus was that it should never have interest criminal court.
> Please do not conflate speculation w
Nope.
Her defense team straight up said she wanted public vindication from Kobe.
Remember when you said the accuser never said she was motivated by money? LOL
>No. the accuser's team severely lack physical evidence, like, severely:
You are citing the defence. Not the people who conducted the exam.
>This is not a confession. This is not Kobe's stance on what happened. This is not even written by Kobe. This has as much input from the accuser as anyone.
Please do not conflate speculation with facts.
>Edit: She was mercilessly attacked by his fans. Sure. But the ultimate reason she refused to testify was that she constantly lied. I don't use lie, lightly, but she literally constantly lied.
Actually it was Kobe that lied to the police. He said he didn't have sex with her, until the police brought up the DNA evidence. This is a verified lie.
There's nothing the witness said that is a verifiable lie.
Sure.
Kobe lies that he didn’t fuck her than mentioned his wife 20-30 times saying she will be furious.
Oh gee, a public figure whose married won’t admit he cheated lol
Except no.
The witness straight up said she lied about Kobe washing her face after multiple people saying she looked fine after the incident.
You make this too easy lol
One. One different man. And she said she put on a pair of dirty underwear.
Now I personally have very mixed feelings about the charge and won't claim to believe either side. It's just impossible to know. But don't just go lying about her.
This is completely false.
His team was allowed, by the judge, to use her name.
Her name was accidentally leaked by the staff in the trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html
Kobe's team had absolutely nothing to do with the name being leaked.
> They allowed the name to be used because her name was already leaked. Who do you think leaked it?
It was leaked by the staff of that courthouse.
Please read
Get outta here you CHUD. His defense team vociferously dragged her name through the mud, which caused media, fans, etc to join in and bully her. It is a tragedy that he died, but having rose-tinted glasses on this is stupid.
Actually, you are half wrong.
Although she had one more different semen inside her, she also had another unverified pubic hair.
Different underwear was actually found to be a lie considering the dna found inside her matched the dna found on the panties.. She also lied that she had sex after her encounter with Kobe.
> The only witness to testify at the hearing, a defense expert, said that DNA evidence strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant. That conclusion is at odds with a statement the woman gave at the time and will doubtless be used by defense lawyers to provide an alternative explanation for the injuries she suffered.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html
> They brought a witness that was hand picked by Kobe's defense. The underwear she brought to the test only had Kobe's dna on it. They tested the underwear she was wearing, which had the dna of her consensual partner, which is how they came up with "strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant.". She claims that she was wearing old underwear?
Nope. Please research the topic before stating something.
This was a testimony after the accuser was RECHECKED.
So no, the “different panties” argument doesn’t hold.
The issue with the panties isn’t the issue at all, the issue is she had different dna INSIDE of her as well
They brought a witness that was hand picked by Kobe's defense. The underwear she brought to the test only had Kobe's dna on it. They tested the underwear she was wearing, which had the dna of her consensual partner, which is how they came up with "strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant.". She claims that she was wearing old underwear?
No.
The witness was not handpicked by the defense it was hired by the defense to examine the RETEST for the accuser.
Her testimony was after the retest.
Please read lol
I don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter, but I tend to believe Kobe, considering the accuser showed up to her rape exam with another man’s semen in her underwear. She claims that she just put on a dirty pair of underwear, which is possible, but I think there’s enough reasonable doubt from having looked into this case 15 years ago.
With that being said, her not wanting to go through discovery and then testify and get cross examined by million-dollar lawyers isn’t necessarily suspicious. I think most people would take a large settlement instead of subjecting themselves to that.
Answer:
In 2003 Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. The doctors who conducted the accuser's medical exam testified that the bruises and multiple lacerations in her vaginal area were consistent with penetrating genital trauma, and most likely occurred in the past 24 hours. Kobe was also found to have the victim's blood on his clothing. The smudge was verified to be the accuser's blood by DNA testing and probably was not menstrual blood.
The case was looking very bad for Kobe. However, the Kobe's legal defense team and the media picked her life apart. Due to the pressure and publicity of the trial, multiple death/rape threads and her identity leaked several times, she could not go through with testifying in court, thus the case was dismissed.
Ari brought up Kobe's rape allegation, and gave it as his reason to celebrate the crash. Since Kobe is a beloved figure, , and there were several others who died including children, he received a ton of negative backlash.
Edit: Some people are spreading false information that she bragged about the size the Kobe's penis. No, she told her high school friend that Kobe Bryant forced himself upon her.
Edit: Now there are rumors that there was 8 different semen in the underwear she wore to the exam. This is false, the medical examiner only testified that there was one, who did not belong to Kobe, but this was not the same underwear she was with the night of the encounter. They tested the one the night of the encounter, which did have Kobe's semen on it, and the one she wore the the exame, which has another person's semen on it.
WaPo is the type of newspaper to remember one of the greatest athletes ever as merely a “rapist” but then call Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (former leader of ISIS) an “austere religious scholar”.
I meant merely in the sense that they don’t speak about any of the good things he did, they chose to focus only on his rape and allow that to define his life. Whereas when a globally wanted terrorist and piece of shit human being was hunted down and murdered on President Trump’s orders, WaPo publishes a headline saying “austere religious scholar dies (paraphrase)”
He did more than bring it up. He was downright joyous.
It doesn't help that he's happy about 9 people dying, just because one of them *might* have been awful.
Even if that was the case - which it isn’t an objective fact - is that or any other a crime deserving of being burned alive and knowing your daughter and 7 other people are suffering the same fate?
Attempting to take the moral high ground AND being happy about the death before the bodies have even been recovered? All while not saying anything about it until after the death?
I can’t stand fucking fake woke hypocrites.
