The district court verdict shows that the musician-actor Roope Salmisen and the plaintiff’s joint evening lasted nearly a day and began in good agreement. The events eventually led to a fine for Salminen. The verdict is not final.
The events began on August 20, 2015. At that time, Roope Salminen, the owner and a third person had left Helsinki-based rock club Tavastia for a sequel at about two in the morning. Included in the trip was an almost empty bottle of tequila that the trio enjoyed.
It is clear from the judgment that both Salminen’s and A’s memoirs from the sequel cross in many places. The order of events remained confusing in the investigation due to intoxication and fatigue.
In this case, the abbreviation A (party) is used for the party concerned.
According to Salminen, on the sequels, he and A had kissed on the balcony and both had been involved in the activities. A had never expressed that he had not wanted an intimate relationship with Salminen. According to Salminen, with his looks and holding hands, A had signaled the opposite.
Went to bed
Salminen had not, according to his own account, harassed the As, but A’s experience of balcony kisses is different. He felt that Salminen had tried to kiss her by force and demanded a reason for refusing to kiss.
According to A, after this, Salminen and Salminen’s witness had suggested that they play “truth and mission.” A had experienced an attempt to get him to do something when he was pressured to choose a mission.
Salminen does not remember turning the bottle, and he claims he has not had any ulterior motives. Salminen’s witness told the court that they had not played “truth and mission”.
Soon the dream won and according to A, Salminen went out and was put to bed to sleep. When he went to sleep, A had felt safe, so he stayed in the apartment after Salminen’s witness left the scene at about six o’clock in the morning.
Salminen’s witness told the court that Salminen and A had wanted to stay there for the night for two. The next day the witness had come to see that the places were clean.
It could be inferred from the beds that Salminen and A had slept in the same bed.
Invitation to nap
Salminen and A had woken up from the apartment at about 10.30, cleaned up and left for two at the restaurant for breakfast.
According to A, they had had a bottle of tequila again, from which they had also drunk. According to A, Salminen had started to offer three in the restaurant.
According to Salminen, the discussion had also been about sexual tones.
A had been very drunk and had not responded. He had wondered why Salminen had suggested one to him since the night before. At the restaurant, they had drunk beer and, according to A, also ordered vodka.
Outside the restaurant, A remembers kissing Salmi, but otherwise he barely remembers anything about leaving or the conversations that took place.
According to Salminen, A had said that he could come to him for a nap.
Were clothes changed or not?
The people reported the events in the apartment differently. Further, the state of hops contributed to the confusion of the order of events.
The narrative gives the impression that A also lives with two other people. These individuals were also witnesses in court.
When A and Salminen came from the restaurant to A’s apartment, he was no longer able to communicate with others.
The verdict tells how A had been so intoxicated that he had fallen in the hallway. Roommate B had taken her to the shower. Salminen had stood in the hallway. A had assumed Salminen was leaving and asked him to say goodbye. Roommate B had tried to feed A porridge because the spoon had not remained in his hand.
According to Salminen, apartment A had pressed against Salmi and stabbed him. According to him, A had not been heavily intoxicated or overthrown. They had gone to sleep.
A does not remember going to bed. Housekeeper B had previously put on loose pants and a shirt for A underwear. When she went to bed, A had had different clothes than when she got home.
It is clear from the operative part that A does not remember when his clothes had been changed.
He denies having touched his underwear
Next, A remembers lying in his own bed and waking up to take off his clothes and someone says many times, “Now take off his pants.” A had tried to sleep. He does not remember answering the speeches. In A’s view, Salminen had jerked A’s panties off.
Salminen’s account differs considerably in this respect.
First, Salminen has said that they had taken off their clothes before going to bed, but he does not remember how much had been taken off. In Salminen’s view, A had possibly stripped himself. Salminen had not commanded this or touched his underwear.
Salminen doesn’t remember taking off his pants, but it was possible. In any case, he had had no sexual purpose. Salminen and A had both been side by side in bed. The bed had been gone for the purpose of sleeping a nap. They had not slept very long after some person had woken Salminen and A to get on the train.
Living partner B had come to tell Salminen that it was time for him to leave. A had noticed that Salminen didn’t have pants, maybe he had had a shirt. Later, A woke up to the fact that Salminen was still next to him.
Salminen had had time at the apartment for about an hour or a little more before he had been asked to leave by roommate B.
The roommate watched
Roommate B was also a witness in court. In the hall, he told the events a little differently. According to B, A had had the same clothes in which he had come home when he went to bed.
A had gone to bed to lie down. Roommate B had not helped to take off the clothes, and A presumably would not have been able to do it himself.
Initially, Salminen had stayed in the kitchen to chat with his roommate C. After roommate B had gone to the kitchen, Salminen had been in the kitchen with both of them for a short time, and then went to A’s room.
According to the testimony of living partner B, Salminen had gone to the plaintiff’s bed to lie down, which B was worried about. There had been glass in A’s door and the bed had been visible through the door. B had been following the events in the room in between. From the door of room B had been visible all the way to the bed of room A. According to B, Salminen had initially had trousers on his leg and the back was not visible.
The bare back worried
It had been at least 30 minutes since B had seen Salminen’s bare butt. Rear-end after seeing B was worried and anxious. He had needed to go to the room. A had been in such poor condition, and B was not aware that A had had a relationship with Salminen. B had not seen anything concrete happen, he had only wanted to intervene. B had not seen A from the door, but only the bare back of Salminen.
B had finally gone to tell A that he had to get on the train.
Salminen had been naked. According to B, A had had some top, but no pants. A had been lying with his back to the wall and Salminen had been on his side next to the plaintiff with his back to the door and stuck in the plaintiff.
Salminen himself had described the situation that they had gone to sleep on the same bed in a spoon position.
While testifying in the hall, B said that he only took A to the shower after Salminen left and fed him porridge. Since A had been completely helpless and speechless, B called A’s parents, who arrived at the apartment at about 3 p.m.
The parents took A to a doctor who had still been intoxicated.
Police call in three years
Later in the evening, A had talked to Salminen on whatsapp and told herself. He had wanted to explain to Salminen that he was completely incapacitated.
According to the judgment, the discussion on the roof terrace of Salminen’s and A’s apartment had gone well. A had asked if Salminen had understood how drunk he had been. Salminen thought they had had fun. A had told him that he had taken advantage of what Salminen had been angry about, shouted at and threatened. After that, Salminen had left the scene.
Salminen remembers the atmosphere of the rooftop terrace conversation quite differently. A thought it had been nice, but no one should have talked about it. Salminen had complied with the request and was no longer in contact with A. They had divorced in harmony. A had not spoken of any exploitation. It was only talked about keeping the adjustment in your knowledge.
The next time Salminen heard about the matter was in April 2018, when the police called.
The district court convicted Salminen of coercing into a sexual act. He received 70 daily fines for the crime, of which EUR 2,380 accrues on Salminen’s income.
– On the basis of the plaintiff’s report and other supporting evidence, there is no reasonable suspicion that Salminen acted in the same way as going to the same bed with a plaintiff who fell asleep due to intoxication or sleep, the district court justifies its decision.
– Salminen has stripped himself naked and ordered and assisted the plaintiff to take off his trousers, then stuck to him.
Roope Salminen has announced that he is applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.