Letters to the editor | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Letters to the editor

editor@vaildaily.com

Shades of O.J.?

I was appalled to read that Pamela Mackey named the accuser in the Kobe Bryant case, not just once but six times! Did Judge Gannett have a hearing problem? After Ms. Mackey disclosed the victim’s name, the judge should have warned her that one more slip of the tongue would result in contempt of court. How could he let her get away with six times and not hold her in contempt?

If something’s not done to keep Ms. Mackey and the defense team under control, Johnny Cochran will be alive and well, defending Kobe Bryant, wearing a skirt and being called “Pamela Mackey.”



Hopefully, Judge Gannett will regain control of HIS courtroom and not let Ms. Mackey, etal turn Eagle County into another O.J. case.

Janet Johnson

Participate in The Longevity Project

The Longevity Project is an annual campaign to help educate readers about what it takes to live a long, fulfilling life in our valley. This year Kevin shares his story of hope and celebration of life with his presentation Cracked, Not Broken as we explore the critical and relevant topic of mental health.



San Juan Capistrano, Calif.

Taking sides

In response to the column written by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro on Oct. 8 and titled “Alleged victim is not accuser,” I would like to say this: We live in a day and time when people do some very strange things. Sure, Kobe may have raped this girl. However, this girl may have lied about everything, also.



Your opinion is valuable, so I hope you understand how to value the opinion of others, as well. Kobe’s life has been scrutinized quite a bit by media and people trying to make a buck off books and biographies, so yes we as the public do feel like we have a certain knowledge of who he is. We don’t know anything about the young lady who tells us this story of unwanted sexual advance.

In other words, if you are accused of raping my sister and I have to chose between your version or my sister’s version of the truth, I will chose her cause I don’t know you from Adam. My sister could still have lied. Sure it’s only a perception that we have of Kobe, and of course there is no way to know if the people in the journalistic profession have correctly shown us what we know of Kobe. Yet, if I see and hear what is available to me, then I must take that as the only perception when there is no other.

Those of us who remember the false allegations of rape and assault against Michael Irving and Erik Williams (of the Dallas Cowboys) understand completely that there are women out there who are quick-witted enough to take advantage of a sudden opportunity to falsely accuse a big celebrity of rape. We remember really well how the pundits and the columnists and the Dallas police wrote these men off as rapists right away. They were analyzed, they were discussed in the news by “experts,” and we heard from victims rights activists about how unlikely it was that someone would make up such an elaborate plan.

But when all was said and done, we found out that she did in fact make up the whole thing.

And we also know that people with great fortune are sometimes overcome with their egos and assumed power over everyone else.

So this really can go either way without much surprise. I would ask you and your paper to keep in mind that this woman is just as capable of lying as Kobe is about what really happened in that room that night.

You have certainly demonstrated that this case has already been decided. Your words in her defense tell us that you have made up your mind whether you claim to or not. If you believe that Kobe is lying, then you are (and were in your writing) compelled to protect the woman’s reputation. If you believe she is lying (which is equally heinous), then you

would be compelled (as some are) to protect Kobe.

Keep in mind: you would have no good word to say about a woman who falsely accused you of raping her, especially if you feared that the world might believe her.

There probably won’t be any new decisive evidence one way or another. Unfortunately, all we’ll have to go on is what we think of the characters of these two individuals.

In all likelihood the lawyers on both sides are only going determine who can win the war of character assassination. There is a 50-50 chance that the real truth and justice will be served. Maybe if the press will keep reminding us about this, then we won’t be too disappointed with the outcome. We know that the prosecutors and defense lawyers are going to spin everything to their side.

Hopefully in the midst of all this we’ll hear some solid reporting without extra bias or spin from the press. The jury will only hear the lawyers of both sides in that courtroom. Give us a chance to be in their shoes.

James Williams

Are you kidding?-

In regard to Quick Takes on Sunday: Kobe’s defense team failed? Are you kidding me!

They passed with flying colors. In fact, they did so well, they’ve got the prosecution on the defense. All along, the prosecution wanted to keep these preliminary hearings open, but now they want them closed? Give me a break.

The idea behind this was to poke holes in the prosecution’s story. Let’s see, first there was the little fact of no marks on the victim’s neck. Now, according to her, he grabbed her by the neck and held her in position for five minutes. If he’s using this particular hold to maneuver her, you’d better believe there would be some kind of mark on her neck.

I mean, the detective even admitted he didn’t see anything on her neck. If Kobe had held her down the way she claims he did, the detective would’ve seen first hand marks the next day.

I’ve talked with several physicians about this and they all agree on one thing: if you hold someone down by the neck in a forceful position (not necessarily choking them) for five minutes, you’re going to have some kind of mark that WILL be noticeably visible.

As for your statement that the defense bombshell posed in a question they may or may not have evidence to support: Could the injuries have occurred over the course of sex with different partners in three days?