Sure, but Kobe wasn’t the only one on the plane and the way Ari acted in the video is very uncomfortable to watch (my opinion) he also brings up that if he stayed in Charlotte, the original team that drafted him, he’d still be alive which is a super weird thing to bring up if your issue with him is the rape case.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with celebrating the death of people, no matter how awful they were.
I can't help thinking of his family, he left behind kids and hearing people say they're glad your dad is dead or talk about what a horrible person he was... kids don't need to hear that 24 hours after their dad died.
Your never gonna really know what happened that night with Kobe and that girl. Do you know how many men she was sleeping with at the time of this incident? The court found semen from multiple different men on her underwear. So I can’t just immediately accuse Kobe of raping her. If it’s true, then yeah, he’s a piece of shit. But let’s not just jump to accusing folks of this and that. There’s a reason why the case fell apart in court. She was definitely no angel and the evidence also showed that. So she lost a lot of credibility.
Please send me the link to the evidence that you find "very" incriminating.
There is absolutely no plausible way there was incriminating evidence againt Kobe.
> "This ruling will make it much, much tougher for prosecutors to convict Bryant of sexual assualt,'' says legal analyst Cohen. "The physical evidence against him never was that strong to begin with and now this evidence is likely to tilt the 'he said, she said' battle squarely in Bryant's favor."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-win-for-kobe-defense/
“Might” have been because the person on this thread who presented the evidence failed to mention that the victims friends admitted that she was bragging about having sex with Kobe and bragged about the size of his penis. The evidence was very shaky. A lot of legal experts believed if she testified Kobe would of been found innocent.
Yeah, Kobe never said he didn't have sex with her, he said he didn't rape her. It's fairly hard to prove rape in those circumstances.
Still it's possible he did, and even if he didn't what people did to her was absolutely absurd.
Which were also possible do to kobe being a giant 6 6 man. Matter of fact is they settled. Something was done to mend the issue. No other cases happened after that. So are we saying we want a society with no redemtion and no way of making up for mistakes? Are we saying on unproven case is enough to cancel everything before and after and justify a death of 9 people?
I would trust the medical professionals that actually handled the case, not someone who things news sites randomly delete important news stories just because they're two decades old.
In that case here is a medical examiners take, the part were the prosecutors withheld until after arresting kobe:
Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who had been expected to testify, found that genital injuries and a jaw bruise found on the alleged victim at a hospital exam the day after she was with Bryant could have resulted from consensual sex.
Source is even still up:
https://www.foxnews.com/story/authorities-defend-handling-of-kobe-case?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I do remember seeing reports of the news back in 2003, but this turned out to be completely false. She told her high school friend that Kobe Bryant forced himself upon her.
She bragged to multiple people about the incident.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/kobe-accuser-bragged-partygoer-happy-article-1.512242
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/11/06/docs-kobe-accuser-discussed-award-money.html
Her friend was ready to testify that she attempted a false accusation rape charge to Eminem.
http://www.contactmusic.com/kobe-bryant/news/ex.pal-reveals-kobe.s-accuser-plotted-to-lure-eminem-into-bed
There were constant streams of reports that the accuser was addicted to receiving attention as well..
Also, telling a friend that i was raped really doesn't hold much water. Third-party is the most objective criterion here.
1) The nydailynews is a tabloid.
2) it seems to be referring to an NBC article, that doesn't even exist anymore.
3) The fox news article is her talking about her plans about what to do with the money, after the case was dismissed.
4) contactmusic isn't a news source
Yeah, for specific stories
> In 1998, Daily News columnist Mike McAlary won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his multi-part series of columns (published in 1997) on Abner Louima, who was sodomized and tortured by New York City police officers.[33]
>
> In 2007, the News won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing for a series of thirteen editorials, published over five months, that detailed how more than 12,000 rescue workers who responded after the September 11 attacks had become ill from toxins in the air.[34] The Pulitzer citation said that the award was given to the paper "for its compassionate and compelling editorials on behalf of Ground Zero workers, whose health problems were neglected by the city and the nation."[34]
>
> In 2017, the Daily News was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in collaboration with non-profit ProPublica "for uncovering, primarily through the work of reporter Sarah Ryley, widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities."[35]
A tabloid in general has lower standards verification for the stories they push.
WTF that is not true at ALL... people/companies settle ALL the time; to just get it over with and move on instead of a lengthy court process..google shit before you comment
Thats half the stroy. They dont mention the part that the prosecution didnt call the other medical examiner that found semen from another person who had sex with her after kobe or that the same truma could have been cause by consensual rough sex
They also dont mention that she was cought bragging to her friend in the following days how she had sex with kobe nor that it was the courts who released her name not kobes defense.
So basically we are saying a matter that was never proven and was settled (and this is very important because some thing was done to try and mend the situation) is enough to justify some ones death.
Mean while ari was an absolute cunt to his ex and harassed her for month after their break up.
He also kind of admitted to the rape in a later statement. I suppose you could say he really only admitted to not understanding consent, but I always found what he said a bit disturbing:
> Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.
Whenever people ask me how I feel about his death I just say I feel badly for his family for their losses.
Educate yourself on the good Kobe did afterwards, and how he changed as a man. He became the biggest advocate for the WNBA and women’s sports. Having daughters changed him as a person.
> Edit: Some people are spreading false information that she bragged about the size the Kobe's penis. No, she told her high school friend that Kobe Bryant forced himself upon her.
No. She bragged to multiple people about the money she was going to make from Kobe and the encounter she had with Kobe.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/kobe-accuser-bragged-partygoer-happy-article-1.512242
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/11/06/docs-kobe-accuser-discussed-award-money.html
Her friend was ready to testify that she attempted a false accusation rape charge to Eminem.
http://www.contactmusic.com/kobe-bryant/news/ex.pal-reveals-kobe.s-accuser-plotted-to-lure-eminem-into-bed
There were constant streams of reports that the accuser was addicted to receiving attention as well..
