PDA

View Full Version : Kobe Bryant



XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:56 PM
Kobe has just been charged with a class three felony of sexual assault (rape; penetration by force) by the Eagle County District Attorney in Colorado. Apparently, if convicted and sentenced his jail term could be anywhere from four years to life, or possibly probation for twenty years to life. He would also have to register as a sexual predator regardless of his sentence if found guilty.

He is denying that he raped anyone and has already admitted today that he simply engaged in adultery with the women in question. Ultimately, I suppose this is going to be a credibility battle of whether it was consensual sex or not, or as some would put it "he said she said".

Anyway, I was wondering what you ladies and gentlemen think about this particular case. Although, the prosecutor sounded pretty confident with charging Kobe after reviewing testimony/evidence, I personally will have a wait and see attitude until more information is available. As we know sexual assault cases can be very complicated, especially when a wealthy celebrity is involved.

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:56 PM
Kobe has just been charged with a class three felony of sexual assault (rape; penetration by force) by the Eagle County District Attorney in Colorado. Apparently, if convicted and sentenced his jail term could be anywhere from four years to life, or possibly probation for twenty years to life. He would also have to register as a sexual predator regardless of his sentence if found guilty.

He is denying that he raped anyone and has already admitted today that he simply engaged in adultery with the women in question. Ultimately, I suppose this is going to be a credibility battle of whether it was consensual sex or not, or as some would put it "he said she said".

Anyway, I was wondering what you ladies and gentlemen think about this particular case. Although, the prosecutor sounded pretty confident with charging Kobe after reviewing testimony/evidence, I personally will have a wait and see attitude until more information is available. As we know sexual assault cases can be very complicated, especially when a wealthy celebrity is involved.

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 11:24 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- Anyway, I was wondering what you ladies and
- gentlemen think about this particular case.
- Although, the prosecutor sounded pretty confident
- with charging Kobe after reviewing
- testimony/evidence, I personally will have a wait
- and see attitude until more information is
- available. As we know sexual assault cases can be
- very complicated, especially when a wealthy
- celebrity is involved.

Don't you think its a little early for us to debate or even comment on this case?
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 12:04 AM
Well Hornet, although I stated I will have a wait and see attitude until more information is available, news organizations in addition to thousands of Americans across the country apparently are already commenting on this case.

Therefore, I felt as though some of you may have something to say about it. At any rate, if you or anybody else shows no interest in this case, or has no comment on the matter at this time that is fine by me. I was merely curious.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 12:40 AM
Lock him up. Lakers are already too good, and now they are getting Gary Payton and Karl Malone.

<table style="filter:glow[color=green, strength=5)"><FONT SIZE=6 FACE=VERDANA COLOR=YELLOW>Turtle</font></table>
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots"

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 01:09 AM
Yeah, many people are thinking the same thing Turtle. Personally however, I would not mind seeing the San Antonio Spurs get smashed by the Lakers this upcoming season, and with Kobe around in addition to Shaq, Malone, and Payton the probability of that would me more likely.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 06:57 AM
The main reason why I like the Lakers is because I live in the LA area and I'm a bit unfamilar with the other teams, but the SA and NJ were impressing when I saw them play.

I remember when a woman accused Dennis Rodman of rape, but it didn't generate as much media frezzy and Dennis got out clean. It wasn't as shocking because Rodman already established reputation as a troublemaker.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 07:36 PM
It is hard to form an opinion on the issue without having all the information the DA has. It is so hard to get a conviction in a sexual assault case, and given Kobe's money (= good lawyers), I'd put money on him not being convicted. As you said, it will essentially come down to a he-said/she-said, which makes guilt beyond reasonable doubt difficult to prove. However, a few things jump out at me:

1) She went to the police very shortly after the incident. That is HUGE. Rape kits can be done within 48 hours in most cases, but the earlier the better.

2) From the little bits of information about her behavior at present, she seems to respond exactly as an actually sexual assault survivor would. But then again, I don't trust the media any further than I could throw it, and her behavior could be staged.

3) The DA double and triple checked the physical evidence - and I'm pretty sure its got his DNA all over it. If she sustained physical injuries, that is the best bet for convincing a jury that it was not consentual. However, Kobe's team could always resort to the, "So it was rough sex, some people like that" defense.

