Sexsomnia...a likely excuse.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/man-cleared-of-rape-after-saying-he-suffers-from-sexsomnia/ar-AAu4bqW?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp





"A man who claimed he was suffering from “sexsomnia” has been cleared of raping his partner. 
Lawrence Barilli is said to have stated to the woman the condition “made him do it”.

She told jurors that such incidents occurred “a couple of hundred times” during their relationship.
But Barilli insisted he had “no memory” of what happened.

He was charged with assaulting and raping the woman between September 2011 and October 2012.

​The defendant, of Clydebank, West Dunbartonshire, was further accused of assaulting and raping another partner between 2008 and 2010.

The jury returned not proven verdicts for the two rape charges."

Though why a woman who found this distasteful would stick around allowing this to happen 'a couple of hundred times' is baffling.
If she thought it was rape she should have left and reported it after the first time it happened.

Oh goody...you Brits have a ginger Harvey Weinstein.

So she was raped a couple of hundred times? Why stay with him.  I'm not convinced of him, what the hell is sexsomnia?

This story makes no actual sense.

eddie wrote:This story makes no actual sense.

Seconded

Well, in a nutshell, the couple were in a relationship, after several months together the woman wakes to find the man silently having sex with her.
The following morning she asks him what happened, he denies all knowledge.
The woman doesnt like it but feels she is unable to stop it.
This happens a couple of hundred times.

He is eventually charged with rape. He is also charged with assaulting and raping a previous girlfriend .

He claims his GP diagnosed that he was suffering from sexsomnia.

The jury returns a 'not proven' verdict for both rapes.

Hope that clears it up.  

Er no, lol fact remains why stay with him, it makes no sense to me.

magica wrote:So she was raped a couple of hundred times? Why stay with him.  I'm not convinced of him, what the hell is sexsomnia?

Wikipedia

"Sleep sex, or sexsomnia, is a condition in which a person will engage in sexual activities while asleep. This condition falls within the broad class of sleep disorders known as parasomnias.[1] In extreme cases, sexsomnia has been alleged, and accepted, as at least a part of the cause of sexual assault, including rape.

The proposed medical diagnosis is NREM arousal parasomnia – sexual behaviour in sleep. Sexsomnia is considered a type of non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM) parasomnia. Sexsomniacs do not remember the acts they perform while they are asleep.

Sexsomnia can co-occur alongside other sleep disorders such as sleepwalking, sleep apnea, night terrors and bedwetting and can be triggered by stress, previous sleep deprivation and excessive consumption of alcohol or other drugs;[2] it is one of the possible adverse effects of the sedative-hypnotic zolpidem.[6] Sleep related epilepsy may be associated with sexual arousal, pelvic thrusting and orgasms.[2] Sexsomnia episodes may be triggered by physical contact with a bed partner.[7]

Sexsomnia, which is a fairly new medically recognized behaviour, has been used in criminal defense cases of rape."

magica wrote:Er no, lol fact remains why stay with him, it makes no sense to me.

Nowt as queer as folk Mags.
She stayed with him 2 years, as did his previous girlfriend.
Both claimed he assaulted and raped them.

Syl wrote:Well, in a nutshell, the couple were in a relationship, after several months together the woman wakes to find the man silently having sex with her.
The following morning she asks him what happened, he denies all knowledge.
The woman doesnt like it but feels she is unable to stop it.
This happens a couple of hundred times.

He is eventually charged with rape. He is also charged with assaulting and raping a previous girlfriend .

He claims his GP diagnosed that he was suffering from sexsomnia.

The jury returns a 'not proven' verdict for both rapes.

Hope that clears it up.  

Still makes zero sense.

Agreed.

Yeah, no. Still makes no sense to me again. I mean, I understand the words are all in the right order to tell the story, but it still makes no actual sense.

Bullshit story.

Doesn't make sense to me either, but it happened, there is such a condition, this case was tried in court and he was cleared.

So either two women were lying, two women were so afraid they put up with it for 2 years, he really does have this strange condition.....or he is a very good liar.

This seems rather vague...
"Jurors heard Barilli later said he had been “diagnosed with a condition that makes him do that”.
The woman explained: “He said it was sexsomnia.”
Mr Ferguson asked her: “Did he suggest if he had been diagnosed by a qualified person?”
The witness: “Yes – his GP.”

Surely if he had this condition the jury would need to see proof not just believe casual conversation about it.

There's an old saying about jurors...Grand Jurors, at least.  They can indict a ham sandwich.

Jurors live in a meta-world.  They don't get to witness the crime or event, but they get to see evidence and hear witnesses talk about it afterwards.  Testimony and evidence are the meta-world of what is left after the event has past.  Depending on how, and what, is presented, they can turn a ham sandwich into the defendant, and a slice of pie into the victim.

What's wrong with this situation is the women stayed with him long after the event.  That is too anomalous.

Original Quill wrote:There's an old saying about jurors...Grand Jurors, at least.  They can indict a ham sandwich.

Jurors live in a meta-world.  They don't get to witness the crime or event, but they get to see evidence and hear witnesses talk about it afterwards.  Testimony and evidence are the meta-world of what is left after the event has past.  Depending on how, and what, is presented, they can turn a ham sandwich into the defendant, and a slice of pie into the victim.

What's wrong with this situation is the women stayed with him long after the event.  That is too anomalous.

Good post Quill that made sense and made me slightly hungry too.....

Original Quill wrote:There's an old saying about jurors...Grand Jurors, at least.  They can indict a ham sandwich.

Jurors live in a meta-world.  They don't get to witness the crime or event, but they get to see evidence and hear witnesses talk about it afterwards.  Testimony and evidence are the meta-world of what is left after the event has past.  Depending on how, and what, is presented, they can turn a ham sandwich into the defendant, and a slice of pie into the victim.

What's wrong with this situation is the women stayed with him long after the event.  That is too anomalous.

I was called for jury duty a few years ago, not sure I would want some of the people that sat with me making decisions about my future. Obviously I was superb.

Exactly what you said Quill.....the mystery is why two women stayed with a man who they claimed raped them in his sleep....both for two years.