Woman found guilty of rape in hotel toilet

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.

If it was a nightclub surely the cubicle was inside the toilets. The woman left the cubicle, what was her partner doing in the ladies' toilets? Women in the room saw the girl leaving the actual cubicle upset, the partner surely didn't.

If as you say she left the cubicle after a consentual act to face an angry partner (in the ladies toilets and why would he be angry? Loads of girls go in for a pee together) why did she have to say anything had occured? Why not just say say they were in there having a gossip the way many other women do?

wexford96c wrote: »

Quazzie - you are 100% correct. Hubby asked her why she was in there for so long - she had to chose between severe constapation and sexual assault - she chose the latter. She lied.

I am laughing in disbelief here. Are you insane? Do you really believe this to be true? You think so little of women that you genuinely believe that this woman would lie about being raped rather than admit to being constipated?

The mind literally boggles. You have to be about 12 or something, no adult male could believe this. :eek:

You find it shocking that an Irish Nurse got so drunk she's no memory?

Seriously??

Do you know many Irish people???

Quazzie wrote: »

There are two conflicting stories out there, and knowing the person as I do I tend to believe this one.

There are always two sides to every story

Yeah but that story says she screamed for security and was visibily upset immediately when leaving the bathroom. She also claims to have pushed her off and hoisting back up her pants which is a pretty clear no. The defendant doesn't have a defense to it and denied it originally by the sounds of things with DNA being used to confirm the actions.

I can't see why they wouldn't have convicted her in fairness all signs point to guilt to me too...

Clearly she can't be - but don't mention that to some of the defenders here. They know better.

TPD wrote: »

Chocolate Fingers too apparently

LOL:eek:

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have found with some men, they take a 'no' as a 'yes if I keep at her and get her horny enough'. And then they keep at ya. Read alL the pick up artist bull****, it's scary what it teaches men, 'a woman will say no at first in order to not look like a slut, you need to get past this defense'. Its really bad. If men hear 'no' as 'oh yeah I need just a bit more persuasion', instead of d actual 'no I really don't want to' that is actually meant by the girl, how can we actually say no. I'm sure girls on here will identify with what I'm on about. Alot of men seem socially conditoned to not hear no as no.

The pickup artist bull**** is harmless, it doesn't tell anyone that if she says no to rape her, just to be persistent in hassling her with moronic conversation and magic tricks on the off chance that you'll annoy her into sleeping with you.

It's still bs though, that I won't argue! But to blame something like that is absurd, there are plenty of dating guides for women, and that's all it equates to. Reading this story, it seems like some women are socially conditioned to say no as well.

Anyway, sidebar over, can't see how this isn't rape to be honest. Don't think I'd like to have my head smashed into a wall and fingers inserted into one of my more tender orifices, no matter how attractive the female in question. Unless it's some sort of elaborate consensual roleplay fantasy.

senordingdong wrote: »

Because she failed to object or kick up any kind of a fuss untill after the incident.
Plenty of men have been convicted on these grounds before, and the problem is that there is no way of knowing who is telling the truth without there being a witness.

Yes she did. Read the thread. :rolleyes:

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Afaik, there's no obligation on the victim to disclose their lack of consent to the attacker in a common law system. I know that here a woman can consent to sex but if she changes her mind during the act it becomes an act of rape.

Right.....how does that work exactly?

suicide_circus wrote: »

Right.....how does that work exactly?

If your partner wants to stop you stop. Anything forced onto them after that is rape/sexual assault.

There is no cut off point where anything said after that doesn't count.