Woman found guilty of rape in hotel toilet

How do you digitally rape someone, did she take pictures or something, I don't get it.

Quazzie wrote: »

Lets just imagine that the following circumstances happened.

Two women out drinking at a bar enter toilet cubicle together and start making out with both women consenting. (this part is true, as both women agree to it in their court statements)

It progressses on with both women enjoying it and consenting.

Women leave cubicle after some heavy petting and are confronted with an angry partner questioning what was going on.

'Victim' breaks down and cries rape claiming she is innocent.

In this situation the exact same facts would be put to the jury as was in this case except the victim's story has changed, and one of them is suddenly a rapist.

You have no idea what facts were presented to the jury in this case.

For example, was the victim's face injured? She claimed she was slammed head-first into a wall. No news-story mentions whether she had any bruises or cuts from it. If she was lying, why wasn't it a central point of the defence? Or why did the defendant forget her purse at the scene? Or why did she claim she had no memory of the incident?

Some of the evidence that was presented (Source):

Other witnesses had testified she was upset immediately upon emerging from the toilets.

So if i scratch my arse am i raping myself?

Quazzie wrote: »

Lets just imagine that the following circumstances happened.

Two women out drinking at a bar enter toilet cubicle together and start making out with both women consenting. (this part is true, as both women agree to it in their court statements)

It progressses on with both women enjoying it and consenting.

Women leave cubicle after some heavy petting and are confronted with an angry partner questioning what was going on.

'Victim' breaks down and cries rape claiming she is innocent.

In this situation the exact same facts would be put to the jury as was in this case except the victim's story has changed, and one of them is suddenly a rapist.

What baffles me is that if you are right - and if she didn't want her husband to know that she was consenting to whatever in the cubicle - why didn't she just leave the bathroom and say nothing?

I mean, in your mind, was it the steely knowing glint in the husbands eye that alerted the 'victim' to the fact that he knew something had happened, making her invent a rape story? Seriously - that's your argument???

If I went to the loo and came out afterwards, even alongside another random girl, my boyfriend wouldn't automatically assume that i had been intimiate with some girl in a loo and start 'angrily questioning me'. Why would he think that? That's unbelievably insane if you think that's plausible.

Or maybe, just maybe, he thought - why is she crying? Why is she upset? And that's why he thought to call the police? (Because she actually had been violated?)

Why would she, if (as several men on here would have you believe) she cheated on her husband consensually with this girl - draw attention to that fact by crying when she comes out of the loo?

These arguments are ridiculous!

The victim admitted the kissing was with her consent. Some (most?) would consider that cheating.

I read about this in some paper at the weekend. I find it all rather strange, to say the very least about it.
Both women have admitted there was an 'encounter' of some sort in the bathroom, one has no recollection but admits there was possibly kissing, the other then goes and complains to her husband about the event.
The part that I really don't get, and if someone had an explanation that would be great, how can someone be charged, and convicted, of rape but acquitted of sexual assault? Surely, in my understanding, rape is a very serious sexual assault??

Neadine wrote: »

I read about this in some paper at the weekend. I find it all rather strange, to say the very least about it.
Both women have admitted there was an 'encounter' of some sort in the bathroom, one has no recollection but admits there was possibly kissing, the other then goes and complains to her husband about the event.
The part that I really don't get, and if someone had an explanation that would be great, how can someone be charged, and convicted, of rape but acquitted of sexual assault? Surely, in my understanding, rape is a very serious sexual assault??

She anally and vaginally penetrated the woman with her fingers, constituting rape rather than sexual assault.

Zulu wrote: »

...but few would consider it worthy of RAPE.


FFS, I worry about the stupidity of some comments.

I will refer you to my earlier post where I specifically stated that I did not think that meant she deserved to be raped.
And before commenting on the 'stupidity' of other posters comments you should perhaps read what they say and not what you think they say.

I was replying to the comment by Kimia, which you thanked, that stated "Why would she, if (as several men on here would have you believe) she cheated on her husband consensually with this girl - draw attention to that fact by crying when she comes out of the loo?"

Sexual contact (which you consent to) with someone other than your spouse, without that spouses knowledge, constitutes cheating.

sipstrassi wrote: »

I will refer you to my earlier post...

My point stands.

Whats the point of raising, acknowledging, or engaging in the "cheating" aspect of this thread? Do you wish to belittle the victims character? No? Then to what end?
Perhaps it was cheating, perhaps it wasn't. It's not relevant. She kissed the girl and stated it was consensual. She didn't however give consent for her to "digitally" penetrate her vagina or anus.
A person was raped.

sipstrassi wrote: »

You are again missing the point.

I'm not, but I'm getting the impression you are missing mine.

I am not belittling the victim's character. She did that herself by cheating.

We don't know she cheated. That is between her and her husband. Just because your relationship with your OH defines a kiss as cheating, doesn't mean her/their relationship does.
As such, you are only demeaning her character, which there is no need to do, because she's not guilty; she's the victim.

It means she is not an entirely honest person (mind you, most people aren't).

Nobody is.

Which means she does not always tell the truth.

Nobody does.

You seem to have this idea in your head that what I am actually saying is: 'She was cheating and was not raped and if she was raped she deserved it'.

No I don't. But what are you trying to say? Why define her as a "cheat" if not to somehow justify the guilty party? and by extension, the actual rape?