SkinInsite Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 What's the deal with arresting someone, forcing them to post bail money without pressing charges. That's total bs, if you want to arrest people atleast have the balls to charge them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Even Madder Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Guess what EM. Besides being an ***hole, you're wrong. Apparently the police went around the DA, and requested the arrest warrant from a county judge. And charges HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT YET. CrankyTodd, I guess in addition to being rude you're illiterate. I didn't say he was charged. I said there must be enough evidence to "look into this." I guess that makes you the ass-hole, right? Mackey accused the sheriff's office of "complete bias," saying it ignored the wishes of the district attorney in obtaining the arrest warrant. Matty, let me get this straight: you know nothing about the case but you "know" the woman is a skank. You know nothing about the case but you believe every word the defense attorney has to say. You're either incredibly naive or stupid. Or both. I'm leaning towards both. Defense attorneys are paid to say those kinds of things. Look, there's no way they'd even bother Kobe if it was a "he-said, she-said" thing. They must have some evidence. It could be physical evidence from a rape kit, it could be witnesses, or it could even be a "confrontation call". A confrontation call is when the victim calls the accused (with the police listening in) and tries to get him to admit something. I don't know what they've got, but it's gotta be more than just her word. To me, Kobe is innocent until proven guilty. To you losers, Kobe is above the law -- anyone who would even accuse him of a crime must have some ulterior motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 EM, There was enough evidence for them to "look into this" in the Jerome Bettis case you know. There's enough evidence for people to look into anything they want to look into. And that's meaningless. They absolutely DO bother to look into he-said, she-said type things. That's PRECISELY what they do. Every day. With stars or without stars. They did it, again, with Bettis, and as we discovered, the woman there lied. They did it with Puckett and actually tried him in what boiled down to a he-said, she-said thing between Puckett and a woman who was letting men fondle her breasts openly at the restaurant. She, of course, said Puckett left bruises. Anyway, you are terribly uninformed if you think police and district attorneys don't look into almost every single report of this nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 EM - I was merely addressing your assertion that "The police and prosecutors hate charging celebrities -- they'd rather sweep it under the rug, unless it's an election year for some prosecutor." In this case it appears that exactly the opposite is true. The prosecutor was not prepared to go forward due to lack of evidence and an overzealous sherrif's department circumvented the normal avenues for issuance of a warrant. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor mildly criticized the sherrif for the manner in which the case was handled before apparently reconsidering. The question that I have from this article is why the sherrif would need to make the arrest on Friday so that "the families of the accused and the complainant would be able to guard their privacy over the holiday weekend." If the arrest was not made, then why should it be necessary to take any extra measures to ensure privacy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23682-2003Jul7.html Bryant Investigation Is Still Underway By T.R. Reid and Greg Sandoval Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, July 8, 2003; Page D01 EAGLE, Colo., July 7 -- Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert said today he is investigating last week's sexual assault complaint against Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant and will not decide for several days whether to bring felony charges against the NBA all-star. "As of this time, no charges have been filed against Mr. Bryant," Hurlbert told a media throng that swarmed the rural courthouse in this mountain resort 120 miles west of Denver. "It's possible he'll be charged with sexual assault," Hurlbert went on. "It's possible he won't be charged with anything. It's possible he'll be charged with something else." Hurlbert noted, however, that a local court that last week reviewed the evidence concluded Bryant should be arrested on the felony charge. "It was a county court judge who looked at the affidavits [from sheriff's deputies] and decided there was probable cause to issue a warrant." Bryant turned himself in Friday on suspicion of felony sexual assault and was immediately released on $25,000 bail. The 24-year-old athlete's lawyer, Pamela Mackey of Denver, said he was innocent of the charge, cooperated with the authorities and expected to be exonerated. Hurlbert said he hoped to decide this week whether to bring criminal charges in the case. "Sexual assault charges are extraordinarily complex," the prosecutor said, "and sometimes it takes a while to get through everything." The prosecutor said he has talked to the adult woman who brought the complaint, but declined to discuss her condition in detail. "She seems to be okay, considering the circumstances," Hurlbert said. Colorado law sets out a broad range of actions covered by the "felony sexual assault" charge, ranging from threats and intimidation to physical coercion of sexual activity. The possible penalties range widely depending on the severity of the specific case, Hurlbert said, but the minimum penalty under the statute is 18 months in prison. According to sheriff's deputies and local officials familiar with the case, the assault allegedly occurred in the early hours of June 30 at The Lodge & Spa at Cordillera, a lavish mountain hotel -- rooms run around $340 per night -- surrounded by four golf courses. That hotel is a fifteen-minute drive west of Vail, the resort city where Bryant reportedly underwent right knee surgery in late June. Last Tuesday, said