"Most prolific" rapist reporting - male vs female victims

[QuentinWinters]

Was just reading that about the conviction of the "most prolific rapist" for raping over 100 men.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50987823

My impression was the reporting focused more on the impact on his victims and used much stronger language about him being a "monster" who preyed on men "just out to have fun with their friends" than reporting on rapists targeting women. There is a description of how being raped has ruined the male victims lives (previously I associated the terms "ruined life" with men who were found not guilty of rape).

So I looked up reporting on John Worboys as he came to mind as a similarly prolific rapist

In his initial reporting it is more focused on Worboys and describes him crying at the guilty verdict.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/england/london/7931975.stm

Later reporting as the scale of his offending has become clear is still much more focussed on Worboys and his reasons for raping, and more objective and factual about his MO with no discussion of the emotional impact on his victims.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-48702572

Seems like rapes of men are treated much more sympathetically than those of women. Quelle surprise.

Unsurprising really. There too much attention women you know. 🙄

*on

Excellent post OP, I was just about to come to these boards and write similar.

To add: He is the most prolific rapist and he got life. How do they know this? He is the most prolific rapist, who was caught and charged to date.

Obviously, all those men were believed.

The reporting struck me too. Completely different tone to the reporting, less sensationalist, no discussion of what the victims were wearing, more respectful of the victims, more straightforward condemnation of the rapist.

There is one similarity though with Warbuoy, rapist is a man.

I'm glad he's been caught and found guilty. Rape is awful for every victim.

I noticed this when watching the news this morning. Clearly women who have been raped are less important and rarely believed

I'd just thought the same and was going to come on and say that.
Makes me soo angry the obvious differences not the fact this man hasnt got away with it but that I know others do.
The fucking bastard I know of that did similar got away with it... because you know it was women and they'd been out drinking and having fun with their friends rather than at home locked in their ivory towers.

I've had enough of this, this is there year I start doing something about it.... Not sure what but my daughter's will not grow up with this

They know how prolific he was because he recorded his crimes and that's why his victims were believed. They themselves had no recollection of the crimes so didn't report.
As I recall they specifically said he was the most prolific rapist of men or women.
The report I heard (BBC R4 lunchtime) was very specific about his MO. Also commented on his demeanour in court.

Those quotes are from the judge (Suzanne Goddard QC), so if anyone is being more sympathetic to the victims, it's her.

The only guy to report the rape was not believed and was himself arrested. It was only when the rapist kept asking for his mobile phone and the police found a number of phones, none of which were able to be opened by the rapist because he didn't know the PIN numbers. When police opened the rapists phone they found 600 recorded rapes. It as only this hat made the police stop blaming the victim. Only one other victim had gone to the police (and the police did not pursue it).
I think many of the victims are still too embarrassed to come forward.
So in this case, there certainly was an original stance of not believing the victim until the videos were discovered.

Do we know why the case is only being reported after the verdict? Were there reporting restrictions during the trial itself? I haven't seen anything about it .

Interesting to read about the one guy not being believed, mrsmuddlepies. Because otherwise my first instinct would be how utterly typical that there has been nothing at all about the men bringing it on themselves, being drunk, being promiscuous, wearing the wrong clothes etc. (Having said that, a trial report on the verdict wouldn't normally mention those things. But they are the kinds of things a defence lawyer would bring up, which is why I'm curious about it not having been reported up till now.)

But he is the most prolific, of course they are going to report about the victims. If he raped one man it wouldn't be getting as much attention.
And the men were believed because he videotaped it all. So what's not to believe.

Jesus H Christ. Why does this still have to be a competition between men and women? Read about the case before posting such drivel.

That poor girl who was gang rsped in Cyptus was videoed by the rapists.
Unfortunately that hasn't been much help to her.

Royal there were 4 separate trails, due to the overwhelming amount of evidence.
That's why they had reporting restrictions in place.

I think this was a dreadful case, obviously. Yes I think there is a subtle difference in reporting, but the fact is, the rapist’s recording of all these rapes of clearly unconscious men was what made for the victims “being believed”, not the fact that they were male.
I know there ARE clearly issues around prosecution of rape cases, but it is true it is difficult to get convictions - because often, by the very nature of the crime, it is one person’s word against another’s. It’s not a case of proving the sex, it’s proving the issue of non consent. It’s not even that an acquitted rapist means the woman is not believed; the onus is on the prosecution to prove rape “beyond reasonable doubt”. That actually means that you can think the guy probably DID do it - on balance, but that you don’t feel there is NO reasonable doubt.

Hmm...he was only caught when the last victim was arrested for bashing him in self defence! If there was no video evidence and he had got rid of all the stolen mobiles etc, then there is a strong possibility that anyone who did report would have had the GHB out of their system by the time they made it to the police and his "they were bicurious and consenting but ashamed to admit it" defence might have worked. In fact even if they had GHB still detectable in their bloodstream there is a chance he could have said "oh we were having chemsex, they consented to experiment with gay sex on drugs".
I

I did feel uncomfortable with the reporting of the victims' feelings - but of course it is worse for men because many of them were not homosexual.

I thought his defence was that they were consenting but 'pretending to be asleep'

I don't think the sexuality of the victims is of any significance whatsoever

I see nothing nothing wrong with the reporting of the case. It was factual and reported parts of the victim impact statements.

I think the reason this has been reported so differently is that the vast majority (all bar a couple) of his victims were so drugged they had NO recall, and that all the attacks on the victims were videoed on his phone. It was going through the phone imagery and the trophies that were collected from the victims (mobile phones, bank cards that kind of thing) which meant the police could trace many of the victims and let them know they had been raped that led to such a solid conviction.
I cannot recall any other serial rapist (of men or of women) keeping such detailed evidence.

"Sex positivity" and mainstream extreme porn has a lot to answer for. Nowadays it seems you're terribly square if you're not into all sorts; the likes of anal and threesomes are probably vanilla now.

Thirty or 40 years ago a judge and jury are less likely to have believed that a hitherto straight man was really likely to have got hammered and consented to gay sex with a stranger +/- intentional drug taking beforehand; that a young woman consented to such violent spit roasting and fisting with rugby players that she was torn, bleeding and crying in the taxi all the way home; that a teenager was happy to be violently gang banged by a crowd of her holiday flings' mates; that a woman consented to being battered, violently penetrated with a bottle of carpet cleaner and left in a heap drunk, drugged, injured and dying; and that it was all a bit of fun for everyone.

Worboys also drugged his victims and I believe kept notes.

The case is horrific, clearly, and this man deserves life in prison.

I am not commenting on the outcomes of the trials, particularly- just the fact that the defence in each case thought it was likely enough to work that it was worth a shot. I notice in this case they tried to see if any missing persons could be linked to this man- ie did he overdose anyone with the stuff and kill them whether intentionally or not- and could not find any links. But if they had, and the video evidence not existed, no doubt the rapist would have claimed the victim took the drugs knowingly and willingly. Somebody on a previous thread noted bitterly something along the lines of "If you want to get away with murder now, just be sure to rape your victim beforehand any evidence of drugs/knives/strangulation or any other murder method can be waved away as all part of the fun that all the cool kids are having".