Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

irishrebe

Silentcorner wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Hilarious. And you're calling other people loons. You honestly expect someone who is up late and wrecked and falling asleep to spend time finding information for someone too thick or lazy to use google? You're not all there, are you? No worries, I'll do so, and I'll bill you for the time spent.

They are also conveniently ignoring the new posters to this site who are on their side of this particular issue...

Of which there are many more.

Heres Johnny

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

What are you on about?

You intimated that the victim had frozen to 'survive what they perceive to be a dangerous situation'.

One poster, many pages back, perhaps hundreds of pages back suggested that the complainant didn't verbally consent or verbally protest because she was frozen in fear of physical violence or even death.
That's the kind of mass hysteria being peddled which is making one side of this argument look very stupid.

They were acquitted in court. Fact.
Complainant called the other girls slutty yet it very much looks like she engaged willingly in a sex act with more than one man, at least initially, perhaps it did get out of hand afterwards who knows.
Yet the language used in WhatsApp has sparked a huge anti men backlash.
3 female jurors found not guilty.
Female judge presided over the case.
Female witness was the key to getting them acquitted.

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think there was a shred of evidence that claimed there had been a threat of violence.

But well done for getting it into the mix.

I never said there was any threat of violence you brought it into the mix???????

I said victims react in rape cases/sexual assaults with what is known as tonic immobilisation...which is how their bodies react to what they perceive to be a dangerous situation....

I can see you are having problems with it...I know it can't be easy for you...

GreeBo

Silentcorner wrote: »

Greebo...why do you feel so threatened at the suggestion that we need to lock up more rapists?

You want to lock up more men without more supporting evidence of a crime being committed. I think most people would feel threatened by that?

I'm still waiting for you to suggest anything that will increase conviction rates, other than removing the need for pesky evidence.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

I never said there was any threat of violence you brought it into the mix???????

I said victims react in rape cases/sexual assaults with what is known as tonic immobilisation...which is how their bodies react to what they perceive to be a dangerous situation....

I can see you are having problems with it...I know it can't be easy for you...

You insinuated that this may have been the case here, when there isn't a shred of evidence for it only a prosecutor (like you) introducing it as a 'possibility'.

I know it can't be easy for you to accept what the prosecutor wanted to put in the minds of the jurors.

upandcumming

backspin. wrote:

If I ever ended up interviewing the woman who held up that 'men r trash' sign I would never give her a job. Crap like that is completely unacceptable.

Any link to the image please?

Guy:Incognito

All of the what app messages seem to be getting attributed to all 4 of the men. People are making no distinction as to who said what.

What was there, 2 messages, from paddy Jackson?

Silentcorner

GreeBo wrote: »

You want to lock up more men without more supporting evidence of a crime being committed. I think most people would feel threatened by that?

I'm still waiting for you to suggest anything that will increase conviction rates, other than removing the need for pesky evidence.

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

I have made about a half dozen different suggestions NONE of which involve removing the need for pesky evidence....

How is that posters are twisting/misrepresenting everything that challenges the piss poor conviction rate for rape....it's bizaar...

Guy:Incognito

Silentcorner wrote: »

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

A very recent 9 week trial says different.............

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You insinuated that this may have been the case here, when there isn't a shred of evidence for it only a prosecutor (like you) introducing it as a 'possibility'.

I know it can't be easy for you to accept what the prosecutor wanted to put in the minds of the jurors.

I INSINUATED NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You are the only person who mentioned a threat of violence.

I never mentioned any threat of violence ANYWHERE...

I can't help you with this at all I'm afraid....I can't even understand how you are struggling with it...

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

I INSINUATED NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You are the only person who mentioned a threat of violence.

I never mentioned any threat of violence ANYWHERE...

I can't help you with this at all I'm afraid....I can't even understand how you are struggling with it...

How can it be a dangerous situation then, dangerous enough for you to freeze?

The 'body' would have to percieve a threat.

Not sure you have thought this through in the effort to throw out another buzz word - 'tonic immobilisation'.

Amirani

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

Are you actually that blinkered?

Bizarre that some people can think like this, about anything.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

...I can't be more explicit than that...

I have made about a half dozen different suggestions NONE of which involve removing the need for pesky evidence....

How is that posters are twisting/misrepresenting everything that challenges the piss poor conviction rate for rape....it's bizaar...

