Man cleared of rape because he was too drunk to realise which bed he was in.

Oh and of course, the rule that says if a man thought she was consenting, however unreasonably, then the jury must acquit.

Given what he admitted in court, per the article, what additional information could come to light to suggest that it wasn't rape? She said she woke up to find him on top of her. He said that he had sex with someone that wasn't his girlfriend (it would have been rape even if it was, given that the woman was asleep.) What possible reason could change those facts?

Jeanine, I suspect that the defendent was probably wearing a suit, looked suitably sorry and remorseful and the jury decided on balance tht it wouldn't be right to send such a nice man to prison as he didn't mean it.

His life would be ruined by prison. And his life is valuable. Whereas his victim - well, what's a little bit of unwanted sex eh? Lots of women have that. It doesn't ruin your life. I mean, I bet it's not as if she was a virgin or anything, so although it's regrettable, on balance, his life is worth more than her right to have justice.

That I supsect is the thought process that explains a lot of inexplicable not guilty verdicts.

Jess - you forgot she must not be wearing a matching bra and knickers as this means she left the house looking for sex.

I forgot..

• not have been drinking
• not have had sex with any man before because she is, of course, a slut if she has and therefore 'asking for it'
• not invite a man in 'for coffee'

So in order to not be held responsible for not being raped a woman must:

• be wearing skinny jeans
• not be wearing a tube top
• not be out after dark on her own
• not be asleep
• not be wearing make up
• not be wearing a short skirt
• must have told every man who is walking towards her that she doesn't want his cock in her mouth (perhaps we could design a t-shirt saying this just so that's absolutely clear?)

Err....anything else?

Good God.

that poor, poor Woman must feel like crap

It just seems bizarre to me that the jury would acquit based on the case as reported.

We'll never know what the jury was thinking, but I would like to know a lot more about the evidence and argument put to them before I make my own mind up.

Even if it does turn out that the mails report was complete and accurate, I doulbt there is anything that can be done to overturn the verdict unless there is 'new' and 'compelling' evidence.

I checked but as is said I can only find daily mail and some turkish media website with this story and they look pretty much the same. I can't see from the dm story how an entire jury can find him innocent pretty disgusting.

Remember, if you don't want to get raped be sure to wear a pair of super tight skinny jeans.

Comments quite encouraging really. Awful story.

And I looked over to the right and saw the woman hating articles (Amy Adams looked dowdy next to Halle Berry, didn't you know?) and now my blood pressure has gone through the roof! God, I hate the Daily Mail.

It might be misplaced, but as I said if that was the case why is the only newspaper to have picked up this story the Daily Mail?

"My basis for believing that the case has not been reported accurately is that I think that it would not have been reasonable for a jury to acquit if the facts of the case were as in the article."

E, your belief in the reasonableness of juries when it comes to rape, is touching but misplaced. As Dittany says, juries are constantly coming to unreasonable decisions about rape. Because of rape myths.

Do we think the Daily Mail has been taken over by rabid feminists determined to raise outrage about rape?

Wouldn't that be absolutely wonderful?

My basis for believing that the case has not been reported accurately is that I think that it would not have been reasonable for a jury to acquit if the facts of the case were as in the article.

If the jury had for some reason done this I would have then expected far more media coverage than one article in the Daily Mail.

Thats not implying anything about the role or actions of the woman in this.

I don't trust the reporting of this case as the Mail appears to the only available source. I suspect that they have omitted some quite important details in order to present the narrative that they want.

I bet you anything that if the woman had had a knife near her and had stabbed him with it to defend herself from rape (seeing as how the law doesn't defend her from it) she'd have been prosecuted for GBH or murder if he'd died of his wounds.

There must be more to this story than the way it has been reported.