This is a bad day for the rights of women and the disabled in the U.S.

[DemBones DemBones]

Barbarism rules, as it ever has. We think the Taliban were monsters to women but out own "justice" system is capable of monstrous injustice, too.

One story involves the young woman who accuses Kobe Bryant of raping her. I'm not assuming he's guilty. None of us know what happened between these two people.

But I'm angered and saddened to hear that the judge has ruled that some of her sexual history can be revealed in court. The media reports that she had sexual intercourse with another man three days before the alleged rape, that the couple in the room above Kobe's reports hearing nothing unusual that night, that Kobe had no injuries on his body, that a nurse told a detective it was possible the woman was bleeding as a result of a sex act three days earlier. Can you say bias against the accuser? This was CNN.

As I said, I don't know what happened, but I can easily think of possible explanations for everything they're presenting as "damaging" to the accuser's credibility. They've already told us that she has attempted suicide in the past, that she has psychiatric problems. Thus, she has a disability and her disability is being used against her.

This is barbarism. This sort of intimidation has kept so many of us women from ever reporting the men who raped us

The second story is taking place in Pinellas Park, Florida, where doctors were scheduled to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube at 2 p.m. and allow her to die of dehydration and starvation. Terri Shiavo is not terminally ill. She is not in a coma. She has brain damage due to being deprived of oxygen at the time she had a heart attack a few years ago. She was 26 years old when that happened, she's 39 now.

Her husband sued for money to "take care of" her. Then, after being awarded over a million dollars to be used for her care, he "remembered" that she had said she'd never want to be on life support, and started fighting for the removal of her feeding tube (the only "life support" she's "on.") He has refused to allow Terri to have any sort of therapy.

Terri's husband has a girlfriend now. They have had a child together and she is pregnant again. He wants to move on with his life, which is fair enough, but he insists Terri must die for him to do so. If he divorced her, of course, he would not be the sole beneficiary of her estate, with that court-awarded money.

Terri's parents want her to live and they have been fighting court battles with her husband for six years now. Attempts to appeal this latest legal decision to discontinue the feeding tube have failed and it appears to be endgame for Terri.

I'm in favor of advanced directives, of putting in writing what sorts of extraordinary medical treatment you'd be willing to accept for yourself, if any.
But Terri had never put anything in writing and the idea that she would want to die now is coming from husband Mike, who has reasons to want her to die.

If Terri lived and received therapy, she might improve but she'd always be disabled, probably severely so. It's barbarism to think that she's better off dead, though. We can't know that. In video taken in the hospital, Terri smiles and seems to recognize her mother.

One psychiatrically disabled woman is being put through the wringer in court and the media because of her allegation that a high-profile pro backetball player raped her.

One physically and mentally disabled woman has been sentenced to a slow death by being deprived of food and hydration because that's what her husband wants to happen.

I don't think "we've come a long way, baby." I think we're going backwards, morally speaking. No woman's personal history, including her psychiatric problems and her sex life, should be considered in evaluating the evidence as to whather or not she was raped. No woman should be sentenced to death to make it easier for her husband to move on with his new life.

[cally]

1. Great post

I rarely watch CNN so I didn't see the latest but it saddens me that a judge would allow this in court. We worked so hard to make it illegal to use a woman's sexual history as a defense against rape. I guess if you have sex then you can't be raped because you would obviously agree to another sexual encounter...sheesh.

I didn't follow the feeding tube case but that is just outrageous.

It is a sad day.

[liberalhistorian]

2. I agree, and the Schiavo case

makes me especially ill, as it has for some time now. Why should he be the only one permitted to make decisions about and for her? Why shouldn't her family have that say? That poor family, to have to endure watching their daughter/sister, etc., suffer these next couple of weeks, knowing there's no reason for it, there's nothing they can do and that it didn't have to happen like this if it hadn't been for her greedy, selfish husband.

Why can't people put two and two together and see that the only reason he's doing this is for MONEY??? HELLO?????????????????????????????????????? He shouldn't be given that money since he didn't use it for her care, which is why it was awarded, and Terry shouldn't have to die just so he can "move on."

It's easy for him to move on, as he's already done, obviously, but what about her family? And, again, I question a legal system that gives all of the decision-making rights to the spouse and treats the family like dirt, that is just plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Padraig18]

37. The Schiavo case should make *anyone* ill!

"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

[janekat]

63. You can be sure our wonderful Governor Jebbie won't lift a finger to help

n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

110. Actually, Jeb filed a friend of the court brief on Terri's behalf a

couple of days ago and has his lawyers looking for a way to help. He met with her parents today shortly before her feeding tube was removed.

Jeb was roundly condemned by several people in LBN when it was posted there that he was trying to help. People said it was none of his business and she should be allowed to die. People didn't know much about the case, though.

He was also accused of doing it for the publicity. I don't really care why he's doing it, he's doing the right thing and I give him credit for it. Wouldn't vote for him, but can give him credit.

[realFedUp]

3. The defense has pretty much given their case...

but we haven't heard all the facts from the prosecution
...so until this goes to trial it's just out there
for the public to think about. Too bad the trial will
be so far in the future....some people get more justice
than others.

[soup]

4. Excellent post, DB.

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed this afternoon as scheduled.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/COMATOSE_WOMAN?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME

really can't make any coherent comment right now.

[LeighAnn]

17. Was the husband ever investigated?

"Schiavo has been in a vegetative state since 1990, when her heart stopped because of doctors said may have been a chemical imbalance."

How often does that happen, a 26 year old's heart stopping on account of a "chemical imbalance"?

I wonder if this husband of hers was ever investigated for trying to poison her, or otherwise murder her?

How could they let a woman starve to death? They put guys like Kevorkian in jail for trying to help dying people die humanely, but it's okay to let a woman starve to death, on purpose?

[DemBones DemBones]

42. Interestingly enough, the parents got holf of a bonescan taken soon

after Terri was first hospitalized. This was about a year ago that they got the films and showed them to a doctor who believes she had a heart attack after she was strangled. They talked to the police but the statute of limitations has evidently run out. It's kind of like the Laci Peterson case, with her parents being initially supporive of their daughter's husband, thinking they were all on the same team.

Kevorkian has killed several people who were not terminally ill and I hope those are the ones he went to jail for. People who are suffering pain should not be "helped to die" but given more pain medication. There was an article posted here yesterday that said Americans are still being undermedicated for chronic pain and for acute pain, as in the end stages of terminal cancer. It's the Puritan Ethic and Fear of Addiction. Pain patients almost never become addicts but it's hard to convince some people of that.

[demnan]

5. This was a really good post

so I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate on the first case with you a bit. I can't find any argument with the second case, that woman should absolutely not be starved to death.

Say a woman accuses a man of rape. Say that instead they had consensual sex. The next day all of a sudden all his friends are looking at him funny, finally someone tells him that this woman accused him of rape. He's never had a rape charge before. He's visited by the police, he has a good job, a good reputation in the community and all of a sudden he has to hire a lawyer to defend his reputation. He's in his twenties or thirties and painfully has to break it to his parents. In the case it's "he said, she said" (and say there is no physical damage in this case).

If you were that guy, wouldn't you do anything possible to clear your reputation and prove the lack of credibility of the woman? Of course you would. And if you are the accused I think it is your right to cast doubt on the credibility of your accuser.

That's my opinion anyway, and I knew a guy this happened to and I was absolutely sure he would never have raped this woman.

As far as Kobe Bryant is concerned, I don't know but this woman did accuse him so naturally she has to be under scrutiny. That's the hard fact in rape cases. But "innocent until proven guilty" is still the case, and you still have a right to defend yourself.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. problem is Kobe has blood on his shirt from her

and she was bruised consistent with forced sex.

[liberalhistorian]

7. But hey, he's a huge, "important"

celebrity with tons of money, who can throw a ball through a hoop, so not only is it impossible that he could have done it, but, even if he did, who cares? He's a big poohbah who should be able to have any woman he wants, and any woman should be grateful to get any attention from him, right?

End of sarcastic rant

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

130. Try CNN's site, they've reported on the air many times that her

blood was on his tee shirt.

[cally]

8. But much of my sorrow about this

is that women fought hard for rape shield laws. When I was in college, a common defense tactic was to bring the rape vicim/accuser to the stand and make her testify about every sexual encounter she had ever had. The implication was that of course she's promisccuous and wanted it. Then, the defense attorney would bring a soda bottle up and ask her to put her finger in it while he fought her off or have her try to rape him thus showing how "impossible" it is to rape a woman. Yeah, right.

I think any accused has a right to defend himself but not to imply because women have a sex life that they therefore cannot be raped. I'm sorry about your friend but remember you were not there either. I'm sure some men are falsely accused but the incidence of conviction on rape charges is very low. Many women refuse to bring sexual assault charges because of what happens to them in the legal system. What's happening to the victim/accuser in Kobe's case will make that worse.

[demnan]

10. There is a difference between casting doubt on

a woman's character and casting doubt on a woman's mental health. The character issue is so judgemental and we as women all know there is a double standard still for men and women. We all know of people who were afraid to come forward after they had been raped and we all know fragile people who have been persecuted. However, I just don't see another alternative than to put the accuser under scrutiny. If a woman has a history of mental illness and she accuses me of stealing her car - say her car has disappeared and she thinks I'm the likely suspect - in court I would bring into evidence that this woman was delusional and in fact had some sort of grudge against me (for whatever reason).

