Ivy rape case acquittal: 'not in a fit state' - Thoughts?

[Mr Blonde]

A jury took just two hours to acquit Christopher Scott Corben of raping a prominent fashion designer in the toilet of Sydney CBD nightclub Ivy.
Mr Corben, 32, had pleaded not guilty in the NSW District Court to the charge of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent over the incident in October 2009.
His barrister, Winston Terracini, SC, had told the jury his client did not penetrate the woman and any sexual activity was consensual.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Crown prosecutor Paul Leask alleged the unisex toilet of the nightclub was like a "vault" with sealed doors that prevented any sound from escaping.
Mr Leask argued that Mr Corben followed the 35-year-old woman down the stairs to the nightclub's toilet area.
He then followed her into a cubicle, and was so close "she could feel his presence behind her".
Despite her pleas to open the door, he then allegedly refused to let her leave saying "No, come on; we have to do this. I won't let you out until we've done this."
The court heard that the woman, who cannot be named, did not cry out for help at the time, in part, because she did not believe anyone would hear her.
"There was no gap below the door or above the door," Mr Leask said.
"When the toilet door is closed, it is akin to a vault."
Mr Corben then "advanced himself sexually upon her", Mr Leask said, "forcing her legs apart" and having intercourse with her for a number of minutes.
But Mr Terracini submitted his client was "not in a fit state" to get an erection because he was affected by cocaine and alcohol.
The jury was not aware that another woman had claimed Mr Corben molested her in the Kings Cross nightspot The Piano Room, but those charges did not proceed to trial.
They were withdrawn by the DPP almost 12 months ago.
The jury began deliberations at 10.40am today, and returned with their verdict shortly after 12.30pm.

Link.

I'm interested in getting BL'ers thoughts on this, particularly people who have combined cocaine and alcohol and then engaged in sexual activity/attempted sexual activity. From my own experience, cocaine and alcohol may make achieving climax more difficult but not interfere too greatly with function beforehand. I think that a medical expert could have told the jury here that achieving an erection would be possible, and that's all that would be needed for penetrative intercourse.

 

[footscrazy]

This makes me sick, it's absolute bullshit. No wonder most rapes are unreported when we live in a society that implicity supports the instigator and blames the victim. What a ridiculous claim - that he couldn't get an erection because of the coke and alcohol. Do they know exactly how much cocaine and alcohol was in his blood stream at this precise moment? Do they know the effects of these drugs on this particular man in relation to him getting an erection? No - but its easy to blame drugs to vindicate this cocksucker, because most people have no idea of drugs' effects. I think the drugs aspect is a convenient scapegoat for a court that was sympathetic to the rapist to begin with. Whilst I don't know the truth in this situation, this attitude absolutely makes me fucking sick.

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ Yep I was very disappointed in the verdict as well... especially considering that it seems there was no medical evidence admitted to support the prosecution's case that the rape was possible, and given drug use statistics it's probably likely that most of the jury would not have first hand experience mixing cocaine and alcohol and attempting sexual intercourse. I've been following this case and was dismayed by the verdict as well.

 

[drug_mentor]

This is beyond ridiculous, I am really baffled that a jury would come down with such a retarded verdict. I have never had sex on coke and alcohol but I have had sex on alcohol and stims used together and don't see why it would be greatly different. I know its definately not impossible to achieve an erection and I don't see how any logical human being could think thats reasonable doubt on a rape charge.

 

[psytaco]

Now I am playing devil's advocate here, and also I really have no knowledge of the case other than this article. But I doubt that the whole case was thrown out based on that testimony. There would of also been a lack of physical evidence, and witness testimony.

I do agree with you footscrazy that rape trials are certainly stacked against the victims. I do find it particularly repugnent when a woman's sex life is put on display as a justification for sexual assault.

As to the cocaine and alcohol thing. For me personally i find cocaine to kill my sex drive whilst under its influence. Actually the only thing I feel like doing whilst on coke, is more coke. In high dosages it can give you 'baby dick'. all this been said, I have had sex whilst on cocaine and alcohol and erections and orgasms are certainly possible. just a bit harder to get.

 

[SpiritFolk]

coke makes me horny as fuck, is hard to come though, and erections can br at half mast sometimes..

