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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

Also, he didn't really mean that he slipped. English is not his first language and he made a bad translation of what he meant to say.

Well he was in her, sperm and all right? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just think the one who wanted the sex would typically be the guy who spent all the money and is 25 years older. Most woman who want to use a guy do not want sex, and they do everything up to that point and then bail, so for you to suggest she wanted to have sex with him just to set him up and was able to even though he didn't want it is really hard to accept looking at the circumstances of what a typical older man who foots most likely a good size bill on young girls is looking for.

Finally and I hate to say it, but many Muslim men can have a much harsher view of women, especially non Muslim women who they see as only sexual toys.

Where does it say he was in her?

No. He still had reproductive liquids on him from having just had sex with another person.

She tried to force herself on him and got those fluids onto her from him.

I know you want to believe all females are raped the moment they are born, but it's just not true. She was clearly trying to take advantage of this man's money and status. She got caught in his vapors. It didn't pay off so she cried rape.

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

Where does it say he was in her?

The London-based Saudi millionaire claimed he may have accidentally penetrated the teenager after he fell on her.

No. He still had reproductive liquids on him from having just had sex with another person.

She tried to force herself on him and got those fluids onto her from him.

He said she jumped on him now and grab his hand and put it between her legs to get the DNA there... Ok you win.

I know there are bad women out there to take any advantage they can. I also know that Saudi millionaires can be nasty Fers too. This guy with his most likely multiple wives sees nothing wrong with screwing all non-Muslims he can and their views of women in general is somewhere between little boys and goats, so I have a hard time believing this 18 year old did all he is saying she did.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

Where does it say he was in her?

The London-based Saudi millionaire claimed he may have accidentally penetrated the teenager after he fell on her.

No. He still had reproductive liquids on him from having just had sex with another person.

She tried to force herself on him and got those fluids onto her from him.

He said she jumped on him now and grab his hand and put it between her legs to get the DNA there... Ok you win.

Well I'm sure the girl got exactly what she was after

A nice big paycheck to make the false rape charges go away

Because in this day and age, the only way an innocent man could get from under false rape accusations is with money

originally posted by: OhOkYeah
Because in this day and age, the only way an innocent man could get from under false rape accusations is with money

I'm sure it was like you or me giving a 5 buck tip, or maybe a 5 cents tip... All I can say is body cams...hehe

originally posted by: GrantedBail
a reply to: woogleuk

hahah. I have been a good person my whole life. Karma has served up nothing.

Maybe Karma has served up happiness, the ultimate prize?

Wow...13 pages and everyone is judging the guy, when it seems most haven't even bothered to read the actual story..

His defence is entirely plausible and there was no evidence of any rape or coercion at all. To secure a conviction, the prosecution has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt and there is plenty of that.

Consider why her friend hasn't backed up her claim of rape? Consider why there is no physical evidence of rape besides the bodily fluids (no bruising, defence injuries etc)

People may not want to hear it, but women make false rape accusations all the time. Or get drunk, agree to sex then change their minds in the morning. One of my mates was accused of such a thing way back and I know he didn't rape her because she was all over him the night before and took him upstairs. She only changed her mind after the fact as she was embarrassed.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
AHAHAHAHAHA, HAHAHA, AHAAHA. Oh god, sorry, it's just so demented.

Manners and decorum, please.

Tell me, what is your reasoning as to how that that semen got all up inside her vagina without penetration?

Woman have fingers.

Did she collect it in a glass and then pour it over her nether regions?

I did not suggest anything like that.

Tell me, if she had a recording or video would you say it was "not proof, possible faked."?

If I were the defense, I'd certainly would consider it.

If the other girl was a witness supporting her, would you say "they were in it together"?

If i were the defense, I'd certainly would consider that too. And really, yes, it happens.

Where do the goalposts end?

