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

[demon of the leaf]

Ok you cant trip and your penis goes inside as simple as oiling a car especially a couch that sick mother **** raped that girl

 

[Disquiet]

I hated when I was forced to serve on jury a couple weeks ago, but at the same time I figured it's a good chance to experience the court system. Reading this article, I understand more why they wouldn't allow us to google the case we were given (and they made sure we haven't heard about the case before selecting us, "making sure" means simply asking us lol). My first impression is that this guy is an idiot. However, you'd be surprised how fast a story changes once people start taking the witness stand. Suddenly, an article on the internet looks so insignificant, completely different.

The woman in our case and her 180 degree stories never stood a chance. There's the evidence that only jury and those in the court will see. Then we're allowed to ask the witnesses questions via the judge. Ever read an article and wondered why one person did this or that? All of that speculation can become clear inside a courtroom. I'm sure most of you are aware of this, just dropping a reminder post.

When a person's freedom is on the line, the court tend to take bias much more seriously than say, NB does. And this article would have most definitely made me lean toward the woman's side.

Also, I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but his story could sound like a lie because it is a lie. However, found him not guilty because the woman's story is ALSO a lie. There could have been consensual ***, and that rather absurd story could have been the result of the woman suddenly crying rape on him.

This could have been made clear to the jurors.

1. They're both lying. He had *** with her but it wasn't rape, and she just cried rape. Not too much of a stretch as her and her friend were at his place for some reason, while the friend was having *** with him.

2. It was actually rape and this man just got out because of his money.

Well there it is. Someone did mention it.

 

[Avani]

1. They're both lying. He had *** with her but it wasn't rape, and she just cried rape. Not too much of a stretch as her and her friend were at his place for some reason, while the friend was having *** with him.

2. It was actually rape and this man just got out because of his money.

1)They both maybe lying. Girl might have lodged the report as an after thought. That point is ok- a fair possibility.

But what bothers me is the assumption that she must have wanted to have *** with that guy- she asked if he had a friend and he said none and she went to sleep on the sofa. Now there is a possibility that the guy assumed she wanted it and would have no problem if he tried it after the friend was asleep. While the girl's story suggests she didn't fancy sleeping with the guy who had just slept with her friend too. And took offense to the assumption. Or may be she pulled him while half asleep and as the guy proceeded she woke up and realize that she didn't want it and rushed out.. there are a lot of scenarios there ..

2) Second one is also a definite possibility- he assumed she won't object since she had showed interest if he had a friend. But girl didn't want it any more or not with the guy her friend was with and objected to his taking the liberty of assumption. These are the situations quite likely to arise when people take such relations so lightly/ have been drinking a little too much to think properly. And I am leaning more towards this because of that ridiculous story of how he still didn't bother to fix his own garments even before going to wake her up to offer the Tshirt and how the DNA entered. But since she had shown interest earlier and not very particular about who it was, the case got thrown out.

 

[Jellal Fernandes]

That dude clearly deserves the firing squad.

 

[GinkgoLeaf Girl]

As a number of members here have already pointed out, there are issues to both of their stories. And I understand that the burden of proof is placed on the plaintiff. Still, that is probably one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. How does a penis or a sperm-covered hand enter a woman's vagina accidentally?

 

[ShishaMastah420]

The Earth is dying.

Humanity is a virus.

Attention is the root of all evil.

 

[GreyWizard93]

He would of snapped it if he had missed.

 

[Le0]

There was a case recently in my country that a guy was stealing wine from a farmer's cellar all the time, and the farmer got fed up and wanted to punish the impostor by pouring acid in the wine. In the end, the guy died, and some of his friends that also drank from the stolen wine, got into hospital. The farmer was sentenced for prison, for murder. Many people got upset when the decision got published...but legally it was a fair sentence.