county sheriff Joseph Hoy, "we received a complaint from a young woman about a sexual assault." The complainant, who has not been identified, said that Bryant had engaged in "sexual misconduct" at the hotel, the sheriff's office reported. Deputies then interviewed all potential witnesses, including Bryant and the woman, and examined "physical evidence" at the hotel, the sheriff said. At the news conference, Hoy never specified what that evidence was. After talking to sheriff's deputies on Tuesday, Bryant went back to Los Angeles, Hoy said. According to Mackey, Bryant's lawyer, the local sheriff and the prosecutor agreed at a meeting last week not to take any formal action until after the holiday weekend. But on Friday, before prosecutors had reviewed the evidence, Sheriff Hoy's deputies took their evidence to county court Judge Russell Granger, who issued the arrest warrant. In an interview over the weekend with the local paper, the Vail Daily, prosecutor Hurlbert mildly criticized the sheriff for taking the case directly to a judge without waiting for input from prosecutors. Today, though, Hurlbert declined to criticize the conduct of the case and said he was working closely with the sheriff. "Nothing illegal was done, nothing improper was done" in placing Bryant under arrest, Hurlbert said. Sheriff Hoy explained today that he decided to seek the arrest warrant on July 4 so that the families of the accused and the complainant would be able to guard their privacy over the holiday weekend. Contacted Friday morning by the sheriff's office, Bryant flew back to Colorado late Friday to surrender and post bail. "He was in our custody for about less than an hour," Hoy said today. "He was very cooperative. He answered our questions fully." Prosecutors asked the judge to seal the file from the arrest warrant hearing, although Colorado court rules make such files public documents. The judge did seal the file. Hurlbert said the secrecy order was necessary "to protect the integrity of the investigation." Both the prosecutor and the sheriff repeatedly insisted today that the famous multimillionaire star athlete is considered no different from any other criminal suspect in Eagle County. "We're treating this like any other case," the sheriff said. The allegations are out of character for Bryant, who until now has stayed out of legal trouble throughout his career and parlayed that into respect around the league. Bryant married Vanessa Laine in April 2001 after the two were engaged while Laine was still in high school. In January, Vanessa gave birth to their first child, Natalia Diamante Bryant. For the locals in Eagle, the sudden media attention -- in a mountain region that tends to fade into the shadows each summer when the ski season ends -- has been exciting. "We haven't had this many news cameras since Ryan won on 'Bachelorette,' " said reporter Tom Boyd of the Vail Trail newspaper. He was referring to the last mega-news story in the Vail Valley, when local hunk Ryan Sutter was selected the groom-to-be on ABC's reality show, "The Bachelorette." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 What's odd - is that according to Sportscenter last night - the Police gave Kobe a 2 day heads up that he was going to be served a warrant. I don't think they do that to just us regular folk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Agreed. But I also think that it is odd that, if they had any type of compelling evidence, they would have originally agreed not to move on anything until after the weekend so as to allow everyone involved to become "adjusted". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 The just released that the girl was 19 years old and is now on vacation with her family. She is also a local girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Even Madder Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 If the arrest was not made, then why should it be necessary to take any extra measures to ensure privacy. Matty, are you serious? Right now I can guarantee you that there are armies of photographers camped out in Colorado trying to snatch the first picture of the girl. That girl and her family have huge privacy concerns. If anything, they've bent over backwards for Kobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by Even Madder CrankyTodd, I guess in addition to being rude you're illiterate. I didn't say he was charged. I said there must be enough evidence to "look into this." I guess that makes you the ass-hole, right? Matty, let me get this straight: you know nothing about the case but you "know" the woman is a skank. You know nothing about the case but you believe every word the defense attorney has to say. You're either incredibly naive or stupid. Or both. I'm leaning towards both. Defense attorneys are paid to say those kinds of things. Look, there's no way they'd even bother Kobe if it was a "he-said, she-said" thing. They must have some evidence. It could be physical evidence from a rape kit, it could be witnesses, or it could even be a "confrontation call". A confrontation call is when the victim calls the accused (with the police listening in) and tries to get him to admit something. I don't know what they've got, but it's gotta be more than just her word. To me, Kobe is innocent until proven guilty. To you losers, Kobe is above the law -- anyone who would even accuse him of a crime must have some ulterior motives. I'm definitely an ass-hole, but you are the illiterate one. You wrote: This woman managed to convince the police, who convinced the prosecutor, who convinced a judge that there is enough evidence to look into this. And we know that the prosecutor was NOT convinced, and that the prosecutor had nothing to do with the judge issuing a warrant for arrest. Keep digging the hole, ass-hole.... just keep on digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by Even Madder Matt, are you serious? Right now I can guarantee you that there are armies of photographers camped out in Colorado trying to snatch the first picture of the girl. That girl and her family have huge privacy concerns. I agree, but perhaps you can enlighten me on how the sherrif protected her privacy by pushing for an arrest warrant