Alleged Rape Victim Won't Watch Videotape of Attack

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
UPDATE!

Judge won't force victim to watch sex video

"
Boys will be boys, and sometimes
they'll be massive scumbags

On December 7th, 2002, at a party in Burr Ridge IL, a girl passed out from drinking, and various "boys" at the party took the liberty of drawing insults on her body, spitting on her, placing a condom on her face, having sex with her, even forcing oral sex on her, while she was incoherent. Oh, and they videotaped the whole thing.

Joshua Kott of Countryside IL, the prosecution's first witness, testified that he participated in drawing on and spitting on the victim, but didn't perform sex acts on her. He pleaded guilty to battery, did 30 days in a work program, and got 2 years probation. Lucky him.

Then there's the rest of the scumbags, Adrian Missbrenner, Burim Bezeri, Christopher Robbins and Sonny Smith.

Smith worked the camera and coached the rest of them on, while Missbrenner and Bezeri raped the girl. Robbins had her perform oral sex. One of them also inserted a cigarette into her and lit it, while the rest of them laughed. The assault took place at 8335 County Line Rd, Burr Ridge IL, Missbrenner's home.

The judge issued arrest warrants for Missbrenner and Bezeri when they skipped a hearing, then fled the country. He revoked their bonds. The parents act like they know nothing about it, but that's likely utter bullshit.
"

Adrian Missbrenner Mugshot found on Google
---

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

CHICAGO ? A 20-year-old woman could face contempt-of-court charges if she doesn't answer defense attorneys' questions about a videotape of her alleged rape.

The Naperville woman refused to view or comment on the videotape during testimony Tuesday at the trial of 20-year-old Adrian Missbrenner.

Prosecutors say Missbrenner and others videotaped themselves having sex with the then-16-year-old girl during a party at the Missbrenner family's suburban Burr Ridge home.

Cook County Judge Kerry Kennedy on Tuesday ordered the woman to answer questions on the witness stand or face contempt charges.

The judge gave her until Wednesday morning to rethink her decision.

Missbrenner's defense attorneys quickly asked for the case to be dismissed. But the judge did not rule on the motion Tuesday.

--

A Naperville woman who on Tuesday refused a judge's order to view a videotape of her alleged rape could be jailed on a contempt of court charge if she does not change her mind Wednesday, and the judge is considering a request to drop sexual assault charges against the Burr Ridge man on trial.

"I am ordering you to answer these questions," Judge Kerry Kennedy told the woman after an hourlong recess to discuss her refusal. "The consequences are that you would be held in contempt of court, with incarceration possible. Are you still refusing?"

"Yes," she responded.

"I will give you overnight to think about this," Kennedy said. "Tomorrow, I will ask you again."

The woman was 16 years old when she allegedly was assaulted and videotaped four years ago at a party in the Burr Ridge home of Adrian Missbrenner, 20. He was one of four men charged in connection with the incident, and his trial on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography began Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court in Bridgeview. He faces 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted.

The woman answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour. But when Missbrenner's attorney, Patrick Campanelli, placed a video monitor in front of her and said he was going to play segments of the 20-minute videotape as he questioned her, she stated emphatically "I don't want to see it."

After the judge warned the woman that she was expected to testify Wednesday, Campanelli quickly asked that the criminal case against Missbrenner be dismissed.

"Your honor, my client has a constitutional right to confrontation of a witness," he said.

Assistant State's Atty. Michael Deno argued against dismissal. "This witness has testified to every other question, and she has testified that she doesn't have any recollection or memory of the videotape incident at all," he said.

Kennedy declined to rule on the dismissal request until after the trial resumes Wednesday.

George Acosta, the attorney representing the woman in a civil case against Missbrenner's family, said she has never viewed the video and has stated repeatedly that she did not want to.

The woman has said she did not know Missbrenner before going to his home with a girlfriend in the early morning hours of Dec. 7, 2002.

In opening remarks, Deno said the woman "made two mistakes: she got drunk and placed herself in the hands of the wrong people."

She and one of Missbrenner's friends began a drinking contest, which caused her to vomit, Deno said. "That's the last thing she remembers," he said.

Campanelli argued that the sex was consensual.

"One-night stands happen all the time, and in the morning you regret it," he said, adding that he thinks the witness' answers to questions while viewing the videotape would "strongly help Adrian's case."

The woman testified that she woke up in Missbrenner's house the next morning, naked from the waist down with vulgar words written on her legs with a marker.

She said she went home and cried, and learned later that she had been videotaped. Accompanied by several friends, she went back to the Burr Ridge home and asked for the tape, but Missbrenner denied it existed, she said.

