It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Millionaire cleared of rape after claiming he ‘accidentally penetrated’ teenager

page: 11
58
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Is it really true that someone who commits rape only has a 3% chance of going to jail? No.

The first problem is that the statistic assumes that every rape reported to police is true. Given that even convicted rapists have later been exonerated, to say nothing of the fact that:

"Moreover, commencing in 1989 in cases of rape and rape-murder where there has already been either arrest or an indictment, the FBI has conducted large numbers of DNA tests “to confirm or exclude the person. In 25 percent of the cases where they can get a result, they excluded the primary suspect.” -digitalcommons.lmu.edu...


This assumption is obviously quite false.

The second – and even bigger problem – is that the statistic simply assumes that every rape not reported to police – that is, only reported on an anonymous survey is a truthful and accurate claim of rape. It goes without saying how false this is.

In addition, the statistic they used for this, the National Crime Victimization Survey: 2008-2012, may even be an outright lie.

www.bjs.gov...

Question 41a:

(Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) – Any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack –

Question 43a: Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. (Other than any incidents already mentioned,) have you been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by –

As we can see from the survey, respondents who said that they were “threatened” (i.e., not raped) or experienced “unwanted sexual activity” (but not rape) could still be counted as rape victims (RAINN has not explained their methodology of how they used the NCVS to arrive at their figure, so the lack of transparency means their figures cannot be fully analyzed). Clearly, this is dishonest.

The third problem is that the statistic assumes that every rapist who is imprisoned, only committed one rape. If instead that rapist committed several rapes (and was therefore responsible for several reports), that would double, triple, quadruple, etc. the percentage of rapists who were imprisoned.

This is quite a dishonest and unreasonable assumption, given that the majority of rapists are serial offenders:

www.wcsap.org...

Of the 120 in the sample who claimed to commit rape, 76 of them were repeat offenders while the others only once. This 63% of the rapists committed an average of 5.8 rapes.

TLDR:

The “97% of rapists don't go to jail statistic” is dishonest because:

It assumes all rape claims made to police are true (in reality, even some convicted rapists, let alone those who are not even charged, are victims of false claims).
It assumes all rape claims NOT made to police are true – obviously false.
It assumes all rapists who go to jail only committed one rape (most likely false given that most rapists tend to be serial offenders)


If you see anyone repeating this dishonest statistic, that in fact harms rape victims (a rape victim who believed it might reasonably think, I should not bother reporting my rape since it's a 97% chance they won't go to jail) – point them to this post and tell them not to say it again.
edit on 12182015 by MayanBoricua because: (no reason given)

edit on 12182015 by MayanBoricua because: Mistakes Were Made




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
You picture all woman as innocent victims, and even if they end up in a guys appartment, drunk, naked, and eager to have sex - no matter what, the guy should keep his fingers off her. Well, sorry, but thats nonsense: you depict woman as brain-dead victims. They are not. If we want a society in which men and women have equal rights, than woman can't pretend not to know what might happen if they frequent some horny old guys appartment, allow him to pour her full of vodka and then lay in front of his sofa without underwear.

If that IS what happened - I don't know. The Courts know and they have decided that this was not rape.


Your mentality is truly disturbing. It doesn't matter what a woman is wearing. It doesn't matter if she's drinking. It doesn't matter if she ends up some dude's flat. None of that gives him the right to stick any part of his body into any part of hers. Period. Now, I will totally agree that women should not run around half naked, get drunk and pass out at a stranger's flat...at that point they are begging for trouble. But it still doesn't mean they DESERVE it. And it still doesn't mean they are exempt from being a victim.

The Court didn't decide it wasn't rape. They just found that there wasn't enough evidence to convict, as they often do in rape cases. I guess for a man to actually be charged with rape and the charge to stick there has to be at least 3 independent witnesses and the incident has to be filmed and transcript notarized- maybe that would be what it takes to satisfy some folks.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MayanBoricua

True story:
Girl goes out drinking with her friends. Friend of a friend guy is tagging along with the group. Group ends up at one friend's house. Girl passes out on bed. Girl wakes up with guy on top of her, having sex with her (obviously without her permission). She freaks out and leaves. She spends the next couple of days in a daze, not sure what happened or what to do and finally calls the police to make a report. At this point there's no evidence, and even if there were he would simply claim it was consensual. Even if detectives can identify the guy NOTHING would happen to him. She was raped. Period. He's a rapist. Period. And he's got the M.O. down pat. How many times has he done this before? And how many times will he do it again?

