Post by Wycco on Jul 15, 2003 14:28:20 GMT -5
EASTON -- In the case of Robert M. Peters Sr., size does matter.
The 47-year-old locksmith from Bangor is accused of exposing himself to a client on June 12, 2002, while making a house call in Bethlehem. Peters' trial began Monday.
The victim testified that she and Peters were sipping tea after he finished installing a deadbolt lock when she saw Peters' semi-erect penis sticking three inches past the bottom of his shorts.
That's impossible, according to defense attorney Gary Asteak.
"She's mistaken," Asteak said. "He's not that big."
According to Asteak, physician Eric Schoeppner examined Peters and found his penis is only 1 inches long when flaccid and four inches erect.
Just to make sure the measurement wasn't a mistake, the doctor administered Viagra to Peters and measured again. The penis was still four inches long, Asteak said.
Asteak said he will show the jury photographs to prove his point. Before the trial, he told Northampton County Judge Edward G. Smith he plans to ask Peters to drop his pants and pose for the jury wearing jockey shorts.
"Was she exaggerating?" Asteak asked. "She said it was pretty big. I'll show you photographs of something pretty small."
Asteak claims the victim may have mistaken a fold of fat on Peters' thigh for his semi-erect penis.
Schoeppner will testify Peters has "considerable abdominal girth," including fatty thighs.
That was no thigh, according to the victim.
When she told Peters she wanted a new lock because her husband had just left her and she felt unsafe, his response shocked her.
She said he told her, "I can't see why someone would leave such a beautiful woman with such beautiful breasts."
When Assistant District Attorney Jay Jenkins asked the victim how she knows she didn't see a fold of skin protruding from Peters' shorts, she answered, "Because I'm a 47-year-old woman. I had a very healthy sex life with my husband. I know what a penis looks like."
She said she was horrified and felt violated by the incident.
"I felt lucky that nothing worse had happened to me," the woman said.
Asteak said Peters was not attracted to the woman but felt badly for her because she was obviously distraught because of her recent separation.
"She was making comments on her beauty, and he was being kind to her," Asteak said.
On the stand, the victim said she was confused and nervous and could recall few details from the brief conversation she had with Peters on the date he allegedly exposed himself. She could not remember whether she actually saw his thigh.
She remembered that Peters is circumcised but admitted she doesn't have a lot of experience identifying penises.
"I've only ever seen one man erected," the woman said. "They're all different, aren't they?"
In order for the end of Peters' penis to reach to within two to 2 inches of his knee -- the measurement the victim gave police -- it would have to be nine inches long, Asteak said.
Jenkins told the jurors he would build a road to lead them to find Peters guilty of indecent exposure, but Asteak disagreed.
"The road that Mr. Jenkins is trying to build for you will be missing by five inches," Asteak said.
Asteak vowed Peters will be vindicated.
"No man would come in the courtroom and have the public talk about this without embarrassment and humiliation. But even more embarrassing would be a wrongful conviction, Asteak said.
The trial resumes Tuesday. Reporter Rudy Miller can be reached at 610-258-7171 or by e-mail at rmiller@express-times.com.
The 47-year-old locksmith from Bangor is accused of exposing himself to a client on June 12, 2002, while making a house call in Bethlehem. Peters' trial began Monday.
The victim testified that she and Peters were sipping tea after he finished installing a deadbolt lock when she saw Peters' semi-erect penis sticking three inches past the bottom of his shorts.
That's impossible, according to defense attorney Gary Asteak.
"She's mistaken," Asteak said. "He's not that big."
According to Asteak, physician Eric Schoeppner examined Peters and found his penis is only 1 inches long when flaccid and four inches erect.
Just to make sure the measurement wasn't a mistake, the doctor administered Viagra to Peters and measured again. The penis was still four inches long, Asteak said.
Asteak said he will show the jury photographs to prove his point. Before the trial, he told Northampton County Judge Edward G. Smith he plans to ask Peters to drop his pants and pose for the jury wearing jockey shorts.
"Was she exaggerating?" Asteak asked. "She said it was pretty big. I'll show you photographs of something pretty small."
Asteak claims the victim may have mistaken a fold of fat on Peters' thigh for his semi-erect penis.
Schoeppner will testify Peters has "considerable abdominal girth," including fatty thighs.
That was no thigh, according to the victim.
When she told Peters she wanted a new lock because her husband had just left her and she felt unsafe, his response shocked her.
She said he told her, "I can't see why someone would leave such a beautiful woman with such beautiful breasts."
When Assistant District Attorney Jay Jenkins asked the victim how she knows she didn't see a fold of skin protruding from Peters' shorts, she answered, "Because I'm a 47-year-old woman. I had a very healthy sex life with my husband. I know what a penis looks like."
She said she was horrified and felt violated by the incident.
"I felt lucky that nothing worse had happened to me," the woman said.
Asteak said Peters was not attracted to the woman but felt badly for her because she was obviously distraught because of her recent separation.
"She was making comments on her beauty, and he was being kind to her," Asteak said.
On the stand, the victim said she was confused and nervous and could recall few details from the brief conversation she had with Peters on the date he allegedly exposed himself. She could not remember whether she actually saw his thigh.
She remembered that Peters is circumcised but admitted she doesn't have a lot of experience identifying penises.
"I've only ever seen one man erected," the woman said. "They're all different, aren't they?"
In order for the end of Peters' penis to reach to within two to 2 inches of his knee -- the measurement the victim gave police -- it would have to be nine inches long, Asteak said.
Jenkins told the jurors he would build a road to lead them to find Peters guilty of indecent exposure, but Asteak disagreed.
"The road that Mr. Jenkins is trying to build for you will be missing by five inches," Asteak said.
Asteak vowed Peters will be vindicated.
"No man would come in the courtroom and have the public talk about this without embarrassment and humiliation. But even more embarrassing would be a wrongful conviction, Asteak said.
The trial resumes Tuesday. Reporter Rudy Miller can be reached at 610-258-7171 or by e-mail at rmiller@express-times.com.
Source: pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1058259885238780.xml?&
Does anyone else find it ironic the accused last name is "Peters"?
