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

Your problem is you rely on someone else to take care of the problem. Us peons will get kicked in the balls every time. a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Another Muslim raper, would've thought?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: roadgravel

"Astyanax
Mind Firmly Closed"

That part sound truthful, the story doesn't.

On the contrary, the closed minds on this thread are those who refuse to accept the evidence of reality.

The reality is that, given the circumstances, it is absolutely impossible to establish that an act of rape occurred. Therefore it is impossible to convict the accused of rape. An appeals court would make mincemeat of such a verdict.

*

a reply to: Bluesma

This article doesn't seem anymore convincing than any other I've seen on the case so far.

It is not intended to be convincing. It is a report about what was said in court.

A jury has found this man innocent. I have every confidence that the story they heard, at first blush, sounded as unconvincing to them as it did to some of you. But they acquitted him anyway. Can you think of any motive for their doing that, save the ludicrous accusation that they were ‘bought off’? How about the fact that guilt in these circumstances is absolutely impossible to prove?

Did you notice that the judge allowed private testimony from the accused? What do you think that means? What do you imagine was the substance of that testimony — which the jury would have heard, but not the court?

Did you notice that this supposed rape victim was sleeping on a couch in her alleged attacker’s flat?

Did you notice that the accused had entertained her and her friend all evening at an expensive nightclub, and that they both returned to the flat with him afterwards? Obviously this does not rule out an assault, but it suggests a degree of complicity, does it not?

Here is a fuller report of the court proceedings, replete with all the salacious detail beloved of Mail Online readers — and, I am sure, ATS members. The Mail is an unreliable source, but in this case it is clear that they are merely reporting the story. There is nothing in it to suggest that justice was miscarried in the verdict. On the contrary, it would have been a miscarriage of justice if the man was judged guilty.

It is, you see, rather obvious — except, of course, to the collective genius of Above Top Secret — that under the circumstances it would be impossible to prove sexual assault. There are several possible ways that the man’s DNA could have found its way to where it was discovered, and rape is only one of them. It may come as news to some of you, but in the wider world outside Conspiracyland, innocence is assumed until guilt is proven. Here is a case in which it cannot be proven.

*

a reply to: Balans

The way I read that article I'd tend to believe the young woman's side more. It just seems more logical to me.

Fortunately for justice, the plausibility of an alleged victim’s story is not the factor by which the guilt of the accused is established.

Come on! No matter how the words are twisted to defend this guy in court. its all smoke and mirror talk. The guy admitted literally tripping and falling into vagina HA HA HA. The court was bought and paid for and he made a mockery of our legal system outright.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Come on! No matter how the words are twisted to defend this guy in court. its all smoke and mirror talk. The guy admitted literally tripping and falling into vagina HA HA HA. The court was bought and paid for and he made a mockery of our legal system outright.

You know none of this. It is merely your assumption. And an assumption is insufficient to convict anyone.

Sometimes, what I read on this site makes me despair of humanity. I have to keep reminding myself that the membership of ATS is not representative of humankind in general.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Come on! No matter how the words are twisted to defend this guy in court. its all smoke and mirror talk. The guy admitted literally tripping and falling into vagina HA HA HA. The court was bought and paid for and he made a mockery of our legal system outright.

You know none of this. It is merely your assumption. And an assumption is insufficient to convict anyone.

Sometimes, what I read on this site makes me despair of humanity. I have to keep reminding myself that the membership of ATS is not representative of humankind in general.

It's in the news article. If the courts weren't bought and paid for, those jurors and the Judge are collectively the dumbest people on earth.

a reply to: Astyanax

Doesn't this kind of thing - rich people getting away from crimes most would find despicable with a slap on the wrist at worst - tend to be quite common? Look at Donald "You can't rape your wife" Trump.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Doesn't this kind of thing - rich people getting away from crimes most would find despicable with a slap on the wrist at worst - tend to be quite common?

I wouldn't know. But what crime, exactly, do you think was committed here?

a reply to: Astyanax

So his defense about falling "groin first" on the girl doesnt give you pause ?

I too have to remind myself that ats doesnt represent the population in general.

a reply to: spygeekhow is a defendant allowed to talk to judge for twenty minutes in private with out the prosecutor and the jury in attendance. yes he bought the judge and both should be dealt with severely

a reply to: Astyanax

A crime that results in the man's DNA being found inside the female's vagina.

a reply to: trollz

While his ridiculous excuse is insulting to anyone with a brain, thank the Gods the onus is still on the accuser to prove it happened, and not the defendant to prove it didn't.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

A crime that results in the man's DNA being found inside the female's vagina.

So you think it was rape. Why?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

So his defense about falling "groin first" on the girl doesnt give you pause?