Statistics aside, I've personally known MULTIPLE females who have been raped. Some reported it and some did not, but NONE of them ever saw any justice.

What would a woman have to gain from lying on an anonymous questionnaire? Being raped is a severely damaging, shameful incident. Most women don't want to go around screaming it from the rooftops. I would think they would be more comfortable to be truthful if they knew they were anonymous.

I would never advise someone not to make a report. I would warn them that probably nothing is going to happen. Just like I did with my friend when her son was molested by an older kid. She made the proper reports to the proper authorities and was told that her 4 year old was not a 'reliable witness'. Nothing happened. I mean, absolutely nothing. They didn't even require the molester to go to counseling. So now my friend's son is suffering from bet wetting, PTSD and will be in counseling for the next few years- if not for life. And the little pervert that victimized him is free to do it to other kids. Free to grow up and start raping like an adult.

Rape/child molestation is an epidemic and everybody wants to turn a blind eye. And there's almost never justice for the victims.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie
There just might be a moral there to your true story, but most don't want to hear it.

Do you think every man accused of rape should be locked up based on an accusation alone?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Personally, I think every man accused of rape should be able to come up with a defense story that is even remotely plausible.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Im not saying rape doesnt happen.
Im not saying your example doesnt happen all the time.

I am saying that your statistic is grossly exagerrated.
And that a man should not be locked up based on accusation alone.
And that men accused of rape should come up with plausible defenses.

Ive personally known men whose lives were destroyed by false rape allegations.
edit on 12182015 by MayanBoricua because: Additions and Clarifications



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I'm all about truth and justice. There's no way I would want an innocent man sitting in prison. Just as much as I wouldn't want a rapist walking free. As I said in a previous post, until there is a major advancement in lie detection technology then every he-said-she-said is a stale mate. It's just a sad fact of the world.

All I can do is look after me and mine. If a guy ever tries to rape me, I guarantee it will be the last thing he ever does on this planet. And if a man ever lays a finger on my children...same outcome. I've seen how the system 'works' and I would never trust the system to right any wrongs. I've learned the hard way "get yours while the gettin's good". And obviously, do your best to avoid the situation in the first place. My daughter's only 7 but when she gets older I'm going to use stories like this as a teaching tool.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MayanBoricua

Sadly, I don't think that statistic is as exaggerated as you think it is, especially if you include child molestation in with rape. But I think largely you and I agree.

Rape=bad
False accusations of rape=bad

Rapists should be punished. And women making false reports are an insult to all the women who really have been raped. If a rape or a false accusation can be proven then those folks need to be punished. And I really wish there were more reliable ways to bust people lying, it would clear up A LOT.

And a man accused of rape, if he's actually innocent, should be able to come up with a plausible explanation of what happened. And it's just my opinion (Astyanax) but "I was just checking on her and fell and accidentally got my semen in/on her vagina" just doesn't cut it.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
"I tripped and fell". Child please. Isn't that what fifteen year olds say when found out since the 1700's? You'd think he could have come up with something a little more believable. What horse#.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrieYour mentality is truly disturbing. It doesn't matter what a woman is wearing. It doesn't matter if she's drinking. It doesn't matter if she ends up some dude's flat. None of that gives him the right to stick any part of his body into any part of hers. Period.


Sigh. Sure enough it does. It's called "mutual consent".

As I wrote before: if you don't want to get bitten by a lion, don't enter the lions cage. In the American/European culture it is (like it or not) quite well known that the way to pick up a guy/girl is to go to a bar, night club or whatever, have a drink or two (three, four..), talk to that nice guy / girl, maybe dance a little, and perhaps, at the end of the evening end up in either ones appartment, having sex. Now, say you don't want to have sex with a person, would you accompany him all night, have drinks with him all night, then REFUSE his offer to drive you (safely) home, but instead insist on staying with him? I don't know in what world you live, but is sure does not sound like the world I live in.

What is your alternative then: having a contract drawn and have some sworn-in observers to wittness the act?