on Friday rather than waiting until Monday as originally agreed upon by the sherrif and the prosecutor? Would not the 3 day delay given her and her family more opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge? Furthermore, and this one I just have to hear, how exactly did anyone bend over backward for Kobe? By giving him a couple of days notice to turn himself in? While not really an option for common folks such as ourselves, it is pretty much standard procedure when a celebrity turns themselves in on something like this. So where has the bending over backwards come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Even Madder Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 "A judge found probable cause." So answer the question, jackass: do you think the police and the judge are in on the conspiracy? Do you think that the fact that one prosecutor got his ego bruised because nobody asked his opinion means that their isn't enough evidence? My point was clear: there must be enough evidence to look into this, evidence beyond just the girl's word, or the police and the judge wouldn't have concluded that their is probable cause to proceed. You disagree? Based on what? I think you've got **** between your ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by Even Madder [bDo you think that the fact that one prosecutor got his ego bruised because nobody asked his opinion means that their isn't enough evidence?[/b] But they did ask his opinion. He said that there was not enough evidence and the sheriff and the prosecutor agreed not to move further until Monday. Then the sheriff changed his mind without further consultation and moved anyway. Regardless. The sheriff sounds to me like a "grand-stander" who just couldn't wait to go home and watch himself on TV. And there are plenty of those types to go around already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Are you mentally ill? You were INCORRECT in what you wrote. BLATANTLY incorrect. Stop being a little b!tch and admit it. It's really quite simple. Stop trying to rewrite what you said. It was quite clear. You were WRONG. There's no way for you to spin it. Try to show some class, you little turd. And as for the the inevitable retort about me resorting to the same idiot insults that you've been throwing so casually throughout this thread, its intended as a wake-up call. Grow the f*ck up man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 EM, You're kind of busted here. You were wrong in what you wrote. Now you're wrong in your thought that "there must be enough evidence to look into this, evidence beyond just the girl's word..." In fact, again, what you appear not to know is just the girl's word is all that's necessary if the girl is compelling enough to the police. Just as the Bettis case. You've gone from having a pretty good position in this thread -- one that said perhaps we ought not call this girl names until we know something of the case -- to having the ignorance to deny your own incorrect assessment and your own misbegotten view that since they are looking into this there must be something more to it than the girl's word. Perhaps. But, just as likely, perhaps not. These things are looked into ALL the time in this fashion. You may want to cut your losses. But, that's up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Even Madder Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 I was not "wrong in what I wrote." My point is absolutely accurate. One tiny tangential point was incorrect, but the point is still totally valid: the authorities decided that their was enough evidence to proceed, but these yahoo's who haven't seen that evidence have decided that their isn't enough evidence to proceed. Talk about backwards. Here's what I said: This woman managed to convince the police, who convinced the prosecutor, who convinced a judge that there is enough evidence to look into this. You guys, who haven't seen that evidence, "suspect that this woman... was going to try to get some money." So you're saying that not only is the woman a skank, but the police and prosecutors and judges are in on the conspiracy? Yeah, sure. I'm not saying Bryant is guilty, but calling the woman names when you know nothing says a lot about your character. Because they skipped a step, the evidence is less valid? Nonsense. You guys are avoiding my point, because I'm dead-on accurate and you're completely wrong. The police and the judge concluded that there was enough evidence to proceed. You guys get wrapped around the axle on a procedural issue in the prosecutor's office? Wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 i bet the judge and those cops are enjoying their power trip right now.... these guys always want to nab the high profile suspect... it is how they advance their careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by Even Madder Because they skipped a step, the evidence is less valid? Nonsense. You guys are avoiding my point, because I'm dead-on accurate and you're completely wrong. The police and the judge concluded that there was enough evidence to proceed. You guys get wrapped around the axle on a procedural issue in the prosecutor's office? Wake up. That is precisely what the entire legal system is in a nutshell. Procedure is EVERYTHING. Let's see what happens to a case where the primary piece of evidence is DNA and there is a procedural issue with the chain of evidence and the samples are unaccounted for during one step of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Even Madder Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 There is no procedural issue. Even the prosecutor who was whining about not being involved admitted that everything the cops and judge did was proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ænima Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Any idiot knows that just a girl's word is enough to get a possible rape looked into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Not that we know of. It sure doesn't seem like all parties involved are in synch. Interdepartmental pissing contests don't give the appearance that they have a clue what they are doing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.