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....except those dragged into court and through the media mire defending themselves.

upandcumming

Shelga wrote:

Imagine being held up as the symbol of absolutely everything these so-called feminists despise. Being subjected to an onslaught of horrific online bullying and abuse, from hundreds of thousands of people. Mob rule in its absolute worst form.

It's despicable really. And he after walking free from court with a not guilty verdict.

Shelga wrote:

All these rabid imbeciles are going to achieve is anonymity being granted to rape case defendants. How can they not see that? They are building a perfect case for it. They are not achieving anything else whatsoever.
I’m glad they’ve brought my attention to this, because it’s something I, as a woman, would now wholeheartedly support.

All reasonable people should be supporting anonymity for defendants in cases such as this, and I would argue that this anonymity should hold even if the complainant waives their right to same, until a guilty verdict is reached.

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

I INSINUATED NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You are the only person who mentioned a threat of violence.

I never mentioned any threat of violence ANYWHERE...

I can't help you with this at all I'm afraid....I can't even understand how you are struggling with it...

How can it be a dangerous situation then, dangerous enough for you to freeze?

The 'body' would have to percieve a threat.

Not sure you have thought this through in the effort to throw out another buzz word - 'tonic immobilisation'.

You don't think the body can interpret being penetrated without your consent as a 'dangerous situation'?

GreeBo

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

I have made about a half dozen different suggestions NONE of which involve removing the need for pesky evidence....

How is that posters are twisting/misrepresenting everything that challenges the piss poor conviction rate for rape....it's bizaar...

Firstly, none of your suggestions increase convictions, they make the situation less unpleasant for the alleged victim.

Secondly, every man needs to fear the hunt for higher conviction rates. Just look at the examples from the UK, where evidence was withheld to get convictions. How do you decide which men haven't committed rape other than a trial, like we have today?

Give us one suggestion that will increase rates, just one!
Look, I get you want the rate higher, I want us to be better at international football, but wanting doesn't make it so, in either case.

begbysback

I have a question regarding the poll,and 87 people voting "no comment"

Technically voting "no comment" is commenting - so if yee have no comment, then why vote?

BrianBoru00

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are also conveniently ignoring the new posters to this site who are on their side of this particular issue...

It's not "convenient" at all. If Irishrebe was able to back up her/his posts or have a mature discussion I wouldn't be picking up on it.

Its a bit ironic to be suggesting "convenience" given the nature of the protests and arguments put forward here

Her/His MO appears to be making a statement and telling others to disprove it instead of what most mature/balanced posters do which is establish reputable sources to back up their claims

razorblunt

_Dara_ wrote: »

I came across that yoke myself on Twitter. No self-awareness.

I expected better from Paul Brady.

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

You don't think the body can interpret being penetrated without your consent as a 'dangerous situation'?

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

professore

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I most certainly did not make it up. You haven't looked hard enough obviously.

https://imgur.com/a/Ijr0u that's from an article in Fridays independent.


It was read out on either prime time or the Pat Kenny show when someone read from the transcript of the court. In her statement to police she said she heard aggressive moaning and was 100 percent sure she saw Paddy Jackson having sex. In court she called them sexual noises.
She said she heard moaning, was asked if this was sensual moaning and replied no. She then offered that it was an aggressive male moaning and later in court said it sounded like sex.



Why would go forth and open the door if she thought the sound was just her friend having sex? Her behaviour is much more easily reconciled with her first version of events to police

Perhaps you should take your own advice on making things up just to fill in the blanks.

No mention of aggressive male moaning. You made that up.

RabbleRouser2k

upandcumming wrote: »

It's despicable really. And he after walking free from court with a not guilty verdict.


All reasonable people should be supporting anonymity for defendants in cases such as this, and I would argue that this anonymity should hold even if the complainant waives their right to same, until a guilty verdict is reached.

There was a discussion on Ray D'Arcy's show last night-I avoided it, but the bitesize is that it was biased and anti-men, and featured Richie Sadler discussing consent. Many sane ladies even denounced it-saying it was completely wrongheaded.

Sadler popped up in a podcast this week, and apparently that was more detailed, more involved and more an examination of the whole consent discussion. D'arcy screwed up again.

goz83

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, of course people of all races were made to attend. It wasn't some sort of punishment for being white any more than consent classes are a punishment for being a man.

