Saudi millionaire 'accidentally tripped and penetrated' girl. doesn't go to jail

[Monxstaa]

A MILLIONAIRE businessman has been found not guilty of rape after claiming he accidentally penetrated her when he tripped and fell.

Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was initially accused of forcing himself on the 18-year-old as she slept on a couch at his London flat after a night of drinking.

The Saudi property developer said he had already had *** with the young woman’s 24-year-old friend and it was possible he may have been exposed out of his underwear when he tripped.

You must be registered for see links

reported the group had met at an exclusive West End club last year where he entertained them before offering them a lift home.

The 18-year-old claimed that after a number of drinks at Abdulaziz’s north London home, she went to sleep on the couch.

She said she woke up to find him on top of her, forcing himself on her.
“She woke up with the defendant kissing her and (being penetrated),” Prosecutor Jonathan Davies told the court

“She said: ‘What are you doing?’ and he said ‘It’s fine’, indicating that her friend was asleep.

“She got up to find her friend, tried to wake her but couldn’t, she then tried to get out of the flat as quickly as she could.”

Abdulaziz said he had accidentally fallen on the teenager and that she tried to seduce him, and that was how his DNA got onto her.

“I’m fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened,” he said.

He said it was possible he had semen on his hands from having *** with a 24-year-old woman earlier

The jury acquitted Abdulaziz after just 30 minutes of deliberations.

Smh at the justice system if you have money you can get away with anything, kill people+have money= nojail time etc its really sad.

 

[Sasuke tyeezy]

What da faq, he got away this shit:|?

 

[Avani]

UK courts... I guess they would fix it by making another documentary about crime rate in another nation yet again.

 

[Urda]

LMAO... The whole jury must have been brought or forced to rule in the businessman favor because that some bullshit. SMH

 

[Angelic.]

icckkk these princes..

 

[Brooks]

Money always solves your problems.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Babadook]

Sorry but this story is not as obvious to me as it is to you or others. The article says that Abdulaziz offered some evidence in private, we don't even know what that was, and I'm not going to jump into the asumption of him having bribed the judge and the jurors, because it's not how it works. Now I'm not british so may the brits on this site correct me, but I don't think the british justice system is biased in favor of rich saudi rapists, and I don't know if half an hour of jury deliberation is so unheard of that it raises suspicion. If I had been a juror, I would have also voted 'not guilty', because the evidence (some semen without other corroborating evidence for all I know based on this article) doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape happened. We've got two narratives, sure, the businessman's is less plausible, but it's not unheard of that women accuse someone of rape because they were not paid or not paid enough, or for other reasons (f.e revenge). I wouldn't be so naive to believe that the 18 yrs old girl accompanied the businessman simply because he offered a ride, and even went up to his flat with her friend just like that. Obviously the man wanted to have ***, and obviously the girls were into it, otherwise a 18 yrs old girl doesn't hang out in casinos with a rich man that invites her and her friend to his home, and said little girl doesn't just take a sleep on the couch innocently while her friend is being fcked next room.

(Sorry if I missed anything from the article).

 

[Avani]

Sorry but this story is not as obvious to me as it is to you or others. The article says that Abdulaziz offered some evidence in private, we don't even know what that was, and I'm not going to jump into the asumption of him having bribed the judge and the jurors, because it's not how it works. Now I'm not british so may the brits on this site correct me, but I don't think the british justice system is biased in favor of rich saudi rapists, and I don't know if half an hour of jury deliberation is so unheard of that it raises suspicion. If I had been a juror, I would have also voted 'not guilty', because the evidence (some semen without other corroborating evidence for all I know based on this article) doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape happened. We've got two narratives, sure, the businessman's is less plausible, but it's not unheard of that women accuse someone of rape because they were not paid or not paid enough, or for other reasons (f.e revenge). I wouldn't be so naive to believe that the 18 yrs old girl accompanied the businessman simply because he offered a ride, and even went up to his flat with her friend just like that. Obviously the man wanted to have ***, and obviously the girls were into it, otherwise a 18 yrs old girl doesn't hang out in casinos with a rich man that invites her and her friend to his home, and said little girl doesn't just take a sleep on the couch innocently while her friend is being ****ed next room.

(Sorry if I missed anything from the article).

..Now we know what kind of people formed the jury.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Avani]

The type of people that don't just send someone to jail because a girl said so.

Other than that you're arguing ad hominem.

Yea sure. People parade naked when they have house guests and trip all the time. Doesn't matter that girl was asleep with her clothes on and he claimed he went to her to giver her bigger Tshirt or to call a taxi for her - while still leaving his member out..and then tripped..


And

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.

