Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

Fuck me

I am going to be a lot more careful about who i hug

And your logic is circular and convenient, hell. If I am obtuse, so is the law.

I dread to think what injustices against men and children would be legal if feminists were allowed to create the law. Your approach is astoundingly self-serving, complacent and indulgent to women. It does women no favours and assumes they are capable of having no responsibility for their own welfare.

You really are obtuse, gone.

Is not it's

Then we've also covered why he was having sex with someone his mate brought home... Because she grabbed him. Having sex with someone your mate originally brought home isn't rape any more than getting into the bed of someone you don't know it's asking to be raped.

"why on earth was she in his bed, come to that'

We've covered that. It was a strange flat and she was invited into the bed by her companion who knew the flat.

That's not rape Mary. Why on earth was she in his bed, come to that

If she is lying about sex the first time that compromises the credibility of her narrative regarding sex the second time. That is absolutely key to whether or not it was rape because in one scenario there was consent, in the other there was not.

AHellOfABird...

His reported account says: "...I walked into the bedroom sat on the bed and started nudging the woman saying 'go and meet Zack in the living room'...."

So yes, that was part of his evidence, and is one of the reasons why her being drunk comes into play (i.e. a sober person's recollection will usually trump a drunk person's)

ahell

Was a different race to zack

Linked article, sorry.

Not sure why race has been cited randomly above: the victim has anonymity so we have no idea of her race.

"His argument was, he told her the other guy was in a different room"

Did he? That's not covered in the linked email. So he contends that he explained to her who he was?

"If" you believe his testimony. He told her that the male she had been with was in another room and to go and see him.

She hasn't, he has then got into bed. She has then initiated sex with him.

His argument was, he told her the other guy was in a different room, he had a different voice, build and was a different race. She has initiated sexual contact with him. He believed she consented to sex with him through her actions.

Why on earth did he begin having sex with her if he thought she was there 'with his mate' anyway??

Why did it take her calling out someone's name for him to think he wasn't supposed to be there?

How did he establish consent?

Cross post. The act of penetration without consent is a crime. If the male reasonable believes he has consent, that is his defence. I don't see your point.

Because it's about the act of penetration. Once you do that when you haven't got a reasonable belief in consent, then you are a rapist.

Do we know what he did to establish consent?

I don't think she changes her mind.

I probably believe more of her testimony than his. However, I didn't hear the all the evidence, the jury may have reason to disbelieve some of what she said.

Why doesn't it matter First?

It's the act of penetration that's the crime.

It doesn't matter whether he stopped when she called out his friend's name.

I'm not. However, her version of events is different to his. If you believe her then he didn't stop when she called out his friends name.

So it comes down to who you believe. If doesn't matter if she had sex with the other man. However, if you have two versions of one story, and are trying to discover which one is true, then would that not come into it.

One lie, or mis remembered fact can make a while testimony of truths seem unreliable.

If his version is true, then he told her his friend was in another room. After being told that she initiated sex with him. As I said, if you believe him then not guilty is the only verdict.

I really don't get it, either..

The naysayers haven't really shed any light either.

The jury may have seen how dark the room would have been, they may have seen the huge difference in build between the two men, difference in colour, difference in voice.

There is a lot of evidence that is missing. The victim states she didn't have sex with the first man, he said they did. What does the forensics show? If it contradicts then it puts the rest of her testimony in doubt.

If what he said is true. I.e He talked to her, told her to leave, told her his friend was in the other room, he got into bed and she initiated sex with him; then not guilty is the only verdict.