Actually, in some British and American Courts the jury decides. In some Courts and in other countries, it's the judge. They decide where your "goalposts" are. In many systems, the defense will pull on them on one side, the prosecutor on the opposed side. But it is the judge and / or the jury that decide. Not you. Not me.

Without the semen, people would just claim it never happened at all. As the defendant tried to. Now that it's there, they need to attack the victim's character, or accept that just maybe she's telling the truth. Scandalous, I know. A rape accusation that isn't just a woman lying!? You must be mad!

I am not against or in favour of any of the parties, nor do I have a say in the matter. I do trust in the UK judicial system. They decided that this man could not be proven guilty of rape hence they let him go. I am quite frankly a bit shocked to see how some here think they can do better than the judge, where they do not have much to go on other than hearsay.

Yes, more is needed. Like the private testimony being made available to the public. But it won't be.

I don't know, actually, if UK Court decisions are public. Most of them will be, I guess, just to allow barristers etc. to check rulings. This may well be an exception. Perhaps the judge decided that it might harm him if it gets out. Or it may even harm the girls if it gets out. It's up to the Judge to decide.

Or, or, and I know this is crazy, but maybe she trusted that her friend's friend/boyfriend wouldn't rape her. I know, such twisted logic, huh?

Well, and perhaps he DID not rape her. Again: we don't know. But we DO know that a jury contemplated for 30 minutes and then decided the guy could not be proven guilty. So, do you actually think that the guy bought the entire Court, including the jury and the public servants that work there? I find that highly unrealistic.

'She went to his house, therefore she wanted/was willing to have sex.'God, remind me to never visit your place.

I find this highly offensive: the fact that I'm willing to accept a Court decision does not mean that I would ever rape anybody. Manners and decorum, please.

Look, it might seem strange to you, but sometimes people want to stay with their friends rather than go home. Maybe she was actually more worried taking a cab while drunk and thought it was safer to stay with the others?

Now, London cabbies aren't the most dangerous people in the world. So, I'd take my chances anytime, especially if the alternative was that I had to be in the same appartment in which my girlfriend had sex with a guy.

BTW: anybody here that knows if an appeal to a higher courts was issued?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
...
"Without the semen, people would just claim it never happened at all. As the defendant tried to. Now that it's there, they need to attack the victim's character, or accept that just maybe she's telling the truth. Scandalous, I know. A rape accusation that isn't just a woman lying!? You must be mad!"

I am not against or in favour of any of the parties, nor do I have a say in the matter. I do trust in the UK judicial system. They decided that this man could not be proven guilty of rape hence they let him go. I am quite frankly a bit shocked to see how some here think they can do better than the judge, where they do not have much to go on other than hearsay.
...
"Yes, more is needed. Like the private testimony being made available to the public. But it won't be."

I don't know, actually, if UK Court decisions are public. Most of them will be, I guess, just to allow barristers etc. to check rulings. This may well be an exception. Perhaps the judge decided that it might harm him if it gets out. Or it may even harm the girls if it gets out. It's up to the Judge to decide.
...
BTW: anybody here that knows if an appeal to a higher courts was issued?

Is character going to be at issue? Of course it is. A barrister who doesn't explore this would be failing in his duty.

If the specific evidence is given in private then it should not be published anywhere, though it would be made available to those with a need to have access to it. Also, both legal teams likely took their own personal transcript.

The final decisions are public, but the jury's reasons are not. Disclosing or enquiring into the jury deliberations is actually contempt of court, so you should never be able to know exactly why the jury reached a specific decision.

I have no idea if the prosecutor appealed but I would guess not. An appeal requires an error in law, not merely that the prosecutor disagrees with the finding of fact from the jury.

Edited to add: doesn't seem to like the subquotes, so tries making them bold instead!

Manners and decorum, please.

If you stop making ridiculous assertions, then I will happily oblige.

Women have fingers.

Yes, they do. Astute observation. What are you suggesting she did with them? Shove his semen up her own vagina?
But you said it wasn't proof of penetration. Perhaps you should have said 'penetration by the defendant.'

