Well, it’s official.
At least one female tennis player in the world is a lesbian pedophile.
29-year-old Claire Lyte, who was once ranked 101st in a list of the world’s top 500 tennis players, has been found guilty of four counts of sexual activity with a child after a two-week trial.
She’ll spend the next two years and nine months in prison, unless she gets lucky with an appeal.
She has also been indefinitely banned from working with children.
The Judge, Nigel Gilmour, apparently didn’t appreciate Claire’s defense, which held that the victim’s family was accusing Claire of involving herself sexually with the 13-year-old girl because the girl wasn’t good enough to go pro.
Here’s the Judge’s well-written statement:
As her coach you were in a position of trust and the girl’s family expected you to look after her. In breach of their trust you corrupted that girl and you advanced her experience of sexual matters by some years.
Your victim consented to what happened, but only to an extent that an infatuated 13-year-old admirer can be said to consent to this type of sexual activity. You welcomed her attention, you encouraged it and then you manipulated what had become her infatuation with you. You did that for your own selfish sexual ends.
In an attempt to escape conviction you alleged against the victim’s family, three generations of them, that they were all part of a wicked conspiracy. The jury rejected those wicked allegations of yours. There was and never has been any such conspiracy. It follows from the verdicts that your parents, in all other respects wholly admirable members of society, gave lying evidence to the jury. There is no doubt they did so at your request. If there was a conspiracy in this trial to mislead the jury, that conspiracy was entirely at your own making.
Interestingly, the trial revealed that Claire Lyte wore the girl’s panties.
Well, I thought it was interesting, at least.
Spread the word about this article!
Similar Posts:
Re Clare Lyte,
I doubt she has done the girl any lasting damage - the sentence is far too harsh when you consider that violent assaults routinely receive lesser sentences.
[Reply]
i agree with the above, there’s far more serious crimes being commited that receive a lesser sentence. that doesn’t mean that what she did wasn’t quite disgusting though…..
[Reply]
She should have just lost her job, and any teaching certification she had….
[Reply]
But if it were a MALE instructor would you be saying the same>>>
[Reply]
Probably not.
[Reply]
The sentence was unbelievably harsh, compared with offences of violence which routinely receive a slap on the wrist.
[Reply]
I think the conviction doesn’t bear up to scrutinty. There are ENORMOUS holes in the prosecution’s case.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the case got thrown out in appeal.
Either Claire Lyte is innocent and has been stitched up by a vindictive mother or that mother is utterly dispicable for knowlingly letting her daughter remain in the clutches of a sex offender for a full year.
Read my blog about it. The facts will surprise you.
[Reply]
the damage done to victims of pedaphilia lasts a lifetime, sometimes even begins a cycle of pedaphilia that lasts several generations.
2 years in jail is nothing compared to the lifelong damage this kind of behavior causes the victims. she should rot.
[Reply]
to trace…
why is it more acceptable for a woman to molest a 13 year old girl, than a man?
[Reply]
A lot of people actually think that way, sid. I think it is sick for anyone that is older to go for someone that is pretty much illegal. They just need help..
[Reply]
I too thought the bit about the panties was interesting, seriously though, I agree that any mother who seriously thought or knew that their daughter was getting it on with their hot 29 year old female tennis coach would even allow their daughter to go back to the same tennis academy, let alone the same coach. Sounds like some mighty foul play on the mother’s part. Hell, I’m 16 and one of my ex girlfriends is 27, I don’t see anyone tossing her in jail for getting in my panties.
[Reply]
Mulch reply on June 10th, 2008:
But she should though. The law is not gender defined. It is sexist to say that if it was a man that he should get the book thrown at him.
thats just bullshit
[Reply]