‘Babydol’ Trial Likely to Focus on Police Policy

Jody “Babydol” Gibson faces as much as 23 years in prison if she is convicted of operating a prostitution ring for the rich and the famous. But in keeping with common practice for such prosecutions, not one of the powerful men who allegedly procured sex from the reputed Hollywood madam will be charged.

The apparent double standard and other questions about police conduct are likely to be issues at Gibson’s trial in Superior Court, set to begin Jan. 7.

Although a Rolodex and log of her alleged clients have been marked as evidence in the case, police have blackened out their names in court records “to protect their identities” and do not plan to prosecute them.

Sources familiar with the evidence say the log lists the personal phone numbers of more than 400 alleged customers, some of whom are supporters of Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, whose department is handling the case.

“I’m not aware of what is in the black book, so I don’t even want to respond,” said Victoria Pipkin, spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office.

Gibson’s lawyers are expected to question police about other aspects of their conduct in the case, which hinges on the tactics of a male undercover detective who allegedly frolicked nude while investigating female prostitutes in posh hotel suites.

Det. Raz Kertenian has testified at the preliminary hearing that he disrobed in front of suspects and kept suggestive photos of one naked prostitute, but he has denied suggestions by Gibson’s lawyer that he had sexual intercourse with another prostitute.

Kertenian, the lead investigator in the case, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

His boss, Capt. Richard Roupoli, said that “the tactics used by the detective were perfectly appropriate.”

But Kertenian’s handling of the investigation is drawing criticism.

“In my experience, this conduct is very peculiar in a prostitution case,” said Michael D. Nasatir, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, calling the behavior “highly questionable.”

The detective supervised the LAPD’s 10-month probe of Gibson’s service, which authorities say employed dozens of prostitutes.

Kertenian said he personally posed as a “john” and reserved $500 suites at the Century Plaza Hotel, where he spent time naked with $1,000-a-night prostitutes.

Criminal defense attorneys say it is highly unusual for an investigator to remove his clothes in front of a suspect, let alone to lie naked in bed with a prostitute. Such practices are prohibited under LAPD policy unless an officer obtains special permission--which Kertenian’s bosses granted.

The LAPD declined to elaborate on why this case warranted special treatment. Police investigators said they did not disrobe before arresting prostitutes in the investigation of the Heidi Fleiss case.

“What this guy did clearly crosses the line. It’s ridiculous,” said Harland Braun, a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. “A detective doesn’t have to go that far to bust a prostitute. . . . Where does the LAPD draw the line?”

In a standard prostitution case, an officer need only elicit a solicitation of sex for money from the suspect to make an arrest.

But in June, according to his court testimony, Kertenian reserved a luxurious suite at the Century Plaza under a phony name and invited a prostitute to visit him. After taking off his clothes and discussing the amount he intended to pay for sex with her, he lay on a hotel bed, where the naked prostitute gave him a rubdown, he said.

Kertenian, still unclothed, then asked the woman to pose in a variety of positions while he snapped photographs, he said. The detective arrested the prostitute that night but never turned the photos over as evidence until compelled to do so months later by the court.

“Detectives do a lot of things to pose as naturally as possible as a client,” said Roupoli, commanding officer of the LAPD’s organized crime and vice division. “With respect to the photos, it was appropriate. He wrote about the photos in his report. The only reason he didn’t book the photos as evidence was because of a confidentiality issue. He was trying to protect the woman.”

Yet investigators in the case generally operated without such considerations, entering photos of several naked women connected to the inquiry--some in compromising sexual positions--into evidence.

Two months earlier, Kertenian had invited a different prostitute to visit him at another suite and spent an hour alone with her. He discussed how much he was willing to pay after the two took their clothes off and then he retired to the bedroom with her for about 10 minutes, according to his court testimony.

During questioning at the preliminary hearing, Gibson’s attorney asked Kertenian if he was aware that the prostitute had told Gibson after their encounter that she had sexual intercourse with him and described the act in “graphic detail.”

The detective testified that the prostitute approached him twice with a condom while he was naked, but he insisted that he never touched her or was ever aroused during the encounter. Kertenian denied having sex with the prostitute.

At the conclusion of the investigation, he and his team searched Gibson’s property and seized logs and a Rolodex allegedly including client names and precise information about their fetishes and other sexual desires.

Though prostitution is a crime that involves the selling and procurement of a sexual act, the LAPD and other police organizations typically pursue only the madam and her female employees for prosecution.

Kertenian testified that he had not contacted any of the male customers in Gibson’s log because he “did not have the time.”

Legal experts say police generally need more than names and phone numbers listed in an alleged madam’s black book to arrest a client. Some law enforcement sources, however, suggest that authorities are reluctant to go after rich “johns” primarily because such clients have the resources to hire powerful attorneys to help them fight prosecution.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, believes there’s another explanation.

“It’s sexist,” she said. “Everyone knows that there is a long history in this country of selectively prosecuting the female prostitute and letting the male customer go. Men obviously desire this service and are willing to break the law to get it, but they rarely get punished for participating in the criminal act.

“If authorities were truly serious about wanting to end prostitution because they think it’s bad for the public’s health, they’d enforce the law fairly and effectively and go after the johns too. But they never do. It’s hypocritical.”

Pipkin of the district attorney’s office said, “I respectfully decline to engage in the ongoing debate of why johns aren’t charged in prostitution cases.”

A pretrial hearing for Gibson’s case is scheduled in Van Nuys Superior Court for Tuesday.