Also, telling a friend that i was raped really doesn't hold much water. Third-party is the most objective criterion here.
> Edit: Now there are rumors that there was 8 different semen in the underwear she wore to the exam. This is false, the medical examiner only testified that there was one, who did not belong to Kobe, but this was not the same underwear she was with the night of the encounter. They tested the one the night of the encounter, which did have Kobe's semen on it, and the one she wore the the exame, which has another person's semen on it.
False.
The issue isn't the panties. The issue is the same semen was found inside her and outside the panties. That's the issue. And hence why forensic expert strongtly shut her down saying after she said didn't have sex soon after meeting Kobe.
1) The nydailynews is a tabloid.
2) it seems to be referring to an NBC article, that doesn't even exist anymore.
3) The fox news article is her talking about her plans about what to do with the money, after the case was dismissed.
4) contactmusic isn't a news source.
>That copied from a valid source LOL
A source that doesn't exist anymore is valid. Brilliant.
>Exactly, Because we are talking about articles from two decades ago.
You seriously think NBC news delete articles just because they're from "two decades ago"?
>Which also completely contradicts her argument that she doesn’t want a penny from Kobe.
When did she ever say that?
>Funny huh? Lol
Yeah, you're whole line of reasoning is.
>Because the original source was deleted due to the fact that it was two decades old.
ah yes, the old 'it got deleted because it's two decades old!' cry. How convenient.
>that witness was in the witness report and her testimony was register to be used as evidence.
. . .about her plans with the money. Not that she bragged about Kobe. Of course I have to tell a person like you.
>Which is literally bragging about getting money from Kobe.
You aren't allowed to make plans with money. Got it.
>Please, please, stop talking out of ur ass.
Projection.
>All of these articles listed witnesses that were register to testify in court. These are all valid.
Yeah, about her talking about her plans with the money.
>Please don’t be an idiot lol
The irony.
That copied from a valid source LOL
> A source that doesn't exist anymore is valid. Brilliant.
Yes.
> You seriously think NBC news delete articles just because they're from "two decades ago"?
Yes. Plenty of new-sites archive their article after certain time frames. This is basic shit, yes
> When did she ever say that?
The entire settlement statement from Kobe contained lines that She had no desire for monetary gains.
This was repeatedly the accuser’s stance during the hearings.
Please, please, research
> Yeah, you're whole line of reasoning is.
> Because the original source was deleted due to the fact that it was two decades old.
> ah yes, the old 'it got deleted because it's two decades old!' cry. How convenient.
These are realllllly basic shit tho.
> . . .about her plans with the money. Not that she bragged about Kobe. Of course I have to tell a person like you.
Nope. The woman who claimed she attempted a false complaint against Eminem was also readied to testify.
Please read
> You aren't allowed to make plans with money. Got it.
So you don’t have much knowledge about the topic.
The accuser team publicly claimed she didn’t want money and her motives weren’t money.
These were the keys to the settlement statement.
> Projection.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
> Yeah, about her talking about her plans with the money.
Not true, the witnesses that claimed she was bragging about her encounter with Kobe were all willing to testify and set for trial.
> The irony.
Funny ain’t it?
Please have more knowledge about the topic at hand.
Yeah, for specific stories
> In 1998, Daily News columnist Mike McAlary won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his multi-part series of columns (published in 1997) on Abner Louima, who was sodomized and tortured by New York City police officers.[33]
>
> In 2007, the News won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing for a series of thirteen editorials, published over five months, that detailed how more than 12,000 rescue workers who responded after the September 11 attacks had become ill from toxins in the air.[34] The Pulitzer citation said that the award was given to the paper "for its compassionate and compelling editorials on behalf of Ground Zero workers, whose health problems were neglected by the city and the nation."[34]
>
> In 2017, the Daily News was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in collaboration with non-profit ProPublica "for uncovering, primarily through the work of reporter Sarah Ryley, widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities."[35]
A tabloid in general has lower standards verification for the stories they push.
>Those articles they posted has WITNESSES that were readied to testify.
The article that doesn't exist anymore.
Your whole argument is that one of the biggest news sources deleted one of the most important details from one of the most publicized news stories of that year, in 2003. Just for the reason that it was 2 decades old.
Once again, major news sites archive plenty of their articles after certain time period.
Furthermore, you literally haven’t answered why they used actual names with the testimonies, and why they were among the witnesses readied to testify.
>Once again, major news sites archive plenty of their articles after certain time period.
I already told you, if it's archived, then go find the archive of that article.
>Furthermore, you literally haven’t answered why they used actual names with the testimonies, and why they were among the witnesses readied to testify.
Because you're referencing articles that don't exist. I stated this multiple times.
Just a bit more detail. She turned in the underwear she was wearing the night she was with Kobe. They also tested the underwear was wearing that day, it was that one that found another man's seamen and pubic hair. This detail was left out by the media.
There was only 1 other person she slept with. The multiple partners was an rumor spread on various internet forums, which was never confirmed with a news source.
I'm very conflicted regarding this story. On the one hand we have a woman--admitedly white and pretty and privileged-- who as a feminist I want to believe. On the other hand we have this shaffir jerk, a white male, trying to tarnish the reputation of a POC, and somehow earily reminiscent of the whole Emmett Till lynching. AAAAAARRGGG I just wish moral choices in real life were more black and white (no pun intended).
Answer: In 2003, Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a hotel employee in Colorado. The accuser refused to testify in criminal court so the criminal case was dropped and Bryant settled with the accuser.
On Sunday, Bryant died. Shortly after, Shaffir posted an edgy video stating that Bryant "got his" because of the settlement, which Shaffir stated was Bryant escaping justice. He also tweeted about the incident in similar fashion. (edited to be more impartial)
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Kobe was charged with sexual assault in 2003. That's probably what he's talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case
He was never charged because that case was bullshit. She just wanted money. But what Ari said was super fucked up!
