Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.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.
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.
Originally posted by: waggy
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
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.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.
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.
Woman must view tape of alleged rape
March 1, 2006
BY BILL BIRD Naperville Sun
A Naperville woman's refusal Tuesday to view or comment under oath on a videotape that reputedly depicts her gang rape could end up derailing the trial of one of her accused attackers.
Fifth District Cook County Circuit Court Judge Kerry M. Kennedy has given the woman until this morning to decide whether she will answer a defense attorney's questions about the video.
The tape is considered by many courtroom observers to be the linchpin in the criminal case against Adrian Missbrenner, 20, of unincorporated Burr Ridge.
Missbrenner is charged with criminal sexual assault in the Dec. 7, 2002, incident in his parents' home. Three other young men, including one who reportedly has fled the country, also were charged.
The woman, now 20, was 16 at the time of the incident. She has said she went to a party at Missbrenner's home and lost consciousness after an alcoholic beverage chugging contest.
She said she awoke the next day to find herself naked from the waist down, with parts of her body covered with obscenities that had been scrawled with a felt-tipped marker.
Testified she remembers nothing
The woman testified she remembers nothing from the moment she lost consciousness during the drinking contest to the time she awoke. A female acquaintance who attended the party reportedly told her Missbrenner and another man had sexual intercourse with her while she was unconscious, and that a third man videotaped that activity while a fourth wrote some of the slurs on her.
Testimony Tuesday in Missbrenner's jury trial went fairly smoothly until a television set and videocassette player were wheeled toward the witness stand where the woman sat.
She briefly became visibly upset over the prospect of having to watch the video or being questioned about it as it played.
Prosecutors Michael Deno and Cheryl Schroeder, of the Cook County state's attorney's office, argued that the issue of playing the tape while the woman is on the witness stand is moot. Deno said the woman already has testified she never gave any of the partygoers her consent to have sex with her and has no memory of what happened to her after losing consciousness during the drinking game.
But defense attorney Patrick Campanelli said after Tuesday's testimony he does not believe the woman's contentions.
"I think the videotape impeaches her on that issue," Campanelli said.
One suspect still at large
Kennedy on Tuesday warned the woman she could face charges of contempt of court and possibly jail if she continues to refuse to view the tape and answer Campanelli's questions about it.
Campanelli on Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss the case against Missbrenner based on the woman's refusal to watch the video and submit to questions about it. Kennedy delayed his decision on that motion until this morning.
Missbrenner fled to Serbia for eight months while free on bail and awaiting trial. He returned to the United States in May, shortly after one of his alleged accomplices, Christopher Robbins, 21, of Brookfield, was acquitted of all charges in the case.
A third man, Sonny Smith, 21, of Brookfield, pleaded guilty to videotaping the incident and served time in a state-run boot camp program.
The fourth suspect, Burim Bezeri, 20, of Lyons, reportedly fled to Albania after being freed on bail. He remains at large.
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.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.
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.
Originally posted by: cherrytwist
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.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.
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.
Please explain. If he isn't guilty, he has nothing to hide.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
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.
Originally posted by: Jzero
I wish the articles made mention of why the defense believes that forcing her to watch the tape is germane to the case.
A female acquaintance who attended the party reportedly told her Missbrenner and another man had sexual intercourse with her while she was unconscious, and that a third man videotaped that activity while a fourth wrote some of the slurs on her.
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
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.
yeap. with rape case's the guy is guilty until proven innocent. then he is still guitly but the courts made a mistake. after all who would lie about it?
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
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.
yeap. with rape case's the guy is guilty until proven innocent. then he is still guitly but the courts made a mistake. after all who would lie about it?
No need to lie when the whole thing is videotaped.
But none of us have seen it, so your opinion that he may be innocent is as ignorant Marlin's opinion that he may be guilty. He's getting his day in court, so there's no need to get offended over someone's uninformed opinion.
My opinion is that if she was incoherent enough for them to spit and write vulgar things on her, the she was probably not coherent enough to consent to sex. By my definition that's rape.
Originally posted by: BlueFlamme
Originally posted by: Mursilis
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.
She should be charged with underage intoxication if she is using that as her defense. It amazes me at how many people try to claim ignorance of the results of drinking yourself into an abyss. It is worse when underage kids complain about the drinking age then do something stupid like this and then try to pawn off the blame.
I'm not saying she got what she deserved, but how can you claim that it was rape when she claims not to remember anything after vomiting? I mean she could have been telling this 16 yr old "take me, take me, take me, i want to ride you all night long." It does not say whether he kept encouraging her to drink or whether she brough the beer and started the orgy.
I don't have a solution, but the current justice system is biased against men in rape and custody cases. And then won't punish the true criminals hard enough (multiple rape charges, deadbeat dads, child molestors, etc.)
Originally posted by: Jzero
I wish the articles made mention of why the defense believes that forcing her to watch the tape is germane to the case.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Jzero
I wish the articles made mention of why the defense believes that forcing her to watch the tape is germane to the case.
Apparently, the defense attorney wanted to ask her questions about specific scenes in the tape. It's part of the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses, although I'd suspect the defense attorney is just trying to provoke a mistrial.
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Feldenak
And this kind of garbage is why he ran. No way he can get a fair trial.
yeap. with rape case's the guy is guilty until proven innocent. then he is still guitly but the courts made a mistake. after all who would lie about it?
No need to lie when the whole thing is videotaped.
But none of us have seen it, so your opinion that he may be innocent is as ignorant Marlin's opinion that he may be guilty. He's getting his day in court, so there's no need to get offended over someone's uninformed opinion.
My opinion is that if she was incoherent enough for them to spit and write vulgar things on her, the she was probably not coherent enough to consent to sex. By my definition that's rape.
no my opinion that he may be innocent is based on the law. you know the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty part?
IF the jury comes back with a guilty verdict they should then hoist the boys up by there nutsack and torture them until they die. but they are still Innocent under the law.
with one guy getting aquited with the video is enough for me to have doubts for now.
Originally posted by: Jzero
I wish the articles made mention of why the defense believes that forcing her to watch the tape is germane to the case.
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Ok, a few things, she isn't a witness to a crime she is a VICTIM of a crime, the fact that the judge can't make this distinction is appalling. Additionally, what is the purpose of asking questions about the crime of a supposed witness (an emotional victim) when there is indisputable video evidence?
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Ok, a few things, she isn't a witness to a crime she is a VICTIM of a crime, the fact that the judge can't make this distinction is appalling. Additionally, what is the purpose of asking questions about the crime of a supposed witness (an emotional victim) when there is indisputable video evidence?
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: shortylickens
With all the BS in the world today, I'm leaning towards B. But I havent seen the video so it doesnt matter.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.
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.