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

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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)

People get emotional after a skinful, seen it at lots of parties over the years.

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

I did google it and it is associated with a physical threat to the victim, they fear for their safety.
There is no mention that I can find that suggests (as you stated) it occurs during penetration.

There was zero evidence presented that the victim was threatened.

A prosecutor will enter such buzz words in an attempt to convince a jury that there was a threat of violence and restraint. They are just as mercenary as a defence in this regard.

In other words it is not a given unless accompanied by hard evidence, if you wish to be fair to everyone.

irishrebe

rafatoni wrote: »

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.

A smart one, you. Someone who joined a month before the other people quoted, and made posts on completely different topics, and who has now posted almost exclusively about the biggest story in Ireland for the past few days, must be a fake account to push an agenda? Riiiiight. Slow clap. I hope you're never on a jury.

Appledreams15

RuMan wrote: »

People get emotional after a skinful, seen it at lots of parties over the years.

These emotional people have brought rape cases to the courts?

FrancieBrady

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

With the amount of drink consumed I think successful sex would be the surprise.

Owryan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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

Noone is ignoring them but they are not proof.

Hysterical for several possible reasons, she just had a 3some and she was mortified at herself, she was afraid people/family would find out, she let things get out of hand, or she was raped.

Like the bleeding, several possibilities. The jury decided that it wasn't rape.

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

I did google it and it is associated with a physical threat to the victim, they fear for their safety.
There is no mention that I can find that suggests (as you stated) it occurs during penetration.

There was zero evidence presented that the victim was threatened.

A prosecutor will enter such buzz words in an attempt to convince a jury that there was a threat of violence and restraint. They are just as mercenary as a defence in this regard.

In other words it is not a given unless accompanied by hard evidence, if you wish to be fair to everyone.

You don't think someone who is about to be penetrated without their consent, possibly exposed to pregnancy and a number of potentially lethal diseases is in fear of their safety? Are you spoofing? Because it's not very funny.

Appledreams15

What do people think about R Harrison sending her a link to calming music that night to calm her down?

tretorn

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

Its not really that odd.

Its quite likely that Jackson couldnt get an erection, I dont think there was any evidence that penile sex took place at all, if it did there was no evidence that it did, ie none of Jacksons semen.

Olding was charged with vaginal rape becasue the woman said he had raped her vaginally, it was eventually accepted by the prosecution that he hadnt raped her vaginally.

Im a bit confused, if someone is frozen in fear how can they bring a man to ejaculation by giving him a blowjob. If the blowjob was forced wouldnt a womans mouth be very bruised. I know the woman didnt mention the oral sex to the staff in the sexual assault unit but surely the police could have had her mouth investigated when she gave them a different version of what happened.

Faugheen

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

No it didn't...

_Dara_

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

The justice-seeker is free. That’s the difference. If there’s doubt, a person shouldn’t be jailed.

Owryan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What do people think about R Harrison sending her a link to calming music that night to calm her down?

And that is proof of what exactly? Maybe it was a drunken attempt at a nice gesture.

There is a lot of grasping at straws here to try prove something that a jury concluded didn't happen.

Appledreams15

tretorn wrote: »

Its not really that odd.

Its quite likely that Jackson couldnt get an erection, I dont think there was any evidence that penile sex took place at all, if it did there was no evidence that it did, ie none of Jacksons semen.

Olding was charged with vaginal rape becasue the woman said he had raped her vaginally, it was eventually accepted by the prosecution that he hadnt raped her vaginally.

Im a bit confused, if someone is frozen in fear how can they bring a man to ejaculation by giving him a blowjob. If the blowjob was forced wouldnt a womans mouth be very bruised. I know the woman didnt mention the oral sex to the staff in the sexual assault unit but surely the police could have had her mouth investigated when she gave them a different version of what happened.

Of course Paddy jackson said no vaginal sex occurred but Dara Florence caught him out in the lie.

She was asked twice, and said twice that she was certain Paddy was having full sex with the complainant

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

You don't think someone who is about to be penetrated without their consent, possibly exposed to pregnancy and a number of potentially lethal diseases is in fear of their safety? Are you spoofing? Because it's not very funny.