4) 60-80% of all sexual assaults involve alcohol, which also makes them VERY difficult to try successfully.

So in the end, its going to be a hard case to prove, unfortunately. Sexual assault sucks.

A couple sexual assault myths already abound regarding this case, which also sucks. I've read numerous opinion articles in respected newspapers alluding to the "vengeful women" myth, that women will cry rape to get back at somebody. Statistically incorrect - the rate of false accusation for sexual assault is no different than that of other felonies; secondly, it is also hard to imagine that this girl would have a major bone to pick with Kobe after meeting him that afternoon.

I've also seen the "she's after his money" line bandied about, which is potentially valid, but if she really is after the money, she is the dumbest person in the world. Sexual assault has an extremely low conviction rate, and in order for her to get any money, she'd have to prove an assault took place first. Given Kobe's legal team, that is one braindead attempt. More importantly, the stigma on sexual assault victims is SO strong in our society that you'd need one hell of a compelling reason to willingly expose yourself like that.

So the question is: why would she make a false accusation? Personally, I can't find a valid reason, and given her quick action in going to the police, she didn't need to think much about it to realize that something bad went down. That would indicate to me that it was a pretty bad assault, but again, only two people know at this point.

The media attention on her is the thing that upsets me most about this case. They need to leave her alone, period. They don't know she isn't a sexual assault victim, so they need to treat her as if she is and get their news vans out of her driveway.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

Message Edited on 07/19/0311:41AM by Pope

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 10:51 PM
That was a very informative reply Pope. What is your take on all these stories already circulating in reference to the alleged victim's mental state? For instance, apparently she is known to be emotionally unstable, and has been given psychiatric counseling in the past, which could possibly explain her sudden change in heart from the sex with Kobe being consensual to nonconsensual.

Also, some people familiar with her have also asserted she very recently broke up with her boyfriend, and in an effort to get back at him was readily engaging in sexual activity with different male individuals. Could this be the reason (other then the fact he is a celebrity) as to why she was alone with Kobe in his hotel room that evening to begin with? Then maybe after having consensual sex with him she merely broke down emotionally as she has done in the past?

As far as witnesses are concerned, I am sure the victim's co-workers or other hotel occupants may have something to say in favor of the prosecution. However, all this talk of Kobe's bodyguards providing evidence against him I think is a long shot. I say this because if they had really provided any damning testimony to the District Attorney's office it would not have taken this long to charge him.

Ultimately, I suppose these are just rumors, and people (including myself) are just speculating due to the lack of any real information. One thing is for certain though, the alleged victim better be prepared because Kobe's defense team is going to really assassinate her character from day one of the trial. I also foresee a huge smear campaign coming soon in an effort to pollute the jury pool in favor of Kobe, which in my opinion is very unfortunate for the victim and her family if a rape did in fact occur.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 11:34 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- That was a very informative reply Pope. What is your
- take on all these stories already circulating in
- reference to the alleged victim's mental state? For
- instance, apparently she is known to be emotionally
- unstable, and has been given psychiatric counseling
- in the past, which could possibly explain her sudden
- change in heart from the sex with Kobe being
- consensual to nonconsensual.

I've heard that in recent months she was dealing with a death of someone close to her and a breakup. Depression and grief - some estimates run as high as one in three Americans suffer from or have suffered from clinical depression at some point, and everyone goes through periods of grief. I don't think many of those people decide to make rape allegations for the hell of it.

I think what it boils down to in my mind is this: fragile psyches do not make rape allegations. Or fake accusations. In the case of a legitimate assault, it takes an incredibly strong person to even report it to police, let alone go through to trial. I can go into the mental state of a recent victim if you want, it isn't a fun topic. If she were fragile and unstable, I seriously doubt she would have had the resolve to take this to the cops hours after it happened. In my experience, the most fragile assault victims either don't tell anyone for years or immediately break down to someone close to them, but rarely ever take it to a stranger (the cops).

If it is fake and she made it because she was in a stupid state of mind, it is unlikely that she would have continued to press for an indictment. If she doesn't agree to testify, there is no trial, and all she had to do was back out in these past two weeks.

An emotionally unstable person, either making a legitimate allegation or a fake one, strikes me as the type that wouldn't have been able to withstand the media pressure in these past two weeks.


