|
|
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.
|
|
Prove it.
Huh ? Where are all the stories, the sordid details and the list of women clamoring for face time on TV or selling their story to a tabloids ? Sheesh. He has only been married for two years. He would have had to be a very busy fella to have found time for other women and his new bride in two short years.... He must have worked in a little time between all that skirt chasing to practice, train, play ball and film commercials.
Me too, BTW ... and I'm three hours later, here, than you. LOL
How does he go about proving that she is lying ? She opened the door for her immediate sexual history to be explored when she claimed injury, acknowledged having protected sex 2 days prior to the "alleged" rape, then showed up at the hospital bearing DNA from a caucasin on her person and on her underwear. What kind of attorney do you think Pamela Mackey is that she would allow that evidence to be supressed and deny her client a fair trial ? For most people the answer to that question is that she'd be a Fired Attorney and probably looking at disbarrment.
Uh, no. I make my posts based on the state of the record. The factual state of the record.
It's not my "opinion", it's the testimony on record.
As to why you seem to have a need to minimize the fact that her blood was found on his shirt and have others reassure you about it--that's your issue for whatever reason. I never quantified it one way or the other, except to note it was observed and it was there, and she bled enough to leave marks. If you wish to characterize it further as not much, go for it. I said I didn't see why her blood should be there but I plainly said that I was open to testimony about it.
Yes.
Funny how merely stating the facts gets some all riled up, though, with them making assumptions and all.
I don't know if she did or did not, so would not presume to say she lied when I have know way of knowing. Wouldn't you agree if she told them right upfront about it, that she did not lie?
Please spell out how you make this statement as if it has a factual basis.
The underwear wouldn't be it, as that's a different pair.
The vaginal swabs can't be used to buttress your claim as they haven't been tested. And besides, some think (and I don't discount it, either, though I doubt it due to the bleeding) that she had sex with the bellman AFTER the Bryant incident, so she wouldn't be carrying anybody's DNA on her when she heads to his room.
I advocate for the facts and the truth to come out at trial and I am accused of being a Rah Rah boy for Kobe (I hate the Lakers and everything they stand for-- Go Kings!) and giving aid and comfort to rapists everywhere. What is wrong with these people that want to strip a man of his right to a defense against the type of charge that any one of us could be falsely accused of?
I have personally seen a boatload of false sexual harrassment claims in my practice. People lie about that at least as often as they lie about back and neck injuries. This woman clearly has something to gain from these charges, so the charges need to be scrutinized and the evidence needs to come in.
When the sole issue before the jury is whether or not a woman gave consent to a sexual act with a stranger after voluntarily playing tounge hockey with him in his hotel room, it is highly relevant, indeed crucial, to discover whether or not she had done the same or similar things in the past. It is an issue of credibility. She says she didn't consent, he said she did. If she had never given consent to casual sex before, then her testimony would be incredibly strong. However, the more casual sex she had, the more likely it would have been for her to have actually given consent to Kobe.
You can bet that if she was a virgin before this incident, that the prosecution would get that evidence in. And the evidence of that fact would be critical. Wouldn't the fact that she was a virgin before this incident be evidence of her sexual history? And wouldn't it be relevant to the issue of consent? And should evidence of that type be excluded as well? I don't think so. To deprive the victim of the opportunity to prove that she had never had casual sex before would be just as wrong as depriving the defendant in this case from being allowed to show that she made a habit of it.
| If my son were accused of rape, and I believed he was INNOCENT, you can bet your bottom dollar the reputation of the woman telling lies about my son would be OF NO CONSEQUENCE. In fact, I would probably hope her reputation would get smeared all over the place, so she couldn't falsely accuse another man. If you can EVEN FOR A MOMENT, entertain the thought that he might be innocent, you could see plainly that her reputation means nothing to a man who might spend twenty years behind bars for a rape he didn't commit.
|
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.