Posted on 11/21/2003 11:44:43 AM PST by Smogger
A new bombshell revelation in the Kobe Bryant case threatens to destroy the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness - whose testimony could send the basketball superstar to jail for years. Sources told GLOBE that the 19-year-old woman who has accused Bryant of rape told them she had sex with the prosecution’s star witness Bobby Pietrack - a week before she met Bryant.
Pietrack, a 23-year-old bellhop at the resort where the alleged rape took place, is the first person Katelyn Faber told about her encounter with Bryant. He can testify about her emotional state and physical appearance at the time.
But legal experts tell us that if there was a sexual encounter between Katelyn and the bellhop, it could wreck his credibility and sink the case of the Eagle County, Colo., prosecutor.
For all the details of this blockbuster story, pick up the new issue of GLOBE.
You do mean charges about the accuser, don't you?
IF??????????
"Congress passes Syria sanctions bill" -- 21 Posts. Link
"U.S. Slams United Nations Watchdog, Suspects Iran Still Lying" -- 20 Posts.Link
Sheesh!
I linked to the direct and said START here, because that is where the testimony starts and you had claimed the topic hadn't been discussed on direct when it had. I even linked your cross exam link for someone later. I appreciate that part because that's where the detective states explicitly of the streaks "you can definitely see it".
I don't appreciate being told I said something I did not. I'm very precise in discussing testimony and everything I said is backed up in testimony. I don't know why you mention the picture business as if I said something other than two photos entered and they were magnified. I've always said that since that is the state of the record. The detective did say the nurse observed them so they were photographed. If trial ever comes about and she testifies she can explain in detail how she came to see the injuries. If you look up how big a centimeter and a milimeter are you will see they are not microscopic.
What's that giant sucking sound I here? Why it's all the posters heading over to a Kobe thread.
BTW, Who's Kobe? ;)
Interesting. That's why I don't jump and beat up the accused without evidence, so I won't beat up on her either… just to say that prosecutors are sometimes too eager to make a name for themselves. Likewise, people are too often eager to release their negative emotions and prejudices by badmouthing others without evidence. The same people who defend the accuser in the Kobe case are the same people attacking Jackson.
You see, in Jackson's case his plastic surgeries and reclusive behavior are enough to throw him jail. No evidence is needed.
If they've been doing it intentionally to hide the witness's connection to the accuser, they've got some significant problems.
Stunting, perhaps?
Wasn't their alleged rationale that there were issues to litigate regarding the defense observing the tests? It's interesting that the prosecution is now, suddenly, interested is having all future evidentiary motions filed under seal. They didn't seem too concerned about that before they got kicked around the room during the prelim.
Game playing and "football hiding" usually goes on on both sides in these things, but it's generally not only useless, but counterproductive when counsel for the other side knows how to handle it. I don't think the D.A. has figured out quite what the fact he's not playing with the local yokels anymore means.
How do you know the nurse saw them before they were photographed AND magnified? That's nowhere in the testimony and if there is a trial, she will have no choice except to say what the detective said; he testified in her place and now she's locked into that testimony, unless she plans on being shown to be differing from the prosecutions story, she's going to say exactly what he said with HIS interpretation of what she did -- or she'll be shown his testimony and asked to refute it; somehow, I don't think the prosecutor is going to go for that.
If trial ever comes about and she testifies she can explain in detail how she came to see the injuries.
What you have failed to factor in is that the detective testified for both the accuser and the nurse so that the DA could "tailor" their testimony to fit his case -- and to keep them from being torn apart on the stand by Mackey; he gave ONLY the prosecutions spin until Mackey got a hold of him. What you perceive as the fact may turn out to be nothing more than the detective trying to save the DA and the sheriff's butts.
Can you think of another reason why they refused Mackey's request that it be typed? I sure can't.
After all, if they thought it was Kobe's, you can be sure they would have typed it Day One.
Exactly. They wanted the preliminary hearing open to the public!
Since you're going out of your way to accomodate, will you agree that a "streak" or "smear" of blood so faint that it does not bleed through on a white T-shirt, is not much blood ? Would you also be willing to consider there is no way to determine if that blood was from a fresh tear that night or from a one that might have occured on the 27th or 28th or 29th ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.