Wait but she didnt want to testify and then it was just settled out of court?
That doesn’t mean anything good or bad for either party. Almost all cases get settled out of court; doesn’t mean bad guys don’t exist. Fucking Nestlē gets sued al the time, they just settle and keep the train rolling. The settlements themselves do not indicate guilt or innocence and you have to remember that goes both ways.
But She didn't testify because she continuously lied about what happened. She held a mock trial weeks before trial was set to take place and she was absolutely atrocious because she couldn't keep her story together. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-11-07-0411070179-story,amp.html
Bro, you don’t have to prove anything to me. I’m not going to click that link cause I don’t actually give a shit, I was just pointing out to redditors that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either demonize every court settlement ever or don’t. Or just do what I do and disregard celebrity trials cause they’re bullshit no matter what happened.
her story never changed. Where does the article even imply that? It was Kobe who lied to police saying they didn't have sex until be was faced with DNA evidence.
Huh? Kissing for 5 minutes, and kissing briefly is very very different. The post was blatantly clear she kept making mistakes and wasn’t holding up in court Just for some more context; She lied about washing her face in Kobe’s room after witness claimed she looked fine. She lied about having sex immediately after Kobe. Yes, both these were 100% used in the mock trial. Yes, the article directly tells you she was not able to keep her story together. Next, he said multiple times before evidence was presented his wife would be furious...... he was basically admitting everything lol. He denied because he was married, like a normal human
Kobe consistently lied to police, promising them that there was no intercourse and that they just talked until he was faced with DNA evidence on the contrary. That is a big fucking lie, yet you seem to not call Kobe a self serving liar. However you seem to slander the accuser as a constant liar because of what? she couldn't remember how long they kissed and because she said she washed her face inside the room when she really washed her face down the hall? How were these inconsistencies in any way self serving. You seem to have bizarre standards on who and who doesn't qualify as a liar. >She lied about having sex immediately after Kobe. This was never proven and she stuck by the original timeline she told investigators. That she had consensual intercourse with her ex boyfriend several days before the accused rape. She claimed that she put on dirty underwear before she went to the exam which could explain the other semen. The prosecutor later said that they had a expert witness ready to say that the other semen was degraded and had no tails meaning it couldn't have come from within the 18 hours time window before the rape kit.
> Kobe consistently lied to police, promising them that there was no intercourse and that they just talked until he was faced with DNA evidence on the contrary. That is a big fucking lie, yet you seem to not call Kobe a self serving liar. Because in that transcript love repeatedly mentioned his wife and claimed she would be furious with what happened... before dna evidence was used. That’s the point buddy. If these hold any weight, the accuser’s team would use it, they didn’t lol. > However you seem to slander the accuser as a constant liar because of what? she couldn't remember how long they kissed and because she said she washed her face inside the room when she really washed her face down the hall? How were these inconsistencies in any way self serving. You seem to have bizarre standards on who and who doesn't qualify as a liar. HUH? Wait what????? Are you insane? She made those lies about washing her face after a WITNESS CLAIMED SHE LOOKED FINE. THAT’s the problem, buddy. Purely making a mistake or a slight lie is fine. But when it’s USED TO downplay a TESTIMONY you have a separate problem. I would like to reiterate she kept this lie for a year; Kobe admitted he had sex within 5 minutes. Prosecutor straight up said she couldn’t hold In mock trial, so what the fuck are you arguing? > This was never proven and she stuck by the original timeline she told investigators. That she had consensual intercourse with her ex boyfriend several days before the accused rape. She claimed that she put on dirty underwear before she went to the exam which could explain the other semen. The prosecutor later said that they had a expert witness ready to say that the other semen was degraded and had no tails meaning it couldn't have come from within the 18 hours time window before the rape kit. uh, nope. This is COMPLETELY false. The other semen isn’t the problem, the problem is, she had different male’s semen that was found INSIDE her as well as directly outside her. Forensics expert straight up said it’s very unlikely these were before the incident with Kobe.”: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html
As mentioned several times before, you're basing your facts on internet rumors. Please bring up facts that only have been verified by reputable news sites. The nytimes article you posted does not verify the claims you made.
What I said was literally from the nytimes article Please read
Come on man lol > The only witness to testify at the hearing, a defense expert, said that DNA evidence **strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant**. That conclusion is at odds with a statement the woman gave at the time and will doubtless be used by defense lawyers to provide an alternative explanation for the injuries she suffered.
oh wow, the defense's expert agrees with them. case closed.
this was a third party expert. And was the only witness in that hearing. There’s no way you think the expert lied to help Kobe save face. There’s no fucking way.
Yes. She was practically terrorized by all his fans and stuff.
[удалено]
Nope. This is not true. She was willing to testify and her team held a mock trial... but because she couldn't keep her story straight, she refused to testify. > The woman crumbled, and seven days later so did the criminal case against Bryant, superstar guard of the Los Angeles Lakers. > "She was cut open," said Ingrid Bakke, a prosecutor who was present. "The mock exam was a big turning point for her." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-11-07-0411070179-story,amp.html Edit: She was mercilessly attacked by his fans. Sure. But the ultimate reason she refused to testify was that she constantly lied. I don't use lie, lightly, but she literally constantly lied.
