I saw this extraordinary case on Reddit on the basis for a conviction in a prostitution case. Swedish Soccer goalkeeper Magnus Hedman was reportedly convicted on a charge of buying sexual services because a court found that, even though he did not pay for the services, he should have known the woman was a prostitute by her thick make-up and dress. Hedman insisted that he was drunk at the time at a friend’s party and simply had consensual sex.
The court of appeal reversed a lower court acquittal of Hedman. Hedman had gone to his friend’s house and had sex with one of the Romanian women at the party.
He insisted that he did not pay the woman for sex and the lower court found insufficient evidence that Hedman knowingly had sexual intercourse with a woman he knew to be a prostitute. However, given their dress, accents, and make-up and willingness to have sex, the court ruled that “it must have been clear to Magnus Hedman or at least have seemed possible that they were paid escort girls.”
That is a pretty thin basis for a conviction, particularly for a sports star who is likely accustomed to having woman willing to have one-night stands. It is particularly problematic when you overturn a district court. In the United States, such factual findings are difficult to overturn on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
He was ordered to pay fines in the case.
Source: The Local
AY,
Good catch!
The “Romania’s” they are the chosen people…..its true…Hitler was trying to create a master race…based upon the Roma’s….only problem…they were not Blond, Blue Eyed and Pasty White….so off they were sent to smoke or to be smoked….one of the two….
Did I catch the name right….arrested for Solicitation and his name is Hedman…..like it….
I guess in Sweden it is illegal to have consensual sex with a Romanian.
Bud,
Sharing hallucinations is a sign of greatness! … or so my shrink tells me.
she must have been a prostitute or else she was asking to be raped
I know the feeling too well. Women are trouble when having spread themselves a little too often. But I know the feeling of having to defend myself from these truths.
correction: I wasn’t drinking your coffee.
Blouise,
weirdest damn thing I tell you, and I was drinking your coffee, but somehow, all I could picture was this one catholic priest…
He should have known her for her thick make up (check) her dress (check) and her walk (check).
Sorry bout your coffee.
eniobob
1, January 21, 2011 at 11:39 am
“Hedman insisted that he was drunk at the time”
uuuummmm!!!!Really?
====================================================
At first glance I read your quote as HeNman instead of Hedman … still coughing from coffee down the wrong pipe.
This is illustrative of the fact that for the past 50 years or so, Sweden has had the stereotype of being a sexually progressive nation. I know I believed that stereotype for most of those 50 years until reading Stieg Larson’s brilliant trilogy. This case is a further example of the problem with stereotypes and that is obviously that they are so often wrong.
“Hedman insisted that he was drunk at the time”
uuuummmm!!!!Really?
“However, given their dress, accents, and make-up and willingness to have sex, the court ruled that ‘it must have been clear to Magnus Hedman or at least have seemed possible that they were paid escort girls.'”
That or he thought they were from north Louisiana.
Seriously, Sweden. Get it together. No cash changed hands? Then maybe you should have just convicted the girls in question of being slutty.