Saudi Millionaire Acquitted Of Rape After Saying That He Fell On The Alleged Victim

220px-The_Jury_by_John_MorganJuries generally comes to reasonable results in my view and tend to get cases right despite the criticism that one reads in the media or popular culture. However, there are cases that leave me baffled. Often this is due to the fact that not all facts have been reported accurately, but some are left a mystery. One such case is out of London this week where a jury spent just 30 minutes to acquit Saudi millionaire Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, of rape. Abdelaziz’s defense? he accidentally tripped, fell on her, and may have penetrated her by mistake.

Abdulaziz met two women at London’s West End Cirque le Soir nightclub and took them to his flat at 4:30 am where they continued to drink. He then had sex with one of the women while the second woman fell asleep on the couch. He says that he went into the room to see if the alleged victim needed a tee-shirt or taxi home when she pulled him on top of her. He said that he fell on her and may have penetrated her at that time. He insisted that she was forcing him on her, put his hands between her legs, and the semen found on the alleged victim may have come from the earlier sex with her friend. He told the jury “I’m fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.”

The alleged victim says that she woke and found him having sex with her. Later swabs taken from the alleged victim found traces of his semen in her vagina.

There is something else about the trial that is inexplicable. Judge Martin Griffiths allowed Abdulaziz to give evidence in private. This may be a quirk of English law but why allow such an accommodation?

Abdulaziz insisted at trial “I always respect ladies and I have a sister myself.”

Perhaps some of our English readers have more information on the trial but from over here this sounds perfectly insane.

51 thoughts on “Saudi Millionaire Acquitted Of Rape After Saying That He Fell On The Alleged Victim”

  1. “I always respect ladies and I have a sister myself.”

    In general according to their beliefs a non Muslim women is not a lady so from his perspective he is telling the truth…There is no such thing as Rape with regards to her.. She is a thing not even human..

  2. And the jury “fell” for it. I will try to remember not to fall the next time I accidentally get an erection for no apparent reason.

  3. Bam bam

    Sorry, I still don’t see why any 18 and 24 year females would go home with a middle aged man, unless they were expecting money. Young women are interested in young men. Young women are only interested in middle aged and old men when there is money involved.

    1. Speak for yourself, tin, some of us are attractive to younger women at any age!
      In my case, they even give me money… which I use for jihad, obviously!

  4. TinEar

    Did you actually read the story? You mention money as being a motivating factor. Not every Arab man, trolling bars late at night and doused in way too much cologne, is wealthy. These two women were invited back to his home where they continued to drink. A common occurrence among those who are lounge lizards. They drink until the point of passing out. Aside from the sheer stupidity of doing such a thing at 4:30 am with a stranger, the fact is that the victim fell asleep on the couch in a different room from the defendant, who admits that he entered said room to check on her. That’s where, and when, the assault occurred. If these women were prostitutes, as you allege, just after his money, wouldn’t it make far more sense for them to threaten him with charges of rape to extort money? How much would this multi-millionaire have paid to make this whole episode go away? My opinion–plenty.

  5. The Court just didn’t like the Complainant. They figured she was probably a prostitute or hustler (not that it should make a difference in a rape case), because why would an 18 year old woman go to the apartment of a middle-aged man, unless she was after money? The defendant’s story, of course, was patently ridiculous, if not contemptuous, but the Court was equally contemptuous of the Complainant so it was not going to afford her any justice, even at the cost of calling into question its own credibility.

  6. Saudi royals or oil sheiks have a bad reputation for behaving badly, and somehow maintaining a Teflon coating for the law. If the law applied equally to them, this would not be an issue. But there are many cases where they skate away Scott free. It seems the younger generation that are the worst behaved. Perhaps it was because they were born entitled and above the law in their country of origin. In general, there seems to be a trend among young people here and abroad towards hedonism, lack of personal responsibility, and no accountability. Perhaps the Saudis take it to the next level because they have the added layer of immense wealth combined with legal double standards in their own country, diplomatic immunity in others, and an inexplicable lack of application of the law in this case.

    The fact that other groups behave badly, too, such as sex tourists in Thailand, or Chinese poachers, or Russia’s inability to respect borders, is immaterial to this issue.

    1. Oh, karen is here, let me ask her my question before she disappears like a genie in a harem…
      ———————-
      karen said to Po:
      Do you consider crashing a van deliberately into a civilian bus stop, hitting people, and then jumping out with a knife to stab a woman with a baby a terrorist attack? Yes or now. And this time answer the question.
      Po answered:
      yes, I do!
      Do YOU consider the bombing of hospitals, of schools, of ambulances, the dropping of a missile on 4 kids playing on the beach, the lighting of a sleeping family on fire a terrorist act? Yes or no? And this time answer the question!

