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

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Sorry DM but here.

This guy's girlfriend refused sex, he stumbled into another room "by accident" and started having sex with the woman in the bed there.

He was cleared of rape.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. I imagine he's been cleared because he didn't intend (apparently) to commit a crime. But the fact is that neither woman had consented to sex with him, so whoever he decided to penetrate it would have been rape. He seems to have been cleared on the grounds that if he had walked back into his (non-consenting) girlfriend's room and penetrated her without further ado, that would not have been rape. It obviously would have been.

:( scared and all at once.

fucking DM

I am not even going to read the article and the inevitable shity comments

it will spoil my Saturday

Appalling. Unless the two women were almost identical in appearance, weight, body shape, smell etc he would have known right away it was the wrong person, apart from the fact that, being such a fine upstanding man, he'd have asker her consent and have made some nice loving smalltalk with her anyway before just getting on with it, so would her voice not have given it away...

Absolutely and utterly beyond belief.

And yes, Crackfox, my immediate thought was how could he get it up if the was that pissed?

I can't believe that he was cleared by a whole jury, not just one clueless judge. Wtf were they thinking?

Considering it was a DM story the "comments" are actually quite encouraging. The vast majority think it was rape too.

What's wrong with the DM comments? they think something is wrong with the guy getting off.

Also I thought the DM was putting the false rape claimant being jailed as a sense of irony.

Most of the comments are OK - I was annoying myself by clicking on "Worst rated".

I read the story and put the man's name into google news to see if there was more to this than the Daily Mail is reporting. I could only find a link to the Daily Mail story though which adds to my suspicion that there is more to this than meets the eye. Before anyone rips into me I agree that it is hard to see how he could have any defence but on the other hand it's hard to see how any jury would be daft enough to fall for a "I was to drunk to realise I was shagging the wrong woman" defence. I wouldn't believe anything if it was only the Daily Mail reporting it.

sorry, my fault for assuming all the comments re. the article would be shitty

I did say I hadn't read them

How would he have got into the woman's room though? Hotel rooms can't be opened from the outside even if she'd forgotten to lock it from the inside.

(Not that I'm defending the dogshit but wondering if there's more to it for there to be such an unbelievable decision)

Too drunk to know whose bed he was in but not too drunk to fuck?

Kill me now.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?