The three boys accused of taking it in turns to rape a girl have been found not guilty

[Lougle]

The three boys accused of taking it in turns to rape a girl have been found not guilty on all counts despite some of the incident being filmed. How could that be? That poor girl. I believe in justice, I wasn't in court. I just can't understand it though.

but she ought to have known that a yes on the tram was a blanket yes to everything - probably for at least 24 hours but definitely as long as she was in their presence. For as that esteemed jurist Hale said back in the 17th century

by marrying, a woman gives her "mutual matrimonial consent and contract" and has "given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract".

Oh wait, that was marriage and marital rape and was repealed (in the 20th century!)

You miss my point.

Most crimes, especially sexual crimes are done discreetly. Not in full view of a witness.

This was done with little discression and in front of her pal.
Why would anyone commit any crime in full view of a witness?

The Australian one had me in tears.

This was done with little discression and in front of her pal.
Why would anyone commit any crime in full view of a witness?

And my point was that you seem to think this renders the victim not credible. I don't.

I’ve never been called at all, and I would like to be sometime. Having said that, I’d hate to be on a jury for a rape trial where the other jurors want to acquit for fear of ‘ruining a man’s life’.

The other girl is only one part of the overall picture. Lots of other aspects to be considered too.

So wrong. Why weren't the boys called slags!

It's another factor that can cause "reasonable doubt"

The Manosphere in action.

Christ - I have just read the evidence given by the victims mother that suggests her daughter was being anally raped by one person whilst being told to suck it by another - all filmed. I believe this scenario is popular in porn. I think it’s called a kebab? Designed to make men feel powerful by acting in tandem whilst demeaning and humiliating a lone woman. How would the jury conclude that a 13 year old would consent to such treatment?

There was clearly sufficient physical evidence (semen, bruising, abrasion, bleeding etc) from the hospital examination to proceed to trial. Despite this the defence argued that she is at fault because she didn’t make it clear that she wasn’t up for it or that she really was and was just using a get out of jail free card by crying rape. What’s really scary is that a jury is wlling to believe that if a 13 year old exchanges banter or even fancies another 13 year old that proves they consent to rape and humiliation carried out by a group unless they fight back.

I think the poster up thread nailed it.

Its started off as consensual, the yes, the condom discussion and somewhere its become non-consensual but with the freeze reflex shes not communicated that.

Its all part of the picture, which makes it difficult to prove reasonable doubt the boys knowingly had non-consensual intercourse. They ran off as soon as her pal intervened.
The passers by obviously though it was consensual too. I'd like to think if they thought it was rape they'd have intervened too or called police if they were frightened for their own safety.

I agree with this.

This is the whole problem with the consent age isnt it. This grey area which is not consensual, but it is. To prevent children being criminalised for having under aged sex, which is assumed between a 'girlfriend and boyfriend'. So 2 15 year olds for example

And why there is such a difficult discourse when theres threads about 'shall I let my 15 year olds boyfriend stay overnight'

Lots of pepole just shrugging at that, and others feeling its completely inappropriate. I fall slightly more to the latter but Im not sure there is a right or wrong

What it does lead to though, is the concept that children this young can make an informed choice about this and 'give consent' and its 'consensual'

is it really?

These kids dont even know what sex is, not really. So whatever she might have laughed along and giggled to (if she did) she didnt really have a concept of it

It wont have been her watching hardcore porn, but I bet the boys have done for some years already.

Who's raising boys like that?

Virtually every poster who is the mother of boys on this site will deny that there is any risk their boys are like this.

I rather think there is more of these types of boys than we like to admit

Yes, like the fact she was a virgin, a minor, that they recorded her without consent, that a witness report she had said no, that 13 year old virgin girls are highly unlikely to agree to a gangbang in the bushes, and then later decide that actually it was rape and not just report it to the police, but go through all the shit that comes with that? All those aspects?

Yes I thought it was quite obvious that was the words used. The obvious part being the word ‘shut’ doesn’t need censoring

Well that's a bet you'd lose, and not just my sister, but like many family abusers, half the thrill was getting away with it in front of others.

Opportunistic I would guess. The victim happened to be there.

Well largely because they dont think its a crime

I doubt they thought anything of it, other than that her friend was pissed off or the girl might have been pissed off in the end

I doubt they thought 'we're raping this girl and we better not get caught'

I doubt the enormity or understanding of what was happening entered their heads.

Look at the report of the boy saying on the stand when asked if he thought he was doing anything wrong (and I know there will have been some coaching in that), hes worried about the effect on his family of 'unfounded' allegations

Not that it was wrong and harmful and bad for all concerned, even if he cant say for the girl specifically.

I’m trying to ask if her friend was standing there watching this, and if all it took was for her to run in and grab her for the boys to run off - why didn’t she do this earlier? If she was so scared then that she had no option to watch, then wouldn’t the boys have also done something to her.
something doesn’t add up here. And that’s what the court probable decided on

People make judgements of what they’d do in the cold light of day without understanding the effect of terror on the nervous system. I was attacked as a young teen and not only was I paralysed with fear I tried to shout and my voice had gone, and nothing would come out. It’s actually terrifying to know you could potentially be that defenceless if it happened again.

But what if you weren’t alone and your friend was right there. A friend who ran in to grab you, and that’s all it took for the boys to run off. Why didn’t the friend do that much earlier?

No I dont think thats what the jurors were led by

Its not unusual for kids to be struck, shocked, the friend to also freeze, in a gaggle of kids there will be some laughing along, perhaps nervously, perhaps genuinely, not really comprehending whats happening. Perhaps she was telling them to stop, perhaps she was asked to look out and see if people were coming, perhaps she was trying to avoid the whole situation. Im guessing she was also 13, these are young kids we're talking about, not big bolshy teens (and that applies to the boys too). Im not sure wht I would have done at that age instantly, perhaps been scared, perhaps angry, perhaps trying to laugh it off if I thought my friend was also laughing along. She said her friend looked scared though.

I think the jurors were led by this concept that the girl could or did consent

Im not convinced, although someone said it was in a link upthread, that the girl said she wanted to have sex TO the boys or the boy.

You're putting a lot of expectation on a young kid, she's not a police officer!!!