People were upset that the man was sentenced for prison? If so, I'm not sure why they'd be upset because what the man did was not acceptable. Yes someone stole some wine but he took their life, unsure what his intent was but it's acid, not tap water. In my country, recently there was this case where a dead man was charged with murder, unintentional murder. He committed suicide from jumping from his apartment floor and around the same time, a young man parked his car under the building and the man hit the roof of the car (of course died from the impact) but that's not the end of it, the young man in the car died also when the roof struck his head (due to the suicider's impact) and I think there has yet to be a trial, possibly because people are unsure what to make of it.

 

[Loki d]

1)They both maybe lying. Girl might have lodged the report as an after thought. That point is ok- a fair possibility.

But what bothers me is the assumption that she must have wanted to have *** with that guy- she asked if he had a friend and he said none and she went to sleep on the sofa. Now there is a possibility that the guy assumed she wanted it and would have no problem if he tried it after the friend was asleep. While the girl's story suggests she didn't fancy sleeping with the guy who had just slept with her friend too. And took offense to the assumption. Or may be she pulled him while half asleep and as the guy proceeded she woke up and realize that she didn't want it and rushed out.. there are a lot of scenarios there ..

2) Second one is also a definite possibility- he assumed she won't object since she had showed interest if he had a friend. But girl didn't want it any more or not with the guy her friend was with and objected to his taking the liberty of assumption. These are the situations quite likely to arise when people take such relations so lightly/ have been drinking a little too much to think properly. And I am leaning more towards this because of that ridiculous story of how he still didn't bother to fix his own garments even before going to wake her up to offer the Tshirt and how the DNA entered. But since she had shown interest earlier and not very particular about who it was, the case got thrown out.

Yeah she had *** with him. They're both lying. If he would have told the truth that he had *** with her he would be put behind bars. Because he would be admitting he had sexual intercourse with her while she said (lied) he raped her. What would that look like? I had *** with her but I didn't rape her. If he would have admitted he had *** with her he would be tried guilty. Because that is consistent with the evidence. Some women do dumb stuff.

 

[Avani]

Yeah she had *** with him. They're both lying. If he would have told the truth that he had *** with her he would be put behind bars. Because he would be admitting he had sexual intercourse with her while she said (lied) he raped her. What would that look like? I had *** with her but I didn't rape her. If he would have admitted he had *** with her he would be tried guilty. Because that is consistent with the evidence. Some women do dumb stuff.

Many more men have problem taking a no for a no, and proceed presuming they have a consent or will get anyway or that they will get away with it. Send me the details of the actual evidence and details of the hearing from the case, and then I will think about paying attention to your deductions.

 

[Frankenstein]

Wow I just watched a short webm clip in a You Laugh You Lose thread that fits the title of this thread exactly. Pity I can't share it.

 

[HENI]

Exactly why I want to become rich

 

[Dark Sonic]

Exactly why I want to become rich

So a hoe won't try to pull the rape card? xd

 

[The Necromancer]

Man, it seems the children of Narutobase have no idea how the law works.

Can't wait for them to be jailed because something "unlikely" happened. See how much you care about the technicalities of the law then.

 

[Diabound]

Man oh man.

Man, it seems the children of Narutobase have no idea how the law works.

Can't wait for them to be jailed because something "unlikely" happened. See how much you care about the technicalities of the law then.

sounds like some dude slipped on you too

 

[The Necromancer]

sounds like some dude slipped on you too

Do I believe his story? **** no.

But can you prove he's a rapist? **** no.

And that's how the law works. The end. No use continuing this thread unless someone can prove he's a rapist.

Kiddos confusing personal opinions with fact every day on NB.

 

[Avani]

Do I believe his story? **** no.

But can you prove he's a rapist? **** no.

And that's how the law works. The end. No use continuing this thread unless someone can prove he's a rapist.

Kiddos confusing personal opinions with fact every day on NB.

Another self appointed advocate... Most people are mocking the "evidence" which was made public for a good reason. I wonder what makes you think anyone is obligated to prove he is rapist or not for calling him a liar. When an accused makes a statement usually either the whole statement is accepted as the truth or none of it. Half of it cannot be accepted without considering another half. And the another half here is not even made public. Adding to confusion and suspicion.