Mutual consent.

But in this case, it wasn't even mutual consent: the GUY did not want to have sex with the lady! Instead, he'd rather have sex with his own beloved, trusty old girlfriend. Which he had! And only AFTER that, he lost his balance and fell off the sofa, not "penetrating" her at all (with what?). But yes, spilling seamen on her. Not raping her.

Now, again: I don't know if this is what happened. But to me, the fact that she ended up in his appartment after being offered a safe ride home says it all. She wasn't there for the goldfish.



Now, I will totally agree that women should not run around half naked, get drunk and pass out at a stranger's flat...at that point they are begging for trouble. But it still doesn't mean they DESERVE it. And it still doesn't mean they are exempt from being a victim.


Agreed.


The Court didn't decide it wasn't rape. They just found that there wasn't enough evidence to convict, as they often do in rape cases. I guess for a man to actually be charged with rape and the charge to stick there has to be at least 3 independent witnesses and the incident has to be filmed and transcript notarized- maybe that would be what it takes to satisfy some folks.


The Court decided that they could not prove rape. It's a bit like murder: you can kill anybody, as long as nobody can prove it. Hence, the DA goes to great lengths to try to prove - and the attorneys to disprove - that a crime took place. In this case, given the short time it took the judge to decide, clearly they found they could not prove this man guilty. That's not something they do lightly, don't underestimate the vigor of good old British Justice.

I fully understand how victims of rape feel, be it men or women. It's exactly why one has to be very sure before judging a person guilty.
edit on 18-12-2015 by ForteanOrg because: he had quite a few too many quotes



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

But yes, spilling seamen on her. Not raping her.


Sure, he accidentally spilled his semen all up in her vagina. Because that's a thing that totally happens, ever.

And I accidentally blew up the moon.

Wait, maybe we're getting it all wrong. The man could be telling the truth. He intended to pull out but ejaculated too quickly, that way it's correct that he accidentally got his semen there.

Argue all you want, but I'm absolutely pissed that this guy is walking free with such logically stupid defense.
edit on 18/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

edit on 18/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Mysterious Reasons



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


Wait, maybe we're getting it all wrong. The man could be telling the truth. He intended to pull out but ejaculated too quickly, that way it's correct that he accidentally got his semen there.

Have you read much of the story?

He claimed he had gone to see if the young woman wanted a t-shirt to sleep in, or a taxi home. But he said she pulled him on top of her and placed his hand between her legs.

His semen and DNA was found inside the young woman, but he said it was possible he had semen on his hands from having sex with the 24-year-old earlier.
source link
Nowhere have I read that he ejaculated with her. Have you read that he did?



edit on 18-12-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: add link



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I think you were misunderstanding what I was saying. I was just imagining ways of saying the truth while meaning something totally different, literal genie style.

Placing someone's hand between your legs doesn't lead to semen in your vagina, even if they have it on their fingers, especially if they're resisting. Now, if it was found on the labia or around her thighs, I could buy that possibility. But up and inside? No. God damn. Way.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Penetration by any means is rape. It actually doesn't matter if the semen was on his hand or on his penis, some part of him got it inside her. And she claims that she didn't consent to any part of him inside of her. Therefore, rape.

He was denying everything at first, until confronted with the semen evidence. At which point he speculated that it must have been an accident. Penetration by any means without consent of the victim = rape. Accidental rape isn't a valid defense, but I guess it flew this time.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Placing someone's hand between your legs doesn't lead to semen in your vagina, even if they have it on their fingers, especially if they're resisting. Now, if it was found on the labia or around her thighs, I could buy that possibility. But up and inside? No. God damn. Way.


Exactly. If (for some weird reason) he went to check on her with semen all over his hands and he accidentally fell on her, then semen would be found on her thighs or stomach or clothing. Not rape. That's gross as hell, but not rape.

The semen was found inside her. Inside = penetration. Penetration without consent = rape. I'm no doctor, but i'd say it's physically impossible to trip and fall and penetrate someone by accident. With your hand, with your penis, with your ear, with your nose....impossible. I've tripped and fell many times. I even used to play roller derby, full contact with many females in skimpy clothing. Let me think....um, no, never penetrated someone's vagina by accident.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: EilasvaleleynSure, he accidentally spilled his semen all up in her vagina. Because that's a thing that totally happens, ever.


