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.

Comments quite encouraging really. Awful story.

And I looked over to the right and saw the woman hating articles (Amy Adams looked dowdy next to Halle Berry, didn't you know?) and now my blood pressure has gone through the roof! God, I hate the Daily Mail.

Remember, if you don't want to get raped be sure to wear a pair of super tight skinny jeans.

I checked but as is said I can only find daily mail and some turkish media website with this story and they look pretty much the same. I can't see from the dm story how an entire jury can find him innocent pretty disgusting.

It just seems bizarre to me that the jury would acquit based on the case as reported.

We'll never know what the jury was thinking, but I would like to know a lot more about the evidence and argument put to them before I make my own mind up.

Even if it does turn out that the mails report was complete and accurate, I doulbt there is anything that can be done to overturn the verdict unless there is 'new' and 'compelling' evidence.

Good God.

that poor, poor Woman must feel like crap

So in order to not be held responsible for not being raped a woman must:

• be wearing skinny jeans
• not be wearing a tube top
• not be out after dark on her own
• not be asleep
• not be wearing make up
• not be wearing a short skirt
• must have told every man who is walking towards her that she doesn't want his cock in her mouth (perhaps we could design a t-shirt saying this just so that's absolutely clear?)

Err....anything else?

I forgot..

• not have been drinking
• not have had sex with any man before because she is, of course, a slut if she has and therefore 'asking for it'
• not invite a man in 'for coffee'

Jess - you forgot she must not be wearing a matching bra and knickers as this means she left the house looking for sex.

Jeanine, I suspect that the defendent was probably wearing a suit, looked suitably sorry and remorseful and the jury decided on balance tht it wouldn't be right to send such a nice man to prison as he didn't mean it.

His life would be ruined by prison. And his life is valuable. Whereas his victim - well, what's a little bit of unwanted sex eh? Lots of women have that. It doesn't ruin your life. I mean, I bet it's not as if she was a virgin or anything, so although it's regrettable, on balance, his life is worth more than her right to have justice.

That I supsect is the thought process that explains a lot of inexplicable not guilty verdicts.

Given what he admitted in court, per the article, what additional information could come to light to suggest that it wasn't rape? She said she woke up to find him on top of her. He said that he had sex with someone that wasn't his girlfriend (it would have been rape even if it was, given that the woman was asleep.) What possible reason could change those facts?

Oh and of course, the rule that says if a man thought she was consenting, however unreasonably, then the jury must acquit.

HerBeX - I would love to know how much a grilling those on trial for rape get in terms of the consent issue. Seeing as it's pretty fundamental an' all.

Don't forget that women must know how to say no in all world languages. Because if you are raped (in the UK) by a man who doesn't speak much english, then naturally the courts will understand that there is no way that he could have known the sex was unwanted.

I've not read the link I don't feel like getting enraged tonight.

The whole story disgusted me but the 'icing on the cake' was his comment about 'I can't believe I've had sex with a woman old enough to be my mother' or some such shite.

He stole her phone after he raped her - more surprised the fuckwitted judiciary didn't jail him for that, after all possessions seem to be placed higher than people in terms of worth.

Eh? Even if she had been his girlfriend then she would be his proposed sexual partner not his property. He had no right to shag his girlfriend if she did not consent and in fact the article reports that the girlfriend specifically had declined to have sex with him. If the facts are as they are reported then this is very concerning although sadly not surprising.

Too angry to comment coherently.

Fucking hell.

Cannot think of anything else except that right now.

Repeating post.

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)

I did wonder that too WishingChairAgain

It says in that article that his girlfriend had previously been staying in the room so perhaps he still had a key/passcard?

Other than that it would insinuate that the woman invited him in, however, he has made no attempt to claim that was the case.