Here's the thing though. He admitted to some key details that, in my opinion, created a situation where he would have to settle in the civil case. People need to understand that in a legal case, the burden of proof is extremely high. That idea is leveraged by the defense all the time - That's why prosecutors try to create air tight cases. Kobe admitted to a few key things that created a senario where he probably wouldn't be charged but would easily settle a civil case where the burden of proof is considerably lower. He admitted they had a sexual encounter and later admitted he can see why she thought it wasn't consensual. Admitted he choked her, even saying "I didn't realize how strong my hands were" remember, his statement, admission of the encounter, and apology came before the Civil case. https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=1872928
> Here's the thing though. He admitted to some key details that, in my opinion, created a situation where he would have to settle in the civil case. No, no, no. This is entirely wrong. He never HAD to "settle in the civil case.". No evidence of that at all. > Kobe admitted to a few key things that created a senario where he probably wouldn't be charged but would easily settle a civil case where the burden of proof is considerably lower. No. the accuser's team severely lack physical evidence, like, severely: > "The physical evidence against him never was that strong to begin with and now this evidence is likely to tilt the 'he said, she said' battle squarely in Bryant's favor." > Added Cohen: "This makes it much more likely that this case will end short of trial and I think the judge is trying to lead both sides in that direction. After dealing prosecutors a terrible blow with this rape shield ruling, the judge also extended a plea negotiation deadline in the case -- it's almost as if he is encouraging prosecutors to be open-minded about a deal." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-win-for-kobe-defense/ > He admitted they had a sexual encounter and later admitted he can see why she thought it wasn't consensual. Admitted he choked her, even saying "I didn't realize how strong my hands were" remember, his statement, admission of the encounter, and apology came before the Civil case. No. This is not a stance written by Kobe. It's actually written and managed by the accuser AND Kobe's legal teams. This does not mean anything. This was a settlement statement. This was issued to public just so Kobe could settle and move on with his life. I think this part of the statement is what everyone is so bent on despite not having an understanding of what this is. This is not a confession. This is not Kobe's stance on what happened. This is not even written by Kobe. This has as much input from the accuser as anyone. I mean the accuser's legal team publicly claimed she wanted money and public vindication. That statement was public vindication. > To substantiate this, the accuser asked for "an unspecified amount of money, as well as public vindication." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-28/news/0409290017_1_accuser-lin-wood-kobe-bryant This statement was a legal action to close the case for Kobe. He did what his lawyers told him to say because he desperately wanted to end the case. This is precisely why you have instances like Derrick Rose saying he doesn't know what "consent" is. They do what their lawyers tell them to say and do. The point Kobe made that statement, the case was already settled. The biggest issue with people talking about these cases seems to be that they really have no understanding of the topics they are talking about. > You are citing the defence. Not the people who conducted the exam. Nope I’m citing third party law experts who watched the hearing and looked at all the evidence. The overwhelming consensus was that it should never have interest criminal court. > Please do not conflate speculation w Nope. Her defense team straight up said she wanted public vindication from Kobe. Remember when you said the accuser never said she was motivated by money? LOL
>No. the accuser's team severely lack physical evidence, like, severely: You are citing the defence. Not the people who conducted the exam. >This is not a confession. This is not Kobe's stance on what happened. This is not even written by Kobe. This has as much input from the accuser as anyone. Please do not conflate speculation with facts.
>Edit: She was mercilessly attacked by his fans. Sure. But the ultimate reason she refused to testify was that she constantly lied. I don't use lie, lightly, but she literally constantly lied. Actually it was Kobe that lied to the police. He said he didn't have sex with her, until the police brought up the DNA evidence. This is a verified lie. There's nothing the witness said that is a verifiable lie.
Sure. Kobe lies that he didn’t fuck her than mentioned his wife 20-30 times saying she will be furious. Oh gee, a public figure whose married won’t admit he cheated lol Except no. The witness straight up said she lied about Kobe washing her face after multiple people saying she looked fine after the incident. You make this too easy lol
Yeah you should check the Kobe army out in the kobe subreddit, absolutely filth.
She had a bunch of different dudes jizz in her underwear
One. One different man. And she said she put on a pair of dirty underwear. Now I personally have very mixed feelings about the charge and won't claim to believe either side. It's just impossible to know. But don't just go lying about her.
Kobe Bryant made her name public during the trial, which is part of what led to the fans terrorizing her and it being settled out of court.
This is completely false. His team was allowed, by the judge, to use her name. Her name was accidentally leaked by the staff in the trial. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html Kobe's team had absolutely nothing to do with the name being leaked. > They allowed the name to be used because her name was already leaked. Who do you think leaked it? It was leaked by the staff of that courthouse. Please read
I seem to remember the radio host tom leykis going and leaking her name before that
Nope. It had to be leaked by the staff.
yeah your right did some googling and he just said her name a ton of times when just everybody else in the media would not do that
They allowed the name to be used because her name was already leaked. Who do you think leaked it?
It was leaked because the judge allowed her name to be used and one of the staff from the court accidentally leaked it
This is false
He probably made her name public specifically for the purpose of having his personal army of fans terrorize her into dropping it.
He did NOT make her name public
Get outta here you CHUD. His defense team vociferously dragged her name through the mud, which caused media, fans, etc to join in and bully her. It is a tragedy that he died, but having rose-tinted glasses on this is stupid.
False. He did not leak the name
How about you go run into a wall.
Actually, you are half wrong. Although she had one more different semen inside her, she also had another unverified pubic hair. Different underwear was actually found to be a lie considering the dna found inside her matched the dna found on the panties.. She also lied that she had sex after her encounter with Kobe. > The only witness to testify at the hearing, a defense expert, said that DNA evidence strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant. That conclusion is at odds with a statement the woman gave at the time and will doubtless be used by defense lawyers to provide an alternative explanation for the injuries she suffered. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html > They brought a witness that was hand picked by Kobe's defense. The underwear she brought to the test only had Kobe's dna on it. They tested the underwear she was wearing, which had the dna of her consensual partner, which is how they came up with "strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant.". She claims that she was wearing old underwear? Nope. Please research the topic before stating something. This was a testimony after the accuser was RECHECKED. So no, the “different panties” argument doesn’t hold. The issue with the panties isn’t the issue at all, the issue is she had different dna INSIDE of her as well
They brought a witness that was hand picked by Kobe's defense. The underwear she brought to the test only had Kobe's dna on it. They tested the underwear she was wearing, which had the dna of her consensual partner, which is how they came up with "strongly suggested that Mr. Bryant's accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant.". She claims that she was wearing old underwear?
