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.

[P-Marlowe]

So a promiscous woman can't be raped?

That is an idiotic conclusion to draw from my statement. My statement is that a sexual history is relevant, especially in a case of alleged rape like the facts in this case. We know that the girl voluntarily went into Mr. Bryant's hotel room, alone, at night, late, and began having some kind of voluntary sexual relationship with Mr. Bryant within minutes of the time that she first met him.

The SOLE question that must be answered then is whether or not the act of sexual intercourse was voluntary on the part of this woman. Now she says that it was not voluntary. That's fine. Maybe it wasn't. If it wasn't, then it was rape. Then Mr. Bryant should go to jail. End of story.

But Mr. Bryant says that she consented. If she consented, then it wasn't rape and this girl ought to go to jail. Someone ought to go to jail and if Kobe is found innocent, this girl is not going to get charged. But even if Kobe is found not guilty, this girl is going to sue the bloody pants off Kobe, and Kobe's insurance company is going to pay millions just to keep the lid on the mess.

Ok, there's your background nick. Now perhaps you can suggest a way of legally getting to the truth of the matter without bringing out the skeletons in both of these people's closets, huh?

There is a STUPID law on the books that will probably prevent Kobe from questioning this promiscuous teenager about her documented promiscuity. But in this case NOTHING could be more relevant to the question of consent than whether or not this girl makes a habit sleeping with men on the first date or within a few hours of meeting them.

This is not a stranger rape or a rape by force using a weapon. In cases like that the sexual history of the victim is obviously irrelevant. In cases like that prostitutes can be raped and men who rape prostitutes should go to jail for the same amount of time as men who rape 19 year old virgins.

But the PC crowd has managed to extend the law to prohibit the introduction of sexual history in date rape cases, which is clearly insane and clearly a violation of due process.

Now you brought up whether or not Mr. Bryant's sexual history is relevant. Of course it is. But on Mr. Bryants side the question is one of use of force and not consent. Obviously Mr. Bryant consented, so evidence of his consensual sexual history is not going to be relevant. But evidence that he has forced himself on other women would be relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Bryant forced himself on this girl.

Yes Mr. Bryant was guilty of Adultery. Last time I checked that was not a crime in Colorado. And in most states where it was previously a crime, Mr. Bryant would not have been guilty of "Adultery" since the girl was not married. However, the girl, if she had consented, would be guilty of adultery since adultery is defined as sexual intercouse with a married man or a married woman not your husband or wife.

At any rate a lot of freepers are buying into this politically correct notion that a woman's sexual history ought not to be brought out in a "rape" trial. However, where the question is not the identity of the perpetrator, but whether or not a woman who went into a hotel room with a man she knew was married and was away from his wife and started to play tounge hockey with him would give consent to sexual intercourse cannot be answered without an inquiry into whether or not she had sexual relations with a variety of men on casual occasions in the immediate past or immediate future.

Now tell me how you expect Kobe to get a fair trial if this evidence is excluded?

[george wythe]

I still believe her

I understand your viewpoint, since I used to hold it.

I changed my mind after the preliminary hearing.

If the DA presents his famous evidence that 'will make my jaw drop' at the trial, he will convince me. I'm not a Kobe's fan at all.

I have moved to Kobe's side only reluctantly, agreeing with the preliminary-hearing judge about the weakness of the prosecution evidence.

[Dog Gone]

No, the judge won't allow that. Neither will the defense team. I just wanted to illustrate how futile the prosecution's plans are.

[F.J. Mitchell]

My outrage is at the smaller world of rule by Myopia actually. If a woman is fair game everytime she goes up to a man's room, it's time to change the rules of engagement.

I can deal with her going up to Kobe's room, I am sure she went of her own free will. I just have a problem of the fact that she was not allowed to leave of her own free will as is her right. I have a problem with the argument that even in the heat of a sexual encounter,any would argue that she lacked the right to say no more and would even deny her the privilige of dissenting to being soddomized.

[P-Marlowe]

I'm no Kobe fan either. First of all the man should do at least 20 years for being STUPID. But should he go to jail for rape? Not unless it was truly rape. And if the woman was sleeping with every Tom Dick and Harry, then I would tend to doubt that she would turn down Kobe. But then what if the evidence of her promiscuity is kept from the Jury. Well she looks like a little angel, so most brain dead jurors are going to think that she wouldn't sleep with her husband, much less a stranger, much less a Black stranger. So if Kobe can't get this evidence in, then he's going down whether he raped her or not.

[Howlin]

First of all, where in what you linked does it say that it was plainly visible to the naked eye?

And you obviously didn't read far enought:

Start HERE @ Line 14; be sure to see Page 14, specifically lines 1-7

[Howlin]

Yes, we sure did. And they still haven't. Some friends, eh?

[Charles Henrickson]

She could have had sex with every single male in the freakin' hotel, the college team down the street, a few guys at a convention a couple hotels over, gone in to Kobe's room and STILL have been raped.

True. However, realize that it then becomes astronomically harder to prove, on the basis of evidence, that Bryant was the one who caused the injuries.

Look, I'm as much against rape as anyone. But in a court of law, you've got to prove it.

I am no fan of Bryant. I deplore the bad behavior of so many professional athletes these days. I have a low opinion of Bryant, the admitted adulterer. But that still doesn't prove that it was rape.

[Howlin]

Sworn testimony is considered evidence.

It is also not taken as fact, but is cross examined and then determined whether it's truthful of not.

You just don't get on the stand and say something and it's the truth.

[Howlin]

Kobe Bryant denied that he had sex with her for a week

An absolute falsehood.

[Smogger]

I have a problem with the argument that even in the heat of a sexual encounter,any would argue that she lacked the right to say no more and would even deny her the privilige of dissenting to being soddomized.

First of all no one was sodomized as you assert, secondly according to the Detective who interviewed her (and what an excellent witness he made... for the defense) she didn't say No.

[cyncooper]

I most certainly did read that testimony, and it is exactly as I represented. In fact, Mackey tries to say it wasn't enough blood to observe through the outside and he says it's "not very...", then goes on to say how the shirt was tucked in. That is exactly what I typed earlier in the thread. That he said Bryant had the shirt tucked in and he collected it without examining it and the lab saw it when they got it, and later he saw it for himself.

And nowhere does it say they had to use a microscope to see it. He says he when he did see the streaks on the shirt, when looking at the inside of the shirt you can, quote, "definitely see it".

No mention of needing a microscope at all.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Fair enough. A trial is supposed to be a search for truth and we all are rooting for truth to prevail.

[Howlin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1009104/posts

[Carolinamom]

Refusing to give DNA samples here is sorta like taking the 5th....self incrimination? Interesting.

[Howlin]

because we're talking about twenty years of a man's life.

Do you know that if he's convicted, he'll have to register as a sex offender in every town he goes to?

Do you know that there's a chance he may not be able to live with HIS OWN CHILD?

Even if he were to get probation, the state of Colorado is going to strap a penile plethysmograph on him and show him videos of woman having sex with each other, et al., and if he gets an erection, he goes straight to jail!!!!

[F.J. Mitchell]

THe last I heard she was sodomized, where did you get informatiuon to the contrary?

Maybe she couldn't say no.

[Howlin]

A most excellent post!

[Charles Henrickson]

I don't think prior sexual relations for either the victim or the defendant is relevant myself.

I believe the proper term would be "plaintiff" not "victim."

It is unclear at this point who, if anyone, is the "victim" in this melodrama.