Saudi millionaire who claimed he fell and 'accidentally penetrated teen' cleared

ceadaoin.

If you think irish judges are bad, this is just bonkers. A girl claims she woke up to find millionaire property developer raping her, he denies they had sex. Then after DNA evidence was found inside her, he claims he fell onto the sofa and somehow ended up inside her, completely by accident.

The judge accepts this and he is cleared after being allowed to give evidence in a closed court. I wonder if the fact that he is Saudia and a millionaire got anything to do with it. They seem to get away with an awful lot

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html

El Weirdo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If you think irish judges are bad, this is just bonkers. A girl claims she woke up to find millionaire property developer raping her, he denies they had sex. Then after DNA evidence was found inside her, he claims he fell onto the sofa and somehow ended up inside her, completely by accident.

The judge accepts this and he is cleared. I wonder if the fact that he is Saudia and a millionaire got anything to do with it. They seem to get away with an awful lot

The judge didn't clear him, a jury did.

5starpool

Where was this case? If it was in Saudi Arabia, then it might as well have been a cow or a sheep whose word was against the man for all the rights women are given in Saudi Arabia. She'll probably get stoned to death for adultery instead. Lovely country.

ceadaoin.

5starpool wrote: »

Where was this case? If it was in Saudi Arabia, then it might as well have been a cow or a sheep whose word was against the man for all the rights women are given in Saudi Arabia. She'll probably get stoned to death for adultery instead. Lovely country.

This happened in London

5starpool

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This happened in London

Ah ok. Did you ninja edit add the link to the story? I'd swear it wasn't there when I read it first. Perhaps I've gone mad though.

osarusan

5starpool wrote: »

Where was this case? If it was in Saudi Arabia, then it might as well have been a cow or a sheep whose word was against the man for all the rights women are given in Saudi Arabia. She'll probably get stoned to death for adultery instead. Lovely country.

In London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html

He didn't say that was what happened, he said that is what may have happened, after he had finished having sex with the girl's friend (which doesn't seem to be in dispute), as that would have explained his semen in her vagina.

He also speculated that ended up there as it was on his hand after he had finished having sex with the girl's friend and (as he claims) the second girl pulled his hand between her legs when she initiated sexual activity.

El Weirdo

5starpool wrote: »

Ah ok. Did you ninja edit add the link to the story? I'd swear it wasn't there when I read it first. Perhaps I've gone mad though.

It wasn't. My post has quoted the original OP.

ceadaoin.

El Weirdo wrote: »

It wasn't. My post has quoted the original OP.

Added the link after posting. I always lose the original text if I change tabs to copy a link

El Weirdo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Added the link after posting. I always lose the original text if I change tabs to copy a link

But that wasn't the only edit, was it?

ceadaoin.

El Weirdo wrote: »

But that wasn't the only edit, was it?

As I said, I frequently lose the text when flicking between tabs so I added further info after making the OP. Is that not allowed? It's not like I'm changing it a long time after.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Jury tampering?

Wibbs

This story smells all kind of wrong. The judgement is extremely worrying. The fact he was allowed talk with the judge in chambers adds to this in a big way. I wonder if this was Joe Bloggs from Islington would he get off so lightly or be accommodated in this way? I really bloody doubt it. Millionaire businessman? Hmmm OK there's the no gaol door.

Harry Palmr

It could happen to any influential Saudi.

I see they were in the Cirque Le Soir, a place that would be due an Islamist suicide bombing if there ever was one.

KungPao

I'm sure the jury will have a nice Christmas (cha-ching).

Sickening stuff. These Saudi pricks get away with anything.

ceadaoin.

osarusan wrote: »

In London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html

He didn't say that was what happened, he said that is what may have happened, after he had finished having sex with the girl's friend (which doesn't seem to be in dispute), as that would have explained his semen in her vagina.

He also speculated that ended up there as it was on his hand after he had finished having sex with the girl's friend and (as he claims) the second girl pulled his hand between her legs when she initiated sexual activity.

He claimed that the girl put his hand between her legs originally. Then when he was re interviewed after his DNA was found inside her he brought up the claim hat he fell on her naked with an erection and accidentally penetrated her.

