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

osarusan · 16-12-2015 07:56PM

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 · 16-12-2015 07:57PM

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

osarusan · 16-12-2015 08:06PM

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 · 16-12-2015 08:27PM

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 · 16-12-2015 08:34PM

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 · 16-12-2015 08:46PM

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 · 16-12-2015 08:48PM

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 · 16-12-2015 09:09PM

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 · 16-12-2015 09:18PM

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 · 16-12-2015 09:28PM

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 · 16-12-2015 09:57PM

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 · 16-12-2015 10:03PM

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?

16-12-2015 10:05PM

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 · 16-12-2015 10:11PM

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 · 16-12-2015 10:25PM

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 · 16-12-2015 10:35PM

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. · 16-12-2015 10:45PM

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 · 16-12-2015 11:15PM

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 · 16-12-2015 11:18PM

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 · 16-12-2015 11:33PM

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

Fratton Fred · 17-12-2015 12:21AM

Earthhorse wrote: »

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.

He is rich, but millionaires in London aren't exactly uncommon.

His story is laughable, but the jury were obviously unconvinced by the prosecution's case.

ArtSmart · 17-12-2015 01:36AM

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.

Yes, I'd imagine something like that, but the statements from the accused quoted, if accurate, ring hollow.

All very strange though. The Independent linking to the Mail is hard enough to believe.

Time may tell us more.

ArtSmart · 17-12-2015 01:48AM

from the article

"When she gave evidence to the court, the teenager had said she had gone into the bedroom but was unable to wake her friend, and feared she might be dead.

She said she fled the flat but did not call the police immediately because she did not want to 'aggravate the situation'.

Mr Bartfeld put to her: 'If you think your friend is dead you can't really aggravate the situation - she's not going to be more dead than you thought she was before.'

Mr Bartfeld said the teenager had lied because she was embarrassed Mr Abdulaziz did not want to have sex with her.

He said to her: 'The reality is he never put his penis inside you, he never even tried to have sex with you.' "

Ah some lawyers really are special people. If I were a lawyer and heard that line of 'questioning' from a fellow lawyer, I would cry myself to sleep.

"Ah shure, the man's just doing his job". No. He's acting like a scumbag.

Disgusting.

The Backwards Man · 17-12-2015 01:52AM

melissak wrote: »

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

A bit too simplistic, people with money in London are two a penny, and whatever else you can say about the Brits, they don't often let social standing interfere with due process. Na, there's definitely more to it, I'm sure of it.

FISMA. · 17-12-2015 01:54AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

Probably has an Irish passport too.

RDM_83 again · 17-12-2015 08:37AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

A bit too simplistic, people with money in London are two a penny, and whatever else you can say about the Brits, they don't often let social standing interfere with due process. Na, there's definitely more to it, I'm sure of it.

Is that taking the piss or do you actually mean it?

About the rich thing, yeah there is loads of millionaires there, all it means is you own a house in a nice area in North London, if your man is Saudi rich though thats a whole new level (even more so because of the connections he can pull)

2smiggy · 17-12-2015 09:48AM

ArtSmart wrote: »

from the article

Ah some lawyers really are special people. If I were a lawyer and heard that line of 'questioning' from a fellow lawyer, I would cry myself to sleep.

"Ah shure, the man's just doing his job". No. He's acting like a scumbag.

Disgusting.

I'm horrified by what i am reading about the case, but his solicitor/barrister are paid to get him off, not help the prosecution.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2015 10:33AM

What circumstances would give rise to being allowed to give evidence in private?

Michael D Not Higgins · 17-12-2015 11:36AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What circumstances would give rise to being allowed to give evidence in private?

The case might have been in camera to protect the victim's identity.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2015 11:43AM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The case might have been in camera to protect the victim's identity.

That's not the case here though as they named the defendant. Am I correct in thinking that?

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

Comments