Call it a “flagrant foul.” The rape trial of former Murry Bergtraum basketball coach Kerbet Dixon came to an abrupt halt today when investigators revealed that the star witness of the prosecution, a 20-year-old accuser , has a disturbing fetish. Multiple websites that depict, among other things, hundreds of photos and videos showing woman being raped and abused were disclosed in court today just as the complainant was set to testify. The jurors, who were on break at the time, were not made aware of the revelation. Asst. District Attorney Kenneth Appelbaum immediately argued that the information could not be used in court due to the “rape shield law” which limits a defendants ability to cross-examine rape complainants. But Judge Richard Buchter did not close the door on the possibility of the evidence being used, especially if they depict prior “bad acts” by the witness.
Dixon is accused of allegedly raping her at his home in 2008. She also claims he abused her again at his home one week later. She appears on her websites scantily clad and worse, although her head has been obscured in the more graphic photos. She also brags about using the drugs ecstasy and marijuana. Kerbet Dixon, who is defending himself Pro Se against these rape allegations, argued today that the evidence should be allowed, since these websites are owned by the witness and depict some of the very acts he is being accused of. More disturbing was the claim that some of the videos may actually depict minors. The Jury was sent home early, apparently to give the prosecution time to investigate these new findings.
This could potentially have a profound effect on this trial, especially if it is shown that the witness had access to the computers in Dixon’s home. Dixon is being accused of possession of child porn along with the rape charges.
The prosecution called only one witness this morning, 28-year-old Donna Martin, who claimed to be a niece of Kerbet Dixon. She testified to being with her cousin, the 20 year-old, when the girl revealed that Dixon had raped her. But then things quickly got weird. The witness began praising Dixon, revealing that she lived with the defendant from the age of 2 to 13, practically growing up in his home. She stated that it was a wonderful time of her life, stressing how much fun it was to live with him. On cross-examination, Dixon asked her if she had ever been raped or abused by him during all of those years. She replied she had not, adding that she was alone with him often.
Maybe I’m missing something, but that didn’t seem to help the prosecution’s case. It seemed to be a classic example of letting your witness talk too much. If this child lived with him for 11 years without incident, when did Dixon become this horrible child rapist?
Does that mean Kerbet Dixon didn’t commit these despicable acts? Of course not. But in a case lacking physical evidence, sometimes what people say becomes important. As my mother used to say – it’s the little things that count.