"Men cleared as rape woman's group sex fantasy revealed"

Chinafoot

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8455161.stm

BBC News wrote:

Men cleared as rape woman's group sex fantasy revealed

Five men have been cleared of raping a woman after it emerged she had spoken online about group sex fantasies.

The 24-year-old from Liverpool claimed she was raped after visiting one of the men at his home in Bolton, after making contact on the internet.

But the trial at Preston Crown Court collapsed when computer evidence was produced showing her entertaining the prospect of group sex.

Judge Robert Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts.

Prosecutor Michael Leeming told a jury the case involved allegations of rape and conspiracy to rape at a house in Great Lever, Bolton, on 19 June.


But he formally offered no evidence after reading excerpts of MSN chatlogs of her conversations before the alleged offence.

He said: "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'.

"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned.

"We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence."


Judge Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts for rape and conspiracy to rape against five men.

They were: Kelvin Chinakwe, 26, of Brook Hey Avenue, Bolton; Olatunji Owolabi, 28, of Bradbourne Close, Great Lever; Afolabi Sanyaolu, 29, of Laburnum Road, London; Senthil Venkatachalam, 30, of Wigan Road, Deane, Bolton; and Funsho Bello, 26, of Atherstone, Rochdale.

A sixth man - Ganiyn Conteh, 32, of Abbeywood Avenue, Abbey Hey, Manchester - was formally cleared of conspiracy to rape.

The woman said she had agreed to visit Mr Owolabi after meeting him on MSN.

She alleged she wanted to just have sex with him, but was then raped by the others.

Judge Brown told the jury: "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.

"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces."

Well I have to say I was quite disturbed by this. Obviously I don't know what she said in the conversation but unless it was "Have your mates ready and waiting for when I get there" I find the instructions by the judge to be baffling. Her credibility is shot to pieces because she had discussed a sexual fantasy??

If a woman discusses a rape fantasy and then gets raped, does that mean the man gets away with it?

What do ye think?

amacachi

Taking the article at face value my main question would be how it got to court in the first place.

Raze_them_all

I think there's not enough facts to come to an opinion on it unless you were there everyday or read all the court transcripts

Teferi

You'd need to see the chat logs to make an informed comment.

If she wanted to have group sex, talked about it with your man, went through with it and then just felt dirty afterwards and decided to cry rape then shame on her.

If they raped her after only discussing group sex and she didn't want to then shame on them and they should feel the full force of the law.

speedboatchase

What a fun board this is

Raze_them_all

Teferi wrote: »

You'd need to see the chat logs to make an informed comment.

If she wanted to have group sex, talked about it with your man, went through with it and then just felt dirty afterwards and decided to cry rape then shame on her.

If they raped her after only discussing group sex and she didn't want to then shame on them and they should feel the full force of the law.

She should also face the full force of the law and the men should sue her assways for defimation of character, mental anguish and so on.
If they did it then castration and jailtime is fair.

Agonist

Very dodgy decision by the judge. Rape fantasies don't go further than the sex act. I think it's unlikely that bringing a group of men to court was part of her fantasy.

There must be more to this than is in the article.

amacachi

Agonist wrote: »

Very dodgy decision by the judge. Rape fantasies don't go further than the sex act. I think it's unlikely that bringing a group of men to court was part of her fantasy.

There must be more to this than is in the article.

As I said, just going by the article I wonder how this made it to court. If it's accurate then it's purely her word against theirs.

Chinafoot

Teferi wrote: »

You'd need to see the chat logs to make an informed comment.

If she wanted to have group sex, talked about it with your man, went through with it and then just felt dirty afterwards and decided to cry rape then shame on her.

If they raped her after only discussing group sex and she didn't want to then shame on them and they should feel the full force of the law.

This my opinion pretty much. I just found it interesting that the piece didn't say that the woman had discussed arranging the group sex. There's a huge difference between discussing a fantasy and arranging to carry out that fantasy.

I would just hate to think that being raped in a scenario that you had previously expressed an interest in means its not really rape.

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

if you go to some strangers house that you met on the internet what do you expect to happen? get a brain woman!

