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

a reply to: peck420

There shouldn't even BE a private testimony, unless his involvement with these two girls constitutes a matter of national security (*snicker*), or directly correlates to some sort of under cover legal work.

But he got one.

Because he's rich and influential. No other reason. Well, maybe because he's a Saud.

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
a reply to: peck420

Right. Because juries are infallible. And people cant be bribed.

I dont know every detail about this, but there is plenty to be suspicious about.
This entire ordeal reeks of bull# so strongly I can smell it from across the sea.

Yup...a couple hundred people, per case, are getting bribed, but we can't find any actual evidence about it.

Sounds legit.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

yes. money talks. and lots of money talks loudest of all. this creep walked because he's a millionaire bigwig. the uk establishment bends over backwards for these types. while screwing the poor over at every opportunity.

originally posted by: trollz

Is this serious?

Not entirely. The case itself is serious, but 95% of the rubbish I've read about the case puts a really bizarre interpretation on it. I spent a decent chunk of yesterday trying to sort through what was a quote from the case and what was interpretation from the journalists. The following is a partial assessment of what I believe actually happened in court based on reading through various sources.

The defendant claimed that the complainant had pulled him down on top of her but that there was never (knowingly) penetration. When asked about DNA evidence found in (some reports say "on", some say "in") the complainant, the defendant offered up some possible explanations. He had recently had intercourse with another woman in the bedroom. He suggested that (i) traces of semen on his hands could have transferred to the complainant when she allegedly pulled him down and pulled his hand onto her crotch, or possibly (ii) he was still fully or partially erect after sex, so when he allegedly fell there may have been accidental penetration.

To reiterate - the defendant didn't say "this is what happened". The defendant was asked "how could that possibly happen?" and he said "well, here are some possible explanations".

The actual defence that was used was that there was never penetration with his penis at all. That is specifically the case that counsel put to the complainant under cross examination:

He said to her: 'The reality is he never put his penis inside you, he never even tried to have sex with you.'

DM article - but direct quote from court case

The jury have to find that all elements of the offence are proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury may have decided that there was never penetration. The jury may have decided that the couple did have sex, or started having sex, despite what the defendant claimed... but they couldn't be sure that it was unreasonable for the defendant to believe there was consent.

Maybe the jury were right, maybe they were wrong, but there's no way for us to know when we have access to less than a handful of quotes.

I wish, I dearly dearly wish, that people wouldn't base their outrage on a newspaper article and whatever law they think they've picked up from watching police shows on the TV.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: peck420

There shouldn't even BE a private testimony, unless his involvement with these two girls constitutes a matter of national security (*snicker*), or directly correlates to some sort of under cover legal work.

But he got one.

Because he's rich and influential. No other reason. Well, maybe because he's a Saud.

Yup.

Judge is on the Saudi payroll. Prosecution (plus all aids and administrative staff which would have been aware of it) is on the Saudi payroll. All the jurors too...oh, and don't forget all of the court security, clerks, etc that would have to be as well.

Got any other grandiose excuses for why this could be nothing more than a woman lying?

a reply to: peck420

Yes, his own excuse.

Is the burden of proof always on the one who is raped? In the ME sure, but come on.

I'm falling, better try to brace my fall by putting my hand on her crotch, and oops! I'm falling in... Sorry lass, heres a fiver to get a cab.

a reply to: peck420

"Bad deeds are done in the cover of shadows. Good deeds in the light of day"
Or something like that.

Whats with the private testimony? Thats sketchy as hell.
If he had a good story that explains everything, why not share it with the world?
It would prevent discussions like this.

30 minutes deliberation must be a record. I know I'd consider the evidence longer than that. But whether or not to take a bribe would be a pretty quick decision.
No, I have no evidence of bribery, but do you expect them to mention that?!
What a headline that would be. There will probably not be any evidence for that.
This doesnt mean its not likely or possible. Do you expect the judge or jury to come out on tv and admit to that? I believe thats the only way youd even consider the possibility.

believe there was consent.

That doesn't actually have any effect on the verdict of a rape case, especially since "belief of consent" could easily equate to "she was wearing a short skirt" for some people.

a reply to: peck420

Why would all involved need a bribe?..only a key person or 2 is all it takes to throw a case, not saying that is what happened but it's plausible.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: spygeek

how is a defendant allowed to talk to judge for twenty minutes in private with out the prosecutor and the jury in attendance.

It's an interesting question. Next time there's a story where it happens, we'll have a fascinating discussion about it.

In the present case, of course, that isn't what happened. The defendant gave his evidence in private - this means that the press/observers were asked to leave. It does not mean that the evidence was given "with out the prosecutor and the jury".

a reply to: EvillerBob

And that. Is still. Complete bullsh*t.

