Alleged Rape Victim Won't Watch Videotape of Attack

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RCN

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2005
2,134
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
She was passed-out drunk and underage, obviously incapable of giving consent. That's a clear-cut rape case. The judge should be disbarred.


It isn't clear cut. The prosecutors allege that the "tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen" not that she was unconscious during sex. A "friend" said that she was unconscious during the sex. The tape may show different.

They were both underage from what I gather.

I see no reason she should not have to watch it and be questioned about its content.

Screwing drunk girls is not illegal afaik. If the tape shows her saying "no" or in a state of unconciousness they should be punished. If a law exist that says that a drunk girl is incapable of consenting through voice or action then again they should be punished. They should not be punished because of the demeaning way they treated her afterward. At least not under this charge.
 

Ime

Diamond Member
May 3, 2001
3,661
0
76
Originally posted by: montanafan
I don't understand people questioning why the defense attorney would want to show the tape. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most rapes, especially of this type, don't go to trial because the victim doesn't want to testify and have to relive the humiliation of the rape and answer the sorts of questions defense attorneys will use to try to defame their character.

This defense attorney is scum, but competent. He was hoping that she would not want to watch the tape and then use that as the basis for a mistrial. There was no reason for her to have to view the tape to answer questions about it, nor was there any reason to have her view it to have it admitted as evidence. He was pushing for having her view it during questioning knowing that she would balk as most rape victims would and either getting the tape thrown out as evidence by the prosecution, getting a mistrial, or having the charges dropped entirely when she refused to continue. Lousy behavior for a person, but good strategy for a defense attorney.

Now he'll use it as the basis for an appeal if his client is convicted.

This is pretty much my line of thinking as well.
 

Accipiter22

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
7,942
2
0
Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
Originally posted by: montanafan
I don't understand people questioning why the defense attorney would want to show the tape. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most rapes, especially of this type, don't go to trial because the victim doesn't want to testify and have to relive the humiliation of the rape and answer the sorts of questions defense attorneys will use to try to defame their character.

This defense attorney is scum, but competent. He was hoping that she would not want to watch the tape and then use that as the basis for a mistrial. There was no reason for her to have to view the tape to answer questions about it, nor was there any reason to have her view it to have it admitted as evidence. He was pushing for having her view it during questioning knowing that she would balk as most rape victims would and either getting the tape thrown out as evidence by the prosecution, getting a mistrial, or having the charges dropped entirely when she refused to continue. Lousy behavior for a person, but good strategy for a defense attorney.

Now he'll use it as the basis for an appeal if his client is convicted.

yep thats the first thing i thougt too, not saying that def. is the case as I have no clue what is on the tape, but I wouldnt be surprised if in case what you say is the truth




how is he scum? He could be asking why at certain parts she seems completely willing. Just because hte girl said she was raped doesn't make it the truth. And just because it was taped and she's claiming it's too painful or whatever doesn't mean she's being honest. It could just be a ploy, or she doesn't want to get pwned in court when it turns out she wasn't forced to do a freakin thing. Ugh.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
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?


Incorrect. You are prejudging the accused. That's what the trial is for. As of now, she's not a victim of a crime. She's an "alleged" victim of an "alleged" crime.

If the court rules that no crime was committed, then she was never a victim in the first place.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: myusername
Without wishing to make any remark that would suggest the behavior of any of these people was okay, I would point out two interesting things (to me)

1 - The 20 year old was sentenced for producing child pornography, even though that would have meant he was 16 (same age as the victim) when the taping occurred.

2 - "... tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen."
Assuming that the sex was not happening while the girl was unconscious, how is this different from teabagging, penisface, and the other "pick on the passed out guy" ****** that you neanderthals all laugh at, do, and post ROFL links vidclips for our edification? I don't approve of this behavior, no matter the gender or age of the subject, but it's clear that it is acceptable to possibly a majority of the people on these forums.