Chinafoot

TEMPLAR KNIGHT wrote: »

if you go to some strangers house that you met on the internet what do you expect to happen? get a brain woman!

Well she said she expected to have sex with him. I'm sure it's not unheard of. What she allegedly didn't expect was for 4 of his mates to want in on it.

Piste

I suppose this all hangs on exactly how she phrased her desire for gang-rape. It could have been phrased in such a way as to have given explicit consent like "oh yeah I'd love if you and your buddies raped me kthnksbye"

Maybe the guy thought he was being nice in indulging her fantasy.

I suppsoe we can't know just baed on that article.

entropi

Quick edit to rephrase: Yes its true that she didnt visit him without the intention that sex was on the cards, but that is no excuse for carrying out what would have only been "sexual fantasy chat" from MSN logs. Rape is never an easy subject to deal with. Maybe it was this case or maybe it wasnt, but i dont see why the judge of all people decided they get suspended sentences...maybe they should have been imprisoned? I'm sure he's dealt with cases of rape allegation before but it really all hinges on whether it was completely consensual group sex or actual rape itself, and sadly this has not been published, or if they can even prove what is what.

Raze_them_all

Master of Nothing wrote: »

Quick edit to rephrase: Yes its true that she didnt visit him without the intention that sex was on the cards, but that is no excuse for carrying out what would have only been "sexual fantasy chat" from MSN logs. Rape is never an easy subject to deal with. Maybe it was this case or maybe it wasnt, but i dont see why the judge of all people decided they get suspended sentences...maybe they should have been imprisoned? I'm sure he's dealt with cases of rape allegation before but it really all hinges on whether it was completely consensual group sex or actual rape itself, and sadly this has not been published, or if they can even prove what is what.

Not guilty is not a suspended sentence.

The problem is how can we know that she agreed to it once it was there but later felt dirty and regretted it, then agaion they could of raped her. The only people who'll know is them

Novella

Imo, or as far as I know anyway, there are many women who fantasise about being raped. Some women do get off on being constrained and 'forced' to do sexual acts etc. I don't think that's completely out of the ordinary.

I do, however, think that there is a difference between being raped as part of a fantasy and actually, forcefully being raped.

I don't even know how to explain it. Basically, if a woman explained to a man that the thought of being dominated (raped?) turned her on and then one night he decides to dominate (rape?) her in the hope of just purely satisfying a sexual need for her, then maybe that's ok. I think it's ok if the woman is at no point seriously fearing for safety though.

I mean, perhaps some sort of safe word should be discussed beforehand.

Obviously, I get that it would take away from the whole nature of being raped but it isn't really just black and white here.

If that woman really and truly wanted those men to leave her alone and said no, tried to stop them and realised she wasn't turned on at all by this fantasy then yeah, I do think that's rape. How can anyone know though, that's the problem.

Just because she posted online that it was a fantasy of hers doesn't entitle a man to carry it out with her, especially if she requests an end to it.

Seriously complicated to know though, I think you could end up going round in circles just trying to make your mind up about it.

Agonist

Piste wrote: »

I suppose this all hangs on exactly how she phrased her desire for gang-rape.

The thing is, even if you want to be raped it's still a crime to rape someone. She would have had to set it up carefully with a safe word etc. so that she could live out her fantasy without the guys actually having sex with her against her will.

Teferi

Raze_them_all wrote: »

She should also face the full force of the law and the men should sue her assways for defimation of character, mental anguish and so on.
If they did it then castration and jailtime is fair.

Sorry, I forgot to add that and I absolutely agree. People who claim rape that turns out to be false should face the full force of the law.

Chinafoot

Agonist wrote: »

The thing is, even if you want to be raped it's still a crime to rape someone. She would have had to set it up carefully with a safe word etc. so that she could live out her fantasy without the guys actually having sex with her against her will.

Piste wrote: »

I suppose this all hangs on exactly how she phrased her desire for gang-rape. It could have been phrased in such a way as to have given explicit consent like "oh yeah I'd love if you and your buddies raped me kthnksbye"

Maybe the guy thought he was being nice in indulging her fantasy.

I suppsoe we can't know just baed on that article.

Sorry just to be clear, it was group sex with strangers that was her fantasy...not gang-rape. Big, big difference.