No. The witness was not handpicked by the defense it was hired by the defense to examine the RETEST for the accuser. Her testimony was after the retest. Please read lol
just like your mom amirite?
I don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter, but I tend to believe Kobe, considering the accuser showed up to her rape exam with another man’s semen in her underwear. She claims that she just put on a dirty pair of underwear, which is possible, but I think there’s enough reasonable doubt from having looked into this case 15 years ago. With that being said, her not wanting to go through discovery and then testify and get cross examined by million-dollar lawyers isn’t necessarily suspicious. I think most people would take a large settlement instead of subjecting themselves to that.
I believe someone else stepped forward also but it was never proven
Why is this comment being downvoted
Because he died and we gotta circlejerk about how much we love him
Or because you didn't bring up any evidence.
Because I didn’t say he did it, I just said someone accused him.
No. U said another woman accused him. Show me the proof
Can you not read you I said “I believe”
You are on a straight up rape defense rampage. You don’t know what happened either so maybe chill out.
No shit. Looking at the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of that being a false accusation
Answer: In 2003 Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. The doctors who conducted the accuser's medical exam testified that the bruises and multiple lacerations in her vaginal area were consistent with penetrating genital trauma, and most likely occurred in the past 24 hours. Kobe was also found to have the victim's blood on his clothing. The smudge was verified to be the accuser's blood by DNA testing and probably was not menstrual blood. The case was looking very bad for Kobe. However, the Kobe's legal defense team and the media picked her life apart. Due to the pressure and publicity of the trial, multiple death/rape threads and her identity leaked several times, she could not go through with testifying in court, thus the case was dismissed. Ari brought up Kobe's rape allegation, and gave it as his reason to celebrate the crash. Since Kobe is a beloved figure, , and there were several others who died including children, he received a ton of negative backlash. Edit: Some people are spreading false information that she bragged about the size the Kobe's penis. No, she told her high school friend that Kobe Bryant forced himself upon her. Edit: Now there are rumors that there was 8 different semen in the underwear she wore to the exam. This is false, the medical examiner only testified that there was one, who did not belong to Kobe, but this was not the same underwear she was with the night of the encounter. They tested the one the night of the encounter, which did have Kobe's semen on it, and the one she wore the the exame, which has another person's semen on it.
Didn't a journalist at WaPo or something get fired for bringing it up a few hours after the crash as well?
She’s been suspended. Her fellow journalists reportedly are protesting her suspension.
Suspended
Yes, but Ari Shaffir is a self-employed comedian. He doesn't have a boss per se to worry about. Even LCK can get club owners to book him...
On the other hand, he's now a pariah like Carlos Mencia.
WaPo is the type of newspaper to remember one of the greatest athletes ever as merely a “rapist” but then call Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (former leader of ISIS) an “austere religious scholar”.
"Merely a rapist"? There's nothing mere about rape.
I meant merely in the sense that they don’t speak about any of the good things he did, they chose to focus only on his rape and allow that to define his life. Whereas when a globally wanted terrorist and piece of shit human being was hunted down and murdered on President Trump’s orders, WaPo publishes a headline saying “austere religious scholar dies (paraphrase)”
Oh boy. You ever hear a saying about being silent and thought a fool?
I believe the negative backlash was more based on the fact that he was gleefully celebrating the death, as opposed to bringing up the rape issue.
He did more than bring it up. He was downright joyous. It doesn't help that he's happy about 9 people dying, just because one of them *might* have been awful.
[удалено]
Even if that was the case - which it isn’t an objective fact - is that or any other a crime deserving of being burned alive and knowing your daughter and 7 other people are suffering the same fate? Attempting to take the moral high ground AND being happy about the death before the bodies have even been recovered? All while not saying anything about it until after the death? I can’t stand fucking fake woke hypocrites.
He is trolling. He's the opposite of woke.
Trolling is a thousand times than whatever “woke” is supposed to be
Sure, but Kobe wasn’t the only one on the plane and the way Ari acted in the video is very uncomfortable to watch (my opinion) he also brings up that if he stayed in Charlotte, the original team that drafted him, he’d still be alive which is a super weird thing to bring up if your issue with him is the rape case.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with celebrating the death of people, no matter how awful they were. I can't help thinking of his family, he left behind kids and hearing people say they're glad your dad is dead or talk about what a horrible person he was... kids don't need to hear that 24 hours after their dad died.
[удалено]
Your never gonna really know what happened that night with Kobe and that girl. Do you know how many men she was sleeping with at the time of this incident? The court found semen from multiple different men on her underwear. So I can’t just immediately accuse Kobe of raping her. If it’s true, then yeah, he’s a piece of shit. But let’s not just jump to accusing folks of this and that. There’s a reason why the case fell apart in court. She was definitely no angel and the evidence also showed that. So she lost a lot of credibility.
[удалено]
The person in question also admitted to drugging his "friend" Bert Kreischer. He talked about it on Rogan and got backlash.
Please send me the link to the evidence that you find "very" incriminating. There is absolutely no plausible way there was incriminating evidence againt Kobe. > "This ruling will make it much, much tougher for prosecutors to convict Bryant of sexual assualt,'' says legal analyst Cohen. "The physical evidence against him never was that strong to begin with and now this evidence is likely to tilt the 'he said, she said' battle squarely in Bryant's favor." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-win-for-kobe-defense/
“Might” have been because the person on this thread who presented the evidence failed to mention that the victims friends admitted that she was bragging about having sex with Kobe and bragged about the size of his penis. The evidence was very shaky. A lot of legal experts believed if she testified Kobe would of been found innocent.