 

[Sustanon]

Ive been following this for quite some time. What evidence was there that she was raped? They can do DNA testing and a bunch of other tests which indicate if they actually did have intercourse. They found nothing! If someone gets raped dont they do fluid tests and the alike? Pretty sure itd come up if that was the case. The girl just wanted to sue the guy to get a bunch of money or for personal reasons. I dont believe her one bit. Someone who is a fashion designer im assuming he has a bit of money especially hanging out at that club as a lot of wealthy people go there. Seriously if he wanted he could go to any of the brothels located right next to the bar, they have the most gorgeous girls youd ever dream of for not much money at all, if he could afford coke he certainly could afford to pay a girl. Why is everyone taking part of the girls side? Im really against violence against women and especially rape but there is always two sides of the fence!

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ If he was unable to orgasm there might not have been fluid to test for DNA with. I haven't seen much about medical evidence on either side, the reason the verdict is pretty disappointing to me is the fact that the 'unfit state' seems to be a pretty unreasonable point to acquit on. The information may not have been printed in it's entirety as to other evidence that shows the defendant to be innocent.

 

[Sustanon]

You dont need to orgasm to make the test positive for tests other than DNA, im not really sure whats it called but im sure they can match up body fluids these days easily.

The initial process of visually examining items of evidence for body fluid can be quite time-consuming. This basic step can actually be one of the most time intensive aspects of analysis, depending on the type of case. This is also the most important aspect because if biological material is not located, there will not be any DNA to analyze. At this point, forensic DNA analysts are looking for any type of body fluid stains that would be useful to the case, such as blood, semen, or saliva. For example, in a rape kit there are several swabs, including vaginal, anal, and oral that may be analyzed. DNA analysts test these swabs for seminal fluid and possibly perform microscopy to see if sperm cells are present that would positively identify semen. In other types of sexual assault cases with clothing items, analysts use an alternate light source (ALS) to visualize hidden stains and then further perform body fluid identification. An ALS is commonly used to visualize stains that cannot be seen by the naked eye, such as seminal stains. Semen and other biological stains can be made to fluoresce using the ALS with various combinations of wavelengths and filters. It is also important to keep in mind that forensic scientists look for clues when screening evidence and must pay attention to the fine details such as bloodstain patterns, bloody fingerprints, and bloody shoe impressions. Details of the case may demonstrate that certain bloodstains are more probative than others. It is difficult to give a time-line of this stage because it can vary.

I agree it is a pretty lame excuse but you always need some evidence to back up the claims otherwise its innocent until proven guilty.

 

[therealMaryJane]

i agree, it makes it harder to come, but not really effect the ability to..ah...get it in.
IMO unless invited in...he overstepped by following her into a cubical.. he was either there to share or offer her drugs, talk about menstruating(maybe he wanted to borrow a tampon.. or to shag.. if she was not into either or verbally invited him into her cubical,I feel one takes ownership over a toilet cubical when you're occupying it lol so for someone to follow you in with out permission is invading one's personal private space.
I'm a sex worker and tend to refuse drunk clients as they are usually the ones who will get grumpy about the fact they cannot maintain a hard on and will turn and try to blame us and demand 'get me hard'... lol So definitely don't see using being intoxicated as an alibi for rape. Messy unsuccessful rape sure.. but not unable to commit the act no. Cocaine.. well often that results in an up down hard on, and lots of snorting breaks. Which I'm quite partial towards lol. Coke and Booze.. not always the best mix unless you in a more private situation with familiar terrains to conquer. Not a stranger in a toilet cubical.

Shame about the ruling. I remember once getting a guy to get me into an after hours club so I could use the loo.. I think it was tunnel in melb.. and it was empty so i had pick of the wall of 10+ cubicles.. i went 4 or so doors down, went in and got to buznes of toilet papering the seat cover and i heard someone try to open my door.. then walk off. Always lock your cubical boys and girls!

 

[spacejunk]

Why is everyone taking part of the girls side?

um...because she is allegedly a rape victim.
there has been a big effort for the last 30+ years to take the stigma away from victims of sexual assault.
if you don't understand how hard it is for victims to report such crimes, then i'm guessing you have never known anyone who has had to go through it. in a rape trial, the victim not only has to publicly re-live the experience, which is traumatic enough, but they usually have to defend themselves from attacks on their credibility/integrity from the defence. her word against his.
they've most likely had a grilling from the cops they reported it to as well, to make sure the case is worth their pursuing in the first place. sex crimes are pretty fucking messy to investigate - loaded with stigma, shame, emotion from both sides.