I certainly don’t believe that. Let me tell you what I do believe.

I believe they had sex, consensually, and that the girl then proceeded to try to blackmail him.

But — and I cannot emphasize this enough — this is merely what I believe. The fact is that nobody except the parties present in that Maida Vale living-room on that night really knows the truth. And since the truth cannot be known, it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a crime took place. And therefore the accused, very correctly, is acquitted.

God help any poor soul who seeks justice from a jury composed of a random selection of ATS members.

Much as the results anger many, the prosecution failed to prove their case. As a result? He got off.

Before accusing people of malfeasance, some evidence of it should be found.

As has been said, the only ones who know the truth were the ones in the room. All else is opinion.

a reply to: Astyanax

I believe they had sex, consensually, and that the girl then proceeded to try to blackmail him.

But — and I cannot emphasize this enough — this is merely what I believe. The fact is that nobody except the parties present in that Maida Vale living-room on that night really knows the truth. And since the truth cannot be known, it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a crime took place. And therefore the accused, very correctly, is acquitted.

wow...just wow man. And you feel...if it was consensual and he was being blackmailed...that he would have kept quiet about that...and gone for the most ludicrous defense possible...instead of trying to go for the "truth"...which would eventually set him free if proven ?

Dont know what to say on this really...if that is your reasoning...we obviously live on different planets.

originally posted by: Astyanax

A jury has found this man innocent. I have every confidence that the story they heard, at first blush, sounded as unconvincing to them as it did to some of you. But they acquitted him anyway. Can you think of any motive for their doing that, save the ludicrous accusation that they were ‘bought off’? How about the fact that guilt in these circumstances is absolutely impossible to prove?

Did you notice that the judge allowed private testimony from the accused? What do you think that means? What do you imagine was the substance of that testimony — which the jury would have heard, but not the court?

I don't care. I watch "The Good Wife" and have a great imagination- I probably could come up with hundreds of potential scenarios, some more likely than others (lol! )
Yet, that is of no interest to me. I didn't suggest they were bought off or anything else. I simply say his description of what happened is totally unconvincing to me.
You can continue to call me ignorant and stupid, it doesn't change my thought on that.

Did you notice that this supposed rape victim was sleeping on a couch in her alleged attacker’s flat?

Yes I did. I do not find that surprising. When I was younger, it did happen sometimes that a girlfriend I was out with ran into a guy she dated, and I ended up being a third wheel while they got together for the night. Sometimes I ended up on his couch, or hers.... and I have been on the other side (the one hooking up, with the girlfriend on the couch).

What is your point there? That because that happens, men fall and non-erect penis's slip out of underwear and penetrate nearby vaginas?

Did you notice that the accused had entertained her and her friend all evening at an expensive nightclub, and that they both returned to the flat with him afterwards? Obviously this does not rule out an assault, but it suggests a degree of complicity, does it not?

Yes, girlfriends often stick together when they go out to clubs, as mentioned.
If you mean to say that she stuck with her friend because she wanted to have sex with him too, sure, that is totally possible and would be much more comprehensible. A defense that it was consensual sex would be much easier to believe.
But he did not make that claim.

That is not his defense, so I am not going to bother trying to use my imagination to support a defense that he did not use (even if it works better than the one he did use).

I have made no comment upon the court judgement and verdict- sometimes the most absurd explanations still stand because guilt could not be proven- that does not make the explanations any less absurd.


Editted to add- I see you have now posted your hypothesis of what really happened and what you may have been hinting at here- that they had consensual sex and he was blackmailed.
Interesting hypothesis. It would seem even more likely if there was some reason for him to hide that he had sex - like if he was married and did not want to expose his infidelity.

Since he is acknowledging publicly having sex with the other one, then I guess that is not the case?
Is she pregnant? Would it be the threat of a paternity claim she used in her blackmail?

How exactly have you imagined this blackmail scenario to have worked?

a reply to: Astyanax

Because his DNA was found inside the woman's vagina, and his defense is absolutely ludicrous. Now, forgive me if I was wrong, but I remember there being something about "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." If he hasn't even given a remotely plausible reason himself, why should I believe him otherwise?

There is also a precedent for rich and influential people doing abhorrent things and then using their power to get off with a slap on the wrist at worst. As I said, see: Donald "You can't rape your own wife" Trump.

This takes me back to the joke.

Someone says we had sex, but it was an accident. The reply is, what happened, did you fall and accidentally insert the penis in the vagina?

It's a joke because it would never happen. And here we have it as a bigger joke, because a rapist goes free.

It is possible that she was digging for gold and found a lump of coal. Just sayin'.

originally posted by: skunkape23
It is possible that she was digging for gold and found a lump of coal. Just sayin'.

His semen was in her vagina.