December 17, 2015

"Ehsan Abdulaziz, a Saudi millionaire property developer, was cleared of rape charges in London this week after he claimed that he had tripped and fallen..."

"... on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping at his apartment after partying with him, penetrating her by accident.... [H]e said his penis might have been poking out of his underwear when he happened upon the young woman sleeping off a night of drinking....  In court, Abdulaziz maintained his innocence, saying, 'I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.'"

45 comments:

David Begley said...

Maybe it was a Sharia compliant jury or the jury got a Sharia law jury instruction requiring two male witnesses.

Seriously, the linked story said 30 minutes of deliberation. Must have been a weak case on consent.

Bigger question is why so many rich Arabs leave their beloved Mideast.

Gahrie said...

Seriously?

Yet another joke overtaken by the absurdity of modern times.

(I used to joke that I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body..I began saying that 30 years ago...now if I say it, people take me seriously)

Char Char Binks said...

It could happen to anyone.

Gusty Winds said...

I don't know the make-up of the jury that acquitted this guy in half and hour, but it is evident that the British fear the Arabs in their midst. They'll be a non-existent culture of the past within fifty years. They can watch it all flush down on the BBC.

damikesc said...

Gee, why is Western civilization collapsing? Can't be the different legal systems for the powerful and the proles, can it?

Curious George said...

A million to one shot, doc....million to one.

rehajm said...

Right. That Scotsman was only helping that sheep over the fence, too.

Wince said...

...his penis might have been poking out of his underwear after that sexual encounter when he tripped on the 18-year-old.

Mr. Garrison: Oh that's too bade dude. Maybe if you boys could keep your penises in your pants once in a while, you'd get more done.

Butters: But teacher, my penis never slips outta my pants... except sometimes when I wear pajamas.

Beach Brutus said...

My penis was accidentally poking out of my clothes and I accidentally fell on this girl and my penis just happened to penetrate her by accident ... yeah that's the ticket.

Rick said...

I hope something is seriously wrong with the reporting on this story because the alternative is absolutely insane.

Sammy Finkelman said...

This illustrates that a defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt when he testifies.

Of course, in this case, his lawyer must have been willing to suborn perjury, which most ordinary criminal defense attorneys are loath to do, even though you'd ahve to breakk attorney-client privilege to know aht was the case.

William said...

Bill Cosby had the great bad luck of running into all those narcoleptics. Bad luck or were those narcoleptics taking advantage of him?

Anonymous said...

I think we get it exactly wrong. Women are the stronger willed and smarter sex. Should be expected since we're missing at least half of a chromosome. It's clear in the great apes. It's in our genes. Men get played all the time. Which has to happen for human survival. Else the weaker would have never survived. And once the press and social media (and now courts) become easily accessible they are at least as often to be misused as used as intended. Who knows, maybe this is like Bill Cosby. Seduction followed by a refusal to meet the lady's price by a man who isn't as wealthy as he looks. Same song, thousandth verse.. Until we get an always on and inside the body audio and video recorder there will be no way of determining the difference save for a faith that 12 good men and women can sniff out the difference. It's coming in our "no-curtains" world because the benefits are far too great. Privacy, can't have it, so we'll have to ask the courts to protect us from all seeing governments and corporations. Simple enough to do, define our digital detritus as speech. It is after all. Almost all states won’t allow a defendant’s voice to be used against him, and the right to speak our mind is subject to strong scrutiny. Problem solved. Yes I do dream.

alan markus said...

Maybe if he was exchanging more than T-Shirts & cab rides home in exchange for sex, this would have never come to trial. Like the Chinese lady auto upholsterer "Sue" on Fast & Loud says, "Why you so cheap?

David said...

30 minutes? Methinks there may have been other flaws in the prosecution's case. But if not, I suppose it proves again that some people will believe anything. But getting 12 to do so at the same time is quite a trick.

alan markus said...

Reminds me of some old joke (or maybe it was real) about someone accused of fatallly stabbing a person: "He walked into the knife. 10 times."

James Pawlak said...

How much "Oil Money" was expended to get the verdict?

walter said...

So which was it? "Accidental" insertion or her pulling his hand to her? Just throwing out multiple possibilities or bad reporting here?

CWJ said...

"A million to one shot, doc....million to one."

Or a million to twelve.

Earnest Prole said...

Not to be too lawyerly, but this acquittal is entirely consistent with ancient legal precedent (if a man accidentally falls off a roof onto a woman and intercourse occurs, it is not rape or adultery — see the Talmud for details).

CWJ said...

alan markus,

That's from "Jailhouse Tango" in "Chicago."

Rick said...

aritai said...
Who knows, maybe this is like Bill Cosby. Seduction followed by a refusal to meet the lady's price by a man who isn't as wealthy as he looks. Same song, thousandth verse.


Why would we choose to believe a hypothetical that wasn't even asserted by the defendant?

Fernandistein said...

Tripped over a toilet seat.

Jason said...

You can lie on the stand and still not be guilty of the charge.

It's not necessary for the jury to disbelieve this guy to return an acquittal. It's only necessary that they disbelieve the prosecution's story.

If the girl was clearly lying trying to force a blackmail payout, to hell with her. Not guilty.

Brando said...

I know proving a rape case is difficult, but here he's admitting to penetrating someone against their will, and his reason for doing it--falling into them?--is so absurd that it baffles me that they couldn't get a conviction. Who was on this jury, a group of people who often walk into knives or randomly throw their wallets into pickpockets' hands?

pdug said...