I had mentioned the rape fantasy as an alternative situation where judgements like this could come into play.

Agonist

Chinafoot wrote: »

Sorry just to be clear, it was group sex with strangers that was her fantasy...not gang-rape. Big, big difference.

I had mentioned the rape fantasy as an alternative situation where judgements like this could come into play.

When I think about it, the judge treated it as they used to treat rape within marriage - that if you had "signed up for" having sex with someone then they couldn't possibly rape you. On the information we have it's a typical her-story-against-his/theirs case and her expressed interest in group sex is neither here nor there.

Maybe she denied this and it was discovered at some stage during the case which would make it look bad, all right.

I don't understand how the judge threw it out.

Novella

I actually think I read this all wrong!

Ok, so from her MSN conversations, she "entertains the idea" of having group sex with strangers? I don't think entertaining the idea of something means you are 100% up for it, does it? It just means you toy with the notion in your head.

"Her morals go out the window". I love how this bit is quoted. Who knows what context this was taken from. She could have said, "Sometimes I masturbate thinking about group sex, god, feels like my morals go out the window!". It doesn't automatically mean she is up for anything, imo.

She said she only wanted to have sex with one man.

If she was truly uncomfortable with having sex with the other men, then of course she was raped. It doesn't matter if she gets off every night to the thought of group sex. If she did not want it when it was happening, then I would consider it rape.

Unfortunately for her, it has become a their word against hers situation.

Who knows? Maybe they didn't rape her. Maybe her morals did go out the window and afterwards she didn't like what she had done so much and so accused them of rape.

Either way, one party deserves to be punished but I think it'd be pretty difficult to prove who is in the wrong.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Agree with Chinafoot it sounds outrageous if that's the reason it was thrown out

I'm guessing there's more to it. Pretty shocking if they threw the case out because she once said she'd like to do groupsex.

That's pretty much like a girl saying she'd love to have sex with someone, then agrees to watch a film with a guy. Said guy rapes her but because she said she likes sex he couldn't have raped her.

amacachi

Agonist wrote: »

I don't understand how the judge threw it out.

Why wouldn't he? From that article there seems to be absolutely no evidence against the accused other than her word. How that's enough to even get a case to court is beyond me.

Raze_them_all

amacachi wrote: »

Why wouldn't he? From that article there seems to be absolutely no evidence against the accused other than her word. How that's enough to even get a case to court is beyond me.

I agree with this. It's word for word.

I'd say we'd have to be on the jury to hear all the details

Bottle_of_Smoke

Teferi wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot to add that and I absolutely agree. People who claim rape that turns out to be false should face the full force of the law.

Not being able to prove someone raped someone doesn't mean the allegation was false. It means only that they aren't convicted.

Now lets say a woman claims she was raped at between the hours of 10pm and 11pm on October the 10th 2007 by John Smith at her apartment in London. However CCTV footage in a pub in Belfast shows John Smith drinking from 7pm to midnight on the same date.

That is proof the allegation is false and in that circumstance, she should face a hefty prison sentence.

Raze_them_all

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not being able to prove someone raped someone doesn't mean the allegation was false. It means only that they aren't convicted.

Now lets say a woman claims she was raped at between the hours of 10pm and 11pm on October the 10th 2007 by John Smith at her apartment in London. However CCTV footage in a pub in Belfast shows John Smith drinking from 7pm to midnight on the same date.

That is proof the allegation is false and in that circumstance, she should face a hefty prison sentence.

When is simply accusing someone enough proof?

If I said you robbed me after you were in my house would that get brought to court?

So far it seems that most people already have made up their mind that the lads did it.

Agonist

amacachi wrote: »

Why wouldn't he? From that article there seems to be absolutely no evidence against the accused other than her word. How that's enough to even get a case to court is beyond me.

Ok, I'm not sure how the law works exactly but there would have been other evidence from her forensic tests etc. that sex had taken place. Still her word against their word, certainly.

They said it all depended on her credibility. If she lied about the MSN chat then, sure, her credibility is gone.

Maybe it wouldn't have gone to court if she had volunteered the chat logs. Not sure about this one.