Well, if anyone here is familiar with the dirty, dirty comics of Sexylosers, they did a little bit once where they basically just reversed the genders of the people involved in the stories, and they suddenly became totally wrong (yeah, like the site is anything close to "right" in that respect). Story remained the same, just different genders, and suddenly it was just all wrong. Similar phenomenon at work here.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
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
 

ValkyrieofHouston

Golden Member
Sep 26, 2005
1,736
0
0
I don't agree with the judge or attorney on this issue. It sounds to me that she was underage at the time, so consent is not a factor here. Statutory rape is involved here, and also the fact that it was taped by an adult and she was a minor makes it child pornography. In addition they say that the tape clearly shows she is unconcious with people spitting on her and writing vulgar words on her legs.

This judge is not using his head, and just from what I read she could have been traumatized and viewing it could be even more psychologically damaging for her. She might have repressed memory, and forcing her to watch it solves nothing. This is obviously a defense tactic.
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
I don't agree with the judge or attorney on this issue. It sounds to me that she was underage at the time, so consent is not a factor here. Statutory rape is involved here, and also the fact that it was taped by an adult and she was a minor makes it child pornography. In addition they say that the tape clearly shows she is unconcious with people spitting on her and writing vulgar words on her legs.

This judge is not using his head, and just from what I read she could have been traumatized and viewing it could be even more psychologically damaging for her. She might have repressed memory, and forcing her to watch it solves nothing. This is obviously a defense tactic.

They were all underage at the time. They're all adults now (it happened 4 years ago when they were all 16).
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
How's the guy supposed to get a fair trial after this decision?

He's not, that's the point. Sex crime cases (rape and the like) works in reverse of how the actual system is supposed to work (guilty until proven innocent).
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: senseamp
How's the guy supposed to get a fair trial after this decision?

He's not, that's the point. Sex crime cases (rape and the like) works in reverse of how the actual system is supposed to work (guilty until proven innocent).


No the way it works is you call the girl a slut, bring up every other person she has been with, and then say well she was asking for it.

There is a reason most rapes don't don;t go to court, they don't get reported. Every time one is in the news it alwasy has the family of the guy saying he is a good boy and was in scouts etc... while the girl wears tight clothes and slept with 1 guy in the last 5 years so she is a slut and asking for it. :roll:


That and in this case if there is a tape. Why did he run to mexico then europe? A tape is the BEST defense if you are not guilty. But is the worse if you did something wrong. If he is so innocent all he had to do was put them tape in show it and say see, I told you I did not rape her. But instead the tape was hidden and even said it did not exsit, then ran out of the country when the tape came to light. Sorry but that speaks for itself.
 

ValkyrieofHouston

Golden Member
Sep 26, 2005
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: senseamp
How's the guy supposed to get a fair trial after this decision?

He's not, that's the point. Sex crime cases (rape and the like) works in reverse of how the actual system is supposed to work (guilty until proven innocent).


No the way it works is you call the girl a slut, bring up every other person she has been with, and then say well she was asking for it.

There is a reason most rapes don't don;t go to court, they don't get reported. Every time one is in the news it alwasy has the family of the guy saying he is a good boy and was in scouts etc... while the girl wears tight clothes and slept with 1 guy in the last 5 years so she is a slut and asking for it. :roll:


That and in this case if there is a tape. Why did he run to mexico then europe? A tape is the BEST defense if you are not guilty. But is the worse if you did something wrong. If he is so innocent all he had to do was put them tape in show it and say see, I told you I did not rape her. But instead the tape was hidden and even said it did not exsit, then ran out of the country when the tape came to light. Sorry but that speaks for itself.



I agree...
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: senseamp
How's the guy supposed to get a fair trial after this decision?

He's not, that's the point. Sex crime cases (rape and the like) works in reverse of how the actual system is supposed to work (guilty until proven innocent).


No the way it works is you call the girl a slut, bring up every other person she has been with, and then say well she was asking for it.

There is a reason most rapes don't don;t go to court, they don't get reported. Every time one is in the news it alwasy has the family of the guy saying he is a good boy and was in scouts etc... while the girl wears tight clothes and slept with 1 guy in the last 5 years so she is a slut and asking for it. :roll:


That and in this case if there is a tape. Why did he run to mexico then europe? A tape is the BEST defense if you are not guilty. But is the worse if you did something wrong. If he is so innocent all he had to do was put them tape in show it and say see, I told you I did not rape her. But instead the tape was hidden and even said it did not exsit, then ran out of the country when the tape came to light. Sorry but that speaks for itself.