So as long as it is "innocent until proven guilty" this allows the accused to draw into light any aspect of the accused that might help his or her case.

[drfemoe]

139. coke bottle

I bet I could ram that coke bottle up his ass while you hold him down!

OTOH .. in THIS case . vaginal scratches cannot be used as 'evidence' of rape unless the jury is made aware of the fact that they could have come from an entirely different situation.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. I know! Let's give all men a pass on their first rape

after all, they don't have a history of rape so why inconvenience them? :eyes:

Great post, DemBones.

[gottaB]

12. You have to weigh these things

Suppposing for a moment that a women's sexual history is germane to the issue of consent in a particular case--I don't accept that, but just supposing--you still have to weigh probitive value of such evidence against the prejudicial effects. In an adversarial system, it's only natural that a defendant in a rape case would want to make the case that his accuser was a "slut" and thoroughly prejudice the jury. But that doesn't mean the judge has to allow it. Given generally sexist attitudes in society, and the ease with which the case can be made against women, the difficulty of getting women to testify against their attackers, and the weak case for relevance, it is rather dimayinging that a judge would allow this line of defense to proceed.

[janekat]

65. I don't care if she was a hooker! It shouldn't be okay to rape them either

n/t

[gottaB]

105. That's my feeling as well

Was that unclear?

As long as any woman can be subjected to this kind of treatment in the courtroom, no woman is guaranteed justice in a rape case, least of all sex workers.

[janekat]

146. whoops - didn't read your post very closely - I saw the word "slut"

there and went ballistic. Sorry...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Playing devil to your devil

Let's say a woman has consensual sex prior to being raped. Let's say the jury hears this and decides she is a slut who deserved to be raped. Should the woman be prejudiced by that contract she joined into consensually versus the one she war forced or coerced into on the basis of prejudice on the part of the jury?

Certainly seems to me there are many ways to discredit a victim with rape shield laws in place given how few rapes comparatively reach the courts, how few comparatively lead to convictions, and how few COMPARATIVELY lead to any substantial jail time.

[Padraig18]

18. The point that is missed

The vaginal bruising, etc., are all relevant because, conversely, she could have received those prior to consensual sex with Kobe. I'm not saying it did, merely pointing out why her immediate past sexual history is both material and relevant. She did, after all, have semen from a second man in her panties, so the issue deserves to be explored.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. How do we know the semen from the second man didn't come from Kobe?

[Padraig18]

20. We don't

Which is why the matter must be explored. *Where* it came from is both material and relevant, and I use those two words deliberately and in their proper legal order. :hi:

[jayfish]

25. This Is How.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/980367.asp?0cv=CA01

-SNIP-
EAGLE, Colo., Oct. 15 — Kobe Bryant’s accuser showed up for her rape exam wearing underpants containing another man’s sperm, a startling discovery that defense lawyers called “compelling evidence” the NBA star is innocent.
-SNIP-

Jay

-Edited For For Incorrect Adverb In Subject-

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. Guess we only read as far as we want, eh?

Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the argument might be more of a public relations move.
“The defense may be spinning this more for the public than the court,” he said. “It’s impressive, but its negative public relations value for the prosecution is more significant than its legal value.”

[jayfish]

43. Just Answering Your Question, But Since You Decided To Attack.

Right back at ya.

"It’s a disaster for the prosecution,” Eagle attorney Jim Fahrenholtz said. Pubic hair samples from the woman also turned up Caucasian hairs that could not have come from Bryant, who is black, Winters said."

I really don't want to start an argument with you on this, as I prefer to let a jury decide what really happened. I really was just answering your question.

Jay

[spooky3]

46. Not to butt in, but I think the point s/he's trying to make

is that what is reported (and spun) in the media is not necessarily information proven to be factual in court. The defense or prosecution could claim something is true, but the jury could later, after reviewing all the evidence, including info we do not hear about, decide they weren't convinced.

[MojoKrunch]

47. Gotta keep in mind folks that Kobe and his lawyers aren't just

trying to prove his innocence in court but to the public at large who *buy his endorced products*.

Kobe the *commodity* is a business and this case undermines his selling power.
ESPN estimated that his defense was costing him in the 2-3 million range and I thought that was pretty cheap considering the money he could be losing.

Frankly, it won't surprise me if he skates, just like most rich people skate.

Even if they *do* find him guilty, I suspect he'll just get slapped on the wrist.

As far as his guilt or innocence, I'll wait until more evidence is presented.
For starters, an explanation of Kobe's blood on her shirt.

Now for sheer speculation, what if the "caucasion pubic hair" belonged to a boyfriend who didn't appreciate Kobe making advances and she claimed rape to keep the boyfriend happy with her?

And yes, I agree the defense lawyers behavior, which wasn't quashed by the judge *immediately*, was execrable.

Mojo

[LonelyLRLiberal]

118. I think the defense is bringing the sexual history up to intimidate

the woman (who is only 19 and apparently has had mental heath issues before the alleged rape, to work on public opinion, to divert attention away from Kobe Bryant, and to put pressure on the prosecution.

It is wrong (and a violation of the rape shield laws) to bring up her sexual history unless one of the exceptions can be shown to make that information relevant. It seems that the defense did not make a real attempt to show relevancy (and I think they are required to give a 30-day notice of the intent to use this type of evidence), and that in itself supports my intimidation theory.

If Kobe did it, I hope he burns in Hell (if there is one). If she accused him falsely, she needs to get psychological help, because no one would put herself through this for no reason.

If the attorney did not have good reason to bring up the sexual history issues, I hope she gets some reprimand from the Court, and I hope her firm loses some clients (money is the only thing that motivates a lot of lawyers).

btw - did y'all see the SNL news item naming the female attorney and her firm and suggesting that viewers call her and the firm?

[Padraig18]

121. If she is intimidated

That is the prosecution's problem; the defense is legitimately entitled to inquire into any evidence the prosecution brings forth. By inroducing the Caucasian pubic hair found during the exam and the semen which is NOT Kobe's on the second set of panties, the prosecution 'opened the door', so to speak, and the defense is legitimately entitled and ethically required to explore those evidentiary points.

Rape shield laws don't even enter into this area of defense inquiry.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

135. Let's not forget that this was a preliminary hearing

(if my understanding is correct) that was merely to determine if the prosecution had the minimum evidence to proceed to trial. This hearing does not require the same type and level of "proof" as the actual trial will require. Many legal commentators were very surprised that the defense insisted on such an extensive hearing, since they had about a gnat's chance in hell that the case would not proceed to trial.

This IMHO supports my theory of the intimidation rationale for the defense's approach.

And, let's not forget that the defense attorney used the alleged victim's name SIX (6) TIMES in open court, which was open to the press. This was unnecessary, to say the least, and the only reason to use the name was INTIMIDATION of the alleged victim.

I am almost angry enough to wish that the "alleged perpetrator" be convicted just based on his attorney's conduct.

btw, I don't pretend to have any legal expertise - I just pay attention to the best of my admittedly limited abilities.

:mad: :grr:

[cally]

122. One hundred percent right

Welcome to DU. We need your voice!!

[LonelyLRLiberal]

140. Thanks for the welcome, cally, and thanks to all

for the lively dialogue and fast updates on breaking events and news. God knows that the supporters of the Repukes aren't able to string a sentence together that has not been force-fed to them by the right-wing wackos and the neocons, so it's fun to come to DU to read and sometimes have some input into interesting discussions. Y'all keep me informed, okay?

[janekat]

67. and I wonder how much they paid someone to plant that semen...

sounds suspicious to me...

[Padraig18]

71. Why?

I think the better question is why she wors those panties to her rape exam? It was the HOSPITAL who first identified the semen, not the police.

[cally]

76. Why do you wear your clothes?

She may have washed them but not well. I don't do a great job of handwashing. This part of the argument is just plain dumb.

[Padraig18]

78. *sigh*

The issue is *rape*, therefore semen, its origin, etc. has to be examined. She can't just say "Oops, I should have worn clean panties!" *after* she's alleged rape. It is highly material and relevant to the issue.

[cally]

82. Dumb..explain the relevance to the case

What the hell does it matter whether she wore clean panties or not. Make your case without the eyerolling and sighing. Please.

So she wore dirty panties and ??? Seriously what is the relevance of that. She is charging rape and semen matters. So, come out and say what you are implying. She had sex with a man and the matters to her charge of rape.

Please don't answer with the sarcasm--eye rolling and sighing. It is ridiculous and demeans your argument.

[Padraig18]

84. I have made my case

If you cannot appreciate the relevance of semen to the issue of rape, I am at a loss as to how to make it any clearer.

On edit: *She* is alleging rape (the State is), therefore the panties are the *State of Colorado's evidence*. The defense is entitled to examine ALL of the evidence, and question *anything* about that evidence, including how someone else's semen came to be on the panties she wore to the rape exam.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. NO they have NO RELEVANCE because they were NOT the panties AT

THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED RAPE. The only panties that have relevance are the ones at the time of the rape. If your argument is correct, why haven't Kobe's attorneys subpoena'd her entire underwear drawer?

[Padraig18]

94. You need a better understanding of *legal* relevance

Futhermore, it has not been proved whether or not those were the panties she was wearing; that is the purpose of the entire preliminary (evidentiary) hearing--- to determine whetehr or not there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, and if so, what evidence may be used at trial.

Material
A fact is material if it is necessary to or can affect the outcome of a case. If a fact is not necessary and cannot affect the outcome of the case it is not material to the case. See also relevant, pertinent, and dispositive.