- Also, some people familiar with her have also
- asserted she very recently broke up with her
- boyfriend, and in an effort to get back at him was
- readily engaging in sexual activity with different
- male individuals. Could this be the reason (other
- then the fact he is a celebrity) as to why she was
- alone with Kobe in his hotel room that evening to
- begin with? Then maybe after having consensual sex
- with him she merely broke down emotionally as she
- has done in the past?

It is definately possible. Though I find it unlikely; most people don't "break down" and go to the police, who are strangers, with something that is very personal. Let alone something that is sure to start a media hellstorm. If they have consentual sex with someone and then later feel guilty about it (the cliqued "regretful sex"), it is possible that they would make such a claim to friends or even family, in order to make themselves feel less guilt. But going to the cops? I don't buy it.

This scenario is also possible, I believe: there were reports that she checked Kobe into the hotel, and that some flirting ensued. He might have invited her up to his room to hang out or party later that night, alcohol might have been consumed, Kobe started getting a little too personal. With sexual assault when alcohol is involved, three things commonly happen: 1) the aggressor misreads the victim's intentions. Body language, tone, conversation can all be misconstrued to paint a picture of someone who is sexually interested in the aggressor, when in actuality the victim is not putting out any signs. 2) The victim's response to advancement is delayed. The victim may respond more slowly or incorrectly, misjudging the severity of the situation until it is too late. 3) Obviously, alcohol lowers the inhibitions and can lead to violent and aggressive behavior that goes unchecked.

So maybe she dropped a few hints, had a few drinks, etc. There might have even been some consentual sexual contact, but Kobe took it a step further without her consent, and she resisted. Or maybe she dropped no hints and it was a pure assault from the beginning. Anything now is pure speculation.


- As far as witnesses are concerned, I am sure the
- victim's co-workers or other hotel occupants may
- have something to say in favor of the prosecution.
- However, all this talk of Kobe's bodyguards
- providing evidence against him I think is a long
- shot. I say this because if they had really provided
- any damning testimony to the District Attorney's
- office it would not have taken this long to charge
- him.

Yeah, perhaps. They might have just wanted to get the physical evidence back before they made their final decision. Media attention like this ends careers if things are handled improperly. I don't know if the bodyguards will testify against Kobe, my guess is they will just claim ignorance.


- Ultimately, I suppose these are just rumors, and
- people (including myself) are just speculating due
- to the lack of any real information. One thing is
- for certain though, the alleged victim better be
- prepared because Kobe's defense team is going to
- really assassinate her character from day one of the
- trial. I also foresee a huge smear campaign coming
- soon in an effort to pollute the jury pool in favor
- of Kobe, which in my opinion is very unfortunate for
- the victim and her family if a rape did in fact
- occur.

Yep. They are going to dig up all this supposed emotional instability and flaunt it in front of a jury. Maybe get a psychologist to sit up there and say that when people are depressed, they do things they wouldn't normally do. Juries are stupid, and sexual assault dealings can be extremely counter-intuitive. They will exploit that heavily.

Again, the only thing that will really help the defense is well-documented physical trauma - bruising, cuts, scrapes, skin under fingernails, etc. It sucks, but that might be the only chance to nail down a conviction.


UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:16 AM
And so it begins.

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0720/1583145.html

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 02:07 AM
You are correct Pope. The gloves appear to be coming off, the gloves of Kobe's defense/PR team that is. However, even if this new revelation is true, I doubt it could "shut down the case before it reaches trial" like the one expert is claiming in the article.

You see, at this point in time, the prosecution is in too deep after charging Kobe Bryant, so if they were to all of a sudden drop the charges against him they would suffer a huge counter suit for smearing his name, which could cost them literally millions.

Furthermore, if they lose the case against Kobe it would also probably result in a counter suit by his attorneys, so at this point in time they really have no other choice but to proceed to trial, and at least put up some sort of fight.

The expert is definitely right in one respect though. If Kobe's attorneys can exploit this new information (if it is really true of course) and get across to a potential jury that this woman is in fact a hysterical and over-reactive individual, then it really could blow up in the face of the prosecution.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 02:37 AM
*gets out the gas can*

So, at what point is it assault? Assume alcohol and/or drugs are involved. Assume that, under the influence or not, she (and he) were consensual through the entire affair. The next morning, she wakes/sobers up and thinks "oh my god what happened? I didn't consent to anything. Of course, I don't really remember saying no (or yes). I must have been raped!"

