49 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl - no rape charges...

Phantom Pain

Sad part about this you reverse the situation and the older woman probably doesn't do time either

14 year old girls now do not always look 14

My buddy has a sister who is 15..she looks more like 19

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

Ok Helen. Why didn't anything happen?

Because I'm not THAT much of a slut... I don't sleep with EVERYONE who comes on to me I didn't fancy them is all!

Jeremy1012

Jeanie wrote:

J if you were on the internet and a girl started making overt sexually explicit innuendo at you would you not wonder why? And please don't say you wouldn't because I think you would. AND if you were in your late 40s and she said she was only 19 would you not question what on EARTH she found appealing about you? There is no way you can tell me that that man is a magnet for 19 year old girls, I find it very hard to believe looking at him, that he would be a magnet for ANY girl. As a 49year old man one would expect that he'd been around the block a few times, knew how women work. That this 19 year old "woman" was willing to come to his house and perform these acts didn't set off any bells in his head at all???? Come on!!!

We're not talking about the guy standing in the pub and this young thing has wandered up to him and given him the come on. They conducted a series of interactions on the computer which was his opportunity to "groom" her and I simply do not believe that as a 49 year old man he didn't at any point wonder how in the hell he'd managed to score so well. There is no way he didn't have questions about the situation and he'd have to be dumb as dog shit not to have realized that she was underage. And he's not dumb as dog shit because now he's instructing his lawyer to use every trick in the book to get himself out of the situation. As I said if it was a legimate mistake on his part why has he not acknowledged that when dealing with the police? Why was he charged with so much? Why try to get incriminating evidence gathered in the search to be inadmissable? Why the big who ha about the 2 black jurors? Why all the ridiculous claims?

I appreciate all that, and you're right, the guy PROBABLY chose not to ask questions that he should have. I would argue that having sex with such a calculating girl, when you have been informed they are 19, whether underage or not, isn't rape though. There is a tremendous amount of grey area when it comes to sex crimes. It might be rape by law but not by any normal understanding of it. There was no force, there was consent, the girl claimed to be of the age required to offer that consent, whether the guy was a sleazebag who chose not to ask questions or not, I would hesitate to call it rape, personally. It's certainly not our call to make. I don't particularly care about the moral judging of a 49 year-old guy who trawls the internet for freaky sex and jumps at the chance of intimate relations with girls purportedly 30 years younger than him but the law should be consistent and I WOULD be uncomfortable with calling a person who made a genuine mistake a rapist.

Jeanie

Heineken Helen wrote:

Because I'm not THAT much of a slut... I don't sleep with EVERYONE who comes on to me I didn't fancy them is all!

Yeah, but Helen WHY didn't you fancy them?

I reckon it's because instinctually you knew they were trying too hard as a 13 year old would probably be doing. So perhaps at the time you didn't know they were underage but I bet on some level you knew something wasn't right.

acoustic guy

Heineken Helen wrote:

Because I'm not THAT much of a slut!

Thats not what I heard!!!!! :P

Jeremy1012

acoustic guy wrote:

Thank the far left fuckhead liberal judges for that one. Oh BTW...they are Obama fans.

A worthy contribution for sure :rolleyes:

Heineken Helen

Jeremy1012 wrote:

There is a tremendous amount of grey area when it comes to sex crimes. It might be rape by law but not by any normal understanding of it.

well said yep it's rape according to the law and we all know the law... but to me, it just seems that there's something lacking to deal with this kinda thing.

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, but Helen WHY didn't you fancy them?

I reckon it's because instinctually you knew they were trying too hard as a 13 year old would probably be doing. So perhaps at the time you didn't know they were underage but I bet on some level you knew something wasn't right.

Nope you're pushing it.

I genuinely had NO clue!

Acoustic Guy

acoustic guy

Jeremy1012 wrote:

A worthy contribution for sure :rolleyes:

Thank you! I would like to thank the academy

catefrances

acoustic guy wrote:

Thank you! I would like to thank the academy

are you black?

Jeanie

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I appreciate all that, and you're right, the guy PROBABLY chose not to ask questions that he should have. I would argue that having sex with such a calculating girl, when you have been informed they are 19, whether underage or not, isn't rape though. There is a tremendous amount of grey area when it comes to sex crimes. It might be rape by law but not by any normal understanding of it. There was no force, there was consent, the girl claimed to be of the age required to offer that consent, whether the guy was a sleazebag who chose not to ask questions or not, I would hesitate to call it rape, personally. It's certainly not our call to make. I don't particularly care about the moral judging of a 49 year-old guy who trawls the internet for freaky sex and jumps at the chance of intimate relations with girls purportedly 30 years younger than him but the law should be consistent and I WOULD be uncomfortable with calling a person who made a genuine mistake a rapist.