And what if these racism awareness courses were held only for white women not from the UK? Lets say their rationale is that white women outside the UK were the only people capable of being racist...that white men just naturally had an awareness and so didn’t need the course. How would you rate the course then?

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

.

I’m trying to figure out whether you’re naive, or just ignorant. Don’t suppose you ever heard of false allegations.

irishrebe

GreeBo wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

Read your post again...

More like 100 women wake up and decide retrospectively that they have been raped...implies explicitly that the 100 women in this country (50 of whom will report the crime to the gardai*) are all making it up....

You are a right charmer you are!!

*Those who do report a rape, are subjected to a very invasive body exam, very often miles away from home.

You are right, we should just accept the accusations without obtaining any evidence from the alleged victim. Lock up those men!

What's really funny is that the idea that some men might end up jailed unfairly has you up in arms, but not the idea that someone who has been raped and was unable to get the accused convicted? With this kind of case, there's always going to be a loser, and that loser is usually the complainant, because it is very difficult in many situations of rape to produce irrefutable evidence of a crime. Hence why the vast majority of rape accusations don't even end up going to court, and the majority of victims don't even report it. So is it that in your eyes, when it's 'not fair' for the accuser, they have to suck it up and deal with it, but when there's even the slightest bit of suggestion that the law could change to make it easier for the accused to be convicted (which, realistically, won't happen), you go crazy?

GreeBo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's the well documented " fight or flight or night night" response.

irishrebe

goz83 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, of course people of all races were made to attend. It wasn't some sort of punishment for being white any more than consent classes are a punishment for being a man.

And what if these racism awareness courses were held only for white women not from the UK? Lets say their rationale is that white women outside the UK were the only people capable of being racist...that white men just naturally had an awareness and so didn’t need the course. How would you rate the course then?

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

.

I’m trying to figure out whether you’re naive, or just ignorant. Don’t suppose you ever heard of false allegations.

Aside from the fact that it's a ridiculous example which doesn't compare like with like (a penis is required for the legal definition of rape and both genders are capable of being racist), can you give me some examples of consent classes which are exclusively for men? Actual classes, and not hysteria from the Daily Mail?

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

What's really funny is that the idea that some men might end up jailed unfairly has you up in arms, but not the idea that someone who has been raped and was unable to get the accused convicted? With this kind of case, there's always going to be a loser, and that loser is usually the complainant, because it is very difficult in many situations of rape to produce irrefutable evidence of a crime. Hence why the vast majority of rape accusations don't even end up going to court, and the majority of victims don't even report it. So is it that in your eyes, when it's 'not fair' for the accuser, they have to suck it up and deal with it, but when there's even the slightest bit of suggestion that the law could change to make it easier for the accused to be convicted (which, realistically, won't happen), you go crazy?

That's the entire basis of the innocent until proven guilty legal system.


What law do you want changed that will make it easier to get a conviction, other than removing the need for actual evidence?

anthonyjmaher

George Hook was wrong to use the word "blame", he should have used the word "responsibility". And his basic point was that people should not get so drunk and not go back with people they know to give themselves at least a chance at staying safe. But the liberal mob wanted to clear out the last of the conservative voices in the media last year, and used this as a chance to bullying him out of his job.

I guess the most ironic thing is that if both sides had followed George Hook's advice, not drank so much and looked after themselves a bit better, this whole situation could have been avoided.

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

You don't think the body can interpret being penetrated without your consent as a 'dangerous situation'?

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

Yes, the same way it freezes when faced with a violent attack, so that you can't get away. You're not the sharpest, are you?

Appledreams15

Heres Johnny wrote: »

One poster, many pages back, perhaps hundreds of pages back suggested that the complainant didn't verbally consent or verbally protest because she was frozen in fear of physical violence or even death.
That's the kind of mass hysteria being peddled which is making one side of this argument look very stupid.

They were acquitted in court. Fact.
Complainant called the other girls slutty yet it very much looks like she engaged willingly in a sex act with more than one man, at least initially, perhaps it did get out of hand afterwards who knows.
Yet the language used in WhatsApp has sparked a huge anti men backlash.
3 female jurors found not guilty.
Female judge presided over the case.
Female witness was the key to getting them acquitted.