What could he have to say that should be said in private? Seriously, those of you defending this specific part of the trial, do you have any idea what it could be? Is there some legitimate reason that would have greatly affected national or personal security if it got into the public? I sure as hell can't think of any.

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
"Bad deeds are done in the cover of shadows. Good deeds in the light of day"
Or something like that.

I would hardly call a private testimony, in front of the judge, the defense team, the prosecution team, the jurors, and the court staff, something done under the cover of shadows.

It was private, not concealed, not hidden...private.

Whats with the private testimony? Thats sketchy as hell.
If he had a good story that explains everything, why not share it with the world?
It would prevent discussions like this.

That would have been up to the judge and only the judge. If I was a betting man, it pertained to a 3rd party minor, not involved in the case. Which would make it an automatic private testimony.

30 minutes deliberation must be a record. I know I'd consider the evidence longer than that. But whether or not to take a bribe would be a pretty quick decision.
No, I have no evidence of bribery, but do you expect them to mention that?!
What a headline that would be. There will probably not be any evidence for that.
This doesnt mean its not likely or possible. Do you expect the judge or jury to come out on tv and admit to that? I believe thats the only way youd even consider the possibility.

This tells me that you have never taken part in the judicial system.

Jurors are under complete court supervision from the time they enter the court until the court is adjourned. Including to and from the deliberation chamber, as well as to and from (and just out side the stall door) the bathroom if said deliberation chamber/court room.

Now onto the judgement. He was acquitted. Do you know what that signifies? That all jurors were in agreement of no case. A not guilty verdict is achievable with a single bribed juror. An acquittal is not. That means that the defendant would have had to bribe the 12 jurors, plus the stand in jurors (which he would not have met, nor had information on) prior to the final day of testimony.

As for TV...the only thing that is TV relevant is how easy people think it is to just bribe a judge, or a lawyer, or a juror. It is not...unless you are on TV.

If I was a betting man, it pertained to a 3rd party minor, not involved in the case. Which would make it an automatic private testimony.

So a... Third party minor sneakily grabbed his penis and directed it into the victim's vagina?

I simply cannot understand how there could be a relevant third party minor.

originally posted by: vonclod
Why would all involved need a bribe?..only a key person or 2 is all it takes to throw a case, not saying that is what happened but it's plausible.

You aren't getting an acquittal in 30 minutes on 1 or 2 people.

Whatever happened in that courtroom, the jury was sold on his innocence. They barely had time to leave the court room, enter deliberations, and return with a verdict.

If I was a betting man, a very pertinent detail was either shown to be a lie, or pretty much proved his innocence. Even 'ironclad' cases usually take longer than 30 minutes for deliberations.

a reply to: peck420

I'm curious, was the victim present during that time?
I certainly hope she was, or was at least shown a recording.

Also, doesn't what you say actually make things more suspicious?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: EvillerBob

And that. Is still. Complete bullsh*t.

What could he have to say that should be said in private? Seriously, those of you defending this specific part of the trial, do you have any idea what it could be? Is there some legitimate reason that would have greatly affected national or personal security if it got into the public? I sure as hell can't think of any.

There are very few legitimate grounds for exclusion of the press in the situation as it appears to be. "Embarrassment" is actually excluded as a reason by case law, if memory serves, so it wouldn't be that. The whole point of a closed court is that you don't know what was said or why.

Perhaps he was giving evidence that he was a really a double agent for MI5, suspected the two girls were part of an Iranian HoneyPot, and had been "checking them for recording devices". Really, any reason we list would be pure guesswork and speculation.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

If I was a betting man, it pertained to a 3rd party minor, not involved in the case. Which would make it an automatic private testimony.

So a... Third party minor sneakily grabbed his penis and directed it into the victim's vagina?

I simply cannot understand how there could be a relevant third party minor.

A 3rd party, would be a party not involved in the case. So you can rule out any one at the house, at the time.

But, it would force the judge's hand for a private testimony.

Maybe he was talking to a mistress' kid? Maybe his own? Maybe it involves information from an underage friend/witness of the accuser or defendant? The speculations possible for a forced private testimony are really wide spread, long before we even need to think of anything really creepy.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: peck420

I'm curious, was the victim present during that time?
I certainly hope she was, or was at least shown a recording.

If she wasn't directly present, she would have had access to recordings of it. The prosecutions legal team was present, so they would have had them for analysis.

Also, doesn't what you say actually make things more suspicious?

I currently find both parties stories suspect, and doubt we have heard anything remotely close to the truth from either of them.

originally posted by: peck420
I currently find both parties stories suspect, and doubt we have heard anything remotely close to the truth from either of them.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made out of the interesting evidence the complainant gave - she thought her friend was dead so ran out of the flat... but didn't call police at first because she didn't want to make things worse.

Hmm. As the defendant's barrister asked, how could it get worse than "dead"?

a reply to: InnerPeace2012
If Carlsberg did accidents".........."...