Man cleared of rape because he raped the wrong woman

I'm tempted to change the title of this thread because it's a lie. He was cleared of rape but we don't know why and I can tell you from experience that it certainly wasn't because he didn't know who he was screwing.
 
DevilDoll said:
Don't you think that's a little excessive? Sali is simply pointing out the other side of this. Women do lie and accuse men of rape to cover their asses. That is not to say that all women who claim to have been raped are lying. He's not saying that the majority lie, either. It's a minority, but you do have to acknowledge that it does happen.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
I think think it's a statement that can't be made without first having a mistrust for women in general.

I doubt you or he actually knows anyone who was assaulted and afraid to come forward because they thought no one would believe them because the justice system is so hostile to rape victims.

And I don't know what sali is talking about--just putting anyone accused of rape in jail without question. Of course there has to be a trial. No one is saying there shouldn't be a trial.. but to claim that many women are vindictive liars, willing to perjure themselves and destroy someone else's life for the sake of revenge ---is a little excessive.
 
Last edited:
88chaz88 said:
I'm tempted to change the title of this thread because it's a lie. He was cleared of rape but we don't know why and I can tell you from experience that it certainly wasn't because he didn't know who he was screwing.
Click to expand...

1st thing that jumped into my mind was that

A. he didn't have sex with her she probably scared him off before he could penetrate her and grabbed her phone by accident. Im sure people would say it was to keep her from calling the popo, but every hotel I have ever been in, even the crap ones has a land line.

or

B. they knew each other and she is having a bit of buyers remorse.

without seeing the court transcripts though, I figure those are the most likely possibilities.
 
acd said:
Not at all.
I think think it's a statement that can't be made without first having a mistrust for women in general.

I doubt you or he actually knows anyone who was assaulted and afraid to come forward because they thought no one would believe them because the justice system is so hostile to rape victims.

And I don't know what sali is talking about--just putting anyone accused of rape in jail without question. Of course there has to be a trial. No one is saying there shouldn't be a trial.. but to claim that many women are vindictive liars, willing to perjure themselves and destroy someone else's life for the sake of revenge ---is a little excessive.
Click to expand...

Because being falsely accused of rape is like having your name raped, the Duke Lacrosse players come to mind. And "many" was not off the mark, many women DO accuse men of rape over a case of buyers remorse, at some point the rape hysteria in this country had it set up on college campuses that any guy who had sex with his girlfriend or fuckbuddy while they were both drunk was actually raping her. absurd.
 
acd said:
Not at all.
I think think it's a statement that can't be made without first having a mistrust for women in general.

I doubt you or he actually knows anyone who was assaulted and afraid to come forward because they thought no one would believe them because the justice system is so hostile to rape victims.

And I don't know what sali is talking about--just putting anyone accused of rape in jail without question. Of course there has to be a trial. No one is saying there shouldn't be a trial.. but to claim that many women are vindictive liars, willing to perjure themselves and destroy someone else's life for the sake of revenge ---is a little excessive.
Click to expand...


You doubt I know anyone who was raped and didn't report it? Really? I was raped and no, I didn't come forward and I didn't press charges because I didn't want the scrutiny and the mess. I handled it in my own way as best I could. So yeah, I think I know what it's like. I've lived with it for the past four years, and I still know some women lie. I've met them. I've seen them do it and it's absolutely disgusting.
 
Why would it have been a mess?
Why do you think you would have been scrutinized?
 
Last edited:
acd said:
Why would it have been a mess?
Why do you think you would have been scrutinized?
Because maybe people respond negatively or mistrustfully to rape victims?
Click to expand...

I didn't come forward because I didn't have the backing of my family. My mother and sister would have sided with the guy who raped me and that would have torn my family apart even more than it already was. You see, he was my long term boyfriend and he had more favor than I did with my family. They would have believed his word over mine in any situation, and did... frequently. He was apparently so damn charming. So, no. My situation has nothing to do wit the mistrust of rape victims. It has to do with my family's inability to trust me. Had that been different, I may have stepped forward. But, it was much easier to handle the situation alone and in quiet rather than alone and scrutinized.

I still stand by what I have said. All I was trying to do is point out the other side of the argument. It applies to more than just rape. You can't trust that every accusation people make is true. There is always some level of doubt until the can provide evidence to the contrary. That's the way it is in murder cases, drugs trials, and rape cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
If she really didn't want to have sex, she would've woken up :)

And a philosophical question:

If a woman was raped in a hotel, but no one was there to experience it, was it rly rape?
 
This board better not be quoting the daily mail, it's for idiots whom like to panic and hate the unfamiliar.
 
