But why? Why would it be disallowed. The forensic evidence showed that
none of the fluids in her panties belonged to Kobe. It shows that it does
belong to an unnamed person. Isn't that relevant? Seriously, how can it
not be allowed unless they are trying to railroad him?
I mean it is the prosecutor's witness making these claims. He's under oath
and is having to admit that the case is weak. If Bryant were not famous
would the prosecutor even bring a weak case like this to trial?
oh come on railroad? you act like hes this little saint that has been wronged by the system. number one he admitted to sex with someone other then his wife. number two the only one thats been slandered so far is her. your making this basis over half of the information and the media circus put on by the defense team.
now im not saying hes guilty but i am saying you cant hear part of the story and say oh poor poor adulterer boy.
now i happen to know of a real life situation where a girl got raped but because of lack of evidence the prosecutor wouldnt even take the case. so there has to be some evidence pointing to him and the prosecution is not gonna be stupid enough to put it all out at a pretraial hearing.'
you guys jumped all over me awhile back about hearing ALL the evidence before i should say anything about him being a rapist dont she deserve the same courtesy?
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
