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 prosecutions 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 prosecutions 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.
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?
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.
And you obviously didn't read far enought:
Start HERE @ Line 14; be sure to see Page 14, specifically lines 1-7
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.
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.
An absolute falsehood.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.