Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

[Felascloak]

metro.co.uk/2016/05/12/woman-realised-she-was-having-sex-with-wrong-man-so-accused-him-of-rape-5876504/

I feel really bad for this woman (although I think if I was on the jury I probably would have thought there was a chance he believed he had consent). The headline implies she was unreasonably upset when she found the person having sex with her wasn't who she thought and so "falsely accused" him. Poor woman probably feels totally violated.
Also, what kind of man shags a woman who's gone home with a different guy, when that guy has just left the room for a minute. Ugh. He says he didn't even want to

"...Her knew after the event that she thought it was the other guy. That's why I think the jury was wrong. And yet another case where the defendant incriminates himself yet still has defenders..."

What he knew AFTER the event is irrelevant.... unless he carried on having sex with her after knowing it which, based on the reports, is not what happened.

No, I meant he demonstrated that he knew after he penetrated her (that is the rape part) that she knew it wasn't the other guy. I am saying he was reckless as to consent. I don't think he had reasonable belief.

Those women who are arguing against - have you actually put yourselves in the position of the guy doing the penetrating and found that a reasonable position? Can you explain a little more? Because I am struggling to understand the mindset.

Have you tried thinking from the position of the woman?

This isn't regret!

Juries get it wrong.

He himself says she stormed out screaming. She did not consent to sex with this man.

Why did he think that a woman who was waiting for the first bloke to go back in would be also trying to have sex with him when they had not even shared a kiss previously.

He seen his chance and he took it. The room was pitch black. Vile

Why can't you withdraw consent after you've consented? I've agreed to piv sex with dh and for some reason it's started to hurt. I say ow. He stops with the piv. Easy.
Or, I say I'd like to have sex with you. You start doing something I don't like or call me by another woman's name. I say forget about it. He should forget about it.
I don't see the problem, unless you are really saying men are animals.

can't actually believe what a couple of posters are even saying. Regret?? Wtf?

not like that Iggi. I mean say a month or two after having sex then withdrawing consent

That wasn't the case here. Where are you going with that, misssmithx?

miss have you ever been in this position or known some one in this position. It's not uncommon for victims to wait years before speaking out. Confusion, Shame, self disgust,cself disbelief all play a part in women not coming forward or even not admitting to them selfs what's happened

You obviously havn't been around Tumblr much Kimo

I don't see the relevance of that to this thread miss

Im referencing what gone posted earlier

Which bit?

And no your right I don't do shite social media sites

The jury may have seen how dark the room would have been, they may have seen the huge difference in build between the two men, difference in colour, difference in voice.

There is a lot of evidence that is missing. The victim states she didn't have sex with the first man, he said they did. What does the forensics show? If it contradicts then it puts the rest of her testimony in doubt.

If what he said is true. I.e He talked to her, told her to leave, told her his friend was in the other room, he got into bed and she initiated sex with him; then not guilty is the only verdict.

Again whatnow how reliable her testimony was doesn't appear to be the point. They had sex and in both accounts it was mistaken identity. He appears to have been cleared because the jury thought he could reasonably believe she consented by grabbing him.
Whether or not she had sex with the other man is irrelevant.
I really don't understand why even in a case where there isn't really much debate about the actual act, there is so much effort being put into making the victim look bad. It's disgusting.

I really don't get it, either..

The naysayers haven't really shed any light either.

I'm not. However, her version of events is different to his. If you believe her then he didn't stop when she called out his friends name.

So it comes down to who you believe. If doesn't matter if she had sex with the other man. However, if you have two versions of one story, and are trying to discover which one is true, then would that not come into it.

One lie, or mis remembered fact can make a while testimony of truths seem unreliable.

If his version is true, then he told her his friend was in another room. After being told that she initiated sex with him. As I said, if you believe him then not guilty is the only verdict.

It doesn't matter whether he stopped when she called out his friend's name.

Well, not as I read it whatnow
He says he stopped immediately she said zacks name. She says he carried on. There is no question they had sex and also no question that she thought he was zack.
If you believe him, as the jury did, then you would find not guilty because he had a reasonable belief she consented.
There is nothing in there to suggest she actually did consent and then changed her mind or regretted it. So the victim blaming on this thread is awful.

It's the act of penetration that's the crime.

I don't think she changes her mind.

I probably believe more of her testimony than his. However, I didn't hear the all the evidence, the jury may have reason to disbelieve some of what she said.

Why doesn't it matter First?

Because it's about the act of penetration. Once you do that when you haven't got a reasonable belief in consent, then you are a rapist.

Do we know what he did to establish consent?

Cross post. The act of penetration without consent is a crime. If the male reasonable believes he has consent, that is his defence. I don't see your point.