it takes an enormous amount of strength and determination to see sex assault allegation through and take it to trial.
"The girl just wanted to sue the guy to get a bunch of money or for personal reasons" - sorry, but that remark is really uninformed and pretty offensive.
this was not a civil case, it was a sexual assault trial. a criminal case - she wasn't suing him.
she had nothing to gain here. pretty unrealistic mate.

it is often said that rape is not about sexual gratification, it is about power. to say that the victim reported such an offence to get one over on the poor defenceless alleged rapist is a little hard to believe. and the same goes for "why would he rape someone when he could get a prostitute next door?" it isn't about getting his rocks off in a traditional sense. you state that he was most likely a rich fashion designer - well, then what he could afford was good legal defence.

let's face it, unless one of us were in the jury or the courtroom to witness the trial - we only have a simplified interpretation from the media as to what the facts of the case are. we all agree that the media can't really be trusted, right?
jury trials are renowned for being dodgy too - a clever defence lawyer knows how to play for the jury.

i read she was too traumatised to submit to a doctor's examination after the event - this might make some fellas call 'bullshit', but i'm sure it isn't that uncommon. staff in the club apparently said she seemed very traumatised as soon as she came out of the toilets.
i daresay you'd be distressed too if someone followed you into the toilets, held you down and raped you as well, sustanon.

either way, it's a bit hard to dismiss his guilt if all we have to work from is "he was using alcohol and cocaine so he couldn't get an erection" - which most of us can see as a very dubious defence to say the least.

maybe if the jury was composed of people who had never attempted to fuck on drugs and alcohol, that kind of defence would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
for some of us that have engaged in such practices, it beggars belief. it doesn't wash with me at all.

in fact, from what people have already said here, it makes some degree of sense - he got it up, but he may not have reached climax. if you got raped by someone that had not come, would you be ok with being violated a second time by a doctor who is looking for 'evidence' that may not even present itself?
yes - violated is a pretty strong word, but if you've just been raped you are a little touchy about those sorts of things, you know? shit, it's hard enough for most sexual assault victims to make a statement to police. it's fucking traumatising man.

why do people take the girl's side? because rape is a serious, violent crime and people reporting it need to be taken seriously. getting raped has all kinds of consequences for the victim, and is not just a wicked way women can fuck with men.
if you seriously think that, i'm glad i don't know you personally - it's disturbing.

i've known people very close to me who have been the victims of sexual assault and on the other side of the coin, i've also known people who have been falsely accused of rape.
victims need to be treated with compassion and respect - she is not the one on trial here.

just because he was acquitted of rape by a jury does not mean he didn't do it. you can't slag off the victim as some opportunist.
"innocent until proven guilty" - sure, but what about the innocence of the victim? by bagging her out, you are contributing to the fear held by a lot of victims of sex crimes that by going public and getting the law involved, they will be blamed and stigmatised for something that she has probably spent the last 2 and a half years trying to get over.

 

[Sustanon]

Cbf to write a long essay atm but like I said before there was no evidence to prove he did commit the accused crime. I know how traumatizing it can be for the girl being raped but in reality a decision was made regarding the case. Thats like saying someone getting busted with a bunch of illicit drugs at the airport where they would try to prove their innocence by saying it was planted on them. One could feel sorry for them getting 20+ years jail sentence especially in a foreign country but if there is no proof that is was planted on them then you would go along with the judges decision. I know its hard to prove a rape but there are ways, we live in modern days with pretty good technology. Life is unfair at most times and justice isnt always fair but one needs to accept the facts and try to make a rational decision based on all the evidence. I dont think there is much point debating this at the current time, we prob dont even know half of the story of how it actually happened. I understand ur view and made some good points there. Im not on anybodies side here, I just wanted to point it out that there is always two sides of the story thats all. You never know the real side of the story, they might of even known each other who knows? I know these are all assumption but I always like to ask "what if?" questions. Obviously anyone who commits that sort of crime deserves a really harsh penalty.

 

[Crankinit]

The problem is that too often it devolves down into 'he said/she said.' While the circumstances of this particular case sound dodgy enough that a 2 hour acquittal seems wrong to me, rape is a very hard crime to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Even proof of intercourse isn't necessarily proof of rape, especially with a lack of evidence to suggest physical force was used. With none of that, and no witness, the court basically has to rely on the testimony of the two people involved, and it turns into a character examination.

While in this particular case, I agree that the excuse that he couldn't get an erection is piss weak and the circumstances (including the guy having previously been accused) are suspect enough that I have to lean towards the woman's side of events (going off one short article, anyway), the reality is that they'd send a lot of innocent people to jail along with the guilty ones if they convicted based on a single accusation.

