Kobe's accuser

[Tenbatsuzen]

Well, I called it... the only thing hotter to a black man than a mocha-colored sister (see: his wife Vanessa and Joumanna Kidd) is a blonde white girl (see: Mel Hall).

And guess what Kobe's accuser is?

I saw the pics of her. She's cute, but she's not drop dead gorgeous. PM me if you want to see the picture.

[The Brain]

Actually, to put this on a serious note for a sec, I wanted to ask a question that Shepherd Smith put out there on FOX News (yes, I watch FOX News, so sue me):

Why is it in all of these high profile sexually-oriented cases, the media goes out of its way to protect the identity of the accuser, but splashes the accused's name all over the place long before guilt or innocence has been established?

I mean, this is why a person accused of any sexual crime cannot get a fair trial, simply because the public (of whom the jury is later comprised) will automatically assume guilt because nothing bad is known about the accuser.

Granted, now things are coming out about this girl having a drug overdose, or being emotional unstable following a break-up, but we don't <i>always</i> find these things out about the accuser, while the accused's life is placed under 24-hour scutiny.

[Sloats]

Originally posted by The Brain
Actually, to put this on a serious note for a sec, I wanted to ask a question that Shepherd Smith put out there on FOX News (yes, I watch FOX News, so sue me):

Why is it in all of these high profile sexually-oriented cases, the media goes out of its way to protect the identity of the accuser, but splashes the accused's name all over the place long before guilt or innocence has been established?

I mean, this is why a person accused of any sexual crime cannot get a fair trial, simply because the public (of whom the jury is later comprised) will automatically assume guilt because nothing bad is known about the accuser.

Granted, now things are coming out about this girl having a drug overdose, or being emotional unstable following a break-up, but we don't <i>always</i> find these things out about the accuser, while the accused's life is placed under 24-hour scutiny.

Because in the 70's, women who oft accused men of rape were then "put on trial" and were accused of "asking for it". I believe that rape is the only crime where the media tries to protect the accuser.

[The Brain]

Which now makes the situation <i>reversed</i>... where before the woman doing the accusation was scrutinized, and it was assumed she was guilty of misleading the guy, now we're being automatically led to believe that every guy accused really has forced himself on the girl.

I suppose the real answer could just be in the media's incessant desire to one-up each other on <i>something</i>, and every little speck of news they can find to throw out there, to the point where justice be damned, somebody has got to be a sacrificial lamb for the headlines.

[60FeetUnderWater]

I think its more about the fact that the accused is a celebrity. How often have we heard a celebrity accuse a random "regular person" of sexual misconduct?

Has that EVER happened? If it did, it would be interesting to see which side was dealt the "credibility card".


Also, as I'm sure you know, media outlets will do whatever it takes for the almighty rating/Neilson points. Playing the card of "well, do we REALLY know who Kobe Bryant is?" just begs for hundreds of programming hours geared towards having various pundits on the O'Reillys and Van Susteren shows of the world, serving no other purpose than to add as much dramatic flair to this case as possible.

and of course, they are just out to keep the black man down. (I kid.....I kid....)

can I get an "amen" from the congregation?!

[The Brain]

I think its more about the fact that the accused is a celebrity. How often have we heard a celebrity accuse a random \"regular person\" of sexual misconduct?
Has that EVER happened? If it did, it would be interesting to see which side was dealt the \"credibility card\".

It's not always celebrity. I'm thinking of the Central Park Jogger case as well. Nothing-- and I mean <i>nothing</i>-- personal was ever known about this woman until the past few months this year, when she came out with a book about the experience.

But the five or six kids they arrested and charged with the crime had their lives put under the microscope. The newspapers were doing exposes on "wilding", and every teenager in the city was being looked at like they were going to gang rape someone at any moment. And remember, I believe several of them were still <i>minors</i> at the time, and they weren't fully protected by the same methods used in other types of cases.

[60FeetUnderWater]

I guess, quite simply, within the media there's a natural tendency to protect the accuser at first solely because it would seem rather callous of the media to take the accusation and say - "well, are you SURE this happened?" "You're not LYING are you?"

Of course, it adds flavor to everything, keeps us tuned in, to see that a clean cut image having guy like Bryant be the one who is accused.

Brain, I ultimately agree with the notion that its bullshit that the accused is looked upon and scrutinized by the media as if the media itself was trying to find clear cut evidence against him.

Let the prosecution do their job and stop doing it for them Mr Rupert Murdoch - you deek.

[Sloats]

I think this is what Brian is leaning towards: Believe it or not, but black on white crime is quiet rare, but when it happens, the media loves to pump it up because all of us whities want to feel justified in our fear of you swoogies.

[Six-Pack]

Why is it in all of these high profile sexually-oriented cases, the media goes out of its way to protect the identity of the accuser, but splashes the accused's name all over the place long before guilt or innocence has been established?

Because its a law to protect victims of serious crimes. Something to do with they did nothing wrong so they don't deserve to be harrased, kinda like how Sloats put it (But as you can tell by my wording, I'm no law expert). There was a trial during the early 90s (someone help me out here, I'm having brain lock trying to remember names and deatails) were a politician was accussed of sexually harrassing one of his workers. Even when the trial was shown on Court TV, they blurred her face and put "Alleged Victim" at the bottom of the shot.

[The Brain]

Originally posted by Sloats
I think this is what Brian is leaning towards: Believe it or not, but black on white crime is quiet rare, but when it happens, the media loves to pump it up because all of us whities want to feel justified in our fear of you swoogies.

Nope, you're wrong on that point. When Tyson was accused of rape, it was against a black woman. Again, the only info that was known about her at the time was that she was a beauty pageant contestant, and nothing else. But again, Tyson's entire life was thrown out there, and he was judged by the public long before any trial ever took place.

Because its a law to protect victims of serious crimes. Something to do with they did nothing wrong so they don't deserve to be harrased, kinda like how Sloats put it

Whatever happened to the accused being "innocent before proven guilty"? Doesn't the accused person have the same rights to privacy that the accuser does? Wouldn't Kobe Bryant in this case have the right not to be harassed, or be forced to hold press conferences, to tell his side of the story until after any possible trial has been concluded?

<b>EDIT:</b> I just happened to mention <a href=http://board.yourmomsbox.net/viewthread.php?tid=1098&page=1#pid27493 target=_blank>Scott Peterson</a> in a different thread. Now, he is neither black nor a celebrity (at least, not before the case), and it wasn't even a sexual assault involved. But even in this case, all the skeletons in his closet are being let out-- affairs, behavior displayed, etc. before the actual trial is done. Is that fair to him, as the accused murderer, not convicted in a a court, but convicted as far as the public is concerned?