Cork "VIP" Rape Case

Roger Hassenforder

So the defendant(s) were acquitted:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/judge-orders-jury-to-acquit-accused-in-cork-vip-party-rape-trial-825376.html

I dont get it though.
Main reason for acquittal seems a bit iffy.
She said she would have kissed him if it was consensual, and denied kissing him.
He said she did, and offered to give the Gardai a swab from his neck for her DNA, which they didnt do.

Does that prove consent?
Suggest consent?

Prosecution said it wasnt a significant piece of evidence.

Specialun

it proves that the cops fcuked up.

McMurphy

Kissing someone is (her way) of giving consent for sexual intercourse?

Dam. Did i have many wasted opportunities behind GAA hall discos or is she pretty unique

Either way, it seems her stating that kissing was her giving consent - the guards not testing the defendants neck for any signs of kissing from her is presumably what got him off.

submitted that the complainant's evidence was that she had not kissed the accused and that she would have been kissing him if she wanted to have sex.

“Proof of kissing goes directly to the question of consent in this case,” Mr Guerin said. He said his client said the woman had kissed him on the neck and invited gardaí to swab his neck for saliva. This was not done.

Gatling

From following the various trial updates it seems the prosecution was on shaky ground ,
From no DNA been recovered and no used condoms that matched any of the two suspects, victim claimed both men came inside her but no evidence was found ,
Then the claim of 5 men involved and various story changes from the victim ,
Two large men supposedly raped her while half laying on a bottom bunk bed (doesn't sound possible )
Seems to have been a mess of an investigation

ohnonotgmail

She said she would have been kissing him if she wanted to have sex. He claimed he did kiss her which would have shown consent if it was true. The gardai failed to collect evidence that could have proved what he said was true. the judge really didnt have a choice.

Roger Hassenforder

There was also a reported "anyone not wanting sex can get off the bus".
Her friend got off, she stayed on.
Doesnt imply consent though, for anyone on the bus to have a go?

namloc1980

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

She said she would have been kissing him if she wanted to have sex. He claimed he did kiss her which would have shown consent if it was true. The gardai failed to collect evidence that could have proved what he said was true. the judge really didnt have a choice.

Yeah spot on. Defendant couldn't realistically have a fair trial because the Gardai failed to collect this evidence when they were invited to do so.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

There was also a reported "anyone not wanting sex can get off the bus".
Her friend got off, she stayed on.
Doesnt imply consent though, for anyone on the bus to have a go?

and that has nothing to do with why he was found not guilty.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

She said she would have been kissing him if she wanted to have sex. He claimed he did kiss her which would have shown consent if it was true. The gardai failed to collect evidence that could have proved what he said was true. the judge really didnt have a choice.

Is a kiss consent now though?

(Evidence of her saliva on his neck doesnt prove she kised him, only that his neck and her mouth were in contact, maybe he shoved his neck against her mouth).

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that has nothing to do with why he was found not guilty.

Correct.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is a kiss consent now though?

(Evidence of her saliva on his neck doesnt prove she kised him, only that his neck and her mouth were in contact, maybe he shoved his neck against her mouth).

the girl said it would be a sign of consent. As for the rest we never got the opportunity to find out. Hence the acquittal.

namloc1980

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is a kiss consent now though?

(Evidence of her saliva on his neck doesnt prove she kised him, only that his neck and her mouth were in contact, maybe he shoved his neck against her mouth).

She gave evidence that for her kissing meant consent. That was her view so you can't argue with that really. The Gardai failure to collect the evidence is the issue as it left the judge no option but to acquit.

Roger Hassenforder

namloc1980 wrote: »

She gave evidence that for her kissing meant consent. That was her view so you can't argue with that really. The Gardai failure to collect the evidence is the issue as it left the judge no option but to acquit.

Not arguing her view.
But even if the Gardai had collected her DNA from his neck, it doesnt prove she kissed him.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not arguing her view.
But even if the Gardai had collected her DNA from his neck, it doesnt prove she kissed him.

if they had collected dna and found her dna on his neck then he could have argued that he did kiss her. Of course the prosecution could have rebutted that. the fact that no dna was collected meant he couldn't make that argument and thus he was unable to mount a proper defence.

namloc1980

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not arguing her view.
But even if the Gardai had collected her DNA from his neck, it doesnt prove she kissed him.

No but it would lend credence to his story that it was consensual which could be argued on the basis of reasonable doubt to the jury. The failure to collect the evidence denied the defendant the ability to defend himself and therefore the judge had no option but to acquit.

Roger Hassenforder

Shambles of a prosecution so?

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Shambles of a prosecution so?

Shambles of an investigation. The prosecution could only work with what they were given.

namloc1980

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Shambles of a prosecution so?

Missed evidence by the Gardai combined with the evidence that kissing = consent opened the door for the defence to easily argue that the defendant couldn't get a fair trial.

#Smokey#

Load of waffles on her behalf. It's false accusations like this that hurt the real victims, she should be ashamed of herself.

Captain Obvious

Gatling wrote: »

Seems to have been a mess of an investigation

Judge seems to disagree

He said that while he had the benefit of hindsight, investigating gardaí did not have this advantage, adding that overall their investigation was “handled very well indeed.”

Was he arrested straight after the alleged incident? Why would her DNA still be there when he was being interviewed?

munchkin_utd

forget about the unprovable issue of consent for a second.

what was not in doubt was that she changed her story from the initial one, and from reports of the case wasnt actually sure or consistent in what actually happened , and when its her word against theirs its hard to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

DellyBelly

Could the accused in this case now sue the claimant? It's an awful allegation to be brought against a man/woman. I know if it was me and was falsely accused of rape I'd seriously consider this option

ohnonotgmail

DellyBelly wrote: »

Could the accused in this case now sue the claimant? It's an awful allegation to be brought against a man/woman. I know if it was me and was falsely accused of rape I'd seriously consider this option

not likely. he would have to prove the allegation was malicious not just incorrect.

TerrorFirmer

#Smokey# wrote: »

Load of waffles on her behalf. It's false accusations like this that hurt the real victims, she should be ashamed of herself.

From reading about this regularly, her side of things didn't seem to add up at all and at times was outright mistruthful.