 

[Busty St Clare]

The end of the day he was not proved to be guilty as there was either not enough evidence or (shock, horror), he actually didn't try and rape her. There was a very quick turn around by the jury so he must have had a good lawyer or been up against a piss poor prosecution team (which I doubt given the high profile of the case). You can complain all you want about how hard it is to prove sexual assualt but as a male I am some what glad of this. The world would be worse if it was the opposite. I have seen people like school teachers have their lives ruined by accusations similar to this. Sexual interactions are often such a grey area. Women like to send out mixed messages to guys at the best of times, so much so you sometimes need a set of instructions to read a womens mind. This is doublely so if you are under the influence, as a result unfortunately there are always going to be the innocent victims who will never see justice.

I see the biggest problem here as the unisex toilets. It may be trendy and new age but you have a social situation where alcohol and drugs are the lubricant, it seems really silly to create an environment where drunk men and women can close themselves away from security and scrutiny. Call me old school but I prefer take a piss with the boys and be able to have secret men's business and I assume most women would feel the same.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ You definately raise a good point about the unisex toilets and I agree with you.

I have actually been close to about as many people falsely accused of rape as I have those that have been the victim of a serious sexual assault (only a few in either case), but I feel in most of these cases that better technology for proving sexual assault would generally exonerate those free of guilt.

You can talk about women sending mixed signals at times, and once again I don't disagree with you, but that hardly excuses rape. All too often drunken idiots seem to pick up on signals from women that they more want to exist than really do exist and quite a number do get shitty and/or aggressive when they find out otherwise.

To me this guy shouldn't need to rely on such a ridiculous defence if he was truly free of guilt, couple that with a prior accusation and I really don't buy this dude as some victim, more like a rich and coked up asshole who seems to think he can do whatever he wants and so far hasn't been proven wrong by the justice system...

 

[Dr Phibes]

You have to be careful how the media sensasionise court cases to manufacture a story.

A few years ago there was uproar in the media about a judge instructing the jury that "no somtimes means yes". The fact that he actually said WTTE that if you initially say "no" you can't "subsequently" consent without specifically withdrawing your original no. The word "subsequently" was conveniently left out of every single media report no matter which side they swung.

Not defending this obvious arsehole but be careful of media reporting of contraversal court cases. Reporters have deadlines to meet.

 

[Dr Phibes]

Wont let me edit the fact that I can.t spell sensationalise

 

[Mr Blonde]

Damn my internet goes off for a week and I miss out on some good responses in this thread.

I know its hard to prove a rape but there are ways, we live in modern days with pretty good technology.

One other poster has stated that the victim was too traumatized to go through the medical exams afterwards, which is unfortunate but I can imagine it happening given what the victim has just been through. I may have to try and find the article where it is stated that this was the case.

Life is unfair at most times and justice isnt always fair but one needs to accept the facts and try to make a rational decision based on all the evidence. I dont think there is much point debating this at the current time, we prob dont even know half of the story of how it actually happened.

I agree that life is unfair, and I also think it would help us formulate ideas and thoughts if we knew all the evidence and facts here but like is so often the case, we only see a portion of what actually has happened. What really gets me about the verdict is that the excuse that sexual penetration with his penis would have been 'impossible' is outlandish and we are a community that would happen to be aware of that.

I see the biggest problem here as the unisex toilets. It may be trendy and new age but you have a social situation where alcohol and drugs are the lubricant, it seems really silly to create an environment where drunk men and women can close themselves away from security and scrutiny. Call me old school but I prefer take a piss with the boys and be able to have secret men's business and I assume most women would feel the same.

I also see this as a problem now that you bring it up. To some people that might sound stupid, that men and women should be able to share toilets without this kind of shit happening but in real life it does occur and this incident may have been more easily facilitated by the fact that the toilets were unisex.

You have to be careful how the media sensasionise court cases to manufacture a story.

A few years ago there was uproar in the media about a judge instructing the jury that "no somtimes means yes". The fact that he actually said WTTE that if you initially say "no" you can't "subsequently" consent without specifically withdrawing your original no. The word "subsequently" was conveniently left out of every single media report no matter which side they swung.

Not defending this obvious arsehole but be careful of media reporting of contraversal court cases. Reporters have deadlines to meet.

Interesting post, and I think I remember reading about that case or the controversy surrounding it.

 

[wazza]

Not trying to remove the potential gravity of this case /situation but I saw this picture today and instantly thought of this thread

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ Ha ha. :D