As would I but that's not what we're dealing with here.

And we don't know what actually went on once she got there, we're not even sure HOW she got there. It's interesting that he was charged with kidnap. I am very hesitant to say that she consented JUST because she was there, EVEN if she supposedly instigated it. It does say in the article that he "encouraged" her to sleep with one of his partners and if the police have been able to find him based on their internet interactions then clearly he'd been talking to her for more than a passing conversation. That means he'd had more than one opportunity to interact with her. Again I'll say as the adult in the situation, why didn't he find the ease with which he was able to "score" her a little too good to be true? Because he knew he was dealing with a child and he figured he could get away with it and now he's trying to bullshit his way out of it. As I said before, why didn't a whole bunch of other people on the site take up her offer? Could it be because they could tell that they were dealing with a child? And if they could tell, how is it possible that he could not?

By all means defend those that should be defended in these cases but this guy isn't worthy of the effort.

Jeremy1012

Jeanie wrote:

As would I but that's not what we're dealing with here.

And we don't know what actually went on once she got there, we're not even sure HOW she got there. It's interesting that he was charged with kidnap. I am very hesitant to say that she consented JUST because she was there, EVEN if she supposedly instigated it. It does say in the article that he "encouraged" her to sleep with one of his partners and if the police have been able to find him based on their internet interactions then clearly he'd been talking to her for more than a passing conversation. That means he'd had more than one opportunity to interact with her. Again I'll say as the adult in the situation, why didn't he find the ease with which he was able to "score" her a little too good to be true? Because he knew he was dealing with a child and he figured he could get away with it and now he's trying to bullshit his way out of it. As I said before, why didn't a whole bunch of other people on the site take up her offer? Could it be because they could tell that they were dealing with a child? And if they could tell, how is it possible that he could not?

By all means defend those that should be defended in these cases but this guy isn't worthy of the effort.

I agree with all this but as I say, the law should be consistent, otherwise it will fail as many people as it provides justice for. The grey area I spoke of before needs to be addressed, christ knows how, before cases like this are considered rape.

Jeanie

Heineken Helen wrote:

Nope you're pushing it.

I genuinely had NO clue!

Acoustic Guy

Well regardless, the law would be different in that case anyway because the age difference between you isn't as great. Or should I say the likelihood that the police would throw the book at you in that situation is less.
There's a reason they charged him with as much as they did, it's because they know he's guilty.

Had they not felt with the evidence they had that they could secure a conviction they'd probably not have gone ahead with the case anyway and they certainly wouldn't have filed as many charges.

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

As would I but that's not what we're dealing with here.

And we don't know what actually went on once she got there, we're not even sure HOW she got there. It's interesting that he was charged with kidnap. I am very hesitant to say that she consented JUST because she was there, EVEN if she supposedly instigated it. It does say in the article that he "encouraged" her to sleep with one of his partners and if the police have been able to find him based on their internet interactions then clearly he'd been talking to her for more than a passing conversation. That means he'd had more than one opportunity to interact with her. Again I'll say as the adult in the situation, why didn't he find the ease with which he was able to "score" her a little too good to be true? Because he knew he was dealing with a child and he figured he could get away with it and now he's trying to bullshit his way out of it. As I said before, why didn't a whole bunch of other people on the site take up her offer? Could it be because they could tell that they were dealing with a child? And if they could tell, how is it possible that he could not?

By all means defend those that should be defended in these cases but this guy isn't worthy of the effort.

do we actually KNOW any of this? Perhaps she got several offers and only accepted this one? Perhaps they only conversed briefly but that included 'ok come to my place *insert address here* at 8' and that was the last anyone heard of her. And maybe... and this bit I don't like saying about a 13 year old girl... she WASN'T too good to be true

Jeanie

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I agree with all this but as I say, the law should be consistent, otherwise it will fail as many people as it provides justice for. The grey area I spoke of before needs to be addressed, christ knows how, before cases like this are considered rape.

It already does fail as many people as it provides justice for.

At last look I think the figures here are 1 in 3 women have been raped. There aren't nearly that many cases going to trail. There's a reason for that.