I did not suggest anything like that.

Then, pray tell, how do you suggest the semen got there without "penetration"?

If I were the defense, I'd certainly would consider it.

Of course you would, as the defense. The defense's job is to do anything and everything to get their client the least punishment possible... In this case, they managed to get an acquittal. Somehow, despite a story that a ten year old would laugh at.

I find this highly offensive: the fact that I'm willing to accept a Court decision does not mean that I would ever rape anybody. Manners and decorum, please.

And I'm offended at you jumping to conclusions. A nice, offended train, huh? (Well, not really. I don't very much care.)
I'm not saying you're a rapist, I'm saying that you seem to believe that going to someone's house is grounds for reasonable consent.

The final decisions are public, but the jury's reasons are not. Disclosing or enquiring into the jury deliberations is actually contempt of court, so you should never be able to know exactly why the jury reached a specific decision.

Yes, I am contemptuous of court, because I am acutely aware that it is not infallible, and I personally detest the way the current system works regardless. If I trusted the system, we wouldn't be having this argument. Alas, as humans are human, it's likely a better one won't be seen in my lifetime.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

Of course you would, as the defense. The defense's job is to do anything and everything to get their client the least punishment possible...

Not in the UK. Your actual duty is to assist the court in reaching its conclusion; you fulfill your duty by representing your side of the argument as vigorously as you can while remaining within the bounds of the law and the Bar Code of Conduct. "Anything and everything" is not in the list of options.

originally posted by: EilasvaleleynIf you stop making ridiculous assertions, then I will happily oblige.

Manners and decorum can, no - should - be used especially when you are (strongly) disagreeing with your honourable opposition. We disagree and are discussing our disagreements online. For all to see, to read and re-read, for years to come. We can't be too polite here.

Yes, they do [have fingers - FO]. Astute observation. What are you suggesting she did with them? Shove his semen up her own vagina?

Perhaps. I was not there, nor have I seen the witness reports, heard the contemplation of the jury. But yes, if you have semen on your fingers and stick them inside your vagina, semen ends up in your vagina.

But you said it wasn't proof of penetration. Perhaps you should have said 'penetration by the defendant.'

Actually, semen swims. And it is very good at that. So, finding semen inside a vagina does not even necessarily mean that there WAS penetration. For example, women can get pregant when semen is on or even near the vulva.

So, the fact that some semen was found inside her does not necessarily mean she was penetrated by whomever. And yes, if she got some on her fingers and then moved her fingers near or inside her vagina, semen could have gotten inside her. Not in great quantities, but I haven't read anything about the amount of semen found in her (not ieven if it WAS actually INSIDE her or on the outside).

Then, pray tell, how do you suggest the semen got there without "penetration"?

See my previous paragraph for an example.

Of course you would, as the defense. The defense's job is to do anything and everything to get their client the least punishment possible... In this case, they managed to get an acquittal. Somehow, despite a story that a ten year old would laugh at.

Sorry, but the decision wasn't made by a ten year old. There were 12 people and a Court involved. They heard the testimonials, weighted the evidence and decided this man was innocent. Innocent men should not be treated as guilty men, unless we want to degrade ourselves to barbarians.

I find this highly offensive: the fact that I'm willing to accept a Court decision does not mean that I would ever rape anybody. Manners and decorum, please.

And I'm offended at you jumping to conclusions.

There is a distinct difference: I am not attacking you as a person. I'm not calling you names, I do not label you to be weird, crazy or insane (or whatever). I try to maintain a factual discussion and I don't think that my believe that the British judicial system works quite well should be seen as a motive to call me a rapist.

I'm not saying you're a rapist, I'm saying that you seem to believe that going to someone's house is grounds for reasonable consent.

Not in itself. But going to someones house after spending the entire night with him in a night-club, drinking considerable amounts of alcohol, refusing an offer to drive you home, insisting on staying for the night, and then lay on the sofa without any underwear might be seen as reasonable consent.

Yes, I am contemptuous of court, because I am acutely aware that it is not infallible, and I personally detest the way the current system works regardless. If I trusted the system, we wouldn't be having this argument. Alas, as humans are human, it's likely a better one won't be seen in my lifetime.

There is a difference between placing trust in the system - I have trust in the system - and debating the results of applying the system. Given the upheaval this case has caused, it might be sensible for the Courts to allow, even stimulate, further investigation by say a committee of MP's and have them publish the results. But that does not necessarily mean that we, the public, are entitled to get to know all the details that were brought before Court in a private hearing. So, instead of trusting the Courts, you then have to trust the MP's.

originally posted by: ForteanOrgGiven the upheaval this case has caused...

This case has caused no upheaval whatsoever, because the people in a position to do something have employed a special trick called "reading comprehension", which appears to distinguish them from the majority of people in this thread. The outrage is confined to papers using sensationalist headlines and readers who prefer to beat their chests and howl rather than engage their brain cells.

This thread has had input from at least two people who work in or around UK courts, who understand how the relevant law applies and how the process works, trying to explain (with quotes and even links to the relevant bits of law) why this "outrage" is unlikely to be anything of the sort.

But, as it turns out, "denying ignorance" isn't as much fun as chest-beating and howling in misplaced outrage.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: ForteanOrgGiven the upheaval this case has caused...

This case has caused no upheaval whatsoever

Well, alas, it did. It was in USA Today, in the Daily mail, in the Independent, it was in all kinds of Internet blogs, vlogs and logs. It even was on RT and ATS

The outrage is confined to papers using sensationalist headlines and readers who prefer to beat their chests and howl rather than engage their brain cells.

Agreed.

But, as it turns out, "denying ignorance" isn't as much fun as chest-beating and howling in misplaced outrage.

Probably. Well, this is the end of it then

Ever listened to that song "Guilty Conscience" by Eminem being the Devil, and Dr.Dre being the angel over the guys shoulder, and the part where the hard working guy came home, excited to see his wife. Then see his wife getting it on with some other guy, and Eminem asked Dre "What, she slipped and fell onto...Etc."

And Eminem says shoot them, while Dre, thinks for a second saying no, then agrees.

And don't forget...Jesus forgives u...Both!?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: ForteanOrgGiven the upheaval this case has caused...

This case has caused no upheaval whatsoever

Well, alas, it did. It was in USA Today, in the Daily mail, in the Independent, it was in all kinds of Internet blogs, vlogs and logs. It even was on RT and ATS

My apologies, I perhaps wasn't clear. I meant that it has not caused any "upheaval" in the sense suggested by the other poster - politicians calling for public inquiries, etc.

It certainly caused a lot of noise though! The problem with the entire affair, in fact, turns out to be the signal-to-noise ratio

This is still going on eh?

That's cool.

Since were all giving theories here on what happened. I think I should as well.

Now the whole story makes no sense or is so meaningless that what little sense it makes puts you to sleep. But anyways! What if there really was a pillow fight there at the guys apartment, seems bizarre no doubt. I mean it does seem that women do go in pairs when on dates or at clubs and what not, generally there is always that one wing woman or whatever you want to call her thats just there because by being there she makes the other girl look much better by comparison.


Maybe that's the problem maybe that's what happened and maybe the guy is actually not lying and he didnt rape the girl. I mean I would think that if he actually did he would pay her off or well I am sure millionaires have there ways for dealing with such things. The whole thing could have played out like they go home with the guy, after a bit of drinking and frolicking around they start a pillow fight and get all heated up, then the guy is like. "So ladies, who wants to ride the wild stallion?" They get all exited and raise there hands and jump up and down saying "oh me me"

But off course he chooses the other girl, and gets busy next door or whatever they were at. The other girl is now feeling left out and a bit lonely and dejected just sits there stewing. After he is done he goes to the fridge to get something to drink and still sees her sitting there on his couch, so he goes over and offers her a cab ride home if she wants to go, at which point she gets cozy up with him, touching him and you know what, trying to seduce him. The guy off course goes along with it for a bit as he is surprised, but then pulls away as from the picture they had of him a pudgy guy in his late mids, no doubt after the first one he is done and likely half asleep and wants to get some sleep.