Now, let's assume that you are right and that the guy actually penetrated her without her consent. Would it not be totally normal for her to scream, to call her friend for help? Wouldn't that friend come to the rescue before he even COULD ejaculate? They are in the same appartment, actually probably in the same room! Normally, it takes some time for a man to get to the point of ejaculation, it's not that all men are testoterone ridden alpha apes that put it in, swipe and done. Also, this man just HAD had sex with his girlfriend, i believe, or he at least had the chance to have sex with a far more willingly woman. Why rape that 18 year old girlfriend in the first place?

It is indeed a bizarre story, but not because "he fell on her".


And I accidentally blew up the moon.


Nope, it's still there, for all to see.


Wait, maybe we're getting it all wrong. The man could be telling the truth. He intended to pull out but ejaculated too quickly, that way it's correct that he accidentally got his semen there.


Well, whatever the reason the seamen was where it was, the Courts have found nothing unlawful about it.


Argue all you want, but I'm absolutely pissed that this guy is walking free with such logically stupid defense.


Now, prey tell: how do you know what this man told the judge during the private hearing they had?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

it's not that all men are testoterone ridden alpha apes that put it in, swipe and done.


I know. Despite my preference for female avatars, I am male. I am aware we are not all beasts.


Why rape that 18 year old girlfriend in the first place?


Why molest your daughter when your wife is perfectly willing to have sex with you?
Humans do not often act on logic. It's possible he genuinely thought she was consenting. It's possible she accidentally offended him and he wanted to "show her her place."
Why do anything at all?


Wouldn't that friend come to the rescue before he even COULD ejaculate?


She may have only woken up as he finished off.
She might have frozen up due to shock.
Maybes and possibilities abound. What we know for certain is that his semen was in her vagina. What we know for certain is that initially he denied everything.


Now, prey tell: how do you know what this man told the judge during the private hearing they had?


No, and that's my issue. I don't think he should have been allowed a private hearing in the first place.
You are also missing the point. No matter what was said during that time period, his defense is still extraordinarily stupid.
But perhaps he had a recording, or a third witness.

edit on 18/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
216 posts... is he dead yet?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

The semen was found inside her. Inside = penetration. Penetration without consent = rape. I'm no doctor, but i'd say it's physically impossible to trip and fall and penetrate someone by accident. With your hand, with your penis, with your ear, with your nose....impossible. I've tripped and fell many times. I even used to play roller derby, full contact with many females in skimpy clothing. Let me think....um, no, never penetrated someone's vagina by accident.


One would think he would need to trip and fall a good 100 times to get semen too.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Now, let's assume that you are right and that the guy actually penetrated her without her consent. Would it not be totally normal for her to scream, to call her friend for help? Wouldn't that friend come to the rescue before he even COULD ejaculate? They are in the same appartment, actually probably in the same room! Normally, it takes some time for a man to get to the point of ejaculation, it's not that all men are testoterone ridden alpha apes that put it in, swipe and done. Also, this man just HAD had sex with his girlfriend, i believe, or he at least had the chance to have sex with a far more willingly woman. Why rape that 18 year old girlfriend in the first place?


You're making way too many assumptions as to how someone SHOULD react. As I said in a previous post it's actually very common for the victim to freeze up. It takes a minute to realize WTF is going on, especially if they were just asleep (or drunk). And even once they realize what's going on it still might not register to scream or fight. It probably took a couple of minutes to even figure out what was going on. Then she managed to squirm out from under him and just left in a quiet panic. It was probably several hours later that it truly set in that she had just been raped. Luckily, she made it to the hospital in time to secure the physical evidence. The semen that proves penetration. A lot of women wait too late and there's no proof left at all. Their minds are blown by what happened. Seriously, your mind just kind of shuts down. On top of that they are ashamed and humiliated. They are the victim, they didn't do anything wrong, but those are the feelings that go along with it.

Why would he rape the 18 year old? Because she didn't want him. Rape isn't about sexual gratification, it's about dominance. If it was about sex he could have just stayed in the bed with the 24 year old. He wanted what he couldn't have. And he got it. Then he paid a defense team to get him acquitted. Free to do it again.




top topics



 
58
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join