Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Legally - for the purposes of this case - she

> consented. End of.


That's my thinking. It just seems that the media and a good proportion of the public, represented on here, still want to find him guilty.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huggers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > She'd fallen over in the takeaway. left her

> > handbag there. That is pretty drunk. The room

> was

> > dark. She may not even have known a second man

> was

> > having sex with her. Maybe that was part of

> their

> > 'joke'in 'bagging a drunk one'.

>

>

> But he can't have known about what happened in the

> take away.

>

> Don't want to sound like I'm defending the sleaze

> bag, just find the whole thing grim yet

> interesting.


the CTV shows him passing her as she was fallen on the floor although neither he nor her could remember that in court.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Legally - for the purposes of this case - she

> consented. End of.



Er, no, that's not what the case determined. The verdict means that there was not sufficient evidence to determine either that she hadn't consented or that he didn't believe she had consented.


Her consent wasn't proven to have happened.


Statements like this show exactly why this case is highly worrying.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...