Materiality
The materiality of a fact is the degree to which such fact is or is not material. Frequently, during the course of a lawsuit, one party argues the materiality of facts offered by the other side as evidence. If the court finds an offered fact is not material, it cannot be used as evidence in the proceedings.

Relevant
A thing is relevant if it relates to a dispositive issue, i.e., an issue that can dispose of a controversy and thus decide the outcome of a case or some relevant part of a case. Relevant evidence, therefore, is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact, i.e., a fact that if believed by the court would affect the outcome of a case. All relevant evidence is admissible unless it falls within one of the categories of restricted evidence, e.g., hearsay or privileged communications.

Dispositive
Tending to dispose of an issue. A dispositive fact is one which, if proved, will decide the case. See relevant, material, pertinent.

Pertinent
A thing is pertinent if it directly relates to the issues of a matter. If a thing does not relate directly to the issues it is impertinent. A term sometimes used interchangeably with relevant is material. See also relevant and dispositive.

Source: http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

87. Only if you make it so and suggest that a woman who has consensual sex

one day and gets raped the next day deserves it.

Hell, I could have consensual sex RIGHT THIS MINUTE, end up with semen on my panties and get raped on the way home. Am I ANY LESS RAPED?

[Padraig18]

91. It goes to the *weight* and *credibility* of the evidence.

You cannot at one and the same time introdue evidence which you say tends to prove Proposition A, and then deny the defense the right to challenge that it proves that.

As for the latter, I agree that that is in fact possible, and have not *denied* anywhere that she may have been raped. I have merely attempted to explain in a lucid manner the *legal issues* in question, vis a vis the attorney's conduct.

Some legal terminology that will be helpful:

Material
A fact is material if it is necessary to or can affect the outcome of a case. If a fact is not necessary and cannot affect the outcome of the case it is not material to the case. See also relevant, pertinent, and dispositive.

Materiality
The materiality of a fact is the degree to which such fact is or is not material. Frequently, during the course of a lawsuit, one party argues the materiality of facts offered by the other side as evidence. If the court finds an offered fact is not material, it cannot be used as evidence in the proceedings.

Relevant
A thing is relevant if it relates to a dispositive issue, i.e., an issue that can dispose of a controversy and thus decide the outcome of a case or some relevant part of a case. Relevant evidence, therefore, is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact, i.e., a fact that if believed by the court would affect the outcome of a case. All relevant evidence is admissible unless it falls within one of the categories of restricted evidence, e.g., hearsay or privileged communications.

Dispositive
Tending to dispose of an issue. A dispositive fact is one which, if proved, will decide the case. See relevant, material, pertinent.

Pertinent
A thing is pertinent if it directly relates to the issues of a matter. If a thing does not relate directly to the issues it is impertinent. A term sometimes used interchangeably with relevant is material. See also relevant and dispositive.

Source: http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

93. see below...you are assuming it was one pair of panties with two semens

that is NOT the case and that is EXACTLY why it is NOT relevent.

BTW, I don't need a legal dictionary, I went to law school and graduated.

[Padraig18]

95. She brought TWO pairs with her, counselor.

And the State introduced both into evidence; you, of all people should know that that, in and of itself, makes them material AND relevant; the State of Colorado is not allowed to play 'peek-a-bpp' with the evidence, at one monent asserting that it means X and then slamming the door shut when the defense wishes to argue that it does not. No one has *proved* which panties she *wore* during the alleged rape.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. I haven't seen the state's evidence

Did they introduce both or did the detective in the above referenced article simply testify to both?

[Padraig18]

100. They opened the door, either way. n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. They opened to door to what? A pair of panties used during consensual

sex versus a pair alleged to have been used during rape?

[Padraig18]

104. They are *both* 'alleged'

There is no *proof* either way, at this point, except as to which pair she had *on* at the time of the exam (and by exclusion, the pair she did *not8 have on).

[cally]

107. Padraig...please explain your points

I'm trying to understand. She had sex...OK...Her painties have semen from a man other than Kobe...K..Then


Please subpeone all her undergarements. She had sex (Well I don't know that but still) What does that mean??

Sex, sex, sex....What does that mean for the allegations of rape?

[Padraig18]

109. It means, simply stated

The alleged victim brought two pairs of panties to her rape exam; the State of Colorado introduced these panties into evidence through its expert witness. It follows, therefore, that the defense is entitled to inquire into all areas regarding the panties which are both material and relevant to each and every separate element of the crime of rape, as alleged in the information accsuing Kobe of said rape.

The legal terminology is a bit arcane, and the words 'material' and 'relevant' are used somewhat differently in a legal context than they are in ordinary conversation; I hope these definitions help. :hi:

Material
A fact is material if it is necessary to or can affect the outcome of a case. If a fact is not necessary and cannot affect the outcome of the case it is not material to the case. See also relevant, pertinent, and dispositive.

Materiality
The materiality of a fact is the degree to which such fact is or is not material. Frequently, during the course of a lawsuit, one party argues the materiality of facts offered by the other side as evidence. If the court finds an offered fact is not material, it cannot be used as evidence in the proceedings.

Relevant
A thing is relevant if it relates to a dispositive issue, i.e., an issue that can dispose of a controversy and thus decide the outcome of a case or some relevant part of a case. Relevant evidence, therefore, is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact, i.e., a fact that if believed by the court would affect the outcome of a case. All relevant evidence is admissible unless it falls within one of the categories of restricted evidence, e.g., hearsay or privileged communications.

Dispositive
Tending to dispose of an issue. A dispositive fact is one which, if proved, will decide the case. See relevant, material, pertinent.

Pertinent
A thing is pertinent if it directly relates to the issues of a matter. If a thing does not relate directly to the issues it is impertinent. A term sometimes used interchangeably with relevant is material. See also relevant and dispositive.

Source: http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

[cally]

124. K..Two pair of panties

She had sex. Forget all your fluff...I'm wise enough and all on this board are too to look for the argument. Mix it up good with some legalise. That will work. Make your case.


She has panties with semen from two men. Make your case on what is your point. I do know that if she was raped or engaged in sex to cause damage to her vagina that it is very relevant. But that she had sex three days prior..it is not relevant

[Padraig18]

125. It's not 'fluff'

What are you even asking me ? I've clearly stated *why* the defense is allowed to inquire and they are doing---repeatedly.

PS--Spare me all the "I've been on discussion boards since dinosaurs walked the Earth's cooling crust" stuff; so have I, and I'm not impressed.

[cally]

132. ???I've been here since the dinasaurs??

Did I ever say that? Even in my most heated arguments I've never claimed to walk with the dinasaurs. What are you getting at?

I know the defense has the right to question, but do they have right to question her sexual history. Should they bring up who she had sex with before. What semen is on her panties?

[Padraig18]

133. What semen on her panties?????

Look, she had *sex*; was it rape, or was it consensual? I dunno, but I *know* the defense is entitled to inquire into *any* evidence the State of Colorado introduces, and the SOC introduced the panties, and the Caucasian pubic hair AND the alleged victim's own statement. If she had sex during the relevant time frame (from immediately before being in Kobe's room until the time she was examined), of course the defense can ask about that. It's material and relevant.

[Padraig18]

137. Don't be disingenous

What am I getting at? "...I'm wise enough and all on this board are too to look for the argument...." *THAT* is what I'm getting at--- that smug statement. You're not 'wise' to anything, as it regards my posts.

[janekat]

96. I find it extremely hard to believe.... It defies the boundaries of common

sense. I would have to hear this in court to believe that this all really happened the way that they're broadcasting it. If you really think about all this it is totally unlikely.

I don't believe that it's very likely that a woman is going to wear dirty panties with someone else's semen to a hospital exam for rape.

In addition, it's also extremely unlikely that a woman with a brusied and torn vagina is going to go out and have sex with another man the next day or later that day.

I would have to see all of this in court in order to believe it. It just doesn't all add up.

For all of this to happen the woman would have to be a TOTAL nymphomaniac and a TOTAL nutcase. NOT just a "little" unbalanced. And from the reports that I've heard - she is neither.

Either this story is a fabrication OR someone "planted" some panties. With all of the money "floating around" Kobe Bryant - I wouldn't think that it would be too hard to find someone willing to do that.

[Padraig18]

97. It's why they're having a hearing...

... and will, presumably, have a trial. We cannot simply go on 'gut feeling'/'common sense' in a criminal case--- it's not how the system is set up.

[cally]

108. Few are going on feeling

I do belive in proven until innocent. But that also means basic fairness means that women should be able to bring their claims to court without prejudice

[Padraig18]

111. She has been allowed to do so

Now, even though it's not pleasant, the defense is entitled to do exactly as they are doing, 'slimy' though it may seem.

[janekat]

147. Used to be a Psychiatric social worker and do not believe the

defense's account of her behavior AT ALL. It does not add up in the least. For a young girl to exhibit that type of behavior (have sex with another partner after being badly bruised and hurt in a sexual tryst the same day) would suggest someone with a very severe and pronounced problem with nymphomania. Not only would she have to be an out-of-control sex addict - she would have most likely had to have been severely sexually abused in her childhood. This girl would have been "acting out" in high school. Believe me - it would not have been a "hidden" problem. People do NOT develop that type of promiscuous behavior overnight.

