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 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 641-656 next last
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I guess the prosecutors who take cases like this really really need to make the victim completely aware that any surprises etc., that the defense drags up could destroy their case...especially if the charges are true.

You do mean charges about the accuser, don't you?

501 posted on 11/21/2003 8:11:33 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
LOL. I think I got it just about right.
502 posted on 11/21/2003 8:13:25 PM PST by Darlin' ("I will not forget this wound to my country." President George W Bush, 20 Sept 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

Comment #503 Removed by Moderator

To: Motherbear
If this girl had numerous sexual partners....

IF??????????

504 posted on 11/21/2003 8:29:02 PM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: DreamWeaver
Looks like there will be plenty to go around; I'm almost positive I heard that this judge has said the Kobe trial can be televised.

And I'm betting MJ is, too, or else Geragos wouldn't be interested. He LOVES to see himself on TV!
505 posted on 11/21/2003 8:29:30 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

Comment #506 Removed by Moderator

Comment #507 Removed by Moderator

To: Smogger
"Bombshell: Kobe Accuser Had Sex with Key Witness" -- 505 Posts.

"Congress passes Syria sanctions bill" -- 21 Posts. Link

"U.S. Slams United Nations Watchdog, Suspects Iran Still Lying" -- 20 Posts.Link

Sheesh!

508 posted on 11/21/2003 8:39:52 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Hey, lighten up; it's Friday night.
509 posted on 11/21/2003 8:40:27 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I don't insist on "all this blood". I said there were blood smears (corrected to streaks) observed on his shirt. That is the state of the record. You can say all day that they were microscopic, but that is nowhere in the record at all.

I linked to the direct and said START here, because that is where the testimony starts and you had claimed the topic hadn't been discussed on direct when it had. I even linked your cross exam link for someone later. I appreciate that part because that's where the detective states explicitly of the streaks "you can definitely see it".

I don't appreciate being told I said something I did not. I'm very precise in discussing testimony and everything I said is backed up in testimony. I don't know why you mention the picture business as if I said something other than two photos entered and they were magnified. I've always said that since that is the state of the record. The detective did say the nurse observed them so they were photographed. If trial ever comes about and she testifies she can explain in detail how she came to see the injuries. If you look up how big a centimeter and a milimeter are you will see they are not microscopic.

510 posted on 11/21/2003 8:45:04 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Hey, lighten up; it's Friday night.

What's that giant sucking sound I here? Why it's all the posters heading over to a Kobe thread.

BTW, Who's Kobe? ;)

511 posted on 11/21/2003 8:47:38 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Darlin'
No, you didn't have it right. I went out of my way to say that all I was saying was some blood was found on his shirt and it wasn't microscopic, but I wasn't saying gallons or anything either.

I said right here :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026632/posts?page=167#167

**I didn't say "so much" blood, I said "as much a she did" in order to leave smears. I didn't claim it was gallons or deviate at all from what is a known fact. She bled enough to leave smears on his shirt is all I said, and I, for one, do not find that normal or usual, on its face. I'll wait for more testimony to persuade me it's more common than I think.**


512 posted on 11/21/2003 8:49:44 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
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.

Interesting. That's why I don't jump and beat up the accused without evidence, so I won't beat up on her either… just to say that prosecutors are sometimes too eager to make a name for themselves. Likewise, people are too often eager to release their negative emotions and prejudices by badmouthing others without evidence. The same people who defend the accuser in the Kobe case are the same people attacking Jackson.

You see, in Jackson's case his plastic surgeries and reclusive behavior are enough to throw him jail. No evidence is needed.

513 posted on 11/21/2003 8:53:21 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (I love the smell of winning, the taste of victory, and the joy of each glorious triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Missing on the thread so far is any discussion about the connection between the claim that their star witness was the accuser's partner, and the prosecution's refusal to permit the testing of the rest of the samples recovered from the accuser.

If they've been doing it intentionally to hide the witness's connection to the accuser, they've got some significant problems.

514 posted on 11/21/2003 8:55:04 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
That isn't missing from the thread, but it did get lost after early references to it.

I commented myself that they best get those vaginal swabs tested and if they're not Bryant's that's it.

I would love to know why they haven't tested them.

515 posted on 11/21/2003 8:57:05 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I would love to know why they haven't tested them.

Stunting, perhaps?

Wasn't their alleged rationale that there were issues to litigate regarding the defense observing the tests? It's interesting that the prosecution is now, suddenly, interested is having all future evidentiary motions filed under seal. They didn't seem too concerned about that before they got kicked around the room during the prelim.

Game playing and "football hiding" usually goes on on both sides in these things, but it's generally not only useless, but counterproductive when counsel for the other side knows how to handle it. I don't think the D.A. has figured out quite what the fact he's not playing with the local yokels anymore means.

516 posted on 11/21/2003 9:25:29 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
The difference in you and some of us is that when he says "you can definitely see it" you assume he meant with his naked eye, when he just as well could have meant "under the microscope." As I said, that is nowhere in the testimony. And the fact that they were found by the lab leads most people to believe that they were, in fact, microscopic. Whichever they were, the detective had to be SHOWN the "smears" on the t-shirt he had in his own hands at one time.

How do you know the nurse saw them before they were photographed AND magnified? That's nowhere in the testimony and if there is a trial, she will have no choice except to say what the detective said; he testified in her place and now she's locked into that testimony, unless she plans on being shown to be differing from the prosecutions story, she's going to say exactly what he said with HIS interpretation of what she did -- or she'll be shown his testimony and asked to refute it; somehow, I don't think the prosecutor is going to go for that.

If trial ever comes about and she testifies she can explain in detail how she came to see the injuries.

What you have failed to factor in is that the detective testified for both the accuser and the nurse so that the DA could "tailor" their testimony to fit his case -- and to keep them from being torn apart on the stand by Mackey; he gave ONLY the prosecutions spin until Mackey got a hold of him. What you perceive as the fact may turn out to be nothing more than the detective trying to save the DA and the sheriff's butts.

517 posted on 11/21/2003 9:28:43 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
If they've been doing it intentionally to hide the witness's connection to the accuser, they've got some significant problems.

Can you think of another reason why they refused Mackey's request that it be typed? I sure can't.

After all, if they thought it was Kobe's, you can be sure they would have typed it Day One.

518 posted on 11/21/2003 9:30:53 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
They didn't seem too concerned about that before they got kicked around the room during the prelim.

Exactly. They wanted the preliminary hearing open to the public!

519 posted on 11/21/2003 9:32:01 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
FOFLOL. I will admit, you seem determined to take the facts and make them fit your opinion.

Since you're going out of your way to accomodate, will you agree that a "streak" or "smear" of blood so faint that it does not bleed through on a white T-shirt, is not much blood ? Would you also be willing to consider there is no way to determine if that blood was from a fresh tear that night or from a one that might have occured on the 27th or 28th or 29th ?

520 posted on 11/21/2003 9:36:57 PM PST by Darlin' ("I will not forget this wound to my country." President George W Bush, 20 Sept 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 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