Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

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

199 replies

BertieBotts · 10/12/2015 18:40

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.

OP posts:

PrimeDirective · 17/12/2015 09:40

I was thinking that the evidence heard in private could have been something that would completely discredit her - such as having made a very long string of allegations in the past.
Maybe sending a message to a friend the next day about the amazing sex she had the night before or blackmailing him after having sex. But his defence surely would have run with that if they had evidence of it.
I have to pray that it is something reasonable because I am really struggling to get my head round a not guilty verdict.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 17/12/2015 13:19

I did wonder about that as well, particularly if it was blackmail as it would not be fair to her for that to be referred to in public.

I'm not a criminal lawyer but I do wonder, if the defence were relying on a matter which is itself a crime but where the person who allegedly committed it has not been charged or cautioned, that it would not be reasonable for a public disclosure.

All just speculation of course.

thedancingbear · 17/12/2015 13:33

if the defence were relying on a matter which is itself a crime but where the person who allegedly committed it has not been charged or cautioned, that it would not be reasonable for a public disclosure.

This seems plausible, if there was some evidence that a blackmail attempt had occurred, but not enough ever to meet the CPS threshhold for bringing a prosecution (I believe they have to be 60%+ sure of success, or something like that). It would also explain why the jury would only feel the need to deliberate for 30 minutes. Pure speculation, of course, but's all we're left with without knowing what was actually discussed.

OneFlewOverTheDodosNest · 17/12/2015 14:46

If it's blackmail then why on earth didn't he just say "I did not rape her" prior to the trial rather than "I slipped and fell penis-first into her improbably large and open vagina" and then "I got improbably large amounts of semen in her vagina after having had sex with someone else and her putting my hand between her legs".

Plus, if she was blackmailing him for rape, does that negate the fact that he raped her? I didn't think it did but may be wrong...

Dipankrispaneven · 17/12/2015 14:57

From one of the reports:

"The alleged victim said she ran to the bedroom to try and wake her friend before escaping from the flat.

He claimed she never entered the bedroom to speak to her friend.

When she gave evidence to the court, the teenager had said she had gone into the bedroom but was unable to wake her friend, and feared she might be dead. She said she fled the flat but did not call the police immediately because she did not want to 'aggravate the situation'.

Mr Bartfeld put to her: 'If you think your friend is dead you can't really aggravate the situation - she's not going to be more dead than you thought she was before.'"

It does sound a bit odd. Maybe the jury acquitted because they simply didn't feel she was credible?

noblegiraffe · 17/12/2015 15:07

How credible did she need to be when there was his DNA in her vagina and his explanation was not consensual sex but falling into her? How credible was he?!

Dipankrispaneven · 17/12/2015 15:08

Presumably the jury know that, noble, given that they heard and saw both of them being cross-examined and we didn't?

penguinsarecool · 17/12/2015 15:14

Of course its not a credible explanation.

A couple of years ago a girl who i used to go to school with left her boyfriend whilst she was pregnant with his child. She then got engaged in no time to another man 20 years old than her. A few months later this older guy got charged with rape of another girl 20 years his junior. The police found a text message where he wrote that he raped her and that he was sorry. In court he changed his story to sexual assult and that he 'didn't mean the word rape in its legal sense'. He got away with sexual assult.

AyeAmarok · 17/12/2015 15:24

Why was my comment about bribes deleted but all the rest were allowed to stand?

AyeAmarok · 17/12/2015 15:31

Oh actually I've worked it out. It's because I called him a millionaire r**t when he is actually a millionaire who was not found to be guilty of rape beyond all reasonable doubt.

My apologies HQ. Please ignore my pm!

absolutelynotfabulous · 17/12/2015 17:34

Mmm...i haven't read anything about an "accidental penetration". The reports I've read state that his semen may have been on his hands following sex with the "victim's" friend, and transferred to her body that way.

noblegiraffe · 17/12/2015 18:30

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

absolutelynotfabulous · 17/12/2015 20:09

Thanks noble.

Andrewofgg · 17/12/2015 22:30

The reply to the FoI request will probably be: Here is the address of the transcription service, ask them.

And they will tell the requester how much it will cost. A lot. But it's available.

Having acted as solicitor to men accused of rape and murder and a woman accused of g.b.h. to her own young child I can tell you that you do not ask yourself whether your client is guilty or not: that's for a jury or as the case may be a bench of magistrates to decide. You put their case according to the instructions your client gives you. It's not always easy.

gaedoutr · 18/12/2015 03:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BadlyBehavedShoppingTrolley · 18/12/2015 05:09

He changed his story at least once, under police questioning, to fit with the police evidence as far as I understand it.

It's a twatty lie, everyone seems to realise this, but somehow he got off- it's a media joke FFS. I would like to know what the hell the jury heard in secret, that the rest of us can't hear. I would like to know why he was granted this 20 mins secret evidence.

I would basically like to know why yet another bloke seems to have got away with rape.

I agree. It defies logic or understanding that a jury full of people who we must assume are of at least average intelligence and experience would ever buy his story as a defence. Therefore there must be something else going on that we are not party to.

I can only imagine that for whatever reason, the alleged victim must have made a very flaky and unreliable witness.

Elendon · 18/12/2015 05:31

Rich men can get off with raping someone. Why are we surprised?

BadlyBehavedShoppingTrolley · 18/12/2015 05:48

do you honestly think his income was a factor in this instance? Why? He's not famous or influential, no-one on the jury would give a stuff about his bank balance.

AyeAmarok · 18/12/2015 07:11

Do you honestly think his income was a factor in this instance? Why? He's not famous or influential, no-one on the jury would give a stuff about his bank balance.

No, I don't really. I don't think men need to be rich to get away with rape. Poor men probably get away with rape just as often.

PrimeDirective · 18/12/2015 09:09

Do you honestly think his income was a factor in this instance?
Yes I do. He would have been able to throw money at ensuring he had the very best legal team and been able to dig up any dirt that existed on the girl.

VestalVirgin · 18/12/2015 09:20

Rich men can get off with raping someone. Why are we surprised?

I am not. Though I agree that poor men probably also get away with rape.

Andrewofgg · 18/12/2015 17:35

The scope for "throwing dirt" at the complainant in a rape case is very limited indeed - as it should be - so that was not it.

laughingatweather · 18/12/2015 18:41

Money can buy you shit - hot lawyers but it can't buy a jury. Unless we're talking about bribery of a jury which would mean the jury were committing a criminal offence.

I haven't been part of this jury or case so I can't comment on the evidence presented but it doesn't seem fair to suggest the defendant was found not guilty because he's rich.

Unless we suggest that the best and most successful solicitors are expensive and therefore only available to the wealthy and that may well be the case.

And if that IS the case, then the argument isn't that wealth can 'buy' a non - guilty verdict but that thousands and thousands of poor defendants who rely on legal aid for any crime are represented by inadequate legal counsel.

And that's a huge can of worms.

PlaysWellWithOthers · 18/12/2015 20:14

And that's a huge can of worms.

It is, and yet on the basis of anecdata, it appears to be completely true.

The scope for "throwing dirt" at the complainant in a rape case is very limited indeed - as it should be - so that was not it.

Not actually correct. What they can't do is bring her past sexual history into evidence. What they do do is try and paint a picture of them as utter sluts and liars in every other way imaginable.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8