THEN to go into a hospital for a rape examination after having sex with another partner - with their semen on her panties would also suggest someone with SEVERE problems. Many people would know about this behavior. It would not be a well-hidden secret. The accounts that I have heard of this girl suggest NOTHING like that at all.. By all accounts she was a "normal" clean cut girl.

Sorry don't buy it AT ALL...

[MojoKrunch]

162. What about...?

Otherwise normal women who want to be sexual with *stars*?

In the entertainment industry they're called groupies.
And while I find some of their decision-making questionable, I'd be hard-pressed to believe they could all be classified as "abused nymphomaniacs".

//This girl would have been "acting out" in high school. Believe me - it would not have been a "hidden" problem.//
How many sex partners is considered "acting out"?
How many sex partners has this woman had?

//People do NOT develop that type of promiscuous behavior overnight.//
Not even given the opportunity to sleep with *someone famous*?
Has this woman been given a psyhiatric exam?

//THEN to go into a hospital for a rape examination after having sex with another partner - with their semen on her panties would also suggest someone with SEVERE problems.//
Actually, what it suggests to *me* is that she wasn't thinking.
Be it one way or the other.

Either she *was* raped and post-traumatic.
(sex with comforting partner afterwards?)
OR she *wasn't* raped and was trying to cover up for something else.
(covering up being with Kobe by alleging rape?)

And what about the always-good-for-TV-movie idea that she was raped *before* her tryst with Kobe and is "acting out" to get attention?

I must admit, the dialogue about this case is very interesting.
As a lifelong feminist, I'm of the firm opinion that Kobe should be punished to the full extent of the law while protecting this woman as much as possible.
But as a skeptic, I also see the possibility for abuse inherent in such a situation.

I heard one of the commentators on CourtTV say something like "maybe Kobe was just too large or a clumsy lover" and that this really is just a matter of perspective.

Mojo

[Nobody]

159. If I were on the jury

I'd make damn sure that my fellow jurors knew that of they wanted to acquit, they'd have to find some better reason than the "she said yes once, therefore she forefeits her right to say no" defense.

That idea bothers me. I once got into a HUGE argument with a guy I added to my "Never have sex with this guy no matter what" list. He was saying that if a woman has had sex with several previous partners (Define "several", I said. He didn't.) and a guy who gave her gifts, took her out for dinner and paid, spent time and money on her was ENTITLED TO sex with her.

I disagreed and said that no woman is ever obligated to have sex with a man no matter what he gives her. Gifts are gifts, dinner dates are dinner dates. Any obligation turns the date into prostitution, and isn't prostitution illegal in this state?

And I also told him that no matter how many guys she had sex with, a woman is never under an obligation to have sex with YOU no matter how much of a hit your poor little ego takes.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Thank you, and Devil's Advocate is my favorite game -- how did

you guess? ;-)

In a rape case, I think both the alleged rapist and the alleged victim should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I do understand that women sometimes lie about rape but trying to destroy the woman's reputation is an unfair tactic.

If the defense is entitled to bring in evidence or allegations about the woman's sexual history, then the prosecution should do the same for the man -- and I'm unsure that the accused's sexual history is commonly examined in a trial.

I doubt that prosecutors will take a case where there's no physical evidence to work with. There may be physical evidence without physical damage. Rape victims often don't fight back if they think they're in danger of being harmed by the rapist. A woman may think "Well, I went to his room, so it's my fault" even though she said "No" "Stop" "Don't" and made some effort to get away. She may be embarrassed to scream and try to summon help, and frightened that the man will really hurt her if she doesn't more or less cooperate. Maybe that's how this went down and Kobe thoinks it was consensual because he just didn't pay any attention to the "No" "Stop" "Don't" messages. Maybe she thinks she put up a strong resistance but he saw it as her just making him work for it. I think that's probably a fairly common scenario in he says consensual, she says rape cases.

I would indeed do almost anything to clear myself if I were falsely accused of a crime and I'd expect others to do the same. I'm just concerned with people being unfairly harmed through having private information revealed about them during a trial, particularly when the person harmed has already been victimized.

I know someone whose car was totaled and she was injured badly enough to be unable to work for about a year. The other driver caused the wreck but the case went to court , where the other driver's insurance company's lawyer interrogated her about why, if she was unable to work, they were sending their children to private school. She explained that they preferred Catholic school for their children, even though it was difficult with their reduced income. Her husband was questioned about "why he had changed religions" since he was a Baptist before they married. He responded that he had NOT changed religions, he had changed denominations so that the family would all go to the same church. I think it's outrageous that an attorney would think any of that was relevant -- and that a judge would allow such a line of questioning! Just imagine if she'd been a rape victim!

[alarimer]

129. Why

Why should the victim of any crime, even rape, come under any scrutiny at all? I understand that it is possible that she may have made it up for whatever reason although I doubt anyone would actually do that given the negative publicity she would get. Also her whole life is now an open book. I can't believe anyone would want that.

[Padraig18]

134. Why ?

"Why should the victim of any crime, even rape, come under any scrutiny at all?"

In short, because the defendant is presumed innocent. No victim of *any* crime is entitled to an automatic presumption of credibility.

[XanaDUer]

11. Excellent post.

It's extra especially disgusting that a female attorney (Pamala Mackey?) is going to do the dragging over the coals of the alleged victim.

[Padraig18]

13. I am saddened

One phrase has run through my mind for over a year regarding what was proposed for Terry Schiavo and what is, today, a fact:

"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

I am sad beyond words that in this, the year 2003, a 'civilised' society could permit such a thing to happen to one so utterly defenceless. May God be with her and her family, and may God have mercy on the soul of her husband...

[catzies]

14. We are going backwards, one step at a time. Very disturbing.

I'm a basketball but but have paid zero attention to the Kobe thing because everything I hear is kobe-centric and I couldn't care less. I didn't realize that the development you mention was a part of it. Being active in women's issues, that's the only part I'll care about.

I'm speechless at the details of the Terri Schiavo case you outlined. It is truly appalling.

Thanks for such a great post.

[Padraig18]

16. Kick

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. The reality is that any woman who reports a rape is taking a chance

I'm not talking about the Kobe show specifically, I'm talking about the reality of our society.

While the west enjoys bragging about how rape victims are not as a rule killed by their families, no western rape victim is able to avoid weighing her moral responsibility to speak out against the impact on her life of the consequences of doing so.

Her boss may be sympathetic, but he also has a business to run, and if there is media interest, or even intense water cooler interest in her case, the situation will be uncomfortable for her, and a distraction and a disruption to business for him, and there is a good chance that they will "mutually agree" that it will be better for all concerned if she considers working elsewhere, or at least taking an (unpaid) "leave of absence for a while."

Her husband or sweetheart, even if sufficiently "enlightened" so that he does not regard her as damaged goods, or blame her, may not be up to the challenge either of his own anguish and feelings of inadequacy because he was "unable to protect her," nor secure enough to ride out the psychological aftermath of her trauma, especially regarding intimate relations between them.

Her friends may be sympathetic, but they will also be likely to look at her in a different way than they would had she been merely mugged, and there will be talking that stops suddenly when she enters the room for a long, long time.

If she is a mother, their little friends' mothers may "feel funny" about their kids spending time with her children, or in her home.

Some women are lucky, and avoid all these things. But no woman can count on avoiding them, and until she can, reporting a rape is a much braver and selfless act than most people realize.

[Padraig18]

22. Try it as a man

I was the victim of an attempted rape, so I completely understand what it takes to report it.

[cally]

32. I know it's much harder for a man to

report sexual assault. You are brave to report it and I hope you found support when you reported the crime.

[Mandate My Ass]

26. That needed to be said

and you said it beautifully. There seems to be an attitude that if a woman decides to persecute a man she can merely cry "rape" after consensual sex and that's all there is to it. THe police and district attorney have to be convinced that a crime occurred before they will commit the resources to prosecute a case. For the victim that means submitting to invasive tests and repeating the details of the attack over and over again to various people who will all compare notes and look for inconsistencies. It's not merely a matter of he said/she said.

[Lindacooks]

50. Not only that,

but the number of false rape accusations are about 2%, same as general crime's false reporting statistics.

http://incestabuse.about.com/cs/daterape/a/Kobeassault.htm

[DemBones DemBones]

27. Very well said. And when I talk about the Bryant case, I'm looking

at it as an example of a rape case in this country as I think it's playing out normally enough, aside from the obviously over-the-top media coverage. The coverage gets into another area -- our society's worshipful attitude toward, and excessive interest in, athletes and certain entertainers

And we do indeed think ourselves enlightened that fathers and brothers don't kill family members who are victims of rape. Damn ironic.

[Character Assassin]

24. Comparing the Bryant case to the Taliban is puerile and hyperbolic

But I'm angered and saddened to hear that the judge has ruled that some of her sexual history can be revealed in court. The media reports that she had sexual intercourse with another man three days before the alleged rape, that the couple in the room above Kobe's reports hearing nothing unusual that night, that Kobe had no injuries on his body, that a nurse told a detective it was possible the woman was bleeding as a result of a sex act three days earlier. Can you say bias against the accuser? This was CNN.

As I said, I don't know what happened, but I can easily think of possible explanations for everything they're presenting as "damaging" to the accuser's credibility.

Then it shouldn't be difficult for the prosecution to come up with, and further support, those exact same explanations in court.

They've already told us that she has attempted suicide in the past, that she has psychiatric problems. Thus, she has a disability and her disability is being used against her.

This is barbarism. This sort of intimidation has kept so many of us women from ever reporting the men who raped us.