There was a prelude to the sex when she could have extracted herself from the situation, she even went downstairs at one point but went back up.

Appledreams15

Owryan wrote: »

And that is proof of what exactly? Maybe it was a drunken attempt at a nice gesture.

There is a lot of grasping at straws here to try prove something that a jury concluded didn't happen.

It is certainly proof that she was in a terrible state, so bad he was sent after her to calm her down.

The next day text "did you calm her"

BrianBoru00

irishrebe wrote: »

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?

Not in this country - there you go again making claims which are simply not true.

irishrebe wrote: »

A smart one, you. Someone who joined a month before the other people quoted, and made posts on completely different topics, and who has now posted almost exclusively about the biggest story in Ireland for the past few days, must be a fake account to push an agenda? Riiiiight. Slow clap. I hope you're never on a jury.

Because I made a plausible suggestion and backed it up?
Because I'm balanced in my arguments?
Because I can discuss points without deflecting and failing to answer the question?

I see your buddy has woken up / you've switched on your laptop as well

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

These emotional people have brought rape cases to the courts?

Not that i'm aware of. We've all done things we regret while drunk, most of us accept responsibility and dont try and blame others.

irishrebe

_Dara_ wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

The justice-seeker is free. That’s the difference. If there’s doubt, a person shouldn’t be jailed.

'Free'? I know rape victims who can barely leave the house, have no social life, and whose lives are basically over. If that's being 'free', then yeah. There are no winners.

foxyladyxx

tretorn wrote: »

Its not really that odd.

Its quite likely that Jackson couldnt get an erection, I dont think there was any evidence that penile sex took place at all, if it did there was no evidence that it did, ie none of Jacksons semen.

Olding was charged with vaginal rape becasue the woman said he had raped her vaginally, it was eventually accepted by the prosecution that he hadnt raped her vaginally.

Im a bit confused, if someone is frozen in fear how can they bring a man to ejaculation by giving him a blowjob. If the blowjob was forced wouldnt a womans mouth be very bruised. I know the woman didnt mention the oral sex to the staff in the sexual assault unit but surely the police could have had her mouth investigated when she gave them a different version of what happened.

I think the crux of the matter is that Olding was initially charged with vaginally raping the girl .The charges were later dropped. .Nobody could tell who did what to whom because of the amount of alcohol consumed. So jury had to acquit all four men.

A conviction would have been unsafe imo

Owryan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

It is certainly proof that she was in a terrible state, so bad he was sent after her to calm her down.

The next day text "did you calm her"

That isn't proof of rape, which you seem determined to make it.

goz83

irishrebe wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

It’s a dispicable thing if and when a rapist goes free due to lack of evidence. That we can all agree on. At the risk of sounding cold....the rape has happened and there is no undoing it. A conviction gives some solace and justice in genuine cases.

However, convicting an innocent person is something we as a society need to avoid at any cost. This is why there must be certainty and is also why some get away a horrible crime. You can’t have one without the other, but it is absolutely a priority to protect innocent men from being jailed. And I say innocent men, because legally a woman can’t rape a man (which is a farce). The only exception is where a woman has sex with a minor, which is a different category.

My OH always uses that film 40 days and 40 nights as an example if a woman raping a man. For those who haven’t seen the film, the actor Josh Hartnett has himself handcuffed to his bed at the eleventh hour in preparation to have sex with a girl he likes/loves. He is the perpetual ladies man and very sexually active. He hasn’t had sex or self soothed in 40 days and there is a big cash bet on when he will crack. He is incoherent, sleepy and drowsy at the end. His ex girlfriend (who he refused earlier in the film) let herself into his place and had sex with him without his consent. To add salt to the wound, she claimed the cash prize and was like the cat who got the cream. I don’t recall there even being a hint of punishment/karma/outrage about that scene.

irishrebe

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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?

Not in this country - there you go again making claims which are simply not true.

irishrebe wrote: »

A smart one, you. Someone who joined a month before the other people quoted, and made posts on completely different topics, and who has now posted almost exclusively about the biggest story in Ireland for the past few days, must be a fake account to push an agenda? Riiiiight. Slow clap. I hope you're never on a jury.

Because I made a plausible suggestion and backed it up?
Because I'm balanced in my arguments?
Because I can discuss points without deflecting and failing to answer the question?

