his genitals weren't burnt. he was burnt from his neck to his belly button, as if she splashed him while he was wearing a button down shirt... then lit it.
sounds like she didn't like him leaving without her... burned him as a scorned woman might... then claimed he assaulted her to set up the he said/ she said. if what she claimed is true, there should be no shortage of witnesses to him exposing himself. (then again, his private parts would be burned if her story were true)
You are simply making crap up to try and justify your opinion.
That is dishonest (and very liberal).
I’m sorry you have such low regard for truth and knowledge that you feel you can demean it by impugning her as a “woman scorned” because it fits your narrative.
Is that you, Barack?
Sorry, Sten, but as far as I am concerned -- when a man forces his penis into your hand (or any other part of your body) without your consent and against all your best verbal and physical resistance, then you've got a right to do whatever you want to that penis and to whoever is attached to it!
You are acting like this woman "planned the attack". Struggling, she threw a drink on him, hoping that would stop him. When it didn't, she lit him up. Do you really think that she thought about the proof of the alcohol and just how badly it would burn (chest, etc)? She was probably as shocked as he was that it made a fire that big --but if that's what it took to stop him, so be it!
And speaking of which, why didn't his fellow Brits try and step in to stop him? He was parading around with his penis hanging out, assaulting women! Why didn't they protect the woman?
This woman was on her own -- and she did what she had to do to protect herself. No apologies. And if she goes to prison, I am sending her flowers and letters of support!
I read both articles and that wasn't mentioned as a motive in either. You are being disingenuous in your defense of a drunken jerk. How sad.