It isn't barbarism just because you say it is, and you have done zero to justify comparing anything having to do with this case with the actions or policies of the Taliban.

A. So the judge issued an order. I don't see her being hung or beaten in public.
B. So the media came out with some stories. How does that have anything to do with the Taliban?

Are you, perhaps, unfamiliar with the Taliban and what they did?

[DemBones DemBones]

49. I didn't compare the Bryant case to the Taliban. Read what I

actually wrote:

"This is a bad day for the rights of women and the disabled in the U.S.

Barbarism rules, as it ever has. We think the Taliban were monsters to women but out own "justice" system is capable of monstrous injustice, too."

I used "Taliban" more as metaphor, in my opinion. Our justice system is capable of monstruous injustice, as the Taliban was. I was referring to the bad judgement of the justice system in the Schiavo case as much as the Bryant case.

The Taliban executed people (men and women) as a half-time show at soccer games. They beat women in the streets if their burqua shifted a bit and revealed. They were barbaric.

Our court system reveals personal information about people that will dog them for years. It's not just the Bryant case, it's many cases. Our court system sent Tommy Chong to prison for selling a bong. It sends thousands to prison for using illegal drugs. Our court system refused to allow therapy for a brain-damaged woman. It said her feeding tube was to be removed and she is now expected to die. If she fails to meet their expectations, if she lives, who knows what will happen next?

I see monstrous injustice in our court system. I see barbarism in our court system Not every action is injust or barbaric but some are, to my mind.

YMMV. :shrug:

I think

[TNOE]

28. Wow - this is weird

since I very rarely disagree with the majority of posts there - but I disagree on both your points and I am a woman.

Last case first - about the feeding tube - I'm afraid I agree with the husband on this. What kind of "quality of life" does this woman have after lying brain dead for 13 years? I can answer that - none. You can't blame the husband for wanting to get on with his life after 13 years. He is I believe in actuality doing her a favor and the parents are being selfish - because "they" just want her around for themselves because they can't bear to see her die. But she for the most part is already dead. To assume that keeping her here on earth and not sending her soul to bliss I feel is very selfish. She needs to be let go. Who is to say without medical technology she would have survived at all from the heart attack without feeding tubes, etc. What you don't know is the hospital has made a ton of money on her care from someone. Also let me tell you from experience - I took care of my former fiance's mother for about 3 years who was suffering from MS and Alzheimers. She had a very explicit Living Will - she was a very vain woman (beautiful) and she stated in no uncertain terms that if she were unable to think for herself, take care of herself, etc. - no one was to take any heroic measures of any kind to save her. Her son on the other hand could not bear to let his mother go - so he left implicit instructions with each and every hospital and nursing home she had to enter (for 30 day stays after hospital) that they were to revive her. Not her wishes - and they did. Eventually she started getting big sores on her and open wounds. The nurse told me her "skin" was dying and that is to be expected. You know I'm sorry but when your skin dies and things don't work the way they are supposed to - its time to go. Those that wish people to remain here in poor or ill health are being the selfish ones. Also - you may not be aware of this - but starving and dehydration is natural to the dying process. That is why hospice allows people to die naturally. The body no longer wants to eat - the body no longer wants to drink - and to force a body to do so is to upset and derail and prolong the dying process - which is unnatural in my opinion.

On the 2nd thing - I admit I don't know much about the Kobe shit becasue I turn it off - the shark story of the month - BUT I have my doubts about this woman (ala trying out for American Idol (seeking fame?) - and the fact that she is not very mentally stable - personally I would not be surprised being the rather small town that it is that she was not put up to this by the locals to bring attention and $$ to the town. Why did she just "go" to Kobe's room? What was that about - and is that accurate? Remember Kobe has lots of $$$ and alot of people will lie and do a lot of things and put themselves through a lot to get at those $$. The fact that she was bragging about Kobe's anatomy at a party later? That does not sound like a woman who was raped to me - but a woman who decided she may have struck some gold. I believe in this case Kobe has had a lot of shit to endure too - the embarrasment, fear, etc. I don't think the attitude is because she had previously had sex, she was loose or deserved to be raped - I think the evidence of semen has to be addressed.

[Padraig18]

30. Erorr of fact

Terry Schiavo is NOT brain-dead, she is brain-damaged.

[TNOE]

31. To what extent?

how severe is the brain damage? Sorry didn't read the article and frankly I don't have time right now. But if she requires hospital care and tubes - I would venture to say the brain damage is severe.

[Padraig18]

34. It is severe

But the term 'brain-dead' has a specific legal and medical meaning, i.e., she retains some level of cognitive function, unlike someone who does not.

[Nikia]

33. Quality of life is relative

It is important for Terry to be able to live just as it is important that other disabled people are able to live. Yes, some people do get depressed if they become disabled. Others are born disabled. It is important to help them do the best that they can with their disability. Terry hadn't been helped to do her best. I think that this case sets a dangerous prcedent. Will parents be able to let their severely disabled children die from neglect once it becomes too much of an expense or burden to care for them? Will letting disabled people die from neglect become an acceptable practice? How handicap does one have to be before one is left to die? How about quadrapelegics with their minds as good as anyone? What if they are also mentally handicap? I don't know. We forget that the first group of people that Hitler killed were people with disabilities.

[Padraig18]

36. Bravo!

EXCELLENT points! :hug:

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Thank you so much for saying this! People need to become

more aware of disability issues. Disability is a different kind of minority status. If you're not already black, you'll never be black. The same goes for most other types of minority status, such as Hispanic, gay, but not for disability.

You may be in perfect health as you read this and be disabled tomorrow.

In some ways, things have improved for the disable, but in other ways they've gotten worse. In many cases, parents are still encouraged to let disabled infants die by withholding food after birth, and of course older mothers are advised to have amniocentesis to determine whether the baby is a "keeper" or should be aborted. (Someone I know "lost" her obstetrician because she and her husband decided not to have the amnio done. They explained to the doctor that they knew they would have the baby even if the amnio showed a problem and since there's some risk to the baby in having amnio, they had decided to not have it done. The doctor became very angry and told them to find another obstetrician! )

The Schiavo decision pushes us a bit farther down the slippery slope. :-(

[deek]

119. "Losing my religion"

This is in reference to REM, not "religion" religion.

<We forget that the first group of people that Hitler killed were people with disabilities. >

First the forcing of the raped woman who had severe disabilities to bear the child. Now the cruel starvation of a woman who is in the way of a man's financial freedom.

BushCo dismantling all safety nets/supportive services/Medicaid...

Just came off the message board at Yahoo News. The cancer is spreading. I have no faith in "human" beings anymore.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. Re: care of the dying -- Been there, done that, with both my mother

and mother-in-law, know all about dehydration and starvation as normal parts of dying for some people, experienced with hospice care. Hospice care, as you know, is for the terminally ill, and will not begin until a physician certifies that death is near.

Terri Schiavo is not terminally ill, as I stated in my initial post. Her parents would like her to receive some therapy and see how she can improve. It's inhumane that her husband has kept her from receiving any therapy for thirteen years. She hasn't been given a real chance to recover.

Read my post again because I said it was fair enough for Mike Schiavo to want to get on with his life. Why must Terri die so Mike can move on and marry his pregnant girlfriend? When he has insisted that Terri must die, why should Mike inherit some $700, 000 meant for the treatment of Terri ? Whose welfare is he thinking of?

By the way, of course the hospital is making money. What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure you're not saying she should die and stop using up money but what are you saying? Imperfect people should die? Hospitals shouldn't charge money? Hospitals charge too much money?


Re: Kobe's accuser: the evidence of semen didn't have to be leaked to the media. The psychiatric history didn't have to be leaked to the media. It's the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty" defense.

[TNOE]

51. I've got to admit - this is a tough one

I hurridly read the article - gut wrenching for sure. God no wonder I get so behind in my work - I can't stay away from this board! Her husband sounds like a A-class #1 asshole for sure - the feeding tube disturbs me - WHY in 13 years have they not tried to rehabilitate her at all, at least so she could feed herself?? Did I miss something in the article? As I said - this is a tough one - did the parents not try to help to rehabilite her? I just don't understand her not being able to feed herself which maybe indicates severe brain damage. You say that the husband wouldn't allow it. Is that really possible? As a parent visiting I think I'd be working with her every day trying to teach her how to feed herself regardless of what the "husband" had to say. I can't believe he could "refuse" her therapy. That just doesn't sound right or seem right somehow. I don't think any guardianship gives you that kind of power, but I coudl be wrong. And don't ge me wrong - I certainly empathize with you about the potential harm for the mistreatment of the disabled and it is a slippery slope. I guess people view things as what they would want for themselves - Personally, if it were me and I were left in that condition I would definitely choose death - and I have always made that very clear to my only child - DO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN TO ME. My point about the $$$ for the hospitals - is that in an effort to "herorically" perhaps save someone from death and yet leave them no quality of life - sometimes their efforts are better left undone in my opinion. Hospitals know that they make the most $$$ in the last few weeks of someone's life and I tend to believe (although not appropriate in this case) - that sometimes life is extended unnecessarily.

Its certainly an interesting case - obviously one that even baffled several judges - which is extremely odd. I really feel for her family and I hope they can find peace in the fact that she will be a beautiful whole spirit once again and be blissfully happy in her afterlife. She certainly has suffered enough in this world.