Ya know, I don't blame him for running.

If I was accused of raping someone, I would run like hell too...there is no way a guy gets a fair shake in these trials.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,742
569
126
Like I said...while I agree there is some level of bias in regards to the judicial system/society in regards to rape cases and there are false accusations that run good mens name through the mud...using these douches as the poster boys for "the evil girl is out to get me in court" is like those anti-death penalty activists trying to prop tookie williams up as some sort of martyr. Its not a supporting example, and holding it up as such just hurts your point. Fair shake? These guys aren't national heroes. Do they deserve some sort of reputation as such just because they screwed a drunk girl and then treated her like dirt?

Just because there are some cases that are flawed, doesn't suddenly mean every case is flawed. With video evidence, it should be pretty fvcking hard for this case to be misrepresented. We're not using hearsay, background info on the girl or the guys, etc, etc...all of that falls out of the picture when you have a god damn video of the crime. The jury will see it, and if they have the brain power of a chipmunk then thats all thats going to matter.
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,090
2
81
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Like I said...while I agree there is some level of bias in regards to the judicial system/society in regards to rape cases and there are false accusations that run good mens name through the mud...using these douches as the poster boys for "the evil girl is out to get me in court" is like those anti-death penalty activists trying to prop tookie williams up as some sort of martyr. Its not a supporting example, and holding it up as such just hurts your point. Fair shake? These guys aren't national heroes. Do they deserve some sort of reputation as such just because they screwed a drunk girl and then treated her like dirt?

Just because there are some cases that are flawed, doesn't suddenly mean every case is flawed. With video evidence, it should be pretty fvcking hard for this case to be misrepresented. We're not using hearsay, background info on the girl or the guys, etc, etc...all of that falls out of the picture when you have a god damn video of the crime. The jury will see it, and if they have the brain power of a chipmunk then thats all thats going to matter.


It's the principle of the matter.

There's obviously something on the tape that the defense wants the accuser to answer for. 1 kid was already acquitted and it was the guy who made the tape that was convicted of child porn. I knew alot of people in HS that could have been convicted of child porn for having pictures of their girlfriends and such.
 

Rock Hydra

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2004
6,466
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.

I'm thinking the same as well.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: Rock Hydra
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.

I'm thinking the same as well.


If the tape showed that it would not have even gone to court. that and if it did show that I doubt he would have fleed the country etc...

I guess this thread is lacking common sense :light:
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,066
10,855
136
Originally posted by: RCN
Originally posted by: Vic
She was passed-out drunk and underage, obviously incapable of giving consent. That's a clear-cut rape case. The judge should be disbarred.


It isn't clear cut. The prosecutors allege that the "tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen" not that she was unconscious during sex. A "friend" said that she was unconscious during the sex. The tape may show different.

They were both underage from what I gather.

I see no reason she should not have to watch it and be questioned about its content.

Screwing drunk girls is not illegal afaik. If the tape shows her saying "no" or in a state of unconciousness they should be punished. If a law exist that says that a drunk girl is incapable of consenting through voice or action then again they should be punished. They should not be punished because of the demeaning way they treated her afterward. At least not under this charge.

in PA it is
 

RCN

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2005
2,134
0
0
Originally posted by: Marlin1975



If the tape showed that it would not have even gone to court. that and if it did show that I doubt he would have fleed the country etc...

I guess this thread is lacking common sense :light:

Not really. Other articles I have read seem to say that the prosecution is alleging that she was unable to consent because she was drunk. Also that the defendants intent was to get her drunk in order to commit the "crime"

 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
Originally posted by: Accipiter22
Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
Originally posted by: montanafan
I don't understand people questioning why the defense attorney would want to show the tape. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most rapes, especially of this type, don't go to trial because the victim doesn't want to testify and have to relive the humiliation of the rape and answer the sorts of questions defense attorneys will use to try to defame their character.

This defense attorney is scum, but competent. He was hoping that she would not want to watch the tape and then use that as the basis for a mistrial. There was no reason for her to have to view the tape to answer questions about it, nor was there any reason to have her view it to have it admitted as evidence. He was pushing for having her view it during questioning knowing that she would balk as most rape victims would and either getting the tape thrown out as evidence by the prosecution, getting a mistrial, or having the charges dropped entirely when she refused to continue. Lousy behavior for a person, but good strategy for a defense attorney.

