Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be outraged at this judgement and the whole establishment

47 replies

Chchchchange · 16/12/2015 12:43

A man has been cleared of raping a girl. He claimed he 'fell' and might have "accidently" penetrated her as a result. He took two girls back to his flat and had sex with one before this incident.

This is beyond a joke, surely. I am absolutely fuming that someone can use this as their defence and be cleared. What is wrong with the judge?

The news story is here

OP posts:
Original poster
Chchchchange · 16/12/2015 12:44

Oh and his semen was found inside her. The man is a billionaire.

OP posts:
WorraLiberty · 16/12/2015 12:46

There's a couple of threads about this already.

I agree it's outrageous though.

EvaBING · 16/12/2015 12:46

This is the fourth thread active on this topic at the moment.
But yes, it's a disgrace!

Blacktealeaves · 16/12/2015 12:49

There is at least one other thread on this.

However it's not a judgment (legal spelling) but the verdict of a jury with no duty or even opportunity to give reasons. They may well not have believed him at all but found there were other problems with the prosecution case.

Newspaper reports of court cases are rarely accurate.

Also has nothing to do with the establishment.

TheCarpenter · 16/12/2015 12:54

I am glad to see so many threads on this. It's a fucking disgrace and one ridiculous drop in an ocean of shite verdicts in relation to rape most of which don't make it to court.

We need to talk about rape more.

TheCarpenter · 16/12/2015 12:55

They may well not have believed him at all but found there were other problems with the prosecution case.

Would problems with the prosecution be technical legal stuff or 'Why did she drink champagne with him and go back to his house?' problems?

BarbarianMum · 16/12/2015 12:56

Maybe the number of threads is indicative of how angry many people are about this. Which is a good thing.

I think you'll find very rich men are rarely convicted of rape, or anything else in fact. I hope the jury can live with themselves and that no-one accidently falls on them one day.

Blacktealeaves · 16/12/2015 13:02

Any number of reasons why they might have felt case wasn't proved so they were sure. I can't possibly say as not in court.

Judge would have directed them that the fact she drank champagne and went back to his place didn't mean she consented.

Taylor22 · 16/12/2015 13:05

While I think that particular statement is ridiculous I won't pass a comment on the courts decision. There would have been several pieces of information that the public will not have been made aware of that could completely change the course of the case.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 16/12/2015 13:08

I have been on two juries, I am a Registered General Nurse (with, therefore a passing knowledge of human anatomy), and have had sex on more than one occasion - and cannot imagine believing 'I fell on her and accidentally penetrated her'.

It beggars belief that this was his defence, and it beggars belief that 12 jurors accepted that crap!

wasonthelist · 16/12/2015 13:13

Yanbu, I see there are apologists for our crap legal system on this thead already, but the whole thing stinks to hell - especially the totally ridiculous defence.

EvaBING · 16/12/2015 13:15

If he fell on her, surely his knob would have bent? It's not like a vagina is a gaping hole!

OurBlanche · 16/12/2015 13:19

Not being an apologist but there are enough indicators in all of the reports that there was other evidence available to both judge and jury.

Think about it: you are a jury member and the trial boils down to "I fell on her and my penis got stuck in her vagina" - your decision would be obvious. Why did this jury not make the obvious decision? well... maybe there was more to it than the DM and other rags have decided to print!

No DM fuelled outrage will change the outcome. The decision, as presented, is odd enough to prompt a review anyway!

DisgraceToTheYChromosome · 16/12/2015 13:22

I would very much like to examine the jurors' finances in about a year's time, purely out of curiosity.

Taylor22 · 16/12/2015 13:22

No notonthelist just not naive enough to believe everything that's in the media and not narrow missed enough to know that there is a lot more to every court case.

Tamponlady · 16/12/2015 13:24

My bil is a barrister and he says cases are rarely won or lost on evidence it's about weather or not the jury like the person for the crime of if they believe they would do or not similar things in similar cirmastaces

Hence they guy who killed the guy who was taking pictures of his children on the beach got off there was no way on gods earth he didn't kill the guy but the jury most likely thought I would of killed him to

Sad but reality

wasonthelist · 16/12/2015 13:25

A defence like that shouldn't be offered. That it was spoken in open court by a lawyer presumably with a straight face shows all you need to know about what is wrong with our system. What the hell sort of system allows such obvious tosh to be presented as a defence that has to be considered? No sensible person could anything but contempt for such a statement but in the fairytale of the law it's all fine, because all the lawyers and their hangers-on are getting paid.

Blacktealeaves · 16/12/2015 13:28

Oh bollocks, it's not being an apologist to say the newspapers get everything wrong or that this might not have been the jury's reason for not being sure.

I'm certainly not say the situation re rape and sex offence conviction rates is good.

wasonthelist · 16/12/2015 13:39

I am not saying the papers are telling the full story - but honestly, how can anyone have any respect for a system that takes such a defence seriously? What next an alien did it? My friend did it? It is extremely insulting to everyone involved.

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 13:59

I agree that it seems unlikely that the defence raised that he accidentally tripped and penetrated her. It seems from the limited info in the text of the article that he may be saying that he tripped and fell on top of her, while she says that he was trying to penetrate her. The rape conviction rate is terrible, but at the same time i think that it's unrealistic to expect that it is ever going to be brought up to the same level as other crimes, simply because what is often in issue is not the fact of sex but consent, which is not susceptible to forensic evidence. When it's one person's word against another, it's very hard for a jury to say that one is right beyond reasonable doubt (as is necessary to convict). That doesn't mean they believe the other person though.

goodnightdarthvader1 · 16/12/2015 14:08

And it doesn't mean they should believe a bullshit defense like "I tripped and fell into her vagina". It's impossible. And there was absolutely no good reason for him to give evidence privately.

OddSocksHighHeels · 16/12/2015 14:14

Reading the report it seems that he's saying he didn't penetrate her but that fell on top with his penis exposed and this is why his semen was inside her. The semen being there due to him just having had consensual sex. That still doesn't sound biologically possible to me. Poor woman.

goodnightdarthvader1 · 16/12/2015 14:15

Exactly. Vaginas don't "suck up" nearby semen like a fucking vacuum cleaner.

KathyBeale · 16/12/2015 14:19

I did jury service on a sexual offence trial. It was awful. I had nightmares about it for weeks afterwards and it wasn't the evidence that was so upsetting - though it wasn't nice - it was the attitudes of my fellow jurors. It was a really horrible eye-opener for me about how some people think and it still makes me upset to think about it.

OurBlanche · 16/12/2015 14:28

I would very much like to examine the jurors' finances in about a year's time, purely out of curiosity.

How very conspiracy theory of you!