[cally]

48. Ok, others have discussed the disability arguments

Let's look at the rape arguments. Suppose I function at the 4th grade level, should I not have the right to justice if a man rapes me. Suppose I am bi-polar and have been institutionalized and am raped by the premiere psychiatrist in my state. Because I have a mental illness I should be raped and have no protection under the law. Suppose I'm lashing out at all and I have sex with most the men in town but I am raped, then I should not have legal protections. Suppose I sleep with a man 10 times and move on and then am raped. Umm, I can't say no? I'm suicidal, how many teens are?, and I can't be raped????? Think about it because the most vulnerable are often the target.

The evidence of semen is ridiculous. She had sex what the hell does that have to do with rape.

[Padraig18]

53. Semen

Would *you* wear panties to a rape exam that had TWO men's semen in them? It is HIGHLY material and relevant.

[cally]

55. How is that relevant?

Why does that matter except that she has bizarre standards of personal hygiene? What does that have to do with rape?

[Padraig18]

58. It is relevant because she is claiming RAPE!

You can't possibly NOT see how semen is material to the issue, can you? :eyes:

[cally]

66. Why does it matter

If she has semen from a consensual sexual act. I don't understand the eyes rolling...why? What is so preposterous? The semen matters to prove that a sexual encounter occured with the accused, but otherwise???

[Padraig18]

68. It matters because...

... her claim is that Kobe raped her--- claim. A claim is nor PROOF, and Kobe says it was consensual. Therefore, who she had sex with (presumably) recently AND what type of sex it was becomes both material and relevant to the issue of rape.

On edit: The question of why another man's semen is in her panties is extremel;y relevant; it is not *simply* a hygeine issue.

[cally]

72. Let me understand this

She claims rape so it matters who she consented to sex with? She has to talk about her sex life to claim rape. So, she has consensual sex with her boss and she now has to say that in open court? Because obviously she wouldn't have been raped if she was a "good" girl.

So in her panties she has semen from 1oo men, what the hell does that have to do with rape? Consensual vs. rape

[Padraig18]

74. Let's play 'What if?'

Would it matter if she and her b/f had had ROUGH consensual sex in the previous 12 hours, and she then DID consent with Kobe, but changed her story because her boyfriend found out, for example?

You can'r seriously NOT see how it's an issue, can you? The defense has to prove nothing, and have an absolute right to challenge everything. We must separate the emotional from the legal issues if this is going to go anywhere.

[cally]

79. But they are bringing it to the media with no evidence

but innuendo. She may have had sex three days before and it is possible that *could* lead to injuries three days later. That is true but not probable. So prove that she likes rough sex or that she was raped three days before that led to bleeding three days later. Do it in court where witnesses can be cross examined. Prove the case. But, the leaking the info to the media is obscened.

They can defend him without violating rape shield laws and the defense attorneys did. She purposely said her name 6 times and brought up her sexual conduct. That is despicable.

[Padraig18]

80. The defense need not prove anything

The prosecution 'opened the door' to all of this; if the defense weren't all over it like green on a frog, they would be guilty of malpractice. Further, her name has already been in the press, so bashing the defense for saying her name is rather like shutting the barn door after the horse is gone, IMO.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. The defense also need not try the case in the media and poison the jury

pool but that is exactly what they are doing.

[Padraig18]

106. The defense has no control over the media

The whole 'trying the case in the media' stuff is baloney; the prosecution is doing the exact same things, and the lack of sanctions by the judge on *either side8 is as much proof as I need that both sides are adhering to the order he issued regarding the press.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. Unless I misread the article, she brought the panties from the rape and

wore panties that had someone else's semen in them. It wasn't a case of a single pair with 2 different men's semen.

[janekat]

101. I don't believe it - I will only believe this if it is proven in court

n/t

[TNOE]

59. okay

First -

Of course if you function at a 4th grade level and were raped you deserve justice - that even makes the crime more horrific AND this has indeed happened on occasion where I live. As a matter of fact - the sentence is much more stiffer and the penalty more severe when a man or boy of normal intelligence takes advantage of someone helpless.

Second - if you were bipolar and were raped by your psychiatrist - that if a serious crime and charge against the doctor and he would no doubt pay a very stiff penalty for 'taking advantage' (once again) of not only a patient but a patient whose care was "entrusted" to this doctor. He would also no doubt lose his medical license.

The other areas get a little bit more murky and that's where the prosecution comes in. Suppose you really are "mentally ill" - and you are sure and swear you were raped. But the fact that you are mentally ill - the prosecution has really got to do its job to make sure that you not only just don't "think" you were or "dreamed" you were and believed it or don't really understand what rape is, etc., etc. Believe it or not - men are supposed to and are allowed to be afforded the same "innocent until proven guilty" as women are. I for one hate to admit it - but there are a lot of dishonest, gold digging, manipulating, lying women out there - as many as there are men. And if we really want things to be "equal" in this world - than what is good for the goose is good for the gander - especially in a case where the alleged "attacker" is a high profile, very wealthy individual. The fact that this women wore an old pair of panties (after having sex with someone else) is not only gross but pretty damn stupid too in my opinion. Wouldn't you just bag them? Did I read that right? Anyhow not all women are angels - nor or all men. This story stinks to high heaven and the prosecution is going to have to do a pretty damn good job convincing me she was truly "raped".

[cally]

70. I mostly agree, but the point I disagree most on

is that somehow there is a different standard to prove rape or another crime when someone is wealthy. That has nothing to do with the crime and if anything, only means a better defense. Wealth or success does not mean that you don't commit crimes.


I honestly don't understand the panties thing. What are you getting at? It's gross that she might have worn panties after having sex with a man. But.... the implications escape me. Gasp...I have worn dirty laundry on occasion. I was too busy to wash or whatever...it is gross. Not exactly something I'm proud of but that justify rape. I'm not saying Kobe is guilty but that charge seems ridiculous.

[janekat]

116. To get enough semen for a test I believe that you have to have more

semen than just some left over after a "bad" washing. I might be wrong about that - I'm no lab tech. All I'm going from is I brought in urine one time for a urine sample for my kitty and they told me it wasn't enough to test. It was about 10 drops of urine.

Course if my kitty had committed a crime and it was needed in a court of law - they might have tried a little harder - LOL!

[spooky3]

83. the few facts we know about now don't look like manipulation to me

I agree there are many manipulative people in the world--male and female--but one thing such people are very good at is not putting themselves through hell in order to get more than their share of the "pie."

I think it's highly likely that she would have been offered some money, with no admission of wrongdoing, to keep quiet. If Bryant were innocent of rape, it makes sense that he would still offer money as a settlement for keeping quiet about his making the mistake of committing adultery, which would upset his wife and his earning power. If the accuser were after money, why wouldn't she have taken it, and avoided this personal hell she's now having to go through?

I think it would be best to wait until the facts are in before deciding who has a lot of convincing to do. Some of the comments here are perilously close to those of the Senators who ran around slamming as "not credible" Anita Hill , who didn't WANT to testify in the first place, before she had ever taken the stand. As Garry Trudeau (Doonesbury) aptly showed in a cartoon--on the one hand you have someone who has no discernible reason to make up a crazy story about pubic hairs on a coke can, etc. On the other hand, you have someone who has every reason to deny it if true. Why would you be more inclined to believe the latter? The same type of people who trashed her before they had ever heard a word from her probably also saying that the women in the LA Times story about Arnold obviously weren't assaulted because they would have reported it years ago if they had been assaulted. What a catch-22. You're not credible if you DO report immediately, and you're not credible if you DON'T.

A person can be treated for a LONG time for mental illnesses that do not produce any delusions whatsoever (e.g., some types of depression).

The personal, financial, and psychological costs of reporting VALID cases are so high, the probability of seeing justice so low, that it is no surprise that only 2% of rape cases are reported.

(edited for typos)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. actually in terms of what is documented and what we spend annually

tracking sex offenders, 97% of which are heterosexual males, there are a lot more rapists than gold-digging stereotypical women, unless one includes stereotypes of x-wives in that equation.

[janekat]

77. They pretty much determined that the "story" about her talking about

his anatomy was b.s.

In addition, because a girl happens to go to a man's room (she was delivering a sandwich) it's now "open season" on her and it's okay to rape her? Are you saying that men are a bunch of savages who can't control themselves? Most of the ones I know aren't.

It might have been bad judgement on her part but she's 18-19 years old. Girls that age often do not have good judgement. God knows that I did some pretty stupid things at that age (luckily I made it to 21 in one piece). In addition, who's gonna figure that a celebrity is going to attack you?

[Padraig18]

81. But there is more

After the sandwich delivery, according to the State's own testimony, she and Kobe engaged in some very heavy kissing. I'm NOT---- repeat, NOT--- saying that that makes it OK to rape someone, but it *does* go to the wieght of the *evidence* against Kobe.

We have to separate emotional issues from legal ones.

[cally]

112. K...so your point is

"Why did you bring it up

[Padraig18]

113. Why did I bring what up? n/t

[jsw_81]

164. Soul?

"To assume that keeping her here on earth and not sending her soul to bliss I feel is very selfish."

Do you have any evidence for the "soul" or the "bliss" you mentioned?

[Ilsa]

29. Unbelievable, isn't it?

If the attorney had said she'd had sex with a hundred men, her comments would have been dismissed as sarcastic and inflammatory. I guess three is a "believeable" number for promiscuity for a potential jury. It should not have been allowed, IMO. This is a very sad day for victims' rights, IMO.