Now he'll use it as the basis for an appeal if his client is convicted.

yep thats the first thing i thougt too, not saying that def. is the case as I have no clue what is on the tape, but I wouldnt be surprised if in case what you say is the truth




how is he scum? He could be asking why at certain parts she seems completely willing. Just because hte girl said she was raped doesn't make it the truth. And just because it was taped and she's claiming it's too painful or whatever doesn't mean she's being honest. It could just be a ploy, or she doesn't want to get pwned in court when it turns out she wasn't forced to do a freakin thing. Ugh.


It seems very unlikely that there is anything on the tape that shows her as a willing participant since the tape was admitted as evidence by the prosecution, not the defense.

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

And I think he's scum for trying to force her to watch herself being raped (okay, allegedly), spat on, a cigarette being inserted into her vagina and lit, and vulgar language written on her naked body by a bunch of guys laughing and whooping it up in a courtroom where her parents and other family and friends will probably be present and in front of a jury of strangers who she knows will view this happening to her. All while he asks her questions insinuating that this is the sort of thing she should have expected to happen when she went there and that she pretty much asked for it to happen to her since she was drinking at the party beforehand.

Doesn't really fit my description of a nice guy.

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
UPDATE.


aquited!

jury acquitted a 20-year-old Burr Ridge man Friday in a highly publicized Cook County rape trial, much of which focused on a video recording of the alleged assault four years ago.

The jury deliberated for about four hours before finding Adrian Missbrenner not guilty of sexual assault and child pornography, Cook County state's attorney's office spokesman John Gorman said.

Missbrenner is one of four men who were charged in the alleged sexual assault of a Naperville woman, who is now 20. A video recording in 2002 ? when the woman was 16 years old ? reportedly shows two males having sex with her and a third writing obscenities on her legs and thighs with a felt-tipped marker.

In September, Missbrenner was sentenced to three years probation for bail jumping and fleeing to Europe to avoid prosecution in the case. He surrendered to U.S. authorities in Serbia and returned to Illinois in May ? eight months after initially jumping bail.

Prosecutors and victims rights groups expressed disappointment in Friday's verdict.

"We don't agree with the verdict, but we accept it," Gorman said.

Polly Poskin, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault called the verdict "atrocious."

"The victim's rights were trampled, and the jury reaffirmed that women can be brutally raped without consequence," Poskin said. "The jury and the entire legal system should be ashamed."

Kaethe Morris Hoffer, a private attorney working with the alleged victim, said she thought prosecutors had a winnable case.

"I think that sexual assault survivors across this country are going to be devastated by this," she said.

A message left at the office of Missbrenner's attorney, Patrick Campanelli, was not immediately returned Friday evening. There was no listing in the telephone directory for a Missbrenner in Burr Ridge.

Earlier this week, Circuit Judge Kerry Kennedy threatened to charge the alleged victim with contempt of court after she refused to watch the videotape while being questioned by a defense attorney. A day later, however, Kennedy said defense attorneys could cross-examine the woman without her watching the video.

Kennedy's initial demand that the woman watch the 20-minute tape infuriated victims' advocacy groups and despite the judge's ultimate decision, Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he would draft legislation barring rape victims from having to view videotapes or photographs of the crime.

One man has been convicted in connection with the alleged attack. Sonny Smith, 20, of Brookfield, served time in an Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp after pleading guilty to child pornography charges for making the videotape.

Burim Berezi, of Brookfield, is accused of being the second man to have sex with the woman in the video. Authorities say he has fled to Albania and has not been captured.

Christopher Robbins, 21, of Brookfield, was acquitted of all charges in the case.





guess we thats why she didnt want to view the tape. it didnt show her getting raped eh?
 

RCN

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2005
2,134
0
0
Originally posted by: waggy
UPDATE.


aquited!



guess we thats why she didnt want to view the tape. it didnt show her getting raped eh?

Looks like it.....

Polly Poskin, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault called the verdict "atrocious." "The victim's rights were trampled, and the jury reaffirmed that women can be brutally raped without consequence," Poskin said. "The jury and the entire legal system should be ashamed."

WTF?
 
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/    |