How about you provide us any link/opinion from a legal expert who commented on the issue and was not baffled at the acceptance of such a ridiculous story and was not left wondering exactly what kind of evidence it was that it couldn't be disclosed while such ridiculous excuse was allowed to stand. I would like to read some theories. I get only these kinds of links:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Or the news which convey the same sentiments. So far accept for the rape apologetic and those who tend to believe that women lie about consent a lot and cry rape as an after thought, people are having tough time digesting it. The best scenario is that it came down to "he said" , "she said" situation where neither could prove their statements beyond doubt.

PS: Asking for "proof" for being suspicious of the circumstances in light of the known facts is just being argumentative. It's not like court never give controversial verdicts making people question the sanity of the judgement wait till someone brings up "Croatian handshake".

 

[Scooby Doo]

How about you provide us any link/opinion from a legal expert

That's just an argument from authority. I'm quite sure the judge who supervised this trial is a legal expert.

And again, why don't you yourself provide us any link from 'legal experts' ? Because quoting some blog is not proof, again.

who commented on the issue and was not baffled at the acceptance of such a ridiculous story and was not left wondering exactly what kind of evidence it was that it couldn't be disclosed while such ridiculous excuse was allowed to stand.

It's not about his ridiculous excuse. It's about the girl not having been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped. As you admitted, even you see a possibility of her lying as well.

So far accept for the rape apologetic

What's your proof, again, that rape happened?

and those who tend to believe that women lie about consent a lot and cry rape as an after thought, people are having tough time digesting it.

Neither Necromancer nor I am saying that the girl lied, we both rather believe her story. But that's. Just. Not. Proof.

+ even you admit that there is a chance she was lying so what are you even arguing for now?

 

[Avani]

That's just an argument from authority. I'm quite sure the judge who supervised this trial is a legal expert.

I am sure the Croatian judge who declared **** fingering to be a form of handshake was also supposed to be a legal expert.

what are you even arguing for now?

I am arguing against idiotic notion that people need to give proof for suspecting foul play and laughing at a ridiculous excuse, when some of the people asking for 'proof' would digest conspiracy theories when it suits them faster than glucose.

Also I see it as a bad precedent in legal terms since it's already the second time when someone made excuse of accidental slipping.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I am sure the judge who declared **** fingering is a form of handshake was also supposed to be a legal expert.

And what makes you think that the experts you are referring to are not any less idiotic than this judge you're talking about?

I am arguing against idiotic notion that people need to give proof for suspecting foul play but same people would digest conspiracy theories when it suits them faster than glucose.

It's quite interesting that you call our points 'conspiracy theory' now, despite you yourself admit that the girl may be lying as well.

Anyway,

conspire
1.To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action

You must be registered for see links

It's you suggesting that the saudi guy secretly committed the crime of bribe with the judge and/or the jurors, to reach a legal purpose through illegal action. You are the conspiracy theorist, not me.

Besides,yes, if you accuse someone of bribe, yes I'd expect you to give proof, I don't see what's idiotic about it. It's not any less idiotic than if I say you are a guy, you'd expect me to prove it or else shut up. You saying something is idiotic is just your opinion, which holds no more value than mine.

Further...alright, of course your suspicion is justified. But so are my doubts. So I think it's fair if I also expect you to accept that I have every right not to sentence this man because I have my reasonable doubts, and I deserve no repercussion in the form of being called a 'rape apologist', that is, such a bad kind of a person, not any less than you deserve a repercussion for insisting that rape happened just because you suspice bribe.

Also I see it as a bad precedent in legal terms since it's already the second time when someone made excuse of accidental slipping.

I understand, but wouldn't it also create a bad precedent if we would just send to jail every rich guy who is accused of rape, only because his story is unlikely? What if he was just an average man, so you wouldn't be able to suspice that his wealth was behind it.