Was she? Maybe. Maybe not. As Pope said, only two people know (unless someone else was in the room). And even they may not really know.

A recent case involving two cadets at the Airforce Academy went something like: A party in a guy's room. Everyone gets drunk and or high. Comes down to the guy and a girl (with his roomate asleep, sort of, on the other side of the room). Eventually it is determined that while she made token resistance, she also consented (or was interpreted to have). She left the Academy. He, on the other hand, was charged and thrown out, facing civil charges as well. He firmly believes that he did not rape her, and was willing to fight it rather than take a reprimand, etc. The military said that consent or no consent didn't matter. That's when I did a double-take.

I guess my point is that when it comes down to it, I believe it's time the accuser started taking some responsibility when alcohol or drugs are involved. Unless you were drugged (without your knowledge), or tied to a chair and had alcohol poured down your throat, it was your choice to impair your judgement, and you need to take responsibility for the consequences. Does that mean if she's drunk it's fair game? No. A person can still say no if they're drunk. They can make it abundantly clear, even. If it's not clear, then don't put the blame all on the other party.

At any rate, we don't know much about the details of this (current) case. It's going to be nasty. Heck, from that link, it's already getting nasty. I make no judgments about either side, or who is right or wrong. It's clear they had sex. She said it was rape, he said it was just adultery. What angle you want to take from there is up to you (which is why I'm glad I've not had to be a juror or in any other way connected with a case where it's one person's word against another's).

<TABLE ALIGN=LEFT BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=5 CELLSPACING=5 RULES=NONE COLS=2 WIDTH=80%>
<TR><TD>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jakal30/nightsig.gif </TD>
<TD><font color=white size=-2>"...the Goddess could not spend all Her time persuading the
Kings and Queens of the world of the idiocy of war. Therefore
She invented tacticians..." - Diane Duane</font></TD></TR>
</TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:42 AM
ghost397 wrote:
- *gets out the gas can*
-
- So, at what point is it assault? Assume alcohol
- and/or drugs are involved. Assume that, under the
- influence or not, she (and he) were consensual
- through the entire affair. The next morning, she
- wakes/sobers up and thinks "oh my god what happened?
- I didn't consent to anything. Of course, I don't
- really remember saying no (or yes). I must have
- been raped!"
-
- Was she? Maybe. Maybe not. As Pope said, only two
- people know (unless someone else was in the room).
- And even they may not really know.

According to CO law (and most states have highly similar sexual assault laws), the actor must be aware that the victim is not consenting, UNLESS she/he is 1) physically unable (i.e. unconscious or incapacitated) or 2) "The actor knows that the victim is incapable of appraising the nature of the victim's conduct."

So, if the victim is too drunk to give consent, but not quite unconscious, that would probably still be sexual assault under that second qualifier.

In the case you describe, that is regretful sex, not sexual assault. It is a common myth that regretful sex often winds up as 'rape' the next morning, but that is largely untrue. And in the instances in which it does occur, the person claiming to be the victim may just tell friends or others close to them, never strangers or police.



- A recent case involving two cadets at the Airforce
- Academy went something like: A party in a guy's
- room. Everyone gets drunk and or high. Comes down
- to the guy and a girl (with his roomate asleep, sort
- of, on the other side of the room). Eventually it
- is determined that while <u>she made token resistance</u>,
- she also consented (or was interpreted to have).
- She left the Academy. He, on the other hand, was
- charged and thrown out, facing civil charges as
- well. He firmly believes that he did not rape her,
- and was willing to fight it rather than take a
- reprimand, etc. The military said that consent or
- no consent didn't matter. That's when I did a
- double-take.

I only have to read to the part I underlined to determine that this was sexual assault. Whatever consent she might have given after that is moot, because it is coerced. If the actor knows that resistance was present, that's it - any further sexual advancement is sexual assault.


