Thursday, November 20, 2008

Defense Witness Claims Covington Drugged, Raped Him

The jury in the William Smithson murder trial should have the case by later this afternoon to start their deliberations.

The defense rested its case this morning after putting on several character witnesses and an admitted long-time drug addict who claimed Fen Bruce Covington sexually assaulted him by slipping him a date-rape drug during one of their meetings at Covington's Narberth apartment.

According to the man, an unemployed 27-year-old, he met Covington on a gay chat line back in the fall of 2006. The two got together later that day to take drugs and have sex.

He testified that the two of them would get together approximately once month at Covington's apartment and occasionally with other men at other homes.

The man who described himself as a "responsible drug addict," said he became increasingly concerned about Covington and his behavior and his sexual fantasies, which included using the drug GHB to knock someone unconscious and have "anal sex with them without their knowledge."

He said in February 2008, he was at Covington's apartment when he started "nodding out." This was after he'd been voluntarily injected with "crystal meth," a drug that would normally speed someone up.

"When I came to," he testified, "I had additional injection sites on my body." He also said "I had been penetrated anally."

Under cross examination, the man said he has been a meth addict for 15 years, which means his addiction started when he was 12-years-old.

He claimed the injections Covington gave him while he was unconscious landed him in a psychiatric hospital.

When Prosecutor Tom Lawrie ask the witness, "You reported this incident to the police, didn't you," Defense attorney Guy Smith objected.

During a sidebar with the judge and attorneys, Smithson appeared to be wiping tears from his eyes with a white handkerchief while witness remained on the stand.

The defense has consistently attempted implicate Covington, who was in the Smithson home when Jason Shephard was killed, as Shephard's killer.

Covington in statement to police said he never saw or met Shephard that night and was asleep in the basement when Smithson and Shephard came back to the house.

Outside the jury's presence Covington cited his 5th Amendment rights in declining to testify about anything he did at Smithson house that night.

On agreement of both the prosecution and the defense, a statement was read to the jury that said Covington faced criminal charges in connection to this case and had invoked his 5th Amendment rights so would not be available to testify.

Closing arguments will begin this afternoon. After instructions from Judge Barry Dozor it will be in the jury's hands.

UPDATE NOTE: I have removed the name of the 27-year-old witness at the request of my editor and due to his claims of being a sexual assault victim. Typically, we do not print such names in the paper so we decided it should be removed from the posting.

15 Comments:

Anonymous randal said...

Can a willing participant be sexually “assaulted”, really?

Isn’t that a bit like raping a prostitute after she’s been paid?

And this change to your blog posting was demanded by the same Lib editor who has refused to permit this disgusting case to be labeled a “gay” rape and murder –which is exatly what it was.

Go ahead and hit that censor button, G. I know there ain’t no chance you’d let this be posted. That's how Lib editors bully through their protectionist PC.

November 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM 
Anonymous Chuck in PA said...

randal,
He wasn't a "willing participant."
Prostitutes can be raped.
This newspaper is far from "Lib".
Calm down.

November 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM 
Anonymous r said...

he met Covington on a gay chat line back in the fall of 2006. The two got together later that day to take drugs and have sex.

He testified that the two of them would get together approximately once month at Covington's apartment and occasionally with other men at other homes.


Sure sounds like this witness was a willing participant in the dark and perverted gay/ druggie lifestyle, Chuck.

And if you don’t think the DT is Lib then you can’t spot it when you see it.

November 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM 
Anonymous r said...

…concerned about Covington and his behavior and his sexual fantasies, which included using the drug GHB to knock someone unconscious and have "anal sex with them without their knowledge

Smithson told him about an intern at his company that he found attractive. Covington said Smithson also mentioned a fantasy about having sex with straight men and younger men.


If it is true that these creeps had some fantasy about drugging and raping a hetero and then did it, shouldn’t they then also be charged with a hate crime here just as straights undoubtedly would have been had they specifically targeted a gay for violent crime because of their sexuality?

There should be ZERO question remaining that the entire “Hate Crime” farce was designed to only apply to hetero white males while protecting Lib-selected “victim” groups.

