FIVE men from Greater Manchester were cleared of gang raping a woman after it was disclosed she had fantasised online about group sex with strangers.
The woman claimed she was sexually violated after going to the house of one of the men, who she met on the internet.
However, the trial, due to start at Preston Crown Court, collapsed when late evidence was produced to show she had shown a willingness to take part in orgies.
Previously, the prosecutor Michael Leeming told a jury the case involved allegations of rape and conspiracy to rape at a house in Great Lever, Bolton, where the activity took place in June last year ‘in the morning, afternoon and night’.
He formally offered no evidence though after he had read excerpts of MSN chatlogs prior to the alleged offence, which was provided by defence barristers.
He said: “It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words ‘her morals go out of the window’.
“This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned. We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence.”
He said he was particularly concerned about one chatlog entry which referred to her being prepared to have intercourse with six men from Ireland, who wanted to travel to the woman’s home.
In another entry, she candidly admitted she was not comfortable engaging in group sex with men she knew, but was perfectly happy to indulge with strangers.
Judge Robert Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts against Kelvin
Chinakwe, 26, of Brook Hey Avenue, Bolton; Olatunji Owolabi, 28, of Bradbourne Close, Great Lever; Afolabi Sanyaolu, 29, of Laburnum Road, London; Senthil Venkatachalam, 30, of Wigan Road, Deane, Bolton, and Funsho Bello, 26, of Atherstone, Rochdale, who were all charged with rape and conspiracy to rape.
A sixth man, Ganiyn Conteh, 32, of Abbeywood Avenue, Abbey Hey, Manchester, was formally cleared of conspiracy to rape.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
So as usual the men`s names are released but the accused keeps her anonymity.
Why did it take this long to bring forward this evidence? The money and time spent on investigation wasted.
The internet was a major piece of the jigsaw, did the police not bother to find out exactly what was going on? It does not look like it.
Will she be made to pay for the prosecution and defence costs, stupid girl.
Which begs the question why, when the woman's identity is protected, the accusse's names are not also withheld in all rape cases until proven guilty. An accusation of rape is a monstrous charge when the accusation is proven false, but the man's name is always published. It's a monstrous crime when proven to have been committed and then the man deserves to be named and shamed - but until proven guilty his identity should not be made public.
The gentlemen named above have all be shown to be innocent of the charge against them, but what hell have they been to and back since having been arrested and charged.
Obviously not such an equal society after all.
That is the problem of sexual fantasies, they appear better in your mind than in reality. Her reputation is soiled though.
Bertie McGrew: "The gentlemen named above have all be shown to be innocent of the charge against them"
No they haven't.
Yes, she's a silly, idiotic fantasist but I have no sympathy for the silly men involved. They are all clearly very immoral. They all got what they deserved - her and them.
Depending on the content of these messages if she has shown a "keen willingness" to take part and later cried rape. Surely she should be prosecuted for her false accusations?
Had this evidence not come to light these innocent but stupid naive men may now be locked up.
RT, UK
13/01/2010 at 11:06
The prosecution either didn't look for, didn't find, or chose not to disclose the information. The defence team only found the evidence very recently.
Hurry O Caine: what can we expect when some footballers do it all the time "roasting" I think it's called and these guys look up to footballers don't they?
One of the reasons why the mens names are inentified is because in the communitiy that they live in there are usually rumours and unfortunately this is one of the quickest ways to dispell those rumours. I don't agree with them being identified but at the end of the day the gossips need to see the truth in black and white before they close their vile mouths.
Black Flag, - You are doing your usual thing of (either deliberately or in ignorance) missing the spirit of someone’s post.
The Judge ordered the jury to find these gentlemen “not guilty”, i.e. legally blameless of any crime before the court. This was after the prosecutor offered “no evidence”. Therefore surely "The gentlemen named above have all be shown to be innocent of the charge against them"
Justified True Belief: "The Judge ordered the jury to find these gentlemen “not guilty”, i.e. legally blameless of any crime before the court."
But that doesn't mean that it has been proven they didn't do what they were accused of, just that there is no prospect of a secure conviction.
"Therefore surely 'The gentlemen named above have all be shown to be innocent of the charge against them'"
No, it's just being decided that there's no reasonable prospect of them being proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That is, unless you can offer some proof that they did not do what they were excused of, but so far, I haven't seen any.
Black Flag,
Yes they have. - idiot.
Black flag I accuse you of similar crime some time last year against my dog - prove to me on every day of last year you didn't.....
Fancy Dancing Shoes: "Black Flag, Yes they have. - idiot. "
No they haven't - idiot.
"Black flag I accuse you of similar crime some time last year against my dog - prove to me on every day of last year you didn't....."
If you think you've got a strong enough case, take me to court, but once there, I wouldn't have to prove that I didn't do it, I would just have to establish reasonable doubt, which, given you've got no evidence and you can't narrow the date of the alleged event down to any smaller time frame than a full calendar year, should be fairly easy.
So, I have no doubt that I would be found not guilty. However that doesn't prove that I didn't do it, does it?
Fancy Dancing Shoes, Discorama:
Hell! Are you accusing Black Flag of gang raping your dog - on his own.
That's very serious. I hope the judge agrees to keep your Patch's name anonymous whilst naming Black Flag as ... erm .... Black Flag!
Black Flag - "So, I have no doubt that I would be found not guilty. However that doesn't prove that I didn't do it, does it?"
So you did rape the dog then.
However these men have been found not guilty of rape, they had sex with her and it was consentual enough so that the courts found them innocent so they are innocent. If this is notthe case there no point having a court system we might as well all decide for ourselves and do nothing about it.
Black flag
So, I have no doubt that I would be found not guilty. However that doesn't prove that I didn't do it, does it?
-------------------------------------------------
Thats the point he's making black flag
In your eyes it wouldn't prove you didn't do it.
I hope this ruling sends out a warning to all the women who think they can accuse being gang-raped when they go out to meet guys from the net!!
This is all too upsetting.
I'm off to take care of my poor dog...
He needs support and love at this moment in his life.
Fair enough Black Flag In your world no one (even yourself) can be “proved” not guilty of any crime. Go for you. Rock on son.
lovinthebanter: "However these men have been found not guilty of rape, they had sex with her and it was consentual enough so that the courts found them innocent so they are innocent."
Nowhere, outside your imagination, has anybody established that they had sex and it was consentual. All that happened was that the prosecution established enough doubt that there was no prospect of a conviction being secured. That neither proves that they did it, nor that they didn't.
"If this is notthe case there no point having a court system we might as well all decide for ourselves and do nothing about it."
The point of the court is to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, or let the accused go free. We have a system which works on the principle that it is better to let somebody who has committed a crime go free than to wrongly imprison somebody who has committed no crime.
If, in a court case, the accused is found not guilty, it means that their guilt has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It does not mean that they have been proven not to have committed the crime they were accused of.
This woman needs to be locked up for her own safety. To put yourself into a position like that is a cry for help more than anything.
What about the poor guys dog Black Flag.
Can you prove that was consentual?
You would only walk away because there would be reasonable doubt because the dog can't nail down a date it happened.
I think there would be no evidence and the judge would direct the jury to give the Verdict of not guilty.
Therefore we wouldn't know if you did it or not.