TallGlass

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He claimed that the girl put his hand between her legs originally. Then when he was re interviewed after his DNA was found inside her he brought up the claim hat he fell on her naked with an erection and accidentally penetrated her.

Jaysis. I'll have to start been more careful down my local Tescos, the milk aisle can be awfully slippy sometimes.

JupiterKid

Disgusting.:mad:

Looks like money can indeed get you off the hook...

Captain Chaos

It's as bad as Snake in the Simpsons while in hospital. So, I fell on a bullet and it kinda drove it's self in my gut.....

Nodin

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He claimed that the girl put his hand between her legs originally. Then when he was re interviewed after his DNA was found inside her he brought up the claim hat he fell on her naked with an erection and accidentally penetrated her.

Utterly believable that.

In unrelated news, money is a great man to have.

opiniated

You couldn't make it up! :mad:
(Unless you were a Saudi millionaire, that is!)

Utterly sickening.

bear1

How the fook was she sleeping if he was able to fall, whilst erect, next to her and penetrate???
Must be a bastard sharing the blanket with her.

RDM_83 again

And people get surprised when far right wing or smash the state socialists hold appeal.
Not enough for them to own half the place they're now getting investor friendly justice

BenedrylPete

Settle down folks.

This is actually a believable story if you'd care to look a little closer.

So stop with the knee-jerk wise cracks.



(Apologies for the above - my fingers slipped )

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Wibbs wrote: »

This story smells all kind of wrong. The judgement is extremely worrying. The fact he was allowed talk with the judge in chambers adds to this in a big way. I wonder if this was Joe Bloggs from Islington would he get off so lightly or be accommodated in this way? I really bloody doubt it. Millionaire businessman? Hmmm OK there's the no gaol door.

It was in camera not in chambers. Huge difference.

Riddle101

Wow, I thought for a second that it was in Saudi Arabia or something, because I honestly would have expected something like this. As horrible as that is for me to say. But in England? What a joke.

mzungu

What a sham.

kettlehead

This is from The Onion, right? This can't be real life.

DarkyHughes

Because their one the US & UK's closest allies stories like this are largely ignored by western media, if it was a Palestinian millionaire (not that there's much) it would be all over the place.

RDM_83 again

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Because their one the US & UK's closest allies stories like this are largely ignored by western media, if it was a Palestinian millionaire (not that there's much) it would be all over the place.

Nah its not grand strategy its because them and the various Gulf states own half of London.

The Backwards Man

The judge didn't instruct the jury to acquit did he? Has to be something more to the story not reported to the media for the jury to acquit after half an hour. One would hope so anyway.

questionmark?

Surely the DPP will look at this and order a re-trial?

I mean WTF kind of bull**** is this!!!

osarusan

questionmark? wrote: »

Surely the DPP will look at this and order a re-trial?

They don't get to do that!!

They can appeal though.

cowboyBuilder

Have to wonder if he wasn't Muslim would he have gotten away with it ?

osarusan

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Have to wonder if he wasn't Muslim would he have gotten away with it ?

That post says a lot about you.

wes

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Have to wonder if he wasn't Muslim would he have gotten away with it ?

I am sure the fact that he was a Billionaire had nothing to do with :rolleyes:.

screamer

Id this story is true it sets a dangerous precedent for rape cases in the UK. I have never heard anything so ridiculous and unbelievable in my life. Fell and slipped in seriously......... is there one person here who thinks that is even possible?

EazyD

screamer wrote: »

Id this story is true it sets a dangerous precedent for rape cases in the UK. I have never heard anything so ridiculous and unbelievable in my life. Fell and slipped in seriously......... is there one person here who thinks that is even possible?

Unless she has the Grand Canyon between her legs, its fairly impossible to believe.

Birneybau

BenedrylPete wrote: »

Settle down folks.

This is actually a believable story if you'd care to look a little closer.

So stop with the knee-jerk wise cracks.



(Apologies for the above - my fingers slipped )

Try again.

DarkyHughes

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Nah its not grand strategy its because them and the various Gulf states own half of London.