DevilDoll said:
I didn't come forward because I didn't have the backing of my family. My mother and sister would have sided with the guy who raped me and that would have torn my family apart even more than it already was. You see, he was my long term boyfriend and he had more favor than I did with my family. They would have believed his word over mine in any situation, and did... frequently. He was apparently so damn charming. So, no. My situation has nothing to do wit the mistrust of rape victims. It has to do with my family's inability to trust me. Had that been different, I may have stepped forward. But, it was much easier to handle the situation alone and in quiet rather than alone and scrutinized.

I still stand by what I have said. All I was trying to do is point out the other side of the argument. It applies to more than just rape. You can't trust that every accusation people make is true. There is always some level of doubt until the can provide evidence to the contrary. That's the way it is in murder cases, drugs trials, and rape cases.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that happened to you.


I never said that those accused of rape should not have a fair trial, though.
I just find it tiresome how quick some are to claim that women lie about being raped. Those who have lied shouldn't become the standard--victims should not be compared to them.
Every claim should be taken seriously and investigated without bias from referencing the minority of women who may have lied about being assaulted...

If you think I'm over reacting, there are judges in the developed world that still blame the victim for being assaulted.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...victim-in-sexual-assault-case/article1918444/
 
Last edited:
acd said:
I'm sorry that happened to you.


I never said that those accused of rape should not have a fair trial, though.
I just find it tiresome how quick some are to claim that women lie about being raped. Those who have lied shouldn't become the standard--victims should not be compared to them.
Every claim should be taken seriously and investigated without bias from referencing the minority of women who may have lied about being assaulted...

If you think I'm over reacting, there are judges in the developed world that still blame the victim for being assaulted.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...victim-in-sexual-assault-case/article1918444/
Click to expand...

What that judge said was stupid, but there wasnt many details. Did the woman resist? Did she say no? It doesnt say in the article... by her actions though, going off into the woods with the guy to kiss and have sex, well... it doesnt sound like rape, unless there was evidence they didnt list, admittedly the article went light on any court evidence at all. Was it simply a case of buyers remorse? Or did he hold her down and rape her for real? Any follow up articles?

IMO if a woman goes out, gets hammered, and sleeps with some dude she doesn't know, she shouldn't be allowed to blow the rape whistle when she sobers up and her conscience comes back, as DD said, this happens often enough that some people stop and think "wait a minute" when a woman claims to have been raped after going out partying.

If she says NO clearly, and he doesn't stop, its rape, he should get his ass put in a sling, but if she goes out gets drunk, sleeps with the guy, wakes up the next day and realizes she made a mistake and wants to repair her ego or image by destroying his? Well, then I think she should get her ass put into a sling. Because quite frankly, that shit happens a LOT more then people are willing to admit which I think is why so many people are leery about rape in general.

I remember hearing about so many cases in the 90s when all these males were getting arrested and expelled from college because they hooked up with some drunk girl while partying, and they claimed rape, even though the "drunk sex" was consensual... the rule of thumb at the time was that if she is drunk, she cannot consent legally. How that suddenly became the males fault and made him the aggressor is beyond me, since the majority of the time he was drunk too, except if a male accused a female of raping him and his consent wasn't any good because he was drunk he would rightfully be laughed at.

In those cases, the guys who did the "raping" were often targeted by malicious females who could use that as a reason to get back at them when they pissed them off, or to hide the fact that they were out drinking and banging frat boys or cheating on their boyfriends. Those are the idiots you need to be blaming for people rolling their eyes when someone says they were raped after a night of heavy drinking.

When a woman is grabbed and pulled into a dark room and raped against her will, no one thinks to blame her, thats an OBVIOUS situation.
 
Last edited:
Neuropedia said:
part of the post trauma affects of rape are denial and self blame. No victim would ever come forward if they knew what happened to them would be doubted. When it is doubted it causes severe psychological damage. I was raped when I was 16, and was told it didn't happen - I couldn't remember it for another three years. Three years of not knowing why I had panic attacks when a male came withing a foot of me, constant nightmares, and inexplicable crying, headaches, brutal insomnia and a bleeding stomach.

Oh yea, and then I was raped again in the period but didn't think I was 'cause y'know last time it happened like that I was told it was consensual. And psychologically and sexually abusive boyfriends. I had to be told, by several professionals that what had happened to me, over several months until i began to consider that it had not been my fault.

I'm pretty sure victim blaming can ruin lives too.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling this is a very common occurrence and I'm sorry that it happened to you. Obviously, rape is a traumatic event and people don't think rationally after something like this. I think a lot of women are scared after to tell because they might be afraid of the man coming after them to harm them again. It could be a subconscious reaction and blaming the self could be a way of dealing with it.

Oh yeah, this is often how multiple personality disorders are formed so like, yeah.
 
