Court case

[terry smith rules]

After she had been fingered the first time, why wasn't she out of there or at least reacting as she did later?

classy comment!!!

Moderators enough is enough close this thread and anything pertaining to this case

Has no place on this forum

I would suggest that TSR has had a sheltered upbringing, and if he/she finds that comment offensive, it would be best if he/she ceased reading the thread.

I would think Grump quite the opposite.

And hopefully as I matured I would not have to use language that I used when I was 15.

I assumed that you may be of an age where you also had moved on from such a term, but obviously not

[dragit]

She has said to JG "I thought it was you"
Does that mean that she had consented thinking it was JG?

Couldn't that also mean she thought it was him having non-consentual sex with her?

That doesn't make sense to me, I don't think she was accusing JG of abusing her, rather that she actually partaking in something thinking it was him, she realised it wasn't JG during… don't you think?

[Thinline]

I think he's going to walk here,
With our own opinions aside, I can imagine that there will be reasonable doubt for the jurors,
If she has consented (in a drunken stupor) to whom she thought was JG, it becomes complicated, if AL wasn't pretending to be JG then I'm not entirely sure that he would know who the girl thought she was with?

She has said to JG "I thought it was you"
Does that mean that she had consented thinking it was JG?

That's what I reckon.

And if you read the post event account of AL (in as much as it has been reported), the whole thing becomes a genuinely blurry mess especially without corroborating witness evidence.

Horrible situation.

Booze...It can be so fun, and then...

[InkerSaint]

yeah, but if i was on the jury i'd want to see him up there denying it.

He's already pleaded not guilty.

[dragit]

Actually even if she had consented and it was JG, I think it would still legally fall under rape, from the accounts of her intoxication levels, she was not fit to legally give her consent - complicated.
How many drinks did AL supposedly have?

[GrumpyOne]

After she had been fingered the first time, why wasn't she out of there or at least reacting as she did later?

classy comment!!!

Moderators enough is enough close this thread and anything pertaining to this case

Has no place on this forum

I would suggest that TSR has had a sheltered upbringing, and if he/she finds that comment offensive, it would be best if he/she ceased reading the thread.

I would think Grump quite the opposite.

And hopefully as I matured I would not have to use language that I used when I was 15.

I assumed that you may be of an age where you also had moved on from such a term, but obviously not

Being as there was a question in the original AL thread asking what digital rape was, I assumed that more people on here would know what I was talking about if I used a more down-to-earth term.

I'm afraid I inhabit the real world where a chevron shaped metallic personal excavating object is called a shovel.

[skeptic]

I think he's going to walk here,
With our own opinions aside, I can imagine that there will be reasonable doubt for the jurors,
If she has consented (in a drunken stupor) to whom she thought was JG, it becomes complicated, if AL wasn't pretending to be JG then I'm not entirely sure that he would know who the girl thought she was with?

She has said to JG "I thought it was you"
Does that mean that she had consented thinking it was JG?

She rejected AL's advances in the 1st instance where he reportedly digitally raped her.

There's enough evidence (IMO) to suggest that she never consented to him.

If it was a case of mistaken identity...
well if she was as intoxicated as reported then legally she can't have legally consented anyway so again that makes him guilty.

The picture painted to me is one where whilst AL may not have forcibly held her down or she may not have resisted... he did try to take advantage of her drunkeness.
He was once rejected once and tried to wait until she was more sedated

again clearly rape to me

[skeptic]

Grumpy one, will answer your questions as best as I can

Why would a girl already in a relationship with a footballer hook up with other footballers at a pub?

I don't see the relevance. She can hook up with anyone she wants. We're not here to judge her moral character unless there is an insinuation that she has lied to which I see no evidence of

What did she expect to happen when she went to Grammy's flat? If she was that crook, a taxi home was the best bet.

This comment sounds dangerously close to saying that she was asking for it. I understand the argument about women not putting themselves into vlunerable positions better than most (won't go into y) but even if she went to Gram's to have sex and changed her mind... no means no.

Perhaps she was too drunk to go home. A taxi cab by yourself when heavily intoxicated is not safe. Maybe the party decided to call it a night a Grammy's as it was the closest place near by. Maybe they thought they could finish the night with a few quiet ones there.