And Washington. They helped Bin Lad make his billions to fund & ISIS aswell.

screamer

I wonder what the demographic of the jury was it might explain why someone got away with an utter bull**** excuse. That and a fair wedge but if that happened and if he'd been caught he'd probably say that his hand slipped and the dosh fell into their pocket. Believable? Nah didn't think so either

Earthhorse

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The judge didn't instruct the jury to acquit did he? Has to be something more to the story not reported to the media for the jury to acquit after half an hour. One would hope so anyway.

His story is quite unbelievable but like yourself, I feel we aren't getting the full facts here., especially given how quickly he was acquitted.

The rich normally evade these things by never going to trial. It's possible he bought the jury but right now this is one of those stories that people will be quite sure they know what happened when we have almost no information at all.

One eyed Jack

It's impossible to know anything for certain here, only that this man seems to have, by his own account reported in the media, defied the laws of physics for one thing, and that for some reason, again reported in the media, the defendant was allowed give evidence in private, with no explanation as to why, and a jury taking half an hour to deliberate and then return a verdict of not guilty in spite of reported evidence?

Something's definitely off about this case, and I can't help but wonder was it simply a case of the alleged victim on trial, rather than the accused. That certainly happens more often in these types of cases, and the accused doesn't have to be a multi-millionaire property developer who met these women in an exclusive club and invited them over to his table and back to his apartment or any of the rest of it, nor does the accused have had to bribe the jury or the judge.

A millionaire property developer has been cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he accidently tripped and fell on her.

Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on an 18 year-old-girl who had slept on his sofa in his Maida Vale flat after a night out drinking.

The businessman had already had sex with the teenager’s 24-year-old friend, whom he already knew, in the bedroom and said his penis might have been poking out of his underwear when he fell on the teen.

The young woman said she had woken up in the early hours of the morning, with Mr Abdulaziz on top of her, forcing himself inside her.

He claimed he had gone to see if the young woman wanted a t-shirt to sleep in, or a taxi home. But he said she pulled him on top of her and placed his hand between her legs.

His semen and DNA was found inside the young woman, but he said it was possible he had semen on his hands from having sex with the 24-year-old earlier.

In the evidence, Mr Abdulaziz showed how the girl had put her hand behind his head to pull him towards her, which is how he says he fell.

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

The women met the millionaire in London’s West End club, Cirque le Soir nightclub, where he invited them to his private table.

The jury acquitted him in just 30 minutes of deliberations.

Mail Online also reported that Judge Martin Griffiths had allowed Mr Abdulaziz to give evidence in private.

How the hell did his penis fall inside her if she was lying on the couch, pulled him down head first on top of her, with his hand in the way of her vagina, and his penis only poking out of his boxers?

Obviously he was lying when he said nothing happened, clearly something happened, and how he was acquitted based on what I've read of the case is quite honestly perplexing. It would have been one thing if he'd claimed that they had consensual sex, but to claim that nothing happened first, and then when evidence contradicts that, to try and claim that he was a fragile victim of the girl's actions...

And the jury still acquits?

arayess

wes wrote: »

I am sure the fact that he was a Billionaire had nothing to do with :rolleyes:.

millionaire.
Billionaires wouldn't see the inside of a court.


they jury acquitted the guy, shocking as it sounds we weren't in court.
The judge could have been bought but unlikely the whole jury?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

This story smells all kind of wrong. The judgement is extremely worrying. The fact he was allowed talk with the judge in chambers adds to this in a big way. I wonder if this was Joe Bloggs from Islington would he get off so lightly or be accommodated in this way? I really bloody doubt it. Millionaire businessman? Hmmm OK there's the no gaol door.

Its almost like something you'd see in an episode of Law and Order UK

One eyed Jack

arayess wrote: »

millionaire.
Billionaires wouldn't see the inside of a court.


they jury acquitted the guy, shocking as it sounds we weren't in court.
The judge could have been bought but unlikely the whole jury?

This is the thing that makes no sense really. Just because the guy was a millionaire doesn't imply that he actually had the means to influence the jury decision, let alone have the means to bribe a judge.