My comment was very clearly directed at the position you maintained on this topic and had nothing to do with you in person. If you fail to see even that I know exactly how much weigh I should put on to your logic and argument for the case.

Edit: you deleted your post yet again. Anyway I am keeping the quote this time.

 

[Penguin]

Sounds like a complete accident to me. I always fall when I get erections. That blood loss from my brain to my other head sure does get me light headed you know? He definitely didn't give her all that alcohol to try and loosen her guard up, by golly!

 

[NineSNS]

They say that Justice is blind. Apparently it's stupid and corrupt as hell, too.

 

[Babadook]

Yea sure.


And



My comment was very clearly directed at the position you maintained on this topic and had nothing to do with you in person. If you fail to see even that I know exactly how much weigh I should put on to your logic and argument for the case.

Let's start from the beginning. What was your argument to prove that indeed rape happened? What if the man says the truth and it was the girl that tried to pull him onto herself? You may say that's unlikely, but I did admit the man's story is less plausible, however 'less plausible' is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. You didn't provide any argument to begin with, so you shouldn't complai nabout my arguments. I've read your daily mail link too, that doesn't really provide any more conclusive info.

Again, if you'd send people to jail just because you believe a girl's story out of sentiment, then I also have my opinion on what type of a person you are. Besides, you already have a not-so-favorable view on me, so no need to emphasize it every time you disagree with me.

It's quite ironical how you plead now that you only directed your comment at my position on this thread, but when last time I said I'm only addressing your position as a mod, you didn't accept that.

Had you really wanted to address my stance on this topic, you could have used a more elaborate phrasing. You said 'type of a person' which addresses my personality. So don't try to say that by 'person' you actually meant 'position'.

But I give you the chance now to explain what type of a person I am and what type of people did the jury consist of? Hm?

I deleted my post because I wanted to check your daily mail link first. I granted you the assumption that you actually know the name and background of the jurors based on that other link.

And you also edited your post to add more info...

People parade naked when they have house guests and trip all the time. Doesn't matter that girl was asleep with her clothes on and he claimed he went to her to giver her bigger Tshirt or to call a taxi for her - while still leaving his member out..and then tripped..

How cute, caling *** partners house guests...euphemism again.

And again, what's your proof that the man lied and the girl said the truth?

 

[Monxstaa]

Sorry but this story is not as obvious to me as it is to you or others. The article says that Abdulaziz offered some evidence in private, we don't even know what that was, and I'm not going to jump into the asumption of him having bribed the judge and the jurors, because it's not how it works. Now I'm not british so may the brits on this site correct me, but I don't think the british justice system is biased in favor of rich saudi rapists, and I don't know if half an hour of jury deliberation is so unheard of that it raises suspicion. If I had been a juror, I would have also voted 'not guilty', because the evidence (some semen without other corroborating evidence for all I know based on this article) doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape happened. We've got two narratives, sure, the businessman's is less plausible, but it's not unheard of that women accuse someone of rape because they were not paid or not paid enough, or for other reasons (f.e revenge). I wouldn't be so naive to believe that the 18 yrs old girl accompanied the businessman simply because he offered a ride, and even went up to his flat with her friend just like that. Obviously the man wanted to have ***, and obviously the girls were into it, otherwise a 18 yrs old girl doesn't hang out in casinos with a rich man that invites her and her friend to his home, and said little girl doesn't just take a sleep on the couch innocently while her friend is being fcked next room.

(Sorry if I missed anything from the article).

but how did she get semen in her dude i believe he is lying money talks they say well they are right, you are just saying what a lawyer would say. This is the reason women dont tell the police that they were raped or something because they the lawyers make them look bad

 

[Babadook]

but how did she get semen in her dude i believe he is lying money talks they say well they are right, you are just saying what a lawyer would say. This is the reason women dont tell the police that they were raped or something because they the lawyers make them look bad

I'm actually a law student so excuse me playign the advocate...

 

[Monxstaa]

I'm actually a law student so excuse me playign the advocate...

i see, you was acting like a lawyer so i figured.

 

[Avani]

Let's start from the beginning. What was your argument to prove that indeed rape happened? What if the man says the truth and it was the girl that tried to pull him onto herself? You may say that's unlikely, but I did admit the man's story is less plausible, however 'less plausible' is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. You didn't provide any argument to begin with, so you shouldn't complai nabout my arguments. I've read your daily mail link too, that doesn't really provide any more conclusive info.

Again, if you'd send people to jail just because you believe a girl's story out of sentiment, then I also have my opinion on what type of a person you are. Besides, you already have a not-so-favorable view on me, so no need to emphasize it every time you disagree with me.

It's quite ironical how you plead now that you only directed your comment at my position on this thread, but when last time I said I'm only addressing your position as a mod, you didn't accept that.

