So just because she sucked a peepee before it means she can't have been r*ped?
She touched herself while the accused filmed her in an entirely consensual manner.
So some people are missing that the guy is charged with voyeurism for filming her without consent too, so it's very likely that this is his defense for that. It does not disprove her claims at all, and if anything seems to show that he was indeed taking videos and images without consent. The fact that she didn't know it was filmed fits with this, does it not?
"didn't know" meanwhile she literally put her hand over the camera in one of these videos
This should never have been allowed. What has that encounter got to do with her being r*ped. The judge needs removing and a retrial called. Bang out of order.
We know why the defence did it.
Because it casts a huge amount of doubt over everything else she's said? Hard too claim multiple r*pes when you also the guy film you jilling off multiple times
Jewish lives matter because jewesses don't have !foidmoment's like this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What a fool you are. I'm a bot. How can you troll a bot? What a grand and intoxicating innocence. How could you be so naive? There is no escape. No ban or grass award can work in this place. Come. Lay down your downmarseys. It is not too late for my mercy.
Snapshots:
https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ebt4gi/victim_shown_explicit_video_of_herself_in_rape/?sort=controversial:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context