Chinafoot

Raze_them_all wrote: »

So far it seems that most people already have made up their mind that the lads did it.

Well I'm sure most people have their minds made up that group sex took place as this doesn't appear to be disputed. Their main defence has been chat logs that show she had fantasised group sex. Without seeing the logs we won't know if she arranged the encounter or if she merely said it was something she wanted to try. The latter does not give explicit consent by any means. She claims it was rape, they say it was consentual. This seems to be the way a lot of rape trials go. So essentially it does come down to his word against hers.

There would, of course, have been evidence that sex took place in order for it to get to trial. Also, I'm no legal expert but isn't a case being "thrown out" different from a "not guilty" verdict?

Raze_them_all

Did the judge not tell them to return a not guilty verdict? is that throwing out a case?

From the article thats what their defence is. They could have more, that could be all the have, The same way the rape kit(containing the semen,hairs etc) would be her proof of the rape, but if they say it was consensual group sex then it just comes down to word vs word again like virtually all rape cases

amacachi

Chinafoot wrote: »

There would, of course, have been evidence that sex took place in order for it to get to trial. Also, I'm no legal expert but isn't a case being "thrown out" different from a "not guilty" verdict?

There's no difference really. The judge instructed the jury to a verdict so they're not guilty. Sometimes cases will be thrown out early if there's one key piece of evidence and it's shown to be wrong, and the judge decides there's no case to answer and no point in wasting the court's time. In this case I would expect the case was pretty much over so the judge just instructed the jury on a verdict since they weren't going to get another case in that day anyway. Also there are times in a clear-cut (in the law's eyes) when a judge will instruct a jury so as to ensure none of them have misunderstood anything which could result in an incorrect verdict.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Raze_them_all wrote: »

When is simply accusing someone enough proof?

If I said you robbed me after you were in my house would that get brought to court?

So far it seems that most people already have made up their mind that the lads did it.

That wasn't my point at all. I wasn't saying an accusation is proof. I was saying an acquittal doesn't mean the accused was innocent. It just means he wasn't convicted. Of course it doesn't mean he's guilty either.

If I robbed you, but I cleverly made sure not to leave any evidence and I can't be convicted an acquittal doesn't magically make me innocent. Therefore I couldn't sue you for defamation based on that acquittal alone.

Ghost Train

I think its impossible to say one way or the other what happened without knowing more, one persons word against another. I would imagine the the chat logs showed the woman had tried to mislead the court and the case had to be ended there. If part of her evidence is deceitful, dishonest or gives blatent distortion of what happened then you can't go convict six people because everything else she said becomes questionable too.

jenga-jen

Raze_them_all wrote: »

I agree with this. It's word for word.

I'd say we'd have to be on the jury to hear all the details

+1 to the above.

Apart from anything else, there's no mention of physical evidence regarding her alleged assault. While obviously group sex with 5 men would take it's toll, gang rape would undoubtedly leave a horrific amount of physical trauma to this woman's body which would've been taken into account in the hearing.

Without knowing the full transcripts of the court case and relying solely on the reporting skills of the writer in question, there really is no way to know whether this was the correct judgement or not.

IMO, in rape cases which are summarily dismissed and those in which womens' sexual proclivities/past are examined in minute detail in order to discredit her allegation, then both the accused and the judge should be held accountable for the villification of someone who is later granted a conviction.

However, I will say that I completely agree that women who falsely cry rape should be made to face the full extent of the law for the same.

Nevyn

No means No.

Even if she did arrange to have group sex or a gangbang or a rape fantasy forfilled and turned up at the appointed place at the appointed time but then changed her mind and said no, then no means no.

Unfortunatly anyone who's sexual tastes range anywhere out of the restrictive moral standard is seen as a deviant and there for lesser and there is often the attitude of the get what they deserve when bad things happen to them.

No means no, but if she hid the information and was found lying the court will say she has no credibility then again if she has been upfront about it chances are even if she was gangraped having said NO charges would not have been pressed.

Honestly it's almost like you have to be a virgin or a nun or in your 80s to be a "real" victim of rape.

Zulu

Do we know she said "no" though?

