A mixed martial arts fighter, Octavian Moasea, was convicted of raping two women and received a jail sentence following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh. The incidents occurred between November 2020 and January 2022 in Glasgow and Glenrothes, Fife. The victims, whose identities are protected by law, provided testimony detailing their experiences of intimidation and fear during the assaults.

During the trial, one victim recounted how Moasea's background as a fighter made her feel particularly vulnerable. She described instances where he boasted about his fighting skills and showed her clips of his matches. In her testimony, she detailed how he forcibly removed her underwear during the assault.

Moasea faced charges including two counts of rape and two counts of threatening behavior. Despite denying any wrongdoing throughout the proceedings, jurors ultimately found him guilty after deliberation. The court also revealed that Moasea had previous convictions for offenses including false imprisonment and grievous bodily harm in Germany.

Following the verdict, Judge Olga Pasportnikov remanded him in custody pending sentencing scheduled for July 28, 2025. A criminal justice social work report will be prepared before this hearing to assist with sentencing considerations.

Original article

The text presents a multitude of biases and manipulative language, which will be thoroughly analyzed below.

One of the most striking biases in the text is the use of emotive language to create a sense of outrage and moral indignation. The phrase "raping two women" is used to create a visceral reaction, while the description of the victims' experiences as involving "intimidation and fear" serves to elicit sympathy from the reader. This type of language is often employed to create a sense of moral urgency, but it can also be seen as manipulative, as it relies on emotional appeals rather than objective facts. The direction this bias favors is clear: it seeks to create a sense of collective outrage and condemnation towards Moasea's actions, without providing any nuanced understanding or context.

The text also exhibits cultural bias in its portrayal of masculinity. The fact that Moasea's background as a fighter made one victim feel particularly vulnerable suggests that traditional masculine ideals are being challenged. However, this challenge is not explored further; instead, the focus remains on Moasea's actions as reprehensible. This lack of exploration reinforces traditional notions of masculinity and implies that men who engage in violent behavior are inherently problematic. The direction this bias favors is centrist, reinforcing dominant cultural norms around masculinity.

Furthermore, the text reveals racial and ethnic bias through its omission of relevant perspectives. While Moasea's previous convictions in Germany are mentioned, there is no exploration of how his cultural background may have influenced his actions or how systemic racism may have contributed to his behavior. This omission creates a narrative that focuses solely on individual responsibility rather than acknowledging broader structural issues. The direction this bias favors is implicit marginalization: by ignoring potential factors such as systemic racism or cultural context, the narrative reinforces dominant white Western norms.

The text also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of passive constructions that obscure agency. Phrases such as "the incidents occurred between November 2020 and January 2022" create a sense of inevitability around Moasea's actions without attributing agency to him directly. Similarly, sentences like "the court also revealed that Moasea had previous convictions for offenses including false imprisonment and grievous bodily harm in Germany" imply that these facts were somehow hidden until now, rather than presenting them as part of an ongoing narrative about Moasea's history with violence. These constructions serve to deflect attention from Moasea's direct involvement in these incidents.

Selection and omission bias are also evident throughout the text. For example, while one victim recounts instances where Moasea boasted about his fighting skills and showed her clips of his matches during their assault sessions , there is no mention if she was aware he was convicted for similar crimes before meeting her . By omitting this information , we get an incomplete picture , which might lead readers into thinking all victims were unaware . Furthermore , there 's no discussion about what led him into committing such crimes ; whether he was driven by mental health issues or other factors . By excluding these aspects , we get an incomplete picture .

Structural and institutional bias are evident in the way power dynamics between victims , perpetrators , judges & law enforcement agencies are portrayed . Victims ' testimonies take center stage with detailed descriptions & emotions ; whereas perpetrators ' backgrounds & motivations remain somewhat opaque . Judges & law enforcement agencies appear more neutral / authoritative figures ; whereas their own biases & agendas remain unexplored . This reinforces existing power structures where those with power ( judges / law enforcement ) maintain control over narratives .

Confirmation bias is present throughout the article; assumptions about rape culture , toxic masculinity & societal expectations surrounding violence against women remain unchallenged . No counterarguments or alternative perspectives on rape culture or societal expectations surrounding violence against women were presented .

Framing narrative can be seen through story structure : focusing primarily on victims ' experiences creates an emotional connection with readers ; whereas perpetrator ' s motivations remain somewhat opaque creating distance between readers & perpetrator making them more villainous