- I guess my point is that when it comes down to it, I
- believe it's time the accuser started taking some
- responsibility when alcohol or drugs are involved.
- Unless you were drugged (without your knowledge), or
- tied to a chair and had alcohol poured down your
- throat, it was your choice to impair your judgement,
- and you need to take responsibility for the
- consequences. Does that mean if she's drunk it's
- fair game? No. A person can still say no if they're
- drunk. They can make it abundantly clear, even. If
- it's not clear, then don't put the blame all on the
- other party.

I tend to disagree. It is your choice to impair your judgement, yes; but that makes it no less a crime if someone takes advantage of your situation. Stupid to impair your judgement? Maybe. Your fault? No. Actions have consequences, indeed. The consequence of your ingestion of alcohol is that you are in a position of greater risk for an assault. The consequence of your action to sexually assault someone is outlined in the penal code, regardless of the decisions the victim made up to that point. The burden of guilt still must fall squarely on the actor.

Every time I step into a car, it increases my risk of bodily injury GREATLY. But if some guy runs a red with a BAC of .15 and kills me, should I share some of the blame for my death? I don't think so.

If it is not clear that consent is not given, and barring the instance in which the actor knows the victim is unable to accurately appraise the actor's advances (i.e. real messed up or unconscious), then it is not sexual assault.


UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

Message Edited on 07/21/0302:08AM by Pope

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:06 PM
Pope wrote:
- Every time I step into a car, it increases my risk
- of bodily injury GREATLY. But if some guy runs a red
- with a BAC of .15 and kills me, should I share some
- of the blame for my death? I don't think so.
-
- If it is not clear that consent is not given, and
- barring the instance in which the actor knows the
- victim is unable to accurately appraise the actor's
- advances (i.e. real messed up or unconscious), then
- it is not sexual assault.

No, you wouldn't share the blame... unless you were drunk too. Now what? Both parties were drunk, who is at fault. Technically, the guy who ran the red. But what I was saying was that both parties were somehow impaired. As you said, when drunk, signals are more often misread. So if the actor is drunk, and the victim is drunk, whose has more responsibility? I don't know statistics, but it seems to me that more often than not, it's the guy, and he gets pretty much all of it.

And I'm not sure about the whole coercion thing. It's such a huge gray area. I mean, something like this: "Hey, wanna (insert whatever)?" "I don't know..." "Oh come on, you know you want to!" "Well, alright." That could be considered coercion. Granted, we're probably talking worse.

- someone is outlined in the penal code, regardless of
- the decisions the victim made up to that point. The
- burden of guilt still must fall squarely on the
- actor.

And that's where I have problems. Just exactly who is the actor? If she never says no or stop, but clearly (to a sober individual) isn't interested or... willing is to strong a word but you get the idea, yet she does it anyway, is he still the actor? It just gets so fuzzy. I'm not saying it's that way all or even a large percentage of the time. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

BTW, just to make sure I don't misreport anything, the Air Force case I was mentioning is linked below - at least the article I based my statements off of. I've already seen that I did make some mistakes - she did receive some punishments for her activities prior to leaving the Academy. But it seems they've changed their policies now - victims get amnesty from any offenses they themselves commit in connection with events surrounding a sexual assualt.

http://www.westword.com/issues/2003-05-22/news3.html/1/index.html





<TABLE ALIGN=LEFT BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=5 CELLSPACING=5 RULES=NONE COLS=2 WIDTH=80%>
<TR><TD>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jakal30/nightsig.gif </TD>
<TD><font color=white size=-2>"...the Goddess could not spend all Her time persuading the
Kings and Queens of the world of the idiocy of war. Therefore
She invented tacticians..." - Diane Duane</font></TD></TR>
</TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:16 PM
ghost397 wrote:
-
- Pope wrote:
-- Every time I step into a car, it increases my risk
-- of bodily injury GREATLY. But if some guy runs a red
-- with a BAC of .15 and kills me, should I share some
-- of the blame for my death? I don't think so.
--
-- If it is not clear that consent is not given, and
-- barring the instance in which the actor knows the
-- victim is unable to accurately appraise the actor's
-- advances (i.e. real messed up or unconscious), then
-- it is not sexual assault.
-
- No, you wouldn't share the blame... unless you were
- drunk too. Now what? Both parties were drunk, who
- is at fault. Technically, the guy who ran the red.
- But what I was saying was that both parties were
- somehow impaired. As you said, when drunk, signals
- are more often misread. So if the actor is drunk,
- and the victim is drunk, whose has more
- responsibility? I don't know statistics, but it
- seems to me that more often than not, it's the guy,
- and he gets pretty much all of it.