Her parents then took her to a hospital, and police were called.

Several days later, Cook County police obtained the videotape from a friend of Missbrenner's, who said Missbrenner had given it to him.

Campanelli said Missbrenner was concerned the girl was going to claim that the sex was not consensual so he gave the tape to the friend to save, if needed, to support his claim.

The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted of sex charges after arguing she consented to sex with him in an incident that wasn't videotaped. Robbins allegedly is seen on one segment of the tape, but not engaging in sex with the woman.

Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.

Berezi fled the country after being charged and remains at large. Missbrenner also fled but returned from Europe in May 2005. A jury convicted him of violating his bail bond, and he was sentenced to six months in jail, which has been served while he was being held without bail on the sex charges.

The fourth defendant, Sonny Smith, 20, of Brookfield, who operated the camera, pleaded guilty to child pornography and was sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp.

In another rape case in 1995, a woman who had accused then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds of sexually abusing her when she was 16 was jailed for seven days after refusing to testify against him. She later recanted.

Reynolds was convicted and sent to prison but was pardoned by President Bill Clinton after serving more than 2 years.

abarnum@tribune.com
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
yeah im kind of torn on this.

The rest of the story says the tape helped aquit one guy. So it is possible she had sex with the guy willingly.

But if not i think its cruel to force her to watch it.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
The story leaves a LOT to be desired. I'm not coming to any conclusions since I don't really know what's going on.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: mugs
The story leaves a LOT to be desired. I'm not coming to any conclusions since I don't really know what's going on.

FTW
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
Why would she have to watch it? What would it show HER?
If there is evidence to aquit somebody then let the judge/jury/whomever watch it but why on God's earth would SHE have to watch it?

There's no way this will stand.
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: mugs
The story leaves a LOT to be desired. I'm not coming to any conclusions since I don't really know what's going on.

FTW

Yeah I tend to agree. At face value the judge sounds like an idiot, but there may be good reasons.

Originally posted by: captains
watch it
sue the judge
profit

Is that even possible? That would make for an interesting case...
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: mugs
The story leaves a LOT to be desired. I'm not coming to any conclusions since I don't really know what's going on.

thats because he just cut a porton of the story. it continues on to say that one other guy was aquited with help from the video.



A Naperville woman who on Tuesday refused a judge's order to view a videotape of her alleged rape could be jailed on a contempt of court charge if she does not change her mind Wednesday, and the judge is considering a request to drop sexual assault charges against the Burr Ridge man on trial.

"I am ordering you to answer these questions," Judge Kerry Kennedy told the woman after an hourlong recess to discuss her refusal. "The consequences are that you would be held in contempt of court, with incarceration possible. Are you still refusing?"

"Yes," she responded.

"I will give you overnight to think about this," Kennedy said. "Tomorrow, I will ask you again."

The woman was 16 years old when she allegedly was assaulted and videotaped four years ago at a party in the Burr Ridge home of Adrian Missbrenner, 20. He was one of four men charged in connection with the incident, and his trial on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography began Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court in Bridgeview. He faces 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted.

The woman answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour. But when Missbrenner's attorney, Patrick Campanelli, placed a video monitor in front of her and said he was going to play segments of the 20-minute videotape as he questioned her, she stated emphatically "I don't want to see it."

After the judge warned the woman that she was expected to testify Wednesday, Campanelli quickly asked that the criminal case against Missbrenner be dismissed.

"Your honor, my client has a constitutional right to confrontation of a witness," he said.

Assistant State's Atty. Michael Deno argued against dismissal. "This witness has testified to every other question, and she has testified that she doesn't have any recollection or memory of the videotape incident at all," he said.

Kennedy declined to rule on the dismissal request until after the trial resumes Wednesday.

George Acosta, the attorney representing the woman in a civil case against Missbrenner's family, said she has never viewed the video and has stated repeatedly that she did not want to.

The woman has said she did not know Missbrenner before going to his home with a girlfriend in the early morning hours of Dec. 7, 2002.

In opening remarks, Deno said the woman "made two mistakes: she got drunk and placed herself in the hands of the wrong people."

She and one of Missbrenner's friends began a drinking contest, which caused her to vomit, Deno said. "That's the last thing she remembers," he said.

Campanelli argued that the sex was consensual.

"One-night stands happen all the time, and in the morning you regret it," he said, adding that he thinks the witness' answers to questions while viewing the videotape would "strongly help Adrian's case."

The woman testified that she woke up in Missbrenner's house the next morning, naked from the waist down with vulgar words written on her legs with a marker.