As for the Schiavo case, if I were her nurse, they would have to fire me for trying to defend and protect her from this execution. That's what it looks like to me, an execution, and a brutal one at that. I can only hope for a miracle for her at this point. I wonder if the judge was prompted by this case to get HIS advance directives in order?

You wrote a great post, Dem.

[chimpymustgo]

38. The defense is saying the woman had sex with someone AFTER Kobe.

I am a woman, a feminist, and an advocate for women's and victims, rights. I also would like to see justice in this case - whatever it is.

I thought the defense had a bombshell today. If the woman had a sexual encounter after being with Kobe, her wounds could have been inflicted then. It certainly raises some doubts about the case. As does the testimony of the night auditor, who was the first one to see the woman after and rape, and saw nothing unusual.

Clearly there is much more information to be revealed, and it might indict and convict Kobe. But the information revealed in court today HAD to be allowed.

[Ilsa]

44. I had not heard today's

"bombshell" news. Yep, that is definitely a suspect situation.

[cally]

54. Umm, how does consensual sex inflict those wounds?

You have to make the case that the young woman was into pretty rough sex. Tough sell. Consensual sex rarely leads to wounds like this. From reading the post, it seems they are saying that intercourse from 3 days before led to the bleeding they saw. Consensual sex leading to bleeding three days after?????

[Padraig18]

56. That's why we have a trial.

If it's not the case, the prosecution will prove that; a few things some people seem to forget are a.) HE is presumed innocent, until proven guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty', and b.) he is entitled to a *vigorous defense*, including the right to confront the witnesses against him, of whom she is the chief witness.

Let us not become so politically-correct that we essentially authorize a show trial immediate preceeding the lynching.

[cally]

57. I didn't forget presumed innocent for one moment

I discussing the legitimacy of some of the arguments. Like how could consensual sex lead to bleeding three days later? I know it's possible, but probable???

[Padraig18]

60. That's a question of fact for the jury

A preliminary hearing is an evidentiary hearing, and will determine a great deal of the evidence that goes before the jury at trial. What weight the jury gives the evidence is up to them.

[cally]

73. NO, we're talking about the media

We all know about this. I might agree in a trial but this is public opinion.

[Padraig18]

75. So what?

The defense doesn't control the media.

[Mandate My Ass]

61. The vigorous defense argument would hold more water

for me anyway, if they waited until the actual trial to bring these details out into the open. The fact that they are leaking them to the press in advance smacks of cheap tactics to poisong the jury pool against her and they are trying *her* in the court of public opinion.

All of this attacking the victim by speculating on her consensual sex life before the trial has even started reeks of sleaze and desperation.

[Padraig18]

64. It's because it's an evidentiary hearing

It's a terribly messy affair, but this hearing will determine a HUGE portion of what evidence is and is not seen by the jury, so it's a life-and-death matter for the defense. Furthermore, the prosecution brought the evidence, so the defense is obligated to do their best to get it ruled inadmissable, etc., or they would be committing legal malpractice.

[janekat]

114. Bleeding 3 days later is MUCH more than just rough sex....

that's a serious injury.

[Padraig18]

115. The State of Colorado is entitled to try and prove that.

The defense, similarly, is entitled to try and refute it. :hi:

I actually haven't made up my mind on either side yet, because we've seen relatively little of the evidence; all I'm trying to do is explain the legal issues involved. Please understand that.

[cally]

126. It is..but

that has to be proved in the trial. I do not dismiss the claims but it has to be proved

[Padraig18]

128. This is a *hearing*...

... to determine a.) whether there even IS a need for a trial and, if so, b.) what evidence they State may use AT trial. The defense is not required to wait to inquire into these issues--- period.

[MojoKrunch]

161. What exactly constitutes "bleeding"?

I've bitten down on the inside of my mouth before where it took at least 2 weeks to heal.. I'm quite certain if the wound were swabbed there would have been "blood" for several days after the initial bite.

Now *I* know when the first wound occured.
But lets say I'm knocked unconscious after being beaten up.
How would a doctor know?

Mojo

[Clete]

35. Our leaders are taking us forward into the twelfth century

aren't they?

[LunaC]

41. Death by starvation and dehydration

for a woman who has committed no crime is cruel and unusual punishment and shouldn't be allowed. That being said, I think it's time to let this woman's spirit go - something she may welcome considering the length of her overwhelming debilitation- but in a humane way. We allow that dignity and consideration to our pets and prolonging life just because we CAN isn't always the moral high road where humans are concerned. Dr. Kevorkian would know what to do....

Flame shield now activated.



.

[DemBones DemBones]

52. I disagree about euthanasia for Terri, though I don't believe it's

right to prolong a life just because we can. I think everyone should have an enforceable advanced directive spelling out their wishes to avoid such situations but few people do, especially at age 26. Now she's 39 and she's lived those 13 years without therapy to help her improve. I think she deserves therapy. If she were a pet and we were a rescue center, we'd try to rehabilitate her and find her a new home, away from the owner who wants her pur down. Why do we rescue pets and not humans?

[janekat]

62. In addition, saw a poll where 80% thought that Kobe is Innocent

Now I wouldn't mind if they had said they needed more info (which was one of the options) but they said they thought he was INNOCENT!!! This after several witnesses have backed up a lot of what the victim said. She had "tearing" and "bleeding."

Several were making comments like "Why would Kobe need to rape a woman - he's a basketball star?"

Or - "What was she doing bringing a sandwich to his room." Or "I heard she was flirting with him." (As if that gives someone carte blanche to rape someone.)

I guess it's open season on women...

I'm glad I'm 5'7" and athletic... I've had to fight off a few guys before who've attacked me - looks like I'm going to need to stay in shape...

I just feel sorry for women who are smaller and weaker.

[DemVet]

69. Great post.

[Pastiche423]

85. What does this post

have to do w/the disabled in the U.S.?

[Padraig18]

86. Terri Schiavo is disabled n/t

[Pastiche423]

90. What does Terri Schiavo have to do w/the disabled in the U.S.?

[Padraig18]

98. Read the 2nd part of the post

She is disabled, and her husband had her feeding tube pulled today.

[DemBones DemBones]

120. Hope everyone who's interested in the Schiavo case will read this

article by Rus Cooper-Dowda, a disability rights activist who attended and reported on the court hearings in regard to Terri Schiavo, respresenting the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, which is particularly concerned with disabled people being euthanized. Cooper-Dowda herself was once in a situation similar to Terri Schiavo's, as she explains here:

"There is my own struggle from when I was considered allegedly as good as dead. But I had a single nurse who believed I was still "in there" and able to communicate. With my inked finger and her paper on a clipboard, we proved I indeed had opinions about whether I should live or die.

There was controversy as to whether my recognizable writing was communication or seizure activity until the BIG meeting. The doctors and my husband, who were spending an ever lessening amount of time with me, were granting that gathering as a courtesy to my mother and the nurses who felt I did not deserve to be written off.

At the end of the meeting my then-husband held up a message board to prove I couldn't use it. When asked to communicate something, I laboriously said to my spouse who was not allowing the most basic of care, "D-I-V-O-R-C-E Y-O-U." The doctors all laughed and attributed my phrase to more seizure activity.

Then my mother took the board and asked me to repeat what I had just said. I did so with, "D-I-V-O-R-C-E H-I-M."

There was never a question after that as to whether I could think or respond to my environment. The divorce allowed rehabilitative care, which brought me to being able to write the sentence that ends right now at this period."

more. . .

http://www.icanonline.net/news/fullpage.cfm?articleid=0AF62977-0792-494F-93F1226AEE3BA02A


Thanks for all the great replies in this thread. :hi:

[Pastiche423]

127. I am ecstatic

that I live in a state that has a Death w/Dignity law.

[deek]

131. This is not about death with dignity

It is a Disability Issue. Civil Rights issue. Human Rights Issue.

[janekat]

148. Wow. It's very scary about how little they know about brain damage

and how the brain operates. That's why NOTHING can be taken for granted when it comes to dealing with that organ.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

123. Anyone get info on the background of the judge in the Schiavo case?

Is the judge a man? (sorry, guys, but let's face it, this doesn't sound like a woman's decision - my bias is showing).

Is he Repub? (My guess is yes.)

What about his personal biases? --- Has he been divorced? / ex-wife get a bunch of money in the divorce? / did he have unhappy marriage he could not afford to get out of? / has he cheated on his wife? / did he marry for money? / etc. etc.

I question the thinking of a judge, as others note here, who would let someone who will financially and personally benefit from the death, like this husband, get his way to basically kill a disabled person who can't speak for herself.

[LalahLand]

136. Kobe could end up with LIFE IMPRISONMENT

Which could mean a separation from his wife, his daughter, his family, and the sport he loves. Hell yeah his defense needs to pull out all the stops. Lets be honest here. If a man you loved was accused of rape by some mentally unstable, attention seeking, suicidal young girl, would you want him to lay over and play dead? Add to the fact that he is a black man accused of raping a young white girl and that his jury "of peers" will most likely be all white and neighbors of the young woman. (And yes, the race thing is relevant, look up research showing the disparities in decisions based on the race of the defendant).

I know I might get flamed for this post but it had to be said. Right now this accuser has zero credibility in my book, but, if Kobe did commit the crime, then he deserves to go to jail. Period.

