In London, a 46-year-old Saudi millionaire was pronounced not guilty of raping a teenager after claiming he accidently tripped and fell on her. He claimed his penis was hanging out when he walked past her, so when he tripped, it went in.
A London jury believed him and deliberated for all of 30 minutes before acquitting the vicious little toad (there are pictures of him online. Look them up if you don’t believe this description.)
10 thoughts on “UK Justice”
Of course the U.K. court knows that this rich Saudi prick is lying, but they probably also suspect that the two women in his apartment were either prostitutes or gold-digging idiots. Both of them willingly came to up to his flat while they were drunk, and the slightly older woman (24 y.o.) had already had sex with him in the bedroom, when he came out to deal with the younger girl who was passed out asleep on his couch.
Did she drunkenly accommodate him as he claimed (reaching around his back to pull him close), or did she just passively not resist?
Either way, his story of an “accidental fall” with his penis just happening to land in the appropriate port is nonsensical — he (or his lawyer) should have come up with a better fabrication of the event than that! — but perhaps the court reached the conclusion that the incident didn’t constitute involuntary rape, after all.
Teenagers do silly things at 18, and there is always a bunch of old, ugly vultures waiting to exploit their vulnerability. But while teenage silliness is not a crime, rape is.
My first thought is that he bribed some members of the jury or the judge. He’s not saying she consented but he tripped and fell in her.There’s misogyny and then there’s insulting people’s intelligence.
Further, what evidence could he give in private?
I think the jury reached the decision with no monetary stimulation. The reluctance to believe women when they talk about traumatic experiences and misogyny is enormous. Even here on the blog, it’s impossible to say “This traumatized me as a woman” without men immediately starting to explain how wrong I and and how they know better.
The first response to this post was Dreidel calling these women whores. So yeah, I don’t think the jury needed to be bribed.
I was wrong to say it’s just women, though. Remember Michael Brown? He had to have caused it, no matter what. And for some people, there was no budging from that position.
Predators target people who won’t be believed and who have no societal credibility or have such low status relative to themselves. It makes their outlandish stories credible.
The Gary Ridgway targeted runaways and prostitutes.
Holtzclaw targeted black women who had criminal records.
I could go on and on.
So maybe no bribery took place, but I also think there’s this train of thought “who are you going to believe, this rich man or a bunch of chavs” going through the jury’s mind which made this story “credible”.
“Predators target people who won’t be believed and who have no societal credibility or have such low status relative to themselves. It makes their outlandish stories credible.”
Yay! This is great.