Why did she kiss Grammy on the balcony?

Again don't see the relevance. Maybe her and Jason has a thing there

After she had been fingered the first time, why wasn't she out of there or at least reacting as she did later?

My bet is that she was too intoxicated. The pattern of ETOH is that u get drunker b4 u get sober.

After the alleged rape, why did she say to Grammy ""Ã

[meher baba]

I think he's going to walk here,
With our own opinions aside, I can imagine that there will be reasonable doubt for the jurors,
If she has consented (in a drunken stupor) to whom she thought was JG, it becomes complicated, if AL wasn't pretending to be JG then I'm not entirely sure that he would know who the girl thought she was with?

She has said to JG "I thought it was you"
Does that mean that she had consented thinking it was JG?

She rejected AL's advances in the 1st instance where he reportedly digitally raped her.

There's enough evidence (IMO) to suggest that she never consented to him.

If it was a case of mistaken identity...
well if she was as intoxicated as reported then legally she can't have legally consented anyway so again that makes him guilty.

The picture painted to me is one where whilst AL may not have forcibly held her down or she may not have resisted... he did try to take advantage of her drunkeness.
He was once rejected once and tried to wait until she was more sedated

again clearly rape to me

I'm probably closer to dragit's point of view. Lovett's lawyer can claim that he walked into the bedroom and seduced her (perhaps with his irresistable charm, ahem). He can also assert that the girl never gave him any indication whatsoever that she thought he was somebody else until after they had finished. So there would seem to be room for some doubt here: whether there's enough room to acquit Lovett, I'm not sure.

I'm not saying that - on the basis of the evidence we have heard so far - Lovett has behaved in any way other than as a total s@#t. But just because you have behaved like a s*** to get your c**k inside someone, doesn't mean you've actually raped them in a legal sense.

Ask most women and they'll tell you about their experiences with men who have succeeded (or tried) to get into their pants by lying to them about who they are (pretending to be single when they are married, pretending to want to marry them, pretending to be much richer or more important than they are), bullying them or physically crowding them, offering to provide or withhold something from them they desperately want (a job promotion, good marks in a university assignment, etc), using underhand methods (short of blatant drink spiking) to get them intoxicated, or even simply by badgering them for so long that they end up giving in out of sheer exasperation.

All of these behaviours are at the very least ungentlemanly, and some are morally reprehensible, but they probably don't fall under the category of "rape".

[stinger]

I think he's going to walk here,
With our own opinions aside, I can imagine that there will be reasonable doubt for the jurors,
If she has consented (in a drunken stupor) to whom she thought was JG, it becomes complicated, if AL wasn't pretending to be JG then I'm not entirely sure that he would know who the girl thought she was with?

She has said to JG "I thought it was you"
Does that mean that she had consented thinking it was JG?

if your missus is asleep in bed half cut from a good night out and a cat burglar get into bed with her and she engages in sex with him thinking it's you....do you think that's okay...or is it rape..????.same thing here....

[dragit]

if your missus is asleep in bed and a cat burglar get into bed with her and she engages in sex with him thinking it's you....do you think that's okay...or is it rape..????.same thing here....

No, it's not the same thing, what ridiculous comparison - a cat burglar?
We're talking about 2 girls and 2 guys drinking together at a pub before going back to an apartment.
If you read my next post, I've said that anyone sleeping with a girl this drunk is actually considered rape.
I'm not suggesting AL is guilty or not, just thinking about if there is any reasonable doubt for the jury to consider.

[stinger]

if your missus is asleep in bed and a cat burglar get into bed with her and she engages in sex with him thinking it's you....do you think that's okay...or is it rape..????.same thing here....

No, it's not the same thing, what ridiculous comparison - a cat burglar?
We're talking about 2 girls and 2 guys drinking together at a pub before going back to an apartment.
If you read my next post, I've said that anyone sleeping with a girl this drunk is actually considered rape.
I'm not suggesting AL is guilty or not, just thinking about if there is any reasonable doubt for the jury to consider.

well..not a cat burglar then...how about your best mate...or the next door neighbour.....if it was as doubtful or as cloudy as you are trying to make it, it would never have got to court in the first place let alone past the committal stage....

..doesn't mean a jury won't acquit him...they well might do so...i've seen at least four or five murders walk free and three times as many rapists walk out the door laughing over the past forty years...just because a jury gives them the benefit of the doubt and brings in a not guilty verdict...doesn't mean they are innocent

[stinger]

No, it's not the same thing, what ridiculous comparison - a cat burglar?

that's an actual case.....and led to a change in the law at the time....

[jays]

will be wierd if he found not guilty

[stinger]

will be wierd if he found not guilty

no just the luck of the draw with those on the jury.....and by the way in my experience women are more likely to acquit in such cases than guys....guess they are judge their sisters harsher than us guys.....

[skeptic]

will be wierd if he found not guilty

no just the luck of the draw with those on the jury.....and by the way in my experience women are more likely to acquit in such cases than guys....guess they are judge their sisters harsher than us guys.....

interesting statement

for the sake of context, what exactly is your experience Stinger?

[plugger66]

will be wierd if he found not guilty

no just the luck of the draw with those on the jury.....and by the way in my experience women are more likely to acquit in such cases than guys....guess they are judge their sisters harsher than us guys.....

So its the luck of the draw with the jury. Nothing to do with what is presented by both sides in the case. A lawyer. bulls***. The more I hear the less I believe.

[skeptic]

I wouldn't be surprised if he walks but I'd put it more down to stupidity personally.

A judge would find him guilty.

Lots of juries are made up of idiots

[skeptic]

will be wierd if he found not guilty

no just the luck of the draw with those on the jury.....and by the way in my experience women are more likely to acquit in such cases than guys....guess they are judge their sisters harsher than us guys.....

So its the luck of the draw with the jury. Nothing to do with what is presented by both sides in the case. A lawyer. bulls***. The more I hear the less I believe.

It can sometimes be a bit of luck with a jury. If there was a member on there that had a similar incident with a mate they may be more biased 1 way or another... can't screen for that.

For mine personally, the problem is that the jury has to be all or nothing. IMO it should be majority rules

[stinger]

I wouldn't be surprised if he walks but I'd put it more down to stupidity personally.

A judge would find him guilty.

Lots of juries are made up of idiots

not necessarily....trial by judge alone is being abolished in the act....and the reason....not that anybody will actually come out and say it...is that the government is sick and tired of intellectually dishonest judges who think they are smarter than the rest of the population....continually letting obviously guilty defendants walk free....

[stinger]

will be wierd if he found not guilty

no just the luck of the draw with those on the jury.....and by the way in my experience women are more likely to acquit in such cases than guys....guess they are judge their sisters harsher than us guys.....

It can sometimes be a bit of luck with a jury. If there was a member on there that had a similar incident with a mate they may be more biased 1 way or another... can't screen for that.

For mine personally, the problem is that the jury has to be all or nothing. IMO it should be majority rules

i agree...majority verdicts should be the go in all states and territories...not just some.....glad i don't have to make a decision in this matter though.....

[stinger]

I wouldn't be surprised if he walks but I'd put it more down to stupidity personally.

A judge would find him guilty.

Lots of juries are made up of idiots

ps....i know a few idiot judges as well....see other post

[Dan Warna]

Even if she was a racist, that doesn't give him any rights.

it makes her a bad person, but she's still the victim in this situation.

[Sainternist]

Even if she was a racist, that doesn't give him any rights.

it makes her a bad person, but she's still the victim in this situation.

+1

[markp]

She has said to JG "I thought it was you"
Does that mean that she had consented thinking it was JG?

Couldn't that also mean she thought it was him having non-consentual sex with her?

That doesn't make sense to me, I don't think she was accusing JG of abusing her, rather that she actually partaking in something thinking it was him, she realised it wasn't JG during… don't you think?

How do you know the context?

All we know is said "I thought it was you"... it could mean initially she thought it was him doing that to her when she was out of it, it doesn't necessarily mean she would've approved, and who knows, maybe if it had been Gram, he'd be on trial now.