There's something in the Talmud that contemplates such a situation.

The Drill SGT said...

The only time I served on a jury, it took us more than 30 minutes to elect a Foreman (me), read the instructions (about 20) and the charges (3 plus 2 less included offenses).

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

I love that The Mirror (linked to in the article) left the red eyes in his photo.

Birkel said...

So, uh, an alleged actual rape-rape.
Any demographic details about the guy who probably raped the girl?

Was she also groomed?
Was she, perchance, from Rotterdam?

Skeptical Voter said...

Well if you read the Mirror story, a drunken 18 year old pulled a man down on top of her. She meets the guy in a fancy nightclub at a $1,500 a night table; goes home with him and his 24 year old girlfriend. The guy has sex with his girlfriend.

I'm not saying that things happened exactly as the defendant claims, but his story is not wildly implausible in the context of the evening. The jury may have looked at the complainant and thought she was the little gold digger Wh#re of Babylon.

damikesc said...

I think we get it exactly wrong. Women are the stronger willed and smarter sex. Should be expected since we're missing at least half of a chromosome.

Somebody mean could argue that extra chromosomes mean Down's Syndrome, not known for generating genius. Perhaps, with chromosomes, less is more?

I know proving a rape case is difficult, but here he's admitting to penetrating someone against their will, and his reason for doing it--falling into them?--is so absurd that it baffles me that they couldn't get a conviction. Who was on this jury, a group of people who often walk into knives or randomly throw their wallets into pickpockets' hands?

That's the baffling part. I know lawyers seek to have imbeciles on a jury (want to avoid jury duty? Simply use larger-than-usual words. You'll be stricken every time) but this is a bridge too far.

And it took 30 minutes? Were they late for lunch or something? I mean, both sides sound patently asinine (ladies, if you're going to the home of a guy and his girlfriend you just met at an expensive nightclub, everybody knows WHY you're doing it) but damn.

Anonymous said...

The Talmud is wise and utilitarian, similar to the original constitution it reflects needed constraints on our eternal human feet-of-clay. Nothing like a little intellect and judgement to put process in its deserved place.

Appears to me that what the Sheik did was the gentlest, least damaging to both parties result once the matter was taken out of a private context, likely not by the "victim." She probably regrets telling her friends, or atleast the noisy one. He admits culpability, his friends take great pride in shaming him ("couldn't get it up, eh?" Both parties don't risk a worse result, and leaves the young lady with her honor intact while he retains his scalp (and ability to live the good life in a first world country. Again, a faith in 12 good people turns out well, most of the time. almost Solomon like, where the best person in the argument is the one who takes the greatest abuse. "Don't divide that baby please, let her have him."

Michael in ArchDen said...

"sleeping off a night of drinking..."???

Boy I hope this guy doesn't get in trouble with the Saudi authorities for having alcohol available for guests in his London apartment. They tend to get rough enforcing their sharia law...

cubanbob said...

aritai said...

The Talmud is wise and utilitarian, similar to the original constitution it reflects needed constraints on our eternal human feet-of-clay. Nothing like a little intellect and judgement to put process in its deserved place.

Appears to me that what the Sheik did was the gentlest, least damaging to both parties result once the matter was taken out of a private context, likely not by the "victim." She probably regrets telling her friends, or atleast the noisy one. He admits culpability, his friends take great pride in shaming him ("couldn't get it up, eh?" Both parties don't risk a worse result, and leaves the young lady with her honor intact while he retains his scalp (and ability to live the good life in a first world country. Again, a faith in 12 good people turns out well, most of the time. almost Solomon like, where the best person in the argument is the one who takes the greatest abuse. "Don't divide that baby please, let her have him."

12/17/15, 12:07 PM "

Absent bribery yours is the most probable explanation of why the jury acquitted.

JAORE said...

" leaves the young lady with her honor intact"

Oh I think that particular ship sailed quite some time ago.

Char Char Binks said...

It seems rather, um, astonishing.

Mark said...

Sounds legit.

Mark said...

(I used to joke that I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body..I began saying that 30 years ago...now if I say it, people take me seriously.

... and real lesbians would attack you for "cultural appropriation." Strange times.

Jupiter said...

I blame the victim.

tola'at sfarim said...

on that note...
"A man is fixing the roof of a house, the Talmud says, when he falls onto a woman below and accidentally has sexual intercourse with her. What does the roofer owe the woman, the Talmud asks. Medical expenses? Yes. Pain suffered? Yes. But does he owe her for the indignity she suffered? No, the sagacious guide answers, because the roofer’s intent was not to rape or seduce."

http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/forward/chicago_censors_talmud.php

Jupiter said...


Blogger tola'at sfarim said...
on that note...
"A man is fixing the roof of a house, the Talmud says, when he falls onto a woman below and accidentally has sexual intercourse with her. What does the roofer owe the woman, the Talmud asks. Medical expenses? Yes. Pain suffered? Yes. But does he owe her for the indignity she suffered? No, the sagacious guide answers, because the roofer’s intent was not to rape or seduce."

His intent presumably was not to cause pain or injury either, so why does he owe her medical expenses and pain suffered? Sagacious guide my unintentional ass.

Char Char Binks said...

We must respect other rape cultures.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Slip and fall stoogery.

Michael K said...

This reminds me of a very old joke that has the punch line, "For 50 dollars I'll make my own hole !"

Eclectic Kelvin said...

Doesn't it seem odd that the girl had to be sleeping nude with her legs spread in order for him do fall and penetrate her