Alleged Rape Victim Won't Watch Videotape of Attack

[yowolabi]

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?

The prosecution already asked her questions. The defense has the right to fully cross-examine any witness who answers questions from the prosecution. Imagine how bad things would be if any witness in a court case could answer questions from one side and then refuse to answer questions from the other.

Also, the video isn't indisputable. Do you really think if it showed a clear rape, the defense would be the one pushing to show it in front of the jury? Clearly there are things on there which the defense thinks would help it out.

And as far as the people that are wondering why she has to view it..... the problem is that she has to answer questions about specific scenes on it, and that can't be done without watching it. Her answers to those questions could be the difference between this guy getting convicted or not... it's important. She has refused to both look at it and answer questions about it.

 

[Jeraden]

I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Feldenak

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.

While I agree their is a bias in the system with regards to these cases...wtf are you talking about? If there's a video tape of this guy screwing her while she's passed out, writing whore on her legs and spitting on her I think that it might actually be possible she was raped. I know that its a stretch. Or is this all just an elaborate scheme of a 16 year old girl? I haven't seen the tape and the media has a way of sensationalizing everything, but if there's video evidence it seems like it'd be hard for this guy not to get a fair trial one way or the other.

Lets not make this guy out to be some sort of good hearted victim here. Best case scenario is he's not a rapist, just a piece of trash human being.

What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.

IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

"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?"

Obviously she didn't answer questions, that the defense states and the Judge agrees, are relevant to the case.

 

[Jeraden]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

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

"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.

So she answered some questions, just none about the videotape, which I'm guessing is the key piece of evidence against the defendent.

 

[BlueFlamme]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

Going back and reading it helps, you should try it yourself:

[Defense Attorney] said, adding that he thinks the witness' answers to questions while viewing the videotape would "strongly help Adrian's case."

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.

The article never claimed she was passed out during the sex, only when they spit on her and wrote on her legs when she was passed out. From this article it is not clear whether the tape shows Missbrenner having sex with her after Berezi, but it could show her attitude before the sex with Berezi and after (for all we know she could have said "who's wants sloppy seconds?").

The point is the tape is evidence of that night (used to convict in the child-porn case) and as the accuser the defense has a right to be to ask her questions about what she is doing or saying or who she is speaking with etc. etc. during the tape of that night. Obviously you can't answer the questions if you have not seen the tape.

 

[erikistired]

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.

it sounds like he has questions that he wants to ask that would be supported by the tape and she doesn't want to answer them. just showing the tape might not have the full effect intended.

and these days a woman points her finger and you're in jail. not that it justifies fleeing the country, but it doesn't make him guilty.

 

[erikistired]

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.

if the tape really shows that why would the defense be pushing for it to be seen?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.

IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.

No one will remember his name after the trial if he is found innocent. It may take some time, or even distance, but "forever guily" is BS.

Any exposure could affect potential jury members. Should we ban news?

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Feldenak

What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.

IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.

No one will remember his name after the trial if he is found innocent. It may take some time, or even distance, but "forever guily" is BS.

Any exposure could affect potential jury members. Should we ban news?

In court cases like this? My answer is yes.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.

The inability to say "no" isn't the same as saying "yes".

I'm sure she agreed to being spit on and having whatever written on her exposed lower half. Sounds like fun to me...

Way to pass judgement.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.

The inability to say "no" isn't the same as saying "yes".

I'm sure she agreed to being spit on and having whatever written on her exposed lower half. Sounds like fun to me...

Way to pass judgement.

spitting on someone and writing on them isn't a crime. sleazy? yes. but not a crime. not even close.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Feldenak

What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.

IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.

No one will remember his name after the trial if he is found innocent. It may take some time, or even distance, but "forever guily" is BS.

Any exposure could affect potential jury members. Should we ban news?

In court cases like this? My answer is yes.

That's so illogical I don't know how to respond. Extend that line of thinking and you will ban ALL news. Think about, say, watergate. That shouldn't have been covered because each and every person in the US was a potential juror, right?

Just about each and every news story has the potential, if not likelyness to be a court case with jurors. I'll agree media coverage is too much on some topics, and the can certianly affect juror pools.

What makes this case special? What makes it a "case like this"?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

"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?"

Obviously she didn't answer questions, that the defense states and the Judge agrees, are relevant to the case.