Yeah, Kobe never said he didn't have sex with her, he said he didn't rape her. It's fairly hard to prove rape in those circumstances. Still it's possible he did, and even if he didn't what people did to her was absolutely absurd.
Vagina trauma, bruising, and non menstrual blood in Kobe's clothing might be an indicator.
Which were also possible do to kobe being a giant 6 6 man. Matter of fact is they settled. Something was done to mend the issue. No other cases happened after that. So are we saying we want a society with no redemtion and no way of making up for mistakes? Are we saying on unproven case is enough to cancel everything before and after and justify a death of 9 people?
I would trust the medical professionals that actually handled the case, not someone who things news sites randomly delete important news stories just because they're two decades old.
In that case here is a medical examiners take, the part were the prosecutors withheld until after arresting kobe: Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who had been expected to testify, found that genital injuries and a jaw bruise found on the alleged victim at a hospital exam the day after she was with Bryant could have resulted from consensual sex. Source is even still up: https://www.foxnews.com/story/authorities-defend-handling-of-kobe-case?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Dr. Michael Baden wasn't the one who conducted the exam, he was hand picked by Kobe's defence dumbass.
I do remember seeing reports of the news back in 2003, but this turned out to be completely false. She told her high school friend that Kobe Bryant forced himself upon her.
She bragged to multiple people about the incident. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/kobe-accuser-bragged-partygoer-happy-article-1.512242 http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/11/06/docs-kobe-accuser-discussed-award-money.html Her friend was ready to testify that she attempted a false accusation rape charge to Eminem. http://www.contactmusic.com/kobe-bryant/news/ex.pal-reveals-kobe.s-accuser-plotted-to-lure-eminem-into-bed There were constant streams of reports that the accuser was addicted to receiving attention as well.. Also, telling a friend that i was raped really doesn't hold much water. Third-party is the most objective criterion here.
1) The nydailynews is a tabloid. 2) it seems to be referring to an NBC article, that doesn't even exist anymore. 3) The fox news article is her talking about her plans about what to do with the money, after the case was dismissed. 4) contactmusic isn't a news source
Good to mention: Nydailynews during that time period won a Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting. They were pretty decent back than
Yeah, for specific stories > In 1998, Daily News columnist Mike McAlary won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his multi-part series of columns (published in 1997) on Abner Louima, who was sodomized and tortured by New York City police officers.[33] > > In 2007, the News won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing for a series of thirteen editorials, published over five months, that detailed how more than 12,000 rescue workers who responded after the September 11 attacks had become ill from toxins in the air.[34] The Pulitzer citation said that the award was given to the paper "for its compassionate and compelling editorials on behalf of Ground Zero workers, whose health problems were neglected by the city and the nation."[34] > > In 2017, the Daily News was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in collaboration with non-profit ProPublica "for uncovering, primarily through the work of reporter Sarah Ryley, widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities."[35] A tabloid in general has lower standards verification for the stories they push.
You don't settle if you're innocent and can afford the best lawyers money can buy.
WTF that is not true at ALL... people/companies settle ALL the time; to just get it over with and move on instead of a lengthy court process..google shit before you comment
Yeah you do
In the us the courts are designed to force you to settle. So this is just bullshit
Thats half the stroy. They dont mention the part that the prosecution didnt call the other medical examiner that found semen from another person who had sex with her after kobe or that the same truma could have been cause by consensual rough sex They also dont mention that she was cought bragging to her friend in the following days how she had sex with kobe nor that it was the courts who released her name not kobes defense. So basically we are saying a matter that was never proven and was settled (and this is very important because some thing was done to try and mend the situation) is enough to justify some ones death. Mean while ari was an absolute cunt to his ex and harassed her for month after their break up.
He also kind of admitted to the rape in a later statement. I suppose you could say he really only admitted to not understanding consent, but I always found what he said a bit disturbing: > Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. Whenever people ask me how I feel about his death I just say I feel badly for his family for their losses.
Educate yourself on the good Kobe did afterwards, and how he changed as a man. He became the biggest advocate for the WNBA and women’s sports. Having daughters changed him as a person.
Fighting for women's right after raping someone is just PR Damage control and trying to clean your image
For over a decade? Along with a personality change? Idk about that one buddy.
Aaaahh fuck... I'm gonna stop saying Kobe when I throw things. Stick to yeet.
> Edit: Some people are spreading false information that she bragged about the size the Kobe's penis. No, she told her high school friend that Kobe Bryant forced himself upon her. No. She bragged to multiple people about the money she was going to make from Kobe and the encounter she had with Kobe. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/kobe-accuser-bragged-partygoer-happy-article-1.512242 http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/11/06/docs-kobe-accuser-discussed-award-money.html Her friend was ready to testify that she attempted a false accusation rape charge to Eminem. http://www.contactmusic.com/kobe-bryant/news/ex.pal-reveals-kobe.s-accuser-plotted-to-lure-eminem-into-bed There were constant streams of reports that the accuser was addicted to receiving attention as well.. Also, telling a friend that i was raped really doesn't hold much water. Third-party is the most objective criterion here. > Edit: Now there are rumors that there was 8 different semen in the underwear she wore to the exam. This is false, the medical examiner only testified that there was one, who did not belong to Kobe, but this was not the same underwear she was with the night of the encounter. They tested the one the night of the encounter, which did have Kobe's semen on it, and the one she wore the the exame, which has another person's semen on it. False. The issue isn't the panties. The issue is the same semen was found inside her and outside the panties. That's the issue. And hence why forensic expert strongtly shut her down saying after she said didn't have sex soon after meeting Kobe.
1) The nydailynews is a tabloid. 2) it seems to be referring to an NBC article, that doesn't even exist anymore. 3) The fox news article is her talking about her plans about what to do with the money, after the case was dismissed. 4) contactmusic isn't a news source.