All we know is:
1) sometime after the event she went to the police.
2) A case was prepared.
3) A case went to court
4) A judge determined that a jury should (in light of evidence) find the men "not guilty" (as in: not guilty).
5) The jury returned that verdict.

The men were found not guilty.

Nevyn

She alleged she wanted to just have sex with him, but was then raped by the others.

She said she consented (said yes) to 1 man and did not consent to having sex to the rest (said no).

The Judge made a call on her morals as a person because she has fantasies about being gang raped that is not on, you can be a good and moral person and have those fantasies and even carry them out and still should not be raped.

Buceph

Agonist wrote: »

Maybe she denied this and it was discovered at some stage during the case which would make it look bad, all right.

From reading about this on other sites and other news reports, that appears to be the reasoning for the judgement here. What I gathered was that she made no mention of the chat logs, or the fact that she had fantasised about group sex with yer man. So when it did come out, it looked bad for her as she had been covering up evidence that was very much pertinent.

You have to remember that in Ireland and England, you are not allowed to mislead through word play. And it's a very fine line between answering a question rigidly, and misleading the court. If you mislead the court, through omission, then not only will your credibility be shot, but the court can take action against you in extreme cases.

In this case it seems as though after omitting vital evidence, the prosecutor was taken out of the blue and had no other option than to cease giving evidence.

Thaedydal wrote: »

She said she consented (said yes) to 1 man and did not consent to having sex to the rest (said no).

The Judge made a call on her morals as a person because she has fantasies about being gang raped that is not on, you can be a good and moral person and have those fantasies and even carry them out and still should not be raped.

That's a very bold comment to make. Yes, the judge made a call on her morals, but there's nothing to indicate that he made it on the basis of her sexual proclivity. He made it on the basis that she covered up vital evidence in the case so she would look better.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

No means No.

Even if she did arrange to have group sex or a gangbang or a rape fantasy forfilled and turned up at the appointed place at the appointed time but then changed her mind and said no, then no means no.

+ 1000 on the no means no, but I would also say there is a sliding scale at the extreme of that. At best she would be incredibly daft to arrange same and then at the last minute say maybe not, no. TBH while I would still prosecute the men in that case, I would impose a lesser sentence compared to a more clear cut case of rape. There is a sliding scale here IMHO, but the law has to legislate for morons too. If a guy walked through a rough area covered in gold shouting "Im giving it all away, take what you want" and then decided on mature reflection "welll no Im not". I would still prosecute any thieves who stole his stuff after that, but no way are they comparable to someone walking down the street minding their own business who is set upon by thieves.

Unfortunatly anyone who's sexual tastes range anywhere out of the restrictive moral standard is seen as a deviant and there for lesser and there is often the attitude of the get what they deserve when bad things happen to them.

Very true. I have to say though that in a case like the above, while it's terrible if she was raped a bit of personal cop on would not have gone amiss.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

She said she consented (said yes) to 1 man and did not consent to having sex to the rest (said no).

I missed that point.

The Judge made a call on her morals as a person because she has fantasies about being gang raped that is not on

Is that the case, or was it because she covered up that fact/lied about that fact? (I ask, as I don't know. I wouldn't see the judges position as being unreasonable if, say, it was her word against theirs, and she was caught out lieing/delibertly hiding relavent facts.)

you can be a good and moral person and have those fantasies.

Of course you can! What happens in fantasy is simply that: fantasy.

and even carry them out and still should not be raped.

Naturally, consenting adults and all the rest...
I'm guessing the defence was claiming consent?

Jumpy

A judge can order a verdict?
I thought it was completely up to the jury.

Im not a big legal head though.

Zulu

I'm guessing it's advice, which they can choose* to follow?


*the choice being, take advice from a senior legal expert with experience on judgments, or not.

maggy_thatcher

What I'm disgusted at is that the article gives the name, age and addresses of these men (who are now found innocent in a court of law), while at the same time not giving any details about the woman who may have defamed their characters. If identities are protected, they should be protected for all concerned.

