This is a forum post by the user HandsomeStallion
: --------------------------------
A businessman has been cleared of raping a university student after jurors were shown footage of the *** session taken on a mobile phone.
Gary Taylor, 41, was accused of attacking the 27-year-old woman after turning up at her flat with cocaine and a bottle of red wine.
The woman, who can't be identified for legal reasons, told jurors that Mr Taylor forced her to perform a *** act on him and then raped her in her living room.
But during cross-examination she was shown footage Mr Taylor had taken on his mobile phone during the encounter on September 26, 2008.
Mr Taylor's barrister Karen Holt said the footage showed the woman 'actively' performing a *** act on him.
Judge Christopher Moss QC closed the public gallery before a graphic clip filmed by the woman was shown to the jury.
The judge warned: 'You are going to see a clip which from what I have been told you may find extremely distasteful. To avoid making it a peep show, I have ordered the public gallery to be cleared.'
After the footage was screened, Miss Holt said to the alleged victim: 'You and Mr Taylor were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other's presence.'
The woman said: 'I don't think I was happily talking to him.'
She also denied 'actively' performing a *** act on Mr Taylor.
The prosecution offered no evidence following advice from the judge.
Mr Taylor, who runs a multimedia company, was cleared of four charges of rape and walked free from court.
The Old Bailey heard police had arrived at the victim's flat in Wood Green, North London, in the early hours of the morning after reports of a disturbance.
She made a complaint of rape and Mr Taylor was arrested at the scene.
Giving evidence she told the court: 'He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far.
'He thought he could be persuasive and it went too far. He kept trying to kiss me that evening and I was saying no.
'I was quite drunk. He was on top of me at some point with his hand on my mouth.'
Mr Taylor, from Hornsey, North London, denied four counts of rape, including two of rape by oral penetration.
The woman had not seen the film of her having *** with Mr Taylor before it was shown to the court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, lmao @ homegrown porn saving his life.
But seriously, there's a few things I have to say.
One, while the man may have not been innocent as far as the drug taking goes, I think it's a disgrace that his name is still allowed to be published in the papers (even before the jury found him innocent or guilty) while the woman still gets to remain anonymous. How is this fair?
I can understand that 'rape' victims should remain anonymous, but if they are unambiguously found guilty of lying/perjury, that individual should either get a heavy fine/jail sentence but the least of all, be named and shamed. It's a disgrace. I don't think shaming these liars will deter any rape victims coming forward because I do understand how alot of them are afraid to.... but come on, there's clearly a double standard in rape cases.
Let's see MTO steal this story.
she should get the time he was facing for those 4 counts of rape.I am really sick of theses females lyin about being raped ruining lives and nothing happens to them when the truth comes out. Her name should be released and her picture too. You know nowadays though it can be considered rape if the femalr is intoxicated because she is not of sound mind. But I dont understand this isn't the man just as incapacitated if everyone involved is under the influrence? And y does he get a rape charge and she get a you poor thing youweren't in your right mind pat on the back? someone please explain the madness
My boy had a charge dropped against him recently. He was like 17 and got caught having *** at a party with this girl at the time(white girl). Her parents made her lie press charges. My boy was making 70k+ a year at age 18 and has had to register as a *** offender up until now....Now she wants to tell the truth....BOGUS!
One, while the man may have not been innocent as far as the drug taking goes, I think it's a disgrace that his name is still allowed to be published in the papers (even before the jury found him innocent or guilty) while the woman still gets to remain anonymous. How is this fair? ************************
Not fair at all! She should be arrested for false charges!
You gotta remember that the burden in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because the jury didn't see evidence that proved he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Its like OJ, the jury couldn't find beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, but a jury did find it was more likely than not that he did it.
She could sue ole boy in civil court for assault. I do agree with you guys that say it is unfair for the accused name to be published before trial.
For once you make sense and the masses agree with you. I'm proud of you my little English muffin. Awwww
On topic, I agree, BOTH parties should remain anonymous until the trial is over and once it is deemed who is guilty...then at that point the guilty party's name should be plastered all over the place!!
