Raped Whilst Asleep...
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/88098...
Hmmmmm.
Hmmmmm.
Article said:
The girlfriend of an American football player was raped during a trip to London but only realised weeks later when she found she was pregnant, a court heard.
The 21 year-old had passed out in a hotel room after being plied with champagne, it is alleged. When she woke up naked the next morning she texted Andrae Edwards, her alleged attacker, who assured her that nothing had happened.
...
Mr Edwards, 22, of Islington, north London, denies rape. The court heard that he told police the woman had only been tipsy, that she had initiated sexual intercourse and claimed that he would have stopped had she told him to.
Guilty I reckon, given the above.The 21 year-old had passed out in a hotel room after being plied with champagne, it is alleged. When she woke up naked the next morning she texted Andrae Edwards, her alleged attacker, who assured her that nothing had happened.
...
Mr Edwards, 22, of Islington, north London, denies rape. The court heard that he told police the woman had only been tipsy, that she had initiated sexual intercourse and claimed that he would have stopped had she told him to.
This is a very tricky one, because it's not unheard of for a woman to decide after the event (perhaps when the boyfriend/husband finds out!) that she "didn't" consent. It worries me that there are those who automatically assume the bloke has raped her, I think it's views like that which mean more men get convicted when they perhaps ought not to....
Until we've seen the evidence, it's not correct to take a view IMHO.
Until we've seen the evidence, it's not correct to take a view IMHO.
Jasandjules said:
Until we've seen the evidence, it's not correct to take a view IMHO.
This. Nail. Direct hit.In such a case it is very often one word against another. I can't see the case ending well for the guy, regardless of whether he was at fault or not. (Something we may never truly know.)
It is very unlikely to be just the word of one person against the other.
The intercourse would appear to have been established. The baby is a bit of a giveaway. The only thin in disupute therefore is the consent.
If she was comatose at the time of the intercourse it does not mean that there was no consent if it had been given before she went sparko.
Consent is complicated and a matter of fact, i.e. something to be proved in court.
If it is just the word of the victim against the offender then the CPS are very unlikely to proceed. There will, almost always, be some form of corrobative evidence to support the lack of consent. Whether this is sufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt is something the jury will have to decide.
It used to be that consent did not have to be explicit, i.e. clearly given. The behaviour of the female or male victim was sufficient to infer consent by the man. This has changed a bit over the years. I remember one case where the defence said that the couple sat on a bed side by side and that was sufficient to show that the woman consented. This was not accepted by the jury.
Further, and much more difficult to disprove, if the bloke honestly believed that the woman consented to sex then that can be a total defence to the charge. You get the odd case of the persom being a victim of rape but there being no offender.
The intercourse would appear to have been established. The baby is a bit of a giveaway. The only thin in disupute therefore is the consent.
If she was comatose at the time of the intercourse it does not mean that there was no consent if it had been given before she went sparko.
Consent is complicated and a matter of fact, i.e. something to be proved in court.
If it is just the word of the victim against the offender then the CPS are very unlikely to proceed. There will, almost always, be some form of corrobative evidence to support the lack of consent. Whether this is sufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt is something the jury will have to decide.
It used to be that consent did not have to be explicit, i.e. clearly given. The behaviour of the female or male victim was sufficient to infer consent by the man. This has changed a bit over the years. I remember one case where the defence said that the couple sat on a bed side by side and that was sufficient to show that the woman consented. This was not accepted by the jury.
Further, and much more difficult to disprove, if the bloke honestly believed that the woman consented to sex then that can be a total defence to the charge. You get the odd case of the persom being a victim of rape but there being no offender.
Unless you had a toothpick for a penis wouldnt you....Wake up?
greygoose said:
If she texted him and he denied anything happened then that suggests he is guilty and knew she did not consent at the time.
This is exactly my thinking tbh. If his text to her denying anything still exists or has been retrieved from the network then I think he's in trouble.
king golden egg.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff