Alleged rape by two footballers, woman too drunk to remember anything

I'm just wondering what other people's views on case this are?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17677969

I am absolutely not of the opinion that a drunk woman can bring rape upon herself. However, I wonder what the outcome of this trial will be, if the woman cannot remember ANYTHING then how can the men be charged with rape when there is every possibility that she consented and forgot. I feel the men are somewhat in the wrong for having sex with a girl who was clearly inebriated but sometimes it's difficult to judge a person's level of intoxication!

I really feel for the girl and hope she will be able to move on but I just wonder how viable everyone else considers her case to be??

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

cakefish

Well if she was too drunk to remember if she gave consent or not then the court case can't go anywhere really unless some other evidence comes up showing she was infact forced into it.

Reply 2

RetiredAccount89

Original post by HolliAnnaBella

I believe someone recorded the rapes.
Not to mention the evidence from witnesses that this girl was disorientated and completely out of it and the men were not.

Reply 3

minimarshmallow

If the woman was too drunk to remember whether she said yes or not, she was probably too drunk to have given consent, even if she did say yes.

Edit: Saying yes is not the same as consenting. You have to know what you're consenting to, you have to be able to weigh up the pros and cons etc. and arrive at a decision. When drunk the frontal lobe is affected, therefore compromising decision making.
I'm not saying any man who has sex with a woman if she's had a drink should be automatically branded a rapist, and I think the law needs looking at to measure exactly how much the frontal lobe is compromised in each individual case to see if the woman was capable of consenting. But the law is what it is at the moment, and that's why this case has happened.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 4

Aspiringlawstudent

To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.

Reply 5

Aspiringlawstudent

Original post by cakefish

Well if she was too drunk to remember if she gave consent or not then the court case can't go anywhere really unless some other evidence comes up showing she was infact forced into it.

Legally speaking, this is not how it works.

Reply 6

joan2468

Original post by HolliAnnaBella

Mindsets like these are a big reason why rapists get away with the crime all the time.

If she was too drunk to remember if she had consented or not, then she was in no state to give consent to sexual intercourse. The state of mind during the time is important, if she was that inebriated then she was in no position to be asked to have sex, if she was even asked. The woman was clearly very drunk, "she was stumbling and slurring and occasionally grabbing hold of Mr McDonald to steady herself." They took advantage of her current condition, plain and simple, and that is inexcusable.

Reply 7

joan2468

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent

To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.

If a man walks home drunk and he gets attacked by gang members, that must be his fault too then.

Reply 8

PoGo HoPz

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent

To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.

Oh, I see. So it's the victim's fault for partaking in a leisurely pastime that's legal, is it? That makes sense.

Last time I checked, drinking alcohol was within the law and rape was against it. Did it ever occur to you that it could actually be the fault of the person(s) that think they are above the law?

Reply 9

redferry

Original post by HolliAnnaBella

The hotel staff heard her telling them to stop apparently, and there is a film of what they did (bearing in mind she was pretty much unconscious I'm sure it will be fairly obvious it was rape). And as one of them left he said to reception 'you need to keep an eye on her, she's sick' - ie so drunk she was unwell. In the eyes of the law if you are that drunk even if you consent that is rape.

If they don't get done for it it isn't because they don't have enough evidence, it is because they are footballers.

I think this case is very viable, probably one of the most viable drunk rape cases I have seen.

Reply 10

walterwhite123

Original post by Jamie

I believe someone recorded the rapes.
Not to mention the evidence from witnesses that this girl was disorientated and completely out of it and the men were not.

They recorded the men having sex with her, that won't prove she didn't consent.

Reply 11

walterwhite123

Original post by minimarshmallow

If the woman was too drunk to remember whether she said yes or not, she was probably too drunk to have given consent, even if she did say yes.

The key word there is 'probably'. That is not enough to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Reply 12

walterwhite123

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent

Legally speaking, this is not how it works.

How does it work?

Reply 13

Idle

Original post by PoGo HoPz

It's kinda strange that if someone starts a fight when drunk, they won't get any leniency from a court.. Yet if you are drunk and say yes to sex then you can't help that.

Reply 14

redferry

Original post by walterwhite123

The key word there is 'probably'. That is not enough to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no probably about it - video evidence + evidence from hotel staff showed she was in no fit state to consent. Also people stupid enough to film themselves having sex with a ridiculously drunk girl probably deserve prison for sheer idiocy :P

What annoys me though is she is now claiming she might have been spiked - she had 2 glasses of wine, 2 double vodkas and a shot of Sambuca. She was obviously just blind drunk. Not that that effects whether she was raped.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 15

walterwhite123

Original post by redferry

Drunken consent is still consent.

There wouldn't be a trial if it was so clear cut.

Reply 16

redferry

Original post by walterwhite123

Drunken consent is still consent.

There wouldn't be a trial if it was so clear cut.

You still have a trial if something is clear cut you know XD
If a man stabbed someone in front of 100 tv cameras - there would still be a trial. We aren't America! Everyone has a right to a fair trial!

Reply 17

walterwhite123

Original post by redferry

Only if the defendants wanted a trial. If it's as clear cut and obvious as you say they would have pleaded guilty and got the benefit of a reduced sentence.

Reply 18

redferry

Original post by walterwhite123

Only if the defendants wanted a trial. If it's as clear cut and obvious as you say they would have pleaded guilty and got the benefit of a reduced sentence.

Yeah but you can always get away with rape in this country even if it is blatant you have done it - if they get off this would be such a case.
It's very rare to actually get a conviction. Also as footballers the jury is more likely to let them off, if they were normal people they would probably have been advised to confess.

Reply 19

walterwhite123

Original post by redferry

Any statistics to back up your statement that they are more likely to get off 'because they're footballers'?

I hope you never get on a jury considering you've decided they're guilty before the defence has even started it's case.