Billy said:
What that judge said was stupid, but there wasnt many details. Did the woman resist? Did she say no? It doesnt say in the article... by her actions though, going off into the woods with the guy to kiss and have sex, well... it doesnt sound like rape, unless there was evidence they didnt list, admittedly the article went light on any court evidence at all. Was it simply a case of buyers remorse? Or did he hold her down and rape her for real? Any follow up articles?

IMO if a woman goes out, gets hammered, and sleeps with some dude she doesn't know, she shouldn't be allowed to blow the rape whistle when she sobers up and her conscience comes back, as DD said, this happens often enough that some people stop and think "wait a minute" when a woman claims to have been raped after going out partying.

If she says NO clearly, and he doesn't stop, its rape, he should get his ass put in a sling, but if she goes out gets drunk, sleeps with the guy, wakes up the next day and realizes she made a mistake and wants to repair her ego or image by destroying his? Well, then I think she should get her ass put into a sling. Because quite frankly, that shit happens a LOT more then people are willing to admit which I think is why so many people are leery about rape in general.

I remember hearing about so many cases in the 90s when all these males were getting arrested and expelled from college because they hooked up with some drunk girl while partying, and they claimed rape, even though the "drunk sex" was consensual... the rule of thumb at the time was that if she is drunk, she cannot consent legally. How that suddenly became the males fault and made him the aggressor is beyond me, since the majority of the time he was drunk too, except if a male accused a female of raping him and his consent wasn't any good because he was drunk he would rightfully be laughed at.

In those cases, the guys who did the "raping" were often targeted by malicious females who could use that as a reason to get back at them when they pissed them off, or to hide the fact that they were out drinking and banging frat boys or cheating on their boyfriends. Those are the idiots you need to be blaming for people rolling their eyes when someone says they were raped after a night of heavy drinking.

When a woman is grabbed and pulled into a dark room and raped against her will, no one thinks to blame her, thats an OBVIOUS situation.
Click to expand...


It doesn't say if she was drunk when it happened. They had been at a bar, but that doesn't mean she was drunk--gave consent and then changed her mind the next day. That article doesn't go into so much detail (I linked more if you're curious.) The other articles go into more violent detail. The point I was making was that that judge already held a bias against the victim--

http://www.canada.com/news/Manitoba+judge+removed+from+cases+sexual+nature/4368539/story.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...thing-attitude-factors-in-rape-116853198.html
http://cupwire.ca/articles/43712
(Thank God he was removed from sexual assault cases after this one. That is hopeful.)

While I won't say that women never lie about these things, I'm much more cautious about declaring that women do lie about these things--because in most instances the victim is not lying... and to accuse them of such would cause them even further harm. These things should be looked at objectively... without any bias because regardless of whether some women lie about being raped--each case involves two individuals who deserve a fair trial... That's it. That's my point: It's not fair to reference some women who have lied about being raped and apply it to reasoning about other women who say they have been.
 
Last edited:
I find it difficult to believe but if his story is true he shouldn't be charged with rape, maybe only indecent exposure.
 
I think it is suspect that a very drunk man could get into the hotel room of a woman staying by herself, without her waking up. I'll bet she's not telling something.
 
I don't think you can infer what may or may not have happened in a particular case without being on the jury for that particular case. That's all I have to say about that. I admit that I've been guilty of jumping to conclusions in one case or another but the simple fact of the matter is that we don't have enough information to make any decision on it one way or the other.
 
I also believe that. I remember hearing some of the details about the case where that lady sued McDonalds for enormous amounts of money after spilling their coffee on herself, which is the canonical "frivolous lawsuit" case people like to make fun of, but when I heard the whole story it actually made a lot more sense (at least at the time, which was back when I was in middle school). There can be a lot of surprising, unknown details that the jury hears & works through which might make a lot of ridiculous-sounding trials and decisions make more sense.
 
He wasn't cleared. He was found not guilty. There is actually a difference. "Cleared" is such a misleading term. The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he 'raped' the woman, and his actions would have had to meet all the legal criteria for 'rape' every single one, if he is to be found guilty by a jury of his peers. I just watched a person get a return of 'not guilty' on 4 different counts, all of which had 5 or more criteriea to meet the legal definition. Did he do it? Most everyone thought so, however, there was doubt. The defense cast just enough doubt. It sucks sometimes.

I'm not arguing what anyone has said and agree with most of you. I'm just pointing out the boring technical side of things for those who 'don't get how this stuff happens'. That is how.
 
Yeah, her door was just wide open, and he walked in, raped her, and she didn't even notice until after, when she decided to call the cops.
I think they both collaborated on this to make the news, like balloon boy.

But if it's true, that's really sad. For both the guy, the girl, and the court system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top