It's far more likely it was simply a case of the alleged victim being judged, which could happen in any case, and does happen in many cases, millionaire or not.

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is the thing that makes no sense really. Just because the guy was a millionaire doesn't imply that he actually had the means to influence the jury decision, let alone have the means to bribe a judge.

It's far more likely it was simply a case of the alleged victim being judged, which could happen in any case, and does happen in many cases, millionaire or not.

Nah that doesn't make that much sense when you consider his testimony, I'd completely buy it if he said he had consensual sex with both women or more accurately sex he perceived as consensual at the time, then the juries response could be influenced by her.
But the fact he blatantly lied about having sex with her and then made up a truly ridiculous story, more is at play.

osarusan

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The judge didn't instruct the jury to acquit did he? Has to be something more to the story not reported to the media for the jury to acquit after half an hour. One would hope so anyway.

This is what I was wondering too...but surely it would have been mentioned if the judge gave unusual/limiting directions to the jury as they retired to deliberate.

His versions of events is absolutely laughable, and as others have said, a defence that they simply had consensual sex would be more believable, although another poster suggested that he had initially denied anything other than touching until the DNA results came back, so maybe it was too late to start saying they had consenseual sex.

ceadaoin.

osarusan wrote: »

This is what I was wondering too...but surely it would have been mentioned if the judge gave unusual/limiting directions to the jury as they retired to deliberate.

His versions of events is absolutely laughable, and as others have said, a defence that they simply had consensual sex would be more believable, although another poster suggested that he had initially denied anything other than touching until the DNA results came back, so maybe it was too late to start saying they had consenseual sex.

This is from an earlier story, before the verdict was returned

The next thing the alleged victim claims to remember is waking up early in the morning with Abdulazziz on top of her, forcing himself inside her.

"She woke up with the defendant kissing her and his penis in her vagina," Prosecutor Jonathan Davies told the court, The Times reports.

"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."



She then phoned the police.

The court was told that when Abdulaziz was arrested he responded: "She'll have to prove it."

He first claimed to police the teenager had pulled him on to her and placed his hand between her legs. However, when DNA tests found traces of semen he was re-interviewed in May.

The Daily Telegraph reports that Mr Davies told the court: "On this occasion he said after he had sex with the complainant's friend his penis was still erect and he had semen on his hands when he went into the living room.

"He said in the second interview she pushed his hands down on to her vagina. He said that he did fall onto her and his penis may have penetrated her vagina."

I'd like to know how the jury reached their verdict so quickly after hearing such a ridiculously unbelievable version of events. Even it it was a case of the victim being judged, surely it would take longer than 30 minutes to come to a unanimous decision. What about the fact that he claimed he just had sex with the friend yet the 18 year old was unable to wake her when she went in immediately after the alleged attack. It's dodgy as feck.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'd like to know how the jury reached their verdict so quickly after hearing such a ridiculously unbelievable version of events.

The members of the jury may have made up their minds long before they retired to deliberate, could have happened that they ignored evidence because they just didn't like the girl or her actions or her account of events.

Even it it was a case of the victim being judged, surely it would take longer than 30 minutes to come to a unanimous decision. What about the fact that he claimed he just had sex with the friend yet the 18 year old was unable to wake her when she went in immediately after the alleged attack. It's dodgy as feck.

In fairness there could have been any number of reasons why the alleged victim was unable to wake her unconscious friend, but what's even more perplexing is how he was able to maintain an erection immediately after he had ejaculated!

How a jury found it more credible that he was so concerned about the girl in the living room that he went out to ask her did she want a tee-shirt or a taxi, with his erect penis poking out of his jocks, ejaculate on his hands, and he so fragile he just happened to fall on top of her and his penis somehow managed to fall inside her vagina...

Earthhorse

Maybe the evidence given in private was convincing and swayed them. Maybe the confusing number of versions of stories made them feel things hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Stories like this just don't have enough facts in them for us to say.

melissak

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The judge didn't instruct the jury to acquit did he? Has to be something more to the story not reported to the media for the jury to acquit after half an hour. One would hope so anyway.

Of course there is more to the story.... Money talks and bull**** walks