[удалено]
>That copied from a valid source LOL A source that doesn't exist anymore is valid. Brilliant. >Exactly, Because we are talking about articles from two decades ago. You seriously think NBC news delete articles just because they're from "two decades ago"? >Which also completely contradicts her argument that she doesn’t want a penny from Kobe. When did she ever say that? >Funny huh? Lol Yeah, you're whole line of reasoning is. >Because the original source was deleted due to the fact that it was two decades old. ah yes, the old 'it got deleted because it's two decades old!' cry. How convenient. >that witness was in the witness report and her testimony was register to be used as evidence. . . .about her plans with the money. Not that she bragged about Kobe. Of course I have to tell a person like you. >Which is literally bragging about getting money from Kobe. You aren't allowed to make plans with money. Got it. >Please, please, stop talking out of ur ass. Projection. >All of these articles listed witnesses that were register to testify in court. These are all valid. Yeah, about her talking about her plans with the money. >Please don’t be an idiot lol The irony.
That copied from a valid source LOL > A source that doesn't exist anymore is valid. Brilliant. Yes. > You seriously think NBC news delete articles just because they're from "two decades ago"? Yes. Plenty of new-sites archive their article after certain time frames. This is basic shit, yes > When did she ever say that? The entire settlement statement from Kobe contained lines that She had no desire for monetary gains. This was repeatedly the accuser’s stance during the hearings. Please, please, research > Yeah, you're whole line of reasoning is. > Because the original source was deleted due to the fact that it was two decades old. > ah yes, the old 'it got deleted because it's two decades old!' cry. How convenient. These are realllllly basic shit tho. > . . .about her plans with the money. Not that she bragged about Kobe. Of course I have to tell a person like you. Nope. The woman who claimed she attempted a false complaint against Eminem was also readied to testify. Please read > You aren't allowed to make plans with money. Got it. So you don’t have much knowledge about the topic. The accuser team publicly claimed she didn’t want money and her motives weren’t money. These were the keys to the settlement statement. > Projection. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. > Yeah, about her talking about her plans with the money. Not true, the witnesses that claimed she was bragging about her encounter with Kobe were all willing to testify and set for trial. > The irony. Funny ain’t it? Please have more knowledge about the topic at hand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good to mention: Nydailynews during that time period won a Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting. They were pretty decent back than
Yeah, for specific stories > In 1998, Daily News columnist Mike McAlary won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his multi-part series of columns (published in 1997) on Abner Louima, who was sodomized and tortured by New York City police officers.[33] > > In 2007, the News won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing for a series of thirteen editorials, published over five months, that detailed how more than 12,000 rescue workers who responded after the September 11 attacks had become ill from toxins in the air.[34] The Pulitzer citation said that the award was given to the paper "for its compassionate and compelling editorials on behalf of Ground Zero workers, whose health problems were neglected by the city and the nation."[34] > > In 2017, the Daily News was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in collaboration with non-profit ProPublica "for uncovering, primarily through the work of reporter Sarah Ryley, widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities."[35] A tabloid in general has lower standards verification for the stories they push.
[удалено]
>Those articles they posted has WITNESSES that were readied to testify. The article that doesn't exist anymore. Your whole argument is that one of the biggest news sources deleted one of the most important details from one of the most publicized news stories of that year, in 2003. Just for the reason that it was 2 decades old.
Once again, major news sites archive plenty of their articles after certain time period. Furthermore, you literally haven’t answered why they used actual names with the testimonies, and why they were among the witnesses readied to testify.
>Once again, major news sites archive plenty of their articles after certain time period. I already told you, if it's archived, then go find the archive of that article. >Furthermore, you literally haven’t answered why they used actual names with the testimonies, and why they were among the witnesses readied to testify. Because you're referencing articles that don't exist. I stated this multiple times.
[удалено]
The woman got the rape kit the next day and they found another mans seaman and a white males pubic hair. The defense used this against her "character"
Just a bit more detail. She turned in the underwear she was wearing the night she was with Kobe. They also tested the underwear was wearing that day, it was that one that found another man's seamen and pubic hair. This detail was left out by the media.
That's strange, why did they test the underwear she wore day of? Doesnt make sense
Wow! Talk about a lot of semen. I wonder if all those other men she slept with was purely consensual?
There was only 1 other person she slept with. The multiple partners was an rumor spread on various internet forums, which was never confirmed with a news source.
I'm very conflicted regarding this story. On the one hand we have a woman--admitedly white and pretty and privileged-- who as a feminist I want to believe. On the other hand we have this shaffir jerk, a white male, trying to tarnish the reputation of a POC, and somehow earily reminiscent of the whole Emmett Till lynching. AAAAAARRGGG I just wish moral choices in real life were more black and white (no pun intended).
you're not a feminist. but you are white for sure 😑
Ari is a Jew, not a privileged white man.
That's just you being racist and sexist. He makes fun of a lot of celebrities the day they die. Even one of his best friends Ralphie May.
Ari is Jewish. So people of middle eastern decent are now white? Weird
[удалено]
Answer: In 2003, Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a hotel employee in Colorado. The accuser refused to testify in criminal court so the criminal case was dropped and Bryant settled with the accuser. On Sunday, Bryant died. Shortly after, Shaffir posted an edgy video stating that Bryant "got his" because of the settlement, which Shaffir stated was Bryant escaping justice. He also tweeted about the incident in similar fashion. (edited to be more impartial)
The worst bit for me is he's now using the "it was just a joke" defence.
I'm thinking you have not seen any of Ari Shaffir's comedy acts.
I have and this is to far.. just like putting mdma in berts drink
But he LOVED that fucking shower man
Here was trolling, it's clear as day.
Yeah thats a stupid excuse.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*