[Padraig18]

138. Common sense prevails

People are all nibbling like chihuahuas at issues that are *at best* of marginal importance. It is clear that the emotional venting going on is completely at odds with the *legal* issues in question. I'm about ready to beat my head against a rock until I lose consciousness trying to repeatedly explain this. No one can be bothered to read the legal explanations I try to lay out in a lucid, logical manner, it seems--- they're too busy coming up with the next bit of emotional blovium... :eyes:

[spooky3]

142. What makes you the arbiter of common sense?

Why aren't you considering that maybe YOU are not behaving well?

Why wouldn't common sense dictate that no one draw conclusions at this state about how credible a witness is who has not even appeared? The issue is not what legal procedure calls for. The issue is, what are the facts of this case? We aren't in the court room. The trial hasn't begun. You haven't seen the evidence or heard any testimony. All you have heard is what has been reported by the media which we have said repeatedly is anything but "fair and balanced."

Anyone who is ready to dismiss this accuser on the basis of the limited information that we have is BEING SEXIST in the very same way that some sexists were dismissing Anita Hill before she opened her mouth.

At the end of the trial, if virtually all of the info given to the jury is given to the public, then I'll have a lot more respect for differences of opinion.

[Padraig18]

152. Oh, horseshit!

This is not the 1st evidentiary hearing ever to take place in America, so take a deep breath and quit being all emotional about it. They're quite common, and this one is being conducted by the rules. Just because it involves rape doesn't make it one WHIT different.

Learn something about criminal procedure before you bloviate another bunch of nonsensical, emotional drivel.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

141. Kobe should have thought about that before he cheated on his wife

and daughter. Sports stars know that is a risk of their behavior. That's why Rodman's body guards hang out with their ear to his door whether he wants them there or not.

Kobe made himself a product and a label. Padraig can claim he is taking the legal high ground in this argument but he is simply arguing for the elimination or dilution of rape sheild laws.

He does NOT have all the facts in evidence to discern whether, in fact, the other set of underwear is material OR relevent.

The defense knew they could poison the potential jury pool with this evidence and line of questioning and that more likely than NOT was their intent.

He claims they have no control over the press. I agree. I also know the defense in this case is FAMOUS for cases with high levels of press and they are no slouches when it comes to manipulating that press and therefore the pool of potential jurors in their favor.

To admit any less is intellectual dishonesty.

Mentally imbalanced people get raped all the time...google mental hospital patient and rape.

on edit: nevermind I did it for you

http://www.google.com/search?q=mental+hospital+patient+rape&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

[Padraig18]

153. Excuse me?

"He does NOT have all the facts in evidence to discern whether, in fact, the other set of underwear is material OR relevent."

I happen to *know* that evidence introduced BY THE PROSECUTION is subjecty to examination BY THE DEFENSE! Your assumption about what I do or do not know is baseless; this isn't about ME (though you would like it to be, obviously)--- this is about criminal law and procedure, something I *DO* know about.

Reading your emotional blasts make it abundantly clear that I know MUCH more about what is occurring than do you.

[spooky3]

143. You have no evidence that the accuser

is any of the things you are describing.

There is no question that the criminal justice system has been unfair to blacks. But Kobe Bryant is hardly the typical black defendant. He is a wealthy, beloved, powerful person; she is a "nobody." While you are busy worrying about the potential racism in this situation, which is a legitimate concern, don't overlook the sexism in your own eyes.

I am weary of coming to what is supposed to be a liberal and liberal forum and seeing such sexism or at best, a lack of awareness on issues. We need to be as willing to call sexism what is it as we are to call racism what it is.

[LalahLand]

144. Right, I'm a female sexist?

No, I don't think so. Your accusation is actually quite ironic since I've been called a "feminist dyke" on many occasions.

I'm just calling it like I see it: We know of the depression, the suicide attempts, and the failed attempts at stardom. We know that she bragged about Kobe's anatomy a few days after the alleged attack. We know she left his room and the first person who saw her, a female, did not notice any sign of trauma or crying. We know that she showed up to the hospital with panties containing SPERM from another male (thought to be caucasian). Why are we still giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt? She has to EARN that from me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

145. I thought the brags about his anatomy were debunked

So depressed people can't be raped?

Suicidal people can't be raped?

People who have experienced failure in their past can't be raped?

The person who testified was her night manager and we DON'T KNOW if their relationship was a good one and we know others have stated the exact opposite.

There were actually TWO sets of underwear..the pair she was wearing which had semen from sex she admitted to on the 28th and the pair that had Kobe's semen from the 30th.


Why are you giving Kobe the benefit of the doubt? I do believe in innocent until proven guilty but A) the guy had body guards, who are supposed to protect him from OTHERS as well as himself...where were they?

B) He is the one who elected to cheat on his wife and daughter. WHile he should not be convicted of rape if he didn't do it, I see no pristine credibility on his part either.

But perhaps you can argue for a HIGHER PIE.

[janekat]

149. She admitted that she had semen on her panties from sex on the

28th? Or is that something the defense is claiming?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

150. NO she admitted to hospital physicians that she had sex

consensually on the 28th according to the article posted up above somewhere...be that as it may, I again repeat, I could have sex in my home and walk to my car and get raped.

Those who argue it is material and relevent are those who would argue that rape shield laws should go the way of the dinosaur.

[Padraig18]

156. 'Relevant'

The word 'relevant', in its *legal* meaning, is quite different from what its common, everyday meaning is. I've only posted the legal definition of 'relevant', 'material', etc. about 4 times in this thread. I will do so again:

Material
A fact is material if it is necessary to or can affect the outcome of a case. If a fact is not necessary and cannot affect the outcome of the case it is not material to the case. See also relevant, pertinent, and dispositive.

Materiality
The materiality of a fact is the degree to which such fact is or is not material. Frequently, during the course of a lawsuit, one party argues the materiality of facts offered by the other side as evidence. If the court finds an offered fact is not material, it cannot be used as evidence in the proceedings.

Relevant
A thing is relevant if it relates to a dispositive issue, i.e., an issue that can dispose of a controversy and thus decide the outcome of a case or some relevant part of a case. Relevant evidence, therefore, is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact, i.e., a fact that if believed by the court would affect the outcome of a case. All relevant evidence is admissible unless it falls within one of the categories of restricted evidence, e.g., hearsay or privileged communications.

Dispositive
Tending to dispose of an issue. A dispositive fact is one which, if proved, will decide the case. See relevant, material, pertinent.

Pertinent
A thing is pertinent if it directly relates to the issues of a matter. If a thing does not relate directly to the issues it is impertinent. A term sometimes used interchangeably with relevant is material. See also relevant and dispositive.

Source: http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

[Padraig18]

155. This pretty much sums up what's wrong with your arguments

"...Why are you giving Kobe the benefit of the doubt? I do believe in innocent until proven guilty but ....". You forget that under our system of criminal law, there is not a 'but' after guilty--- there is a period.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

151. I was going to send this privately but I can't

There are many of us women on DU that recognize sexist language when we see it.

Please don't base your impressions on those that either can't won't or don't

[Padraig18]

157. Good Lord!

Being a feminist has *nothing* to do with this! This is about an evidentiary hearing, and the issues of materiality, relevance and probative value of the evidence against a defendant.

Rape-shield laws cannot be used to undercut the defendant's *right* to confront his accuser, cross-examine the witnesses against him and inquire into the evidence introduced by the State!

[spooky3]

160. Thanks--I know that, and that there are men who do also,

but am as disturbed as you are by the fact that this is not more universal in this forum.

The psychology literature is filled with documentation of how both men and women, living in a sexist culture, share many of the same biases.

[Padraig18]

154. Liberals should also be concerned with 'innocent until proven guilty'

The fact that this is an alleged rape is beside the point.

[REP]

158. "Life, No Matter How Terrible"

I agree with the Schiavo ruling. I don't think anyone would willingly choose that kind of "life." I understand her parents may have trouble dealing with the medical reality of her case, but I still think it is wicked beyond words what they want done to their daughter. Some have chosen to see this as Wonderful Parents vs Conniving Husband; I see this as Woefully Misguided Parents vs Loving Husband.

I am disabled; I see this as a victory. When my time comes, I hope I am well protected from those who would force someone to stay alive, no matter how dreadful that existence is.

As for the Bryant case, most people familiar with the system already know that the so-called rape shield laws are violated every fucking day. It is not the least bit shocking that a rich man's lawyers 'dirtied up' the victim; it would have been shocking if they hadn't tried it.

[DemBones DemBones]

163. But you're talking about being kept alive against your wishes,

which you would logically resent. We don't know what Terri Schiavo's wishes are. Perhaps if she'd had therapy, she could use some sort of communication device, either a high tech one that "speaks" or a low tech put-your-finger-on-letters-to-spell-out-words one, and tell us what she wants.

Terri Schiavo did not have an advanced directive. She never told her parents she didn't want to be kept alive "artificially." Her husband didn't claim that she said this to him until after he'd sued and been awarded over $1 million for Terri's care. Who knows what she would really want done?

People who are completely unresponsive in coma sometimes "wake up" after years in coma. Terri Schiavo is not unresponsive. The doctors working for the husband say she's not really responsive -- those smiles aren't real, she doesn't really recognize anyone -- while the doctors hired by the parents think Terri is responsive. Who knows who's right?

There is, however, an assumption being made that Terri Schiavo is damaged goods and better off dead. Unfortunately, there are people who would extend the same judgement to Stephen Hawkings, to any quadriplegic or person with Down's Syndrome, to anyone with special needs. That's not the direction a civilized society should be going.