Are you trying to tell me that they may-have NO evidence to support this? Buddy, let me tell you something. If there wasn’t evidence for this, Ms. Mackey would be disbarred this very instant.

I’ve spoken with some very distinguished lawyers (defense and prosecution), and both have told me that there is no way Ms. Mackey brings up a scenario like that without having hard, solid evidence.

In my humble opinion, I think that the big losers were the prosecution for two main reasons: They allowed doubt to creep in about the hands wrapped around the neck, and they allowed doubt to creep in about the vaginal tearing. Since these were the two main lines of evidence that the prosecution was going on, I’d say any kind of doubt about the two seriously jeopardizes the prosecution’s case.

Speaking of the case, I can’t believe that this case is even at the stage it’s at. That evidence is so uncompelling. What the hell was Sheriff Hoy thinking? The funny thing about this whole thing is that journalists seem to forget that there wasn’t a scratch or mark on her neck when the detective went to see her. Also, why didn’t she tell the detective that she had to perform oral sex on Kobe? She told the nurse, but why not the detective?

Don’t give me that crap about she didn’t feel comfortable saying that in front of the detective, because she sure didn’t mind telling-him everything else (which is much worse than the oral sex).

I’m just tired of you journalists leaving out important holes in this girl’s story. If you want to be fair, then print everything. Don’t just print what makes one side more favorable than the other.

Gary Buseyrulz

Weak case

There seem to be many opinions for and against what Kobe’s attorneys accomplished this last Thursday.

Your opinion seems to be very much swayed to the side of the accuser.

To say that Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon failed “big time” is a misrepresentation of the actual outcome of Thursday’s drama.

Yes, we knew Bryant was accused of rape, so there was going to be a story to be told.

We we’re all waiting for some graphic details to be revealed of how Kobe Bryant violently raped this woman. We the public couldn’t wait to hear about slapping, scratching, clawing and maybe some resistance, or at least some kind of fight from the accuser.

Many papers prior to the pretrial described a violent dark side of Bryant that we didn’t know. For a nation of Americans that grew up on guns and violence on TV the story we heard at the preliminary hearing isn’t fit for an episode of “LA Law.”

Is rape a violent act or not?

This was her version, and if that’s all the scary details we’re going to get, then we might as well all turn off the TV and go to bed.

I found the defense’s cross examination of Detective Winters far more revealing. How? The defense proved exactly how weak the prosecution’s case is. Bent over a chair?

Where was the girl’s resistance? Where were the scratch marks or bruises around the neck? Is anyone really going to buy into the idea that this girl had true vaginal injuries when it takes someone to point them out in a magnified picture? Hearing about stitches would have been much more effective (if it were true). Saying “no” twice and crying? Where was the resistance? Blood on Bryant’s shirt? I would like to believe that’s damning, but most men and women I talk to that have sex know that’s not unrealistic in any sexual situation.

After Pamela Mackey put doubt into every piece of evidence that the prosecution put out there, what we’re really left with is he said-she said.

Is that enough for this to go to trial?

Yes, it was risky for Bryant’s defense team to go through with the preliminary, but this hearing actually let the public in on something that was far less than sensational.

It was darn right boring. What was really thrilling was to see a topnotch defense break apart this case before it even reaches trial.

If nothing further is revealed Wednesday, I’m sure Kobe and his defense know there are enough holes in this case to put it away quickly once it reaches trial.

Tim Selvera

San Francisco

It can’t be

Cry me a river Jeff Shapiro, cry me a river. Did you ever think that it isn’t just because Kobe can score points in a basketball game that people support him, but that because after watching him for seven years one feels like they somewhat know him? And even when he broke our hearts by admitting he cheated on his wife, you still support him because you can’t believe that a person can be so two-faced.

Just for one second, flip the script and try to imagine that all he is guilty of is adultery, and although it’s a crime in the eyes of Christians, it’s certainly not punishable by life in prison.

You see, Jeff, you view this case one way, and it’s very apparent in your column last Thursday. The bottom line is we don’t know what happened that night. Instead of being treated like the second coming of O.J., whom we later knew led a very questionable life, there is not a single negative thing about Kobe to be said by anyone except his accuser.

She supposedly had attempted suicide twice and may be extremely mentally unstable, her friends jump at every camera with a red light to defend her and talk and talk and talk until a question concerning her sexual history arises. Meanwhile Kobe’s friends, family and teammates remain quiet. It’s only Kobe’s ex-girlfriends who even say a word, and they all praise him as a perfect gentlemen.

You see, it’s too convenient to believe that Kobe Bryant committed this crime. Every single thing that makes any sense says this case is bogus, and the only reason he’s even been charged is because he is a black man accused of raping a white woman in an all-white town.

Think for a second, Jeff, does any of it make sense? I ask you, Jeff, who is the victim here, who is the victim?

James Collins


Support Local Journalism