She had bruising on her body and
Bleeding from a cut on her vagina

irishrebe

GreeBo wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

What's really funny is that the idea that some men might end up jailed unfairly has you up in arms, but not the idea that someone who has been raped and was unable to get the accused convicted? With this kind of case, there's always going to be a loser, and that loser is usually the complainant, because it is very difficult in many situations of rape to produce irrefutable evidence of a crime. Hence why the vast majority of rape accusations don't even end up going to court, and the majority of victims don't even report it. So is it that in your eyes, when it's 'not fair' for the accuser, they have to suck it up and deal with it, but when there's even the slightest bit of suggestion that the law could change to make it easier for the accused to be convicted (which, realistically, won't happen), you go crazy?

That's the entire basis of the innocent until proven guilty legal system.


What law do you want changed that will make it easier to get a conviction, other than removing the need for actual evidence?

I know it is, which is why things won't change. It's just hilarious that the very suggestion that the odd person might get locked up for something they didn't do is so terrifying to you, while the much more likely scenario of being raped and not being able to prove it is grand.

irishrebe

GreeBo wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's the well documented " fight or flight or night night" response.

Oh dear. You'd better hope karma isn't a thing.

cloudatlas

Good discussion on Second Captain's http://www.secondcaptains.com/2018/03/29/episode-1124-the-belfast-rape-trial-sexual-consent-and-a-toxic-dressingroom-culture/

Also this article on the sponsorship issue: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sponsors-bring-a-powerful-new-dynamic-in-times-of-controversy-1.3445683

_Dara_

irishrebe wrote: »

What's really funny is that the idea that some men might end up jailed unfairly has you up in arms, but not the idea that someone who has been raped and was unable to get the accused convicted? With this kind of case, there's always going to be a loser, and that loser is usually the complainant, because it is very difficult in many situations of rape to produce irrefutable evidence of a crime. Hence why the vast majority of rape accusations don't even end up going to court, and the majority of victims don't even report it. So is it that in your eyes, when it's 'not fair' for the accuser, they have to suck it up and deal with it, but when there's even the slightest bit of suggestion that the law could change to make it easier for the accused to be convicted (which, realistically, won't happen), you go crazy?

The first scenario involves innocent people being jailed. That’s an abhorrent idea to most people. It makes sense to be very careful about who we lock up.

goz83

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She had bruising on her body and
Bleeding from a cut on her vagina

I’m a married man of a dozen years and without getting into the details, it has happened on a number of occasions that there was some bleeding and/or bruising after some exciting stuff in the bedroom......and I haven’t escaped injury either. Not all sex is had in the dark, under the covers in the silence of the night.

irishrebe

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are also conveniently ignoring the new posters to this site who are on their side of this particular issue...

It's not "convenient" at all. If Irishrebe was able to back up her/his posts or have a mature discussion I wouldn't be picking up on it.

Its a bit ironic to be suggesting "convenience" given the nature of the protests and arguments put forward here

Her/His MO appears to be making a statement and telling others to disprove it instead of what most mature/balanced posters do which is establish reputable sources to back up their claims

Right, so expecting grown adults to do their own googling instead of demanding information is too much for you, is it? The lack of logic in here is absolutely gas.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

You don't think the body can interpret being penetrated without your consent as a 'dangerous situation'?

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

According to two medical experts from both the prosecution and the defence of this trial, yes it does.. and more often than not.

Or is this evidence inadmissible because it doesn't suit your narrative?

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, the same way it freezes when faced with a violent attack, so that you can't get away. You're not the sharpest, are you?

Can you link to any evidence that shows this happens without a threat to physical safety and only by a penis penetrating someone?

Appledreams15

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most of these people regard any sex with any sort of rough / dominance / submission type aspects to it, particularly involving a woman in a submissive position, as inherently wrong regardless of consent. They seem to honestly believe that anything other than vanilla sex is probably non consensual. The fact that the term "spit roast" is being cited all over the place as evidence for the fact that these lads are misogynistic assholes, despite the fact that "spit roast" is an extremely common term for the sex act in question, tells us that much - they find the act itself distasteful and this prejudice is informing every assumption they make which follows on from that. I'm pretty sure that in the eyes of these people, there are no circumstances under which a man could take part in a sex act like this as one of the dominant parties, and not be regarded negatively by those folks.