November 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

You have to believe that part of what drove the jury to convict of
1st degree was that Smithson killed a man for refusing his homosexual advances. Further, Smithson said things, bought items, and took action to get rid of the body.

This was a homosexual on straight hate crime.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.courtroomguru.com

November 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

This was not, NOT, a hate crime by any stretch of the definition.

As skeptical as I am of "hate crime" prosecutions, they have to be motivated by "hate."

This crime was motivated by a passionate and obsessive attraction.

The hate crime argument being pushed here is akin to the Violence Against Women's Act, informed by the ideology of radical feminism and feminists like Catherine McKinnon.

Contrary to their beliefs, heterosexual rape is not generally motivated by "hate." It is motivated by obsessive sexual fantasies that involve having power over another person.

Bill Smithson didn't hate straight men. He liked them. It was this sexual attraction combined with his violent fantasies and drug use that led to this crime.

November 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Wow! - after reading these posts, Im glad C. Scott was never elected to the bench. Get real. Hate crime? Liberal conspiracy at the Times? Is this Spencerblog or Comedy Central?

November 21, 2008 at 4:14 PM 
Anonymous r said...

I get what you’re saying, G, and that sounds like a reasonable interpretation. But here in reality, that is NOT the standard for how the Hate Crime statute has been applied.

When we’re talking about a straight (or a white) perp, they need not be motivated by “hate” but rather they only need to target their victim due to the victim’s sexuality (or race). Beyond that, even just the victim’s “perceieved” sexuality (or race) is enough to draw a hate crime charge. The definition gets stretched-a-plenty, predicated upon the sexuality (or race) of the perp.

This injustice in application –this very real and very selective double standard- is what I’ve been railing about, along with the blantant double standard in the Lib Media’s coverage of such cases.

November 21, 2008 at 5:41 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

I thought that Jason was murdered because he rebuffed Smithson's homosexual advances. I thought that murder required malice, which is hate.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

November 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This was a homosexual on straight hate crime.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.courtroomguru.com"

courtroom-fool.com would be more accurate if even non-lawyer Specner fixes your hate-crime definition. How about courtroom-bigot.com?

November 22, 2008 at 8:56 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "hate" is coming from the bloggers. That's the crime.

November 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anon:

You are so brave to be anonymous. Keep protecting the pervert homosexual community.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM 
Anonymous r said...

That would be the druggie/ raping/ murdering wing of the pervert homo community that the Libs are protecting with their misplaced sympathies, Mr. S.
In attempting to protect all gays, they also protect this dark underside of that group. Much as Libs, while attempting to protect all blacks, end up also protecting the undeserving criminal element in that group.

Misplaced sympathies fuel by emotions are like that. It's one thing for a few folks to have such a backward way of looking at things but when such views infect society as a whole and how our criminal justice system operates it's gone too far.

And, once again, clearly this should have been prosicuted as a so-called "hate crime" since Smithson targetted Shephard due to his sexuality -he had a fantasy of drugging and raping a straight. If a straight had targtted a gay for such a crime based on their sexuality, you can bet this case would have been handled much differently. And the Lib headlines would have been quite different as well.

November 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Randall:

Even Gil has been infected! It is unbelievable that you can have a law calling for the death penalty, and then you get journalists who write in the paper that they are now against it. Gil even wrote that this was NOT NOT a hate crime. It was a hate crime, but not under existing state law as the sexual orientation portion of the ethnic itimidation statute was ruled unconstituttional. It is still a hate crime and fits the proposed federal definition as well as the former state version. Malice is defined as wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty.

If it was a straight on homosexual crime the reporting would have been completely different.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.courtroomguru.com

November 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are so brave to be anonymous. Keep protecting the pervert homosexual community.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire"

Seems like you are the one lacking in bravery. You are so homophobic, paranoid and delusional that you are "afraid" of gay people having rights, holding office, raising kids, getting married, etc.
Did you get a law degree to help protect people's rights, or just to make money chasing ambulances?

Did you get your degree from a cracker-jack box?
People's exhibit A:
"If it was a straight on homosexual crime the reporting would have been completely different."

Yeah... a straight man raping a homosexual man would certainly have been very different.

November 25, 2008 at 1:17 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home