And so ends the night the guy falls asleep and the girl being so dejected the he rejected her gets the condom from the trash and does a little finger probing, I heard more then a few cases were football stars or general rich dudes of sorts have had that happen to them to were there advised to take any condoms with them and not throw it away after any one night stands or any sexual activities. So it could have happened.

Oh ya! My theory is much better then all of yours. Also much more entertaining and whats worse and sad, that its likely much closer to what may have actually have happened at that slumber party.

Most females get all up and antsy anyways only when they dont get something they want, or there advances are rejected, this could be more of an ego trip for all involved then anything else, she could just be miffed that she was the hang around chick and not the main flick. It does sort of explain why with all the silly ridiculous excuses, the guy in question probably got more then a little friendly with her and she likely went more then a little along with it, but still was dejected. And so held a grudge just because she did not get to ride the wild stallion...

This sounds that its more like the damaged egos and nuttery of this worlds to more papered classes of people. Rich men be wherever they come from, and western raised and mentally conditioned women. Must be why they got excuses that a 5yr old would have come up at when caught stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. I mean there so used to getting there way that they start just making up hilarious and completely preposterous scenarios and excuses. And because one is rich and therefore right and one is females and therefore in the right were just supposed to nod our heads to such preposterous flights of fancy as the excuses they came up with for the whole shindig sleepover party.

For the rich guy were supposed to ignore that two younger women are just there to chill on his couch for the night, and off course there definitely not used to make up excuses when one says she was raped. The guy probably even forgot about that night with those two, before he was taken in for questioning and in the back of his mind he must have been thinking "oh # this may be a problem, I dont even know which ones there talking about, let me just come up with some plausible reasons to all this.

And the ladies involved or the 18 yr old who claimed rape? Well I suppose were just supposed to completely ignore itsy bitsy facts like self responsibility, even though the seem to have it in every other category, and off course the whole illogical aspect of the whole story and scenario like she just happened to be there by accident, or just magically, and of no will of her own just chilling naked on his couch twiddling her fingers wondering were she is, because as we know females dont ever plan ahead most especially when it comes to the one thing like sex or the mating game, the one thing they have always been planing ahead for all of history basically.

Oh ya! In there way two of the most papered classes of people, who cant even seem to make up plausible storylines that a 5 yr old could believe, if there lifes depended on it, because most everybody is so used to believing all the nonsense that comes out there mouths without question simply being who they are.

The whole scenario and stories these two are dishing out or it seems to imply would not even stand the scrutiny of a having a good plot line in a cheep crime drama romance dime novel, # would not even stand up to scrutiny as the plot line of a porn shoot.

But hey whatever I suppose were supposed to believe this crap and just not our heads. Would make a great spot on the jerry springer show or judge judy or something.

But anyways I am quite sure everybody else has other theories of what went on going on in there heads. Mine however is still the most entertaining, and with a bit of looking up who these people are, or a few things about them, you can deduce pretty accurately what actually is most likely to have happened on that faithful night.

But whats the point of that. Other then the fact that these sort of things are so damn hilarious. It even takes attention away from any actual real cases out there were rape is much more likely to occur or has occurred. So unless there is a whole lot more to this or that she was drugged and dragged there or what not, you know serious charges and with real proof to back it up..This is just a dispute between lovers no matter how short there stint in said love may have been, and a none issue for all intensive purposes.

werent they both drinking? you know how people get when they drink. well i think that is greatly affects perception on both ends of the stick. so thats all ill say for now.