        1. Paul “Ï do not answer questions” demanding answers of others 🙂
          I routinely answer questions, including karen’s, including yours…but I won’t do your homework for free.

  7. Paul:

    “Karen – it just is not open to the public. The judge, lawyers and jury are there.” Just to clarify, did the defendant give private evidence to the judge in chambers, alone, or were counsel there. Was it only press that was excluded? I have no problem with press being kept out of courtrooms to prevent a circus, as long as everything is released as public record upon conclusion. But I would vehemently oppose defendants having access to judges alone.

  8. Charlie,

    The discipline of physics is far from the reality of political life.

    Religion is irresistible.

    Religion is the opiate of the masses.

    Have yourself a hit.

    Get used to it

    Constantine did.

    He manipulated religion to “good” use.

    Why don’t you?

    (Alternatively, you could petition Constantine for redress of your grievance – NOT).

  9. We are ALL (no exceptions) atheists…when it comes to the thousands (or 320 million for Hindus) of other gods that we don’t “believe in”.

    There are NO gods that were not created by people.

    Religion poisons everything!

  10. “he accidentally tripped, fell on her, and may have penetrated her by mistake.”

    This is a good woman who, with selfless compassion, attempted to “soften” the landing of the unsuspecting

    and long-suffering, true victim, the Saudi millionaire, regardless of the consequences.

    What’s wrong with that?

    I like her.

  11. “L’Observer – let’s face it the DM is better than that socialist propaganda organ The Guardian.”

    Or Lyin’ Willimas on PMSNBC. No, no the plagiarist, Fareak Sickarya on CNN.

    The there’s Doris Kearns Goodwin –

    say no more.

  12. By the way, bam, the post at 10:50 comes out of somewhere…it is another entry in the running conversation I am holding with karen.
    Karen is quite busy however, and she doesn’t realize I have replied to her question and asked my own…so I am trying to let know that.
    If you see her, please let her know there is an orphaned question waiting for her to give it some love.

    it may sound like stalking, but it is just me cherishing her moral integrity and wanting for all of us to benefit from it.
    in case she comes back here, please ask her this:
    ————-
    karen said to Po:
    Do you consider crashing a van deliberately into a civilian bus stop, hitting people, and then jumping out with a knife to stab a woman with a baby a terrorist attack? Yes or now. And this time answer the question.
    Po answered:
    yes, I do!
    Do YOU consider the bombing of hospitals, of schools, of ambulances, the dropping of a missile on 4 kids playing on the beach, the lighting of a sleeping family on fire a terrorist act? Yes or no?

  13. Turley’s been reading that esteemed home of fine journalism – The Daily Mail. We can all assume he was doing his best to stay informed about the latest information about the Kardashians when he came upon this piece that will roil the halls of justice for years to come.

    Excellent work, Professor Turley.

    I wonder if the bloggers at SCOTUS read the Daily Mail… or Voloch.

    1. L’Observer – let’s face it the DM is better than that socialist propaganda organ The Guardian.

  14. Let’s just count all of the people named Mohammed who are Christian, shall we? According to po, Christian and Muslim names are interchangeable in the Middle East. He thinks that all Americans are stooges and will fall for his falsehoods. Taqquiya abounds.

    1. Reread my post, bam, obviously comprehension is not as common as one might think…
      Would you please answer my questions….or you afraid to get burnt!
      I’ll be gentle, I promise.

  15. Po’s mind is anything but logical.

    The perv is from a Muslim country, where practically 100 percent of said country is Muslim–either Sunni or Shia–and he has a Muslim name. Po’s School of Logic, attended by one disturbed individual, wants to, obviously, change the topic. The usual rants about terrorists, like what starts @ 10:50 am, which come out of nowhere, are a purposeful distraction and meant to deflect attention. We are forbidden to make the most logical of conclusions.

    How dare anyone conclude that the defendant is Muslim! The sheer audacity! Anything to distract from the obvious truth. Anything to deflect. Sad, sad po. As BarkinDog would say, what an urd-tay.

    1. hahah, bam attacking the messenger for he cannot answer the message…
      Should be easy enough to answer my questions, bam!

      According to your reply, it is being from Saudi Arabia and/or having a muslim name that makes one a muslim…which makes it so I can therefore ask, rationally, if Ehsan from Saudi Arabia is atheist, is he still a Muslim?
      If he does not pray or fast or follow the rituals of Islam, is he still a Muslim?
      …what makes one a Muslim?
      Is it the name?
      The ethnicity?
      The faith?
      The practice of the faith?
      The culture?
      The country of origin?

      I met a Muhamad who doesn’t believe in God, is he a Muslim? An atheist?

      I know you won’t answer…I mean, you are not equipped to answer rational questions in a rational way… one can still hope though…please surprise me.

Comments are closed.