It's similar enough to the Graham Dwyer trial - regardless of the verdict, plenty of people made up their minds that he was a vile person specifically because of the fetishes he had. Even if he hadn't been found guilty of murder, because he was a sexual sadist plenty of people had already decided that he was a scumbag.

The reality is that vanilla sex in the missionary position is simply not something that young people see themselves as being limited by. The fact that the lads were asking if there might have been a possibility of a threesome (which could easily have meant "any chance that the woman would be up for that", and not, as everyone seems to be assuming, "any chance we can just do it regardless") has immediately placed them on the wrong side of "good taste" in a lot of peoples' eyes.

Personally I have a huge, huge problem with this for all sorts of reasons. It's difficult enough for people to come to terms with their non-vanilla sexual kinks, without the added pressure of feeling like society will automatically view them as a monster just because of what they're into, regardless of whether it's consensual or not. There's nothing wrong with group sex, there's nothing wrong with spit roasting, there's nothing wrong with any of this provided that it's consensual. But many voices in the Irish media - for instance, those who are blaming porn on this and questioning sexual morality in general - are, whether openly or not, putting forward the idea that some types of sex are inherently negative or wrong, regardless of consent or enjoyment by all parties.

Personally, I see this as a massive problem. In fact, as a man who happens to be a sexual sub, I actually feel that I have more cultural freedom to be myself and be ok with myself than a sub woman of the same age would, because as a sub guy it's just about me and what I'm into. But for sub women, you get self-styled feminists hinting or openly stating that their kinks are inherently wrong because they reinforce the patriarchy yadda yadda yadda, in other words "what you like in the bedroom is totally irrelevant, because you're part of something bigger and you must behave with the advancement of gender equality in mind in all areas of your life, whether you personally want to or not". It's no different to feminists accusing stay at home mothers of letting down the sisterhood because they're "submitting" to traditional gender roles - the fact that the woman in question might actually enjoy the choices she's made to adhere to that lifestyle is secondary to the idea of collectivism.

Basically, had this case involved vanilla sex in the missionary position, I'd bet my life savings that it wouldn't have garnered nearly as much comment or controversy. The case is attracting such huge attention because in a lot of peoples' eyes, the sex acts in question - consensual or non consensual - were themselves inherently wrong, which makes the lads who enjoyed them inherently bad people - consent be damned.

Are you ignoring the facts that she was hysterical and bleeding?

irishrebe

_Dara_ wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

What's really funny is that the idea that some men might end up jailed unfairly has you up in arms, but not the idea that someone who has been raped and was unable to get the accused convicted? With this kind of case, there's always going to be a loser, and that loser is usually the complainant, because it is very difficult in many situations of rape to produce irrefutable evidence of a crime. Hence why the vast majority of rape accusations don't even end up going to court, and the majority of victims don't even report it. So is it that in your eyes, when it's 'not fair' for the accuser, they have to suck it up and deal with it, but when there's even the slightest bit of suggestion that the law could change to make it easier for the accused to be convicted (which, realistically, won't happen), you go crazy?

The first scenario involves innocent people being jailed. That’s an abhorrent idea to most people. It makes sense to be very careful about who we lock up.

And the idea of innocent people having to live their whole lives with no justice, bumping into their accuser and their friends and family isn't abhorrent? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying that life isn't 'fair' when when it's not fair to the accuser, they're pretty much told to get over it.

Owryan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She had bruising on her body and
Bleeding from a cut on her vagina

And? Maybe it was rough sex, not rape. It could be evidence of either

Buford T. Justice XIX

bebeman wrote: »

Buyers remorse, case closed!

Mod note: bebeman, do not post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, the same way it freezes when faced with a violent attack, so that you can't get away. You're not the sharpest, are you?

Can you link to any evidence that shows this happens without a threat to physical safety and only by a penis penetrating someone?

I'm not doing any more research for free, so no. Ask the person who originally brought it up or do your own googling. This concept was used by lawyers in the trial, so you're clearly very ill informed if you think it's all a joke.

irishrebe

goz83 wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She had bruising on her body and
Bleeding from a cut on her vagina

I’m a married man of a dozen years and without getting into the details, it has happened on a number of occasions that there was some bleeding and/or bruising after some exciting stuff in the bedroom......and I haven’t escaped injury either. Not all sex is had in the dark, under the covers in the silence of the night.

Of course. Do you also send your wife home in a taxi, crying and sobbing?