She said she went home and cried, and learned later that she had been videotaped. Accompanied by several friends, she went back to the Burr Ridge home and asked for the tape, but Missbrenner denied it existed, she said.

Her parents then took her to a hospital, and police were called.

Several days later, Cook County police obtained the videotape from a friend of Missbrenner's, who said Missbrenner had given it to him.

Campanelli said Missbrenner was concerned the girl was going to claim that the sex was not consensual so he gave the tape to the friend to save, if needed, to support his claim.

The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted of sex charges after arguing she consented to sex with him in an incident that wasn't videotaped. Robbins allegedly is seen on one segment of the tape, but not engaging in sex with the woman.

Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.

Berezi fled the country after being charged and remains at large. Missbrenner also fled but returned from Europe in May 2005. A jury convicted him of violating his bail bond, and he was sentenced to six months in jail, which has been served while he was being held without bail on the sex charges.

The fourth defendant, Sonny Smith, 20, of Brookfield, who operated the camera, pleaded guilty to child pornography and was sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp.

In another rape case in 1995, a woman who had accused then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds of sexually abusing her when she was 16 was jailed for seven days after refusing to testify against him. She later recanted.

Reynolds was convicted and sent to prison but was pardoned by President Bill Clinton after serving more than 2 years.

abarnum@tribune.com
 

BrokenVisage

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
24,770
12
81
Maybe she thinks she'll get raped by the wellgirl from The Ring in 7 days if she watches it again?

I kid, I kid.
 

ggnl

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
5,095
1
0
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,078
136
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.
Am still trying to figure out why the judge wants the victim to see it.
That kind of thing would be better viewed by the jury in a locked room.

 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,742
569
126
I don't understand why anyone but the jury really needs to see the tape. If its what the prosecution says it is, it sounds like its pretty clear the girl was raped. And the fact that this guy fled to Europe means its pretty obvious that this fvcker knows he's guilty.
 

ggnl

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
5,095
1
0
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.
Am still trying to figure out why the judge wants the victim to see it.
That kind of thing would be better viewed by the jury in a locked room.

Actually, after reading the whole story I'm apt to believe she was actually raped. The guy that was acquitted wasn't involved in the videotaped incident.
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't understand why anyone but the jury really needs to see the tape. If its what the prosecution says it is, it sounds like its pretty clear the girl was raped. And the fact that this guy fled to Europe means its pretty obvious that this fvcker knows he's guilty.

His fleeing to Europe means nothing to me...sounds like he was smart. The way rape and sexual assault cases seem to work is that you are guilty until proven innocent. Personally, I'd run too....women have the upperhand in these kinds of cases.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.
Am still trying to figure out why the judge wants the victim to see it.
That kind of thing would be better viewed by the jury in a locked room.

Actually, after reading the whole story I'm apt to believe she was actually raped. The guy that was acquitted wasn't involved in the videotaped incident.

well he could have been acquited because the tape shows she was willingly having sex with the other boys.

as for the guy fleeing the country i think he actually came back after the one guy was acquited. but that really does not matter. it seems just getting charged with rape is enough to make a guy guilty.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.
Am still trying to figure out why the judge wants the victim to see it.
That kind of thing would be better viewed by the jury in a locked room.

If the story's correct, there can't be consent, because she was just too drunk to give willful consent. Sounds like all those guys need to spend a huge number of years behind bars.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.
Am still trying to figure out why the judge wants the victim to see it.
That kind of thing would be better viewed by the jury in a locked room.

Actually, after reading the whole story I'm apt to believe she was actually raped. The guy that was acquitted wasn't involved in the videotaped incident.


CORRECT. I guess reading is to hard for some here.


The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted of sex charges after arguing she consented to sex with him in an incident that wasn't videotaped. Robbins allegedly is seen on one segment of the tape, but not engaging in sex with the woman.

Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.


Yea if I was her I would not want to see what happened to me either. These guys need some serious time with a new jail buddy that shows them what rape is all about.

 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:

A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.

B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.

Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.
Am still trying to figure out why the judge wants the victim to see it.
That kind of thing would be better viewed by the jury in a locked room.

Actually, after reading the whole story I'm apt to believe she was actually raped. The guy that was acquitted wasn't involved in the videotaped incident.


CORRECT. I guess reading is to hard for some here.


The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted of sex charges after arguing she consented to sex with him in an incident that wasn't videotaped. Robbins allegedly is seen on one segment of the tape, but not engaging in sex with the woman.

Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.


Yea if I was her I would not want to see what happened to me either. These guys need some serious time with a new jail buddy that shows them what rape is all about.

And this kind of garbage is why he ran. No way he can get a fair trial.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |