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.
LOL
My comprehension skills are fine and I said "smears" but was corrected that the word was "streaks". And the actual testimony was "excretions", "stains", and "streaks" and I took pains to say I was NOT saying gallons and so on, so you're understanding of what I said is wrong.
Happens all the time.
Cops usually call it a business dispute.
DA's often file on it anyway.
I never said any evidence should be excluded. Ironically, Bryant may be the one who wants the evidence excluded. If they can prove that she met a man, and they had consensual intercourse, such that she was roughed up, in a very short span, then you've got something. If they prove that she is promiscous, but the sex doesn't leave her roughed up, then her history works against Kobe.
Oh my, yes.
And your surmise about how prosecutors deal with "iffy" cases is correct. If the witness is going to "flake out", the case is going to go south, so there's usually an effort make sure the witness knows what she's about to face at trial and to be sure she wants to go through with it. This is sometimes interpreted as an effort to discourage the witness, but it's really just exposing her to reality and making sure the people's money will be well spent.
With cases with slam-dunk facts, (public, injured, multiple witnesses, etc.) it's a different story.
Why is this a crime where the defendant has prove innocence?
It does if the prosecution is using blood from the victim to help prove his case.IE when, and who, might have caused the injuries. Might the activity opened a previous wound? We are talking one or two centimeters.!
I am not a Kobe Bryant fan, I am just following the case. Rape has been defined as a crime of violence by psycologists. Blood from a one centimeter wound imho is not violence. I realize that terror is a form of violence, but when she said no, Kobe stopped(it is in the testimony)and there was no DNA, no bolting out the door and a call to 911, no police report until the next day. I know there is rebuttle to these arguments, that is why there is a trial.
I don't see that (the charges being true) as a possibility in this one.
No, I am saying that in #115 YOU said: "And the record shows (I'm not claiming firsthand knowledge--just the record) that the blood on his shirt was "smears" and plainly visible to the naked eye."
Now where does it say that in the transcript? That's what you've been saying for weeks, and I'd just like to see it myself.
I understand that when the testimony is "The nurse observed", or the detective, when speaking of the shirt says "you can definitely see it" to mean one can see it.
That may be how you understand it -- or want to understand it -- but that is NOT the testimony.
As to he implies he saw it when he first testified until Mackey cleared it up, that's not the way the testimony reads from the link I provided giving his direct.
In fact, the link that you provided is ONLY for the Direct Examination and not the Cross where he admitted only after Mackey pressed him that didn't see the smear.
Frankly, I am at a loss at to why you insist that all this blood -- you know, "as much as she bled" -- was visible to the naked eye, as it's nowhere in the testimony. The nurse didn't say she saw it with HER EYES; and the judge plainly says two photographs were admitted into evidence and both were magnified!
Since it's fine with you to assume, I can assume that if it had been visible to the naked eye, they would have admitted a picture of it into evidence. At the very least, the detective would have said he saw blood smears with his own eyes.
They sure are. And anybody who can read can see that in neither the transcript nor the judge's ruling does it say anybody saw the "blood," either on the shirt or on her, with their naked eye.
Ah, but....
They're alleged to have happened during intercourse. That's the prosecution's case. Note that there is no other anatomical evidence of force. The question then becomes, which intercourse?
I haven't heard anything about it being televised, have I missed that bit of info ? Just curious...
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.