Had you really wanted to address my stance on this topic, you could have used a more elaborate phrasing. You said 'type of a person' which addresses my personality. So don't try to say that by 'person' you actually meant 'position'.

But I give you the chance now to explain what type of a person I am and what type of people did the jury consist of? Hm?

I deleted my post because I wanted to check your daily mail link first. I granted you the assumption that you actually know the name and background of the jurors based on that other link.

And you also edited your post to add more info...

It's clearly the type of the position jury seem to have taken and you are reaffirming it yourself. Yet somehow I should prove it that it's your kind of thinking jury seem to have followed. Either you are happy to be on the side of the jury or you realize it was an odd decision.

Unless you are posting the whole set of evidence and script of how jury reached that verdict point by point why would I even consider wasting my time on your argument over the story? I find the man's claim that "nothing happened" and he just "tripped" odd. Something happened whether girl lied or not.

And that you drag in that mod card again. I immediately dismiss people who try to play stupid mod card every-time they get in an argument with unrelated topic. It's more idiotic that commenting on grammar when losing an argument. Unless it's a discussion about the NB site and it's rule that's irrelevant fact. So obviously I will reject it. Get over it.

 

[Monxstaa]

@Babadook he said he fell over and entering her now can you explain how that happened or the girl was telling a lie?

 

[Yubel]

Hey man, it was an accident so it can't be called rape + she's 18 so it's all good and what was she doing at his couch anyway? Yeah, she was obviously trying to get close to his D and his money in the process. The brat knew what she was doing.

 

[Babadook]

It's clearly the type of the position jury seem to have taken and you are reaffirming it yourself. Yet somehow I should prove it that it's your kind of thinking jury seem to have followed. Either you are happy to be on the side of the jury or you realize it was an odd decision.

And that you drag in that mod card again. I immediately dismiss people who try to play stupid mod card every-time they get in an argument with unrelated topic. It's more idiotic that commenting on grammar when losing an argument. Unless it's a discussion about the NB site and it's rule that's irrelevant fact. Get over it.

Unless you are posting the whole set of evidence and script of how jury reached that verdict point by point why would I even consider wasting my time on you?

As I said from the beginning, I can only base my opinion on the little info the articles provide, so of course I might be wrong, just like you. But there is this thing called the benefit of the doubt. If this case is so blatantly obvious to you and you are 100% convinced that the girl said the truth and the truth only, then good for you. I have my doubts, which I'm entitled to, good for me. I did admit that from the beginning so you knew that, thus there was really no point in wasting your time quoting me only to tell us that the jury consisted of people like me. And , unless you also post the whole set of evidence and the verdict, how do you expect me to happily side with the jury or realize it's an odd decision? Odd compared to what? It's odd only if the girl said the truth, which I'm not convinced of, and so I'm not gonna send someone to jail. Let's not even mention that you kind of imply that the man also committed the crime of bribing as well as the jury/judge accepting the bribe, of which you again have no evidence , so would you go as far as sending the judge and the jury to jail for that crime?

Anyway, if you know exactly how much weight you should put on my arguments here, then really, just ignore me, I'm just stupid I guess, really no need for a site leader to bother with idiots like me, right? You have your opinion on this case, I have mine, I actually understand where you and OP are coming from, but legally I don't think it was an odd decision simply based on the little we know from this article (but as I also admitted I'm not an expert on rape trials in England so may the brits on the site correct me if I'm wrong).
Anyway rape cases are not something you can decide by logic, just saying. We've got two statements:
A: The girl was sleeping on the couch when she woke up to the man trying to penetrate her.
B: The man tripped and the girl tried to pull him over onto herself.

These are logically equal statements, that's why you need physical evidence (and semen alone is not conclusive in my humble opinion, especially that the man gave his reasons as to how that semen got there. Of course it's an easier explanation that he tried to rape her, but again, you can't just sentence someone because that's more convenient for you to imagine. That's not how it works, and I suggest you watch the movie 12 angry men [in case you haven't watched it yet]).

Yeah if I'm gonna get an infraction for trolling if I defend my case, I might feel like complaining about it, especially that the argument was already ditched, and as for now, you just simply disagree without giving any counter-arguments to my points, you just simply think that the man lied and bribed the court. Which is fine, again, you can believe what you want, but no need to criticize me for pointing out that you can't sentence someone just because of what you believe to be true. If it's not proven beyond a doubt, you got to let it go. And now if you'd say that you have no doubt at all, then again, let me see the corroborating evidence. If there is none, then there is nothing more to debate about, think that the man is a rapist, and I'll keep my doubts.

 

[BLAZE]

what da f :| and people seriously believe this :|