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

And no your right I don't do shite social media sites

Which bit?

Im referencing what gone posted earlier

I don't see the relevance of that to this thread miss

You obviously havn't been around Tumblr much Kimo

miss have you ever been in this position or known some one in this position. It's not uncommon for victims to wait years before speaking out. Confusion, Shame, self disgust,cself disbelief all play a part in women not coming forward or even not admitting to them selfs what's happened

That wasn't the case here. Where are you going with that, misssmithx?

not like that Iggi. I mean say a month or two after having sex then withdrawing consent

can't actually believe what a couple of posters are even saying. Regret?? Wtf?

Why can't you withdraw consent after you've consented? I've agreed to piv sex with dh and for some reason it's started to hurt. I say ow. He stops with the piv. Easy.
Or, I say I'd like to have sex with you. You start doing something I don't like or call me by another woman's name. I say forget about it. He should forget about it.
I don't see the problem, unless you are really saying men are animals.

Juries get it wrong.

He himself says she stormed out screaming. She did not consent to sex with this man.

Why did he think that a woman who was waiting for the first bloke to go back in would be also trying to have sex with him when they had not even shared a kiss previously.

He seen his chance and he took it. The room was pitch black. Vile

This isn't regret!

No, I meant he demonstrated that he knew after he penetrated her (that is the rape part) that she knew it wasn't the other guy. I am saying he was reckless as to consent. I don't think he had reasonable belief.

Those women who are arguing against - have you actually put yourselves in the position of the guy doing the penetrating and found that a reasonable position? Can you explain a little more? Because I am struggling to understand the mindset.

Have you tried thinking from the position of the woman?

"...Her knew after the event that she thought it was the other guy. That's why I think the jury was wrong. And yet another case where the defendant incriminates himself yet still has defenders..."

What he knew AFTER the event is irrelevant.... unless he carried on having sex with her after knowing it which, based on the reports, is not what happened.

I don't know what the jury were thinking. But I've read a few reports on this (the Telegraph one was particularly shocking) and I still can't see how the jury found as they did - perhaps there was more in court.

Or perhaps the law is fucked up. Because consent to that activity I. E consent to being penetrated by that man was not given. Nor sought - and I thought that had to be established as a defence. But is that what the law says? If not, women should be a lot more worried than they are.

Obviously were I on the jury I'd be conversant with the case, I'm just saying something is fishy from what little info has been published.

I had wondered as by definition the police and cps felt there was a case to answer at trial. Maybe the racial element plays into that and were the defendant white we wouldn't even be aware of it now.

Systemic racism is of course awful but we shouldn't throw women under the bus to virtue signal how unracist we all are.

This case is bloody sickening. I really worry for my dds when they get older.

Morally what that guy did makes him a cunt.

Even if it did go the way he says it did he is still a massive cunt. But in reality we will never know what happened. He could have gone in there and seen she was out of it and took his chance and when she started screaming legged it. Or it could be the way he said and let off on basically a technicality.

Terrible. I hope she is ok

What should the punishment be for cases like this?

Gone must have expectations of really shit sex.

Oh, bigolenerdy, he realised after he penetrated her. So, reckless as to her consent (for him to penetrate her), imho. Her knew after the event that she thought it was the other guy. That's why I think the jury was wrong. And yet another case where the defendant incriminates himself yet still has defenders.

"Most of us on this thread consider that his defence is unsound ie that any belief he had in her consent was unreasonable.."

Yes, and the jury who heard ALL the evidence disagreed with "most of you on this thread" whom I suspect have not heard all the evidence.... in 27 minutes.

Allow me a bit of identity politics on this, but the jury acquitted a black man of rape in less than 30 mins. How crap must the evidence have been?

"...I find the accused's actions in entering a dark room, assuming that she had meant to instigate sex and ignoring the fact she was calling him the other bloke's name utterly bizarre and implausible..."

But Lass, on the reported account, that simply isn't what happened. The account reported in the Metro says:

"...Then she grabbed me saying, “come on Zack” and I realised “she’s thinking I’m Zack” so I jumped off the bed and jumped out of the room..."

When realised she was in fact consenting to Zack, it became obvious that there was no consent for him, and he "jumped off the bed and jumped out of the room"!!

You can choose not to believe him Lass, but you can't jusg make up your own account of things.

Lass I am indeed a man, like I said I don't know what went on but the more I think about it the more I think there is something distinctly fishy about both men's behaviour.

I can empathise with the woman here far more. I can't fathom the men at all. If he needed the sleep why invite a load of people back to your flat at spet o'clock in the morning? Let em get a hotel. Why isn't the sight of your friend exiting your room naked cause to enquire where his trousers are? Bizarre....

"The accused isn't judged by whether he should have known what was in HER mind."

He did not have her consent to penetrate her.

His defence was that he had reasonable belief in that consent.

The jury found that they couldn't say beyond reasonable doubt that his belief in consent was unreasonable, so they found him not guilty.

There is no doubt that she was penetrated by the accused without consent as her consent was to her original partner.

Most of us on this thread consider that his defence is unsound ie that any belief he had in her consent was unreasonable, given the circumstances the accused himself has described.

I hope that clears things up for you, big.

No one is suggesting it was the accused's fault she thought ihe was the other bloke.

What I am saying I find the accused's actions in entering a dark room, assuming that she had meant to instigate sex and ignoring the fact she was calling him the other bloke's name utterly bizarre and implausible.