I see your buddy has woken up / you've switched on your laptop as well

You think a plausible suggestion is that this is a fake account to push an agenda, rather than that this is an interesting and emotive topic which attracts me to post more than usual? Again, I hope you are never on a jury. 
I was referring to UK law, since the racism classes were in London, as I stated. That OK for you?

Appledreams15

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Not in this country - there you go again making claims which are simply not true.


Because I made a plausible suggestion and backed it up?
Because I'm balanced in my arguments?
Because I can discuss points without deflecting and failing to answer the question?

I see your buddy has woken up / you've switched on your laptop as well

Do you want the mods the check our ip addresses?

How arrogant do you have to be to think that more than one person disagreeing with you is the same person?

That is the most arrogant and immature post ive seen in a long time.

_Dara_

irishrebe wrote: »

'Free'? I know rape victims who can barely leave the house, have no social life, and whose lives are basically over. If that's being 'free', then yeah. There are no winners.

What will locking up innocent people do to solve the above?

RuMan

James Raspberry wrote: »

I've seen women turn hysterical on nights out after consuming large quantities of alcohol. One woman that springs to mind went scarily hysterical after I refused to have sex with her as I wanted to have sex with her friend instead. She was a mess, but that was her problem, she was simply nuts. We were all back at a house at this stage, so off I went to a bedroom with the friend and we had sex. About 30 mins later who comes in to the room without even knocking, the hyserical woman, now calmed down, and she knew what we were doing. So I know for a fact it's perfectly possible for women to be hysterical without any crimes taking place.

Absolutely. Seen a number of guys attacked after turning women down. Men usually walk away in my experience.

Roger Hassenforder

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What do people think about R Harrison sending her a link to calming music that night to calm her down?

At 5:16am, Rory Harrison sent a message to the complainant saying, “Keep the chin up you wonderful young woman.” She replies to say, “Thank you so much for leaving me home, I really appreciate it Rory, you've been far too kind.”

Rory Harrison then replies, “My pleasure...have you earphones close?

(At 9:51am, the complainant messages the same friend she told she was back at Paddy Jackson’s house to say, “worst night ever, so I got raped.")

At 10:08am in response to Rory Harrison's message about the earphones, the complainant replies “yea, why? lol."

Is this evidence of rape?

tretorn

tretorn wrote: »

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.

It’s important to remember that the victim didn’t bring the prosecution. The police did.
There was evidence given of a cut the victim had inside received her vagina, hence the bleeding.
As the investigation didn’t take place for a couple of days, evidence from the scene no longer existed. This makes horrifying reading.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/paddy-jackson-jury-acquittal-olding-12270685

Appledreams15

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

At 5:16am, Rory Harrison sent a message to the complainant saying, “Keep the chin up you wonderful young woman.” She replies to say, “Thank you so much for leaving me home, I really appreciate it Rory, you've been far too kind.”

Rory Harrison then replies, “My pleasure...have you earphones close?

(At 9:51am, the complainant messages the same friend she told she was back at Paddy Jackson’s house to say, “worst night ever, so I got raped.")

At 10:08am in response to Rory Harrison's message about the earphones, the complainant replies “yea, why? lol."

Is this evidence of rape?

You left out the calming music he sent her. Why?
And the text the next day. "Are you feeling better now?"

cloudatlas

GreeBo wrote: »

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'm going to quote liberally here from Ivana Bacik's article
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/how-rape-trials-in-republic-differ-from-those-in-north-1.3443644

"It is indisputably difficult to prove rape – a fact which emerged in a different context during the hearings of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment."

"The 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act allows limited legal representation for complainants in rape cases, not extending to advocacy rights. The 2001 Sex Offenders Act provides that the complainant can have access to a legally aided barrister to argue on her behalf in court where the accused seeks permission to bring forward so-called “sexual history” evidence.

The question now is whether we should extend that right of representation further for complainants in rape cases, particularly where there are several defendants. This is certainly one potential reform that should be examined to see if it could be implemented without unduly encroaching on the due process rights of the accused."

Faugheen

tretorn wrote: »

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.

It was established she had a laceration in her vagina and wasn't menstruating at the time.