Appledreams15

goz83 wrote: »

I’m a married man of a dozen years and without getting into the details, it has happened on a number of occasions that there was some bleeding and/or bruising after some exciting stuff in the bedroom......and I haven’t escaped injury either. Not all sex is had in the dark, under the covers in the silence of the night.

Were you crying afterwards?
Were you described by someone as 'hysterical'.?
Did they send a friend after you to calm you down, who texted you a link to a 'calming song'? (Creepy as f"$k fixer guy)

Ash.J.Williams

The trial concluded that nobody had any sex ar all, twas all fingers and bjs. Which is odd.

rafatoni

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

IrishRebe = hill16Bhoy=Apples15 ????
Irish Rebe joins Feb 18 and has significant majority of their posts about the rape case only.
Hill16Bhoy joins March 18 and ALL posts are about the triak
Apples15 joins March and all bar 3 of their posts are about this trial..


so are they
a) One and the same person who has created two aliases to try and "back themselves up"
b) three buddies texting each other to thank each others posts and try and establish a united front?

Was sort of giving the benefit of the doubt to IrishRebe until that ****e about being a legal translator despite the fact that she has a fundamentally flawed concept of the law and quoted US law about drunkenness as opposed to Irish or UK law.

Yeah. Smoked that out from start meself.

tretorn

Silentcorner wrote: »

What a complete load of barking mad nonsense....

The problem I had with the spit roasting, was that my understanding of spit roasting was that it involves two men penetrating a woman simultaneously...one in the form of sex the other in the form of oral sex...I can't understand how the lads boasted about this, yet denied it in court?

Your sex like is your own business....I am baffled why you think you sexual preferences have ANYTHING to do with this thread...

It becomes of public interest when one party to group sex returns home, BLEEDING / BRUISED / TRAUMATISED / UNABLE TO TALK and proceeds to report an incident to the police....it is in the publics interest that anyone who feels they have been a victim to a crime...to report it to the police....

This case was not about consent despite public commentary to the contrary....it was not about a girl who got into a situation and later regretted it....it was one persons account verses 4 very different accounts...

For generations we have seen the damage caused by sweeping problems under the carpet....

We have had a nine week trial silentcorner so stop making up "evidence"

The victim could have been bleeding if she was menstruating, was it ever established whether she had her period, Jackson testified that he thought the blood on his fingers was period blood.

The forensic expert for the prosecution didnt say there was obvious bruising and he couldnt tell whether the sex that had taken place was non consensual or not, this being the case in spite of the fact that jackson is supposed to have ripped her clothes off raped her twice and then put his fist inside her. Its not actually possible to state for certain that Jackson had penile sex at all because there wasnt a single drop of semen anywhere in the room. Thats very odd.

The men said she wasnt traumatised and Dara F saw a consensual threesome. She was crying in the taxi but that could be becasue she was disappointed with the night, there is no evidence that she couldnt talk and no evidence that she was traumatised.

After this case I am beginning to understand why conviction rates are low. Silentcorner is fabricating nonsense, utter total nonsense about this case and yet she thinks these men werent convicted because there is something wrong with a system of justice.

They werent convicted because the victim told so many different stories and experienced police officers should have known the accounts didnt stack up. They had an independent witness who corroborated the mens accounts and that should have been the end of the matter. It took twenty months and a jury of eight men and three women to see what the police saw and the CPS saw and the Jury in possibly the shortest ever deliberation time in a rape case came back with a not guilty verdict.

End of the matter.

OldRio

irishrebe wrote: »

Of course. Do you also send your wife home in a taxi, crying and sobbing?

Why would he send his wife home in the taxi if they are living together?

TerrorFirmer

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She had bruising on her body and
Bleeding from a cut on her vagina

Maybe she had a cut from being stimulated too roughly by someone who was too excitable when drunk. It happens.

The same can go for the bruising though I understand in this case she mainly had bruises to her knees/elbows - hardly conclusive or even vaguely indicative of a sexual assault.

The bleeding and bruising are not evidence that a rape occurred, and in conjunction with the evidence actually offered, the balance of probability still weighed with the defendants.

My problem with this, is that the context of the entire bleeding/bruising angle is being entirely ignored in favor of an image of what certain people want to present.

The whole social media circus is built on some truth, some half-truths, and then blatant helpings of mis-truth.