"Falling" and "accidentally penetrating" somebody is a rape defence now.

[BertieBotts]

WTAF?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/i-fell-and-penetrated-her-by-accident-millionaire-rape-suspect-claims-a6767486.html

Hopefully - surely - this will never go down in court, right? How ignorant of basic biology would you need to be, exactly? I've heard of some ridiculous defences to rape before but this really takes the biscuit.

Having been in a jury once, I'm not surprised he was acquitted.
Juries have normal people with multiple prejudices and more worries than the victims. They'd need to feel sorry for the victim and they didn't in this case. I'm guessing occupation or behaviour.
But you can't convict if there is not enough evidence and you can't convince people of what happened. And for the sake of not convicting innocents, that's how it should be.

As she was a young woman who helped him drink a £1000 bottle of champagne and freely went back to his house, I can sadly see how misogyny might've won this one.

The fact he said "she'll have to prove it" when questioned makes me Grrr - assume the penis poking out bit came later.

It was up to the jury, not the judge, Aye.

True, but the judge does direct the jury before they deliberate - and the majority of juries will follow the judge's direction.

I'm astonished at this case.

The judge directs on points of law. He or she should not direct the jury to a verdict.

:( Depressing.

This is awful, that poor woman.

Have any court transcripts been released?

Because I hadn't realised that there was a third party present, and am wondering what (if anything) else has been omitted from the press reports so far.

Do you mean the victim's friend, Stella?

Also, I don't think court transcripts are generally released, are they? Judgements are but this was a jury case.

Money talks.

It certainly buys you a seriously persuasive brief.

Can't imagine this happening for Joe Bloggs, rapist, can you?

I suppose, being charitable to the jury, that they may not have bought the "accidental falling" defence but simply decided that rape wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Do we know what the male/female ratio on the jury was?

I wonder what the 20 mins of secret evidence was?

To be honest, whilst this all smells very iffy indeed, I don't think anyone can form a firm judgement without knowing what that 20 minutesof secret evidence consisted of.

What puzzles me is - his defence was that she pulled him on top of her, pushed his hand between her legs and during this accidentally slipped inside her (I think don't think the posts that make it sound like he tripped over the hoover and accidentally penetrated her are terribly helpful). I mean, if he's going to claim that the victim initiated sexual contact, why not just say, 'he grabbed my penis and put it inside her'? Pure speculation obviously but I wonder if the jury thought, 'if this is a cock-and-bull story, it's such an implausible one compared to what he could have come up with, so it must be true'?

I was witness in a rape prosecution once, and they had hours of legal deliberation in private - without the jury even present. It was to discuss whether a previous sex offence conviction should be disclosed to the jury. (It wasn't) also, whether reams of other evidence - online activities, emails and various other pieces of evidence, should be admissible (some was, some wasn't).

It could be something like that.

he was cleared

Are there any pressure groups or groups that campaign around the topic of rape? I couldn't find any online. The sentencing isn't at all consistent. Sentences are too short and then we have this unbelievable situation where a man is found not guilty who says his semen is in a woman's vagina because his erect penis fell inside her. We're meant to live in a first world civilised country. Time to not to put up with this anymore.

It makes a complete mockery of our legal system - get an expensive barrister, make up completely unbelievable stories - enough to cast doubt in the minds of the jury, and hey presto - walk free.

Similar to Oscar Pistorius.

Is it possible the judge directed the jury to find him not guilty ?? I cannot believe a jury could accept that defence, something does not make sense. He sound like a horrid and disgusting man.

She went back to his house, what did she expect? [sarcasm]

And whenever I hear that I always think of a YouTube furore about five or so years ago. A feminist blogger spoke in a video about how someone got into an empty lift with her and asked her if she'd like to come back to his room. She wasn't hysterical in the video, just said (in a resigned way) 'Guys, don't do that.' Reasonable, right?!

Apparently not... Dozens of videos were made about how she had ruined this guys life, and this was what was wrong with women today, and would it have killed her just to go back to his room for a drink, etc, etc. Serious hysteria. And yet, if she did go back with him, like they all wanted, and something did happen to her, the response would have been 'But what possessed you to go to his room?'

But a rich man getting away with the 'I just fell her into her, honest, lol!' defence - HOW FAR HAVE WE FUCKING REGRESSED???

I cannot imagine what possible evidence could have been provided to support this man's defence.

money, power and penis vs no money, vulnerable and vagina. This is why he won. The odds are heavily in his favour. Culturally we still see women going back to someone's house as them in some way inviting whatever a man decides to do to them there. Like someone said upthread, the jury must have identified with him (he seems to be in control) rather than the young woman and possibly blamed her for being there in the first place. They should have more young women on jurys for this sort of rape to give the woman half a chance.

I'm really struggling with this. It is, as far as I can see, physically impossible to fall and penetrate a vagina. I so desperately hope that the jury weren't in any way influenced by the fact that the young women went willingly to a flat and drank champagne and one of them had consensual sex. Althgouh I suspect some were. I too have done jury service. One jury member wanted to convict someone becuase "He looks guilty. It's written all over his face". Another opined that an indian defendant would be let off because the judge was also indian and "They all stick together, don't they". Eye opening and thoroughly depressing.

This has made me very sad and once again, fearful for my children.

Sorry about spelling!

I despair at the state of the justice system in this country. Sexual crimes against women and children are met with largely paltry sentences (unless the media jump in and cause public outrage), but if you dare defraud or steal from a financial or government body and you will be banged up until you're dead. Money talks eh?