Confused at the sentence handed for this "Rape"
- Thread starter ColdAsIce
- Start date
Some parts that do not seem to have hit this thread.
Her friends and her had spoken to at least some of the men involved earlier in the night
and exchanges of txts were made. What these were and the timelines involved dont seem to have come out but were a long the gist of a party at the Travelodge, note this does not really match with the rest of the lads story as it reads in there accounts.
This girl was so drunk she fell over at least twice in a takeaway and is seen on CCTV staggering and falling in the street. There are testimonys from more than one witness to the effect that this girl was very drunk indeed.
The Jury that convicted the 2nd guy was made up of 7 men (and note the Jury convicted him NOT the judge).
As I read it footballer A picked up extremely drunk girl and had sex with her in his hotel room a truely scummy thing to do but there clearly is not enough evidence that she did not consent to this and so he walks free.
Footballer B and scummy mates attempt to video this from a window after been contacted by scummy footballer A and then Footballer B takes his turn on the Girl.
The argument here is both footballers A and B say she agreed to this, she of course does not remember and the Jury has decided that this sounds very unlikely to have been the case after seeing all the evidence.
The guys all must have known how drunk she was and frankly there all scum.
IMO Footballer A deliberately picked up an extremely drunk girl who seperated from her friends was very vulnrable , contacted his mates and then he and his friend took advantage of her while another 2 watched on.
We all do stupid stuff when drunk but imo this is definately low enough to warrant 5 years.
Her friends and her had spoken to at least some of the men involved earlier in the night
and exchanges of txts were made. What these were and the timelines involved dont seem to have come out but were a long the gist of a party at the Travelodge, note this does not really match with the rest of the lads story as it reads in there accounts.
This girl was so drunk she fell over at least twice in a takeaway and is seen on CCTV staggering and falling in the street. There are testimonys from more than one witness to the effect that this girl was very drunk indeed.
The Jury that convicted the 2nd guy was made up of 7 men (and note the Jury convicted him NOT the judge).
As I read it footballer A picked up extremely drunk girl and had sex with her in his hotel room a truely scummy thing to do but there clearly is not enough evidence that she did not consent to this and so he walks free.
Footballer B and scummy mates attempt to video this from a window after been contacted by scummy footballer A and then Footballer B takes his turn on the Girl.
The argument here is both footballers A and B say she agreed to this, she of course does not remember and the Jury has decided that this sounds very unlikely to have been the case after seeing all the evidence.
The guys all must have known how drunk she was and frankly there all scum.
IMO Footballer A deliberately picked up an extremely drunk girl who seperated from her friends was very vulnrable , contacted his mates and then he and his friend took advantage of her while another 2 watched on.
We all do stupid stuff when drunk but imo this is definately low enough to warrant 5 years.
Soldato
That makes it even more inconsistent that A was then acquitted.
Man of Honour
Do you have any links, sources, official quotes, anything to back any of this up?
There are three schools of thought here. You belong to A, the guys raped her and deserve to be killed. There's B, she's definitely lying, lock her up instead. Then there's C, an agnostic approach. We don't know all the evidence, so I'm not going to say who is lying and who is guilty. That's me.
Out of all the people posting in this thread, and all the news stories linked so far, you're the only one mentioning this 'additional evidence'.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 886
I don't like the way the one word "rape" is used for both violent assaults involving penetration and for cases where they have had fairly normal sex that the woman disputes consent in, whether it's alcohol related or his word against hers. There should be different words for the crimes IMO.
As in many cases such as this I doubt there was really enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt, but it is down to the collective opinion of a jury.
I'm glad it's not something I have to worry about as I don't go out sleeping with random drunk women, and least of all women that my friend has been with first!
Just a thought for you though - if there hadn't been a second man involved, do you believe she would have reported the rape by the first man?
As in many cases such as this I doubt there was really enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt, but it is down to the collective opinion of a jury.
I'm glad it's not something I have to worry about as I don't go out sleeping with random drunk women, and least of all women that my friend has been with first!
Just a thought for you though - if there hadn't been a second man involved, do you believe she would have reported the rape by the first man?
Perhaps he's a very naughty member of the jury.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 886
My personal interpretation of "reasonable doubt". How could they know that she wasn't able to give consent at that point, and she didn't just forget it the next day?
Yes the jury convicted, doesn't necessarily mean they were right.
This also doesn't mean, by the way, that I think they didn't do it. They probably did, both of them...
Soldato
Enormous **** up from Sky news on this. While reporting that the victim's name had been leaked on twitter they showed an unedited screenshot of said twitter posts.
Proper D'oh!
Proper D'oh!