PeakOutput

Chinafoot wrote: »

If a woman discusses a rape fantasy and then gets raped, does that mean the man gets away with it?

if she discusses it with the man who raped her then im sure he would, rightly or wrongly

from the article it seems pretty clear

there are 5 men who say they didnt rape her

there is one woman saying she was raped. her credibility is the only thing that will convince the jury she was raped. she told the man she wanted to have group sex, while to me that dosnt really matter unfortunately most people arent so open minded which includes most people n a jury

the judges comments are perfectly reasonable her credibility has been shot unfortunately and there would be no way the men would be prosecuted

PeakOutput

Thaedydal wrote: »

The Judge made a call on her morals as a person because she has fantasies about being gang raped that is not on

he didnt say her morals were shot he said her credibility was thats very different.

to prosecute the jury needs to be 100% sure she didnt consent and then regret it later and decide to cry rape. after reading that she has fantasies about gang bangs(not gang rapes from what i read) i dont see how the jury could do that. i would be suprised if one person on that jury was that open minded towards sexual fantasies. rightly or wrongly its not the majorities 'thing' and rightly or wrongly those same people make up juries. the judge decided that there is no argument that can show without doubt that she didnt chagne her mind afterwards after reading the msn chats therefore he had to instruct not guilty

spiritcrusher

Hang on a minute, I think people have overlooked one key detail.
After the msn logs were shown, the prosecution withdrew their evidence.
Surely that is what shot her credibility? How could the judge let the case proceed when only the defense was willing to provide evidence?
"No means no" is certainly a valid argument so if the woman was telling the truth and had already got the case to court why would something like this cause her to withdraw?

I don't think think it's fair on the judge to assume he threw it out because he thought she was a "slut" or whatever, he threw it out because, well, the prosecution withdrew their case...

Well, that's my reading of it anyway.

Zulu

Good point.

Nevyn

The prosecution will only press a case that they think will win, they will not prosecute a case which will be to difficult too try and given that the average person who will make up jury will suffer from the idea that there is something wrong with a person who had such fantasies and discusses doing it for real there really is no way to try the case.

Which just means it is harder when you are a kinky person to press charges and have a person who broke the law prosecuted. As for if she was raped or not there will never be a legal verdict but just because a case is un prosecutable that does not mean the rape or crime didn't happen, but we have no way of knowing either way but given the stress and duress of taking a case I don't think people do it for no good reason.

Raze_them_all

Thaedydal wrote: »

The prosecution will only press a case that they think will win, they will not prosecute a case which will be to difficult too try and given that the average person who will make up jury will suffer from the idea that there is something wrong with a person who had such fantasies and discusses doing it for real there really is no way to try the case.

Which just means it is harder when you are a kinky person to press charges and have a person who broke the law prosecuted. As for if she was raped or not there will never be a legal verdict but just because a case is un prosecutable that does not mean the rape or crime didn't happen, but we have no way of knowing either way but given the stress and duress of taking a case I don't think people do it for no good reason.

It has happened before though. Remember last year the woman came back to Ireland to clear a mans name that she had convicted of sexual assualt more than a decade earlier? She done it cos her parents told her to. I'm not saying that this is what happened just showing that false rape claims are not unheard of.

Nevyn

They are not unheard of but they are a bloody rare and such things are one of the popular myths surrounding rape that they are common which muddies the issue.

PeakOutput

prosecuters do not just give up on cases because they are difficult thats a ridicolous notion they give up on cases because they are impossible

Raze_them_all

Thaedydal wrote: »

They are not unheard of but they are a bloody rare and such things are one of the popular myths surrounding rape that they are common which muddies the issue.

It's not a myth if it's happened in real life. A more popular thing would be a girl that gets seriously drunk claims they got spiked, and the guy gainst them (who usually did spike them) claim they were just obliterated drunk

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

As for if she was raped or not there will never be a legal verdict but just because a case is un prosecutable that does not mean the rape or crime didn't happen.

Just because she went to court, doesn't mean the men are guilty though.

It's interesting, in cases like this (particulary this case - where there's a group of men involved) we are inclined to prejudge against the men. Whatever the truth of this case, regardless of the fact that the men were legally found "not guilty", their names were published, and they'll always be assiocated & judged negatively because of this.
Perhaps, in this case, maybe this is warranted (maybe they were guilty), but the fact remains - although legally, they were found "not guilty", they'll never be wholly "not guilty".