If I've had a few drinks and but I'm still driving according to the law and a drunk driver comes through and kills me, I still don't think I'm at fault. If I was speeding and swerving all over the place, yeah, I might be. But you can't fault me for being slightly slower to swerve in avoidance, because the aggressor is clear.

Both individuals, drunk or not, still have the responsibility to respect each other's will, period. In the case of sexual asault, that does not happen, and it really doesn't matter what state the victim was in. If the actor is aware that consent is not there and yet continues, that is assault, period.



- And I'm not sure about the whole coercion thing.
- It's such a huge gray area. I mean, something like
- this: "Hey, wanna (insert whatever)?" "I don't
- know..." "Oh come on, you know you want to!" "Well,
- alright." That could be considered coercion.
- Granted, we're probably talking worse.

Eh, I don't think that is coersion. She consented clearly...if he had threatened her with real or future violence, or she has some reason to fear for her well being, she cannot consent and in that case coersion is present. If she puts up actual resistance ("NO!" or behaving in such a way that it is clear to the actor), there can probably be no consent until the setting is changed and the two come together again.


-- someone is outlined in the penal code, regardless of
-- the decisions the victim made up to that point. The
-- burden of guilt still must fall squarely on the
-- actor.
-
- And that's where I have problems. Just exactly who
- is the actor? If she never says no or stop, but
- clearly (to a sober individual) isn't interested
- or... willing is to strong a word but you get the
- idea, yet she does it anyway, is he still the actor?
- It just gets so fuzzy. I'm not saying it's that
- way all or even a large percentage of the time. I'm
- just playing devil's advocate here.

The "actor" is commonly-used legalese for the perpetrator in sexual assault penal code. If she never says no, never makes it clear to the actor that she does not consent, then there is no sexual assault, period.



UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 02:46 AM
Pope wrote:
-
- A couple sexual assault myths already abound
- regarding this case, which also sucks. I've read
- numerous opinion articles in respected newspapers
- alluding to the "vengeful women" myth, that women
- will cry rape to get back at somebody. Statistically
- incorrect - the rate of false accusation for sexual
- assault is no different than that of other felonies;
- secondly, it is also hard to imagine that this girl
- would have a major bone to pick with Kobe after
- meeting him that afternoon.

What does that mean, "statistically incorrect"? Anyway I personally knew a woman who falsely accused Keith Murray of rape because he didn't want to know her any more after the event. He spend several nights in a London jail as a result before she withdrew the charges.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:03 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- What does that mean, "statistically incorrect"?
- Anyway I personally knew a woman who falsely accused
- Keith Murray of rape because he didn't want to know
- her any more after the event. He spend several
- nights in a London jail as a result before she
- withdrew the charges.


If sexual assault has approximately the same false accusation rate as all other felonies, in which both genders make false accusations, then it is not the supposed trait of "vengefullness" in women that is to blame. Those who carry on this myth also tend to believe that sexual assault is commonly falsely reported, when that is not true.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:43 PM
Pope wrote:
-
- If sexual assault has approximately the same false
- accusation rate as all other felonies, in which both
- genders make false accusations, then it is not the
- supposed trait of "vengefullness" in women that is
- to blame. Those who carry on this myth also tend to
- believe that sexual assault is commonly falsely
- reported, when that is not true.

Perhaps not but date rape is a "funny thing" and it is not out of the question for a woman to change her mind about having sex after she has already done so. Again I know women who have done this.

BTW does sexual assault have approximately the same false accusation rate as all other felonies? And what is this rate?

As for any further discussion on the specific case, I suppose we'll have to wait for more info.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:32 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- BTW does sexual assault have approximately the same
- false accusation rate as all other felonies? And
- what is this rate?
-
- As for any further discussion on the specific case,
- I suppose we'll have to wait for more info.


The last Dept. of Justice report I read listed the false accusation rate of sexual assault as no higher than for any other felony. I don't recall the exact percentage, but it was on the order of 0.5%-2% I believe. To be fair, I'm sure that number is hard to calculate for any felony, so I don't know how accurate the figures are.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

Message Edited on 07/22/0301:34PM by Pope