Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bombshell: Kobe Accuser Had Sex with Key Witness
The Globe ^ | 11/20/03 | Globe

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: attackthevictim; co; declineoffr; felonycrank; frsinksverylow; katefaber; kobebryant; lakers; lowlifeposting; nba; rape; rapeshield; saddayforfr; scummingoffr; slimethevictim; smearthevictim; vileattack
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 641-656 next last
To: Smogger
Bear in mind that this is The Globe.
21 posted on 11/21/2003 12:36:16 PM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PBRSTREETGANG
Is that Winona or Meat Loaf?

I thought it was Jack Black in a wig...
22 posted on 11/21/2003 12:37:02 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
I just read your locked thread and had a reply all typed and it got pulled, then put back, then locked!

First, even the prosecutors said the underwear evidence belonged to either one of two guys. This indicates she informed them of this information and most of us following the case guessed the bellman was one guy she'd been with.

You queried on the other thread how this guy can be a witness. Because the finding of her blood on Bryant's shirt happens to back up her story, in addition to a he said/she said. And if in fact events transpired exactly as she said, and the bellman did in fact hear the story from her that night and so on, how can he not testify.

Still haven't called Bryant a rapist, but "revelations" like this that are really not new news and don't demonstrate Bryant's innocence do not lead me to think he is. Innocent, that is. Also note that it does show Mackey's "three day" question was cleverly devised to imply 3 consecutive days when she knew it was not. Despite what others have accused me of, I do not begrudge Mackey using defense lawyer tactics to present a deceitful presentation of facts. It's what defense lawyers do. I always wonder why someone deviates from the strict truth to skew it, though,and it does not cause me to think it's because they have nothing to hide.
23 posted on 11/21/2003 12:37:16 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
So Michael Jackson shares a bed with a 14-year-old, has to post $3 million bail, and is the most hated man on earth.

Kobe Bryant has violent back-entry sex with a woman -- even if she agreed to some early snuggling -- and he's still a hero.

What am I missing?
24 posted on 11/21/2003 12:37:18 PM PST by armadale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead
Holy crap! Look at Winona!!!!

Yeah, and is that Liza Minnelli with Rosie?!

25 posted on 11/21/2003 12:38:07 PM PST by GalaxieFiveHundred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
A victory for free speech IMHO.

Dittos.

Free Republic is not a general circulation newspaper. We come here to get the news you can't get from the mainstream press. I think it is a bad idea when forums like this impose restrictions on the type of FACTS that they are going to allow to be posted.

This girl is not a 14 year old virgin. Indeed, it appears she is quite the opposite. This fact is extremely relevant to whether or not a Jury can believe she did or did not consent. But then this is the type of evidence that our politically correct legislatures and Judges have decided should be kept from Juries. In a "he said/she said" case such as this, the prior seuxual conduct of both parties is highly relevant. It should not be excluded. If she is sleeping with every Tom Dick and Harry, then you should be able to conclude that she just might sleep with every Kobe that came around as well.

26 posted on 11/21/2003 12:40:07 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
She planted the blood,hm?

And risked getting in legal trouble with police all so Pietrack wouldn't get mad at her, hm?
27 posted on 11/21/2003 12:40:19 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
It used to be that I'd totally ignore the Globe or the Enquirer. Not anymore after the Je$$e story broke.

This is a trip.


28 posted on 11/21/2003 12:40:25 PM PST by rdb3 (I don't believe in man-made "principles." I believe in Christ and what He calls right and wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: armadale
Because Michael Jackson has a history of this kind of bizarre behavior and people believe he is a pedophile of some kind whereas people don't believe Kobe had "violent back-entry sex."

Beyond legal presumption of innocence(glad it ain't you on trial, or we'd all have to assume you guilty just because you were accused) a lot of people have seen this story play out too many times before. Rape is the most falsely filed crime in the US and it immediately puts the accused on the defensive UNLIKE most other crimes.

Even with murder, many people would believe you to be innocent if the evidence were as flimsy as it is in this case.
29 posted on 11/21/2003 12:40:55 PM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
You don't have to "break" anything to me, jerk
You don't know anything about this girl, her sex life, or her relationship with her parents, friends etc.
Yet you want to smear her to protect your sports "hero"
You must be very proud of yourself
30 posted on 11/21/2003 12:41:01 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dead
Winona mug shot? Yeeeeeoooowwww! A quintuple bagger.

MOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo......
31 posted on 11/21/2003 12:41:32 PM PST by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Save the name calling.

It certainly did nothing to strengthen your argument.
32 posted on 11/21/2003 12:41:38 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
"Per Jim Robsinson's rules - no naming the defendant. Please pull this thread."

Please pull this!

The chip on your shoulder is as big as a log. Dosen't it get heavy?

Re: your "KantianBurke" page

33 posted on 11/21/2003 12:42:47 PM PST by G.Mason (If they are Democrats they are expendable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: riri
LOL!
35 posted on 11/21/2003 12:43:11 PM PST by octobersky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
How is she going to risk getting in legal trouble? EVeryone agrees she had sex with Bryant and everyone admits to it.

Now, even if he is acquitted, they can probably never get her in court for falsely accusing Bryant, unless her mom or Pietrack steps forward. And it's possible that only she knows she's making it up.

So there's no possibility of being in trouble for filing this allegation.

And if you're going to employ that argument, why not ask the same question in all false rape/sex abuse claim cases?

Heck, why not ask why people do a lot of things they think they'll get away with?
36 posted on 11/21/2003 12:43:22 PM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: armadale
Jackson was with a 12 or 13 year old in both known cases. Not 14, which evidently is important, as the charges involved specifically state "with a child under the age of 14".
37 posted on 11/21/2003 12:44:08 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: armadale
What am I missing?

Perspective?

38 posted on 11/21/2003 12:44:12 PM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Who asked you? Buzz off.
39 posted on 11/21/2003 12:44:13 PM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
Boy Howdy! I can tell you don't do the grocery shopping at your house.

;-)
40 posted on 11/21/2003 12:46:00 PM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 641-656 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson