Bombshell: Kobe Accuser Had Sex with Key Witness

The Globe ^ | 11/20/03 | Globe

[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.

[Orangedog]

Hey genius, how is it self absorbed to put a "don't bother flaming me based on what's written here" in MY profile page?

Considering the only thing on your profile page is your screed warning people not to bother flaming you and nothing else, I'd say you're pretty wrapped up in your own thing. But hey, deal with your own insecurities however you like. Your preferred method seems to be walking around with a chip on your shoulder and being generally abrasive.

[nickcarraway]

There is no leap. Kobe Bryant denied that he had sex with her for a week. Then he had a press conference that can only be described as Clintonian. If you can't see the similarities, comparing them side by side, you are fooling yourself. Kobe trotted out his wife, and went on about how he was such a decent family man, who made one mistake. Just like Clinton. Vanessa=Hillary.

Het, some women get $4 million rings, some women get Senate seats. Whatever floats their boat.

[nickcarraway]

And, under the Constitution, he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, we all know that that is true in court. But we aren't in court. Were you going around saying that of the 9/11 terrorists or the D.C. sniper? Because they also must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[dirtboy]

If you can't see the similarities, comparing them side by side, you are fooling yourself.

No, the leap was that you stated that Clinton critics owe Slick an apology if we doubt the evidence presented so far that Kobe committed rape.

[proud American in Canada]

I really don't understand why these Kobe threads are so vile. For that very reason, I haven't posted on a Kobe thread in quite a while, but when I saw the Globe on the newstands tonight, I knew that someone here would post the story. :)

At first, after reading the stories such as the evidence regarding rape would be "shocking", etc., I was angry at the knee-jerk Kobe supporters; after all, why should they automatically assume he's innocent when nothing about the case is known (and by the way, the "court of public opinion," also known as Free Republic mega-threads, is not the same thing as a court of law; we are free to chat and speculate). I couldn't stand the vicious comments directed against the purported victim.

On the other hand, as stories like these begin to come out, I am beginning to wonder. No, I haven't gone to Smoking Gun and read the entire preliminary hearing. I expected evidence that would "make my jaw drop" (according to article titles); I'm not sure if I have seen it.

It depends, perhaps, on what the definition of a drop of blood is: is it a bright red blood stain or perhaps diluted with... oh never mind. I don't want to go there. :)

I'm a lawyer and did an internship at a prosecutor's office and yes, it gave me a bias: I figured, well, if the DA wanted to go ahead with things, there must be something "there" there. But then again, perhaps this DA decided to go ahead (against his better judgment, if it had been any other defendant) just because of the name recognition it would bring him.

I really don't know. Anyway, I've been typing so long that I can't really remember the point of my post... but I KNOW there is one thing we can ALL agree on:

The news networks have GOT to be praying/pulling strings, etc., to make sure that any hearing or other court appearance involving Kobe doesn't conflict with any hearing or court appearance involving Michael Jackson. ;)

[dirtboy]

Were you going around saying that of the 9/11 terrorists or the D.C. sniper?

Well, there wasn't anything left of the 9/11 terrorists, and they caught the D.C. sniper with the gun in his trunk, so I think that the initital perception of the case was much more realistically that of being beyond reasonable doubt than what we've seen so far with the Kobe Bryant case.

[Jim Robinson]

We do. But one of our functions is to critique the press. We do that by posting their stuff and asking for comment. Consequently, there's a whole lot of very low standard media material that gets posted here. Every day.

[dirtboy]

Her sworn testimony is evidence that it did.

Next, that evidence should be corroborated with other evidence. So far, the opposite has happened.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"We're talking about twenty years of a man's life."

We are talking of everyday being open season on our Mothers, daughters,grandaughters , sisters, aunts, and female cousins, to any and all pieces of feces who are of the opinion that a woman is nothing but a piece of meat to do with as they please, if we put her in the position of either suffering in silence or being accused of being a wanton horney slut by the Lawyer SOB's who will destroy whom ever they must to get their pervert freed so he can do it again and keep the fees rolling in.

I don't believe there is anything in the Constitution that implies that the accuser is guilty of perjury until they prove that the innocent until proven guilty perp has been convicted.

[Dog Gone]

If Marcia Clark was discredited in the OJ case, when every intelligent American knew that OJ was guilty as sin, one can only wonder what will happen to the DA who prosecutes this case.

Doing something to become famous only pays off if it's successful. This case has no chance of success, and I've not seen one respected legal commentator disagree with that assessment.

The cardinal rule of prosecutions is that you don't go to trial with a case unless you're confident of winning. My assessment is that this case had less than a 10% chance before this revelation. Assuming it's not discredited, it's now somewhere in the decimal points.

[dirtboy]

We are talking of everyday being open season on our Mothers, daughters,grandaughters , sisters, aunts, and female cousins, to any and all pieces of feces who are of the opinion that a woman is nothing but a piece of meat to do with as they please, if we put her in the position of either suffering in silence or being accused of being a wanton horney slut by the Lawyer SOB's who will destroy whom ever they must to get their pervert freed so he can do it again and keep the fees rolling in

No one forced that girl to go up to Kobe's room. Deal with it, instead of demanding that a man be thrown in jail on flimsy evidence because of your outrage at the larger world.

[playball0]

Many comments on this thread seem to miss a larger point.

Trials are not about finding the truth. Trials are about demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, what can be proven.

The government only had the right to take away someone's freedom if the government can prove its case. I would not want it any other way.

If the victim has had recent sex with a key prosecution witness, that naturally calls in question his unbiasness (credibility). That does not mean that his testimony would be false, but a reasonable person could question its reliability.

Finding additional semen in the accuser's panties, not from the accused, seems to me to throw reasonable doubt as to who caused "the rape"

Many comments in this thread seem to imply that if the woman says it's rape then it's rape. Courts don't work that way. A woman's testimony is part of the evidence in a case. How much weight to put on that evidence depends on her credibility.

I don't know if Kobe raped this woman. I can see the government is going to have a very difficult time proving it.

[dirtboy]

Very clearly and succinctly stated.

[TheOtherOne]

One thing is for sure, us "trial junkies" are sure going to have a lot to watch this winter, eh? :-)

Did you see the Jerry Garcia probate trial? That was some real entertainment. Probably one of the more interesting civil trials I've seen on TV.

Court Trials - the original 'reality' show.

[Dog Gone]

The only way the DA will get a conviction is if he is able to get a jury comprised entirely of women who are utterly convinced that if a black man had sex with a white woman, it had to be rape.

That's his only hope.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Your girl friend either had a regularity problem, cancer, you missed the target by a few inches, or you should confine your activities to those who dwell behind the barn.

That's it, the bell man made her bleed and that is why he was tailing them around, just in case she needed a tranfusion.

Maybe KObe set her up.

I still believe her.

[Carolinamom]

Thanks. At the time I posted I had not read the whole thread. Just catching up now.

Since Kobey has already admitted to sexual intercourse w/the accuser (no semen, however), the bottom line is whether or not it was rape...forced intercourse. With the other evidence in her panties and the microscopic amount of blood on his shirt, his defense attorney imo can reasonably raise "reasonable doubt" as to whether the act was forcible rape. Only 2 people really know the answer to that.

Just my opinion since I'm not a lawyer.

[playball0]

If the judge allowed that, the conviction would be easily overturned on appeal. A jury of 12 angry women does not sound like a jury of his peers.