And besides if you agree that it's likely that he did know she was 14 then it is rape.

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

Well regardless, the law would be different in that case anyway because the age difference between you isn't as great. Or should I say the likelihood that the police would throw the book at you in that situation is less.
There's a reason they charged him with as much as they did, it's because they know he's guilty.

Had they not felt with the evidence they had that they could secure a conviction they'd probably not have gone ahead with the case anyway and they certainly wouldn't have filed as many charges.

On the contrary though, perhaps they felt that none of the charges were strong enough for a conviction... but prosecutors like to convict of something... so don't they often charge as many things as they can so as to guarantee a conviction of some sort?

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

It already does fail as many people as it provides justice for.

At last look I think the figures here are 1 in 3 women have been raped. There aren't nearly that many cases going to trail. There's a reason for that.

And besides if you agree that it's likely that he did know she was 14 then it is rape.

but that's speculation... none of us know the girl, what she looks like or what happened in the situation! So we don't know if it's likely or not!

Jeanie

Heineken Helen wrote:

do we actually KNOW any of this? Perhaps she got several offers and only accepted this one? Perhaps they only conversed briefly but that included 'ok come to my place *insert address here* at 8' and that was the last anyone heard of her. And maybe... and this bit I don't like saying about a 13 year old girl... she WASN'T too good to be true

The article said they traced him through the internet interactions once she was reported missing.
If there had been several other offers why haven't more people been charged or investigated? I can't imagine that the slimeball wouldn't be using that as part of his defence if he was able.

Helen she wouldn't need to be gorgeous to qualify as "too good to be true".
Ok, you're a woman and an adult and you've made friends over the internet. At what point have you agreed to go to a man's house that you've made sexually suggestive comments to? On your own. As a first meeting. With the offer of sex made in writing.

I'm guessing never. And I'm guessing that none of the women around here have either. AND I'm guessing that if the guys around here got that kind of offer they'd be suss on it for whatever reason because I can't imagine there isn't anybody here that doesn't know, as adults, that that kind of behaviour is pretty risky and women, grown women wouldn't do it. No matter what their sexual proclivities are. I can't imagine that guys anywhere else would be expecting that kind of thing from a woman either. Adults tend not to do things like that. So by virtue of the fact that she has made this offer he has to have known it was "too good to be true" so even if she was unattractive she's still offering him free sex and what are the odds hey?

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

The article said they traced him through the internet interactions once she was reported missing.
If there had been several other offers why haven't more people been charged or investigated? I can't imagine that the slimeball wouldn't be using that as part of his defence if he was able.

Helen she wouldn't need to be gorgeous to qualify as "too good to be true".
Ok, you're a woman and an adult and you've made friends over the internet. At what point have you agreed to go to a man's house that you've made sexually suggestive comments to? On your own. As a first meeting. With the offer of sex made in writing.

I'm guessing never. And I'm guessing that none of the women around here have either. AND I'm guessing that if the guys around here got that kind of offer they'd be suss on it for whatever reason because I can't imagine there isn't anybody here that doesn't know, as adults, that that kind of behaviour is pretty risky and women, grown women wouldn't do it. No matter what their sexual proclivities are. I can't imagine that guys anywhere else would be expecting that kind of thing from a woman either. Adults tend not to do things like that. So by virtue of the fact that she has made this offer he has to have known it was "too good to be true" so even if she was unattractive she's still offering him free sex and what are the odds hey?

I also never visit bondage sites... and I've no idea what goes on there. This is a music site. I've made friends and had people stay at my house who I've never met before. If I was the kinda person who was inclined to visit bondage sites, I might be inclined to be offering up some other kinda meeting who knows what people get off on? Strangers meet off the net to have sex all the time... it's not something I'd EVER do and I agree that it's weird... but there ARE people who do it.

Besides we don't know if anybody else has been investigated. Is talking sexually online to someone claiming to be 19 a crime yet?

Jeanie

Heineken Helen wrote:

On the contrary though, perhaps they felt that none of the charges were strong enough for a conviction... but prosecutors like to convict of something... so don't they often charge as many things as they can so as to guarantee a conviction of some sort?

Of the police investigators I've known they only tend to throw the book at you if they know you're guilty as sin and they have the evidence to back themselves up. If they suspect a genuine mistake and the evidence suggests that then they've been known to drop charges and file charges for lesser crimes. They can't charge you if they don't have something to back it up.
I don't think this guy is the next Nelson Mandela or something.