AGAIN learn how to read...

The woman answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

"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?"

Obviously she didn't answer questions, that the defense states and the Judge agrees, are relevant to the case.

AGAIN learn how to read...

The woman answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour.

apparently she didn't answer ALL of the questions. i'm pretty sure you can't selectively answer questions.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.

The inability to say "no" isn't the same as saying "yes".

I'm sure she agreed to being spit on and having whatever written on her exposed lower half. Sounds like fun to me...

Way to pass judgement.

spitting on someone and writing on them isn't a crime. sleazy? yes. but not a crime. not even close.

Sure as hell can't help thier case though.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Feldenak

What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.

IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.

No one will remember his name after the trial if he is found innocent. It may take some time, or even distance, but "forever guily" is BS.

Any exposure could affect potential jury members. Should we ban news?

In court cases like this? My answer is yes.

That's so illogical I don't know how to respond. Extend that line of thinking and you will ban ALL news. Think about, say, watergate. That shouldn't have been covered because each and every person in the US was a potential juror, right?

Just about each and every news story has the potential, if not likelyness to be a court case with jurors. I'll agree media coverage is too much on some topics, and the can certianly affect juror pools.

What makes this case special? What makes it a "case like this"?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Things like Watergate are different because there is a public interest there (ya know, the government) and the people involved were public personas/servants. This case involves private citizens. Also, what makes this case different is the reactionary attitude people in this country seem to have regarding "sex crimes". All a "victim" has to do is point a finger and the accused is no longer innocent until proven guilty...in fact, it is the exact opposite. Think about it. Why do I have to try and defend the accused in this case if the supposition of guilt works the way it should.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.

The inability to say "no" isn't the same as saying "yes".

I'm sure she agreed to being spit on and having whatever written on her exposed lower half. Sounds like fun to me...

Way to pass judgement.

spitting on someone and writing on them isn't a crime. sleazy? yes. but not a crime. not even close.

Sure as hell can't help thier case though.

I'm actually pretty sure that is actually some kind of crime too. If I just started spitting on people in the street I'm betting the cops would show up and charge me with something. I don't think I'm allowed to write things on people's bodies without their consent either I don't think, although I've never really had the desire to do so.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.

The inability to say "no" isn't the same as saying "yes".

I'm sure she agreed to being spit on and having whatever written on her exposed lower half. Sounds like fun to me...

Way to pass judgement.

spitting on someone and writing on them isn't a crime. sleazy? yes. but not a crime. not even close.

Sure as hell can't help thier case though.

I'm actually pretty sure that is actually some kind of crime too. If I just started spitting on people in the street I'm betting the cops would show up and charge me with something. I don't think I'm allowed to write things on people's bodies without their consent either I don't think, although I've never really had the desire to do so.

i had a parent spit on me when i was umpiring t-ball and there was a security guard in the stands and he didn't do anything about it. he did tell the guy to sit down and behave himself tho.

if writing on people was illegal everyone who ever made some stupid "look we messed with this guy after he passed out" picture would have to be hunted down and arrested.

even if spitting on someone is a crime, it's not rape. for all we know the video could show sex, then she passes out, then they spit on her. does that make it rape? no.

and if it can't help their case why are they the ones pushing it? the defense wants this to happen, not the prosecution. obviously there's a reason for that.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I side with the defense. If the girl agreed to testify they can ask her any questions they want assuming its relevant to the case. She can't just give her side of the story and then refuse to answer questions from the defense. Its very likely there is footage on the tape from before she become unconscious that they want her to explain.

Go back and read it. She did answer their questions. She just does not want to see a tape of her passed put and being raped by 2 guys and then being spit on and written on with a marker.

"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?"

Obviously she didn't answer questions, that the defense states and the Judge agrees, are relevant to the case.

AGAIN learn how to read...

The woman answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour.

Ironic that you keep posting "learn to read". In my post that you quoted I acknowledge that she answered some questions and show how she did not answer others.

Your problem isn't reading, it's reading comprehension.

 

[Kwaipie]

Update

A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.

After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.

With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.

Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.

"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update

A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.

After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.

With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.

Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.

"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''

I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.

 

[yhelothar]

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.

It would be considered rape either way regardless if it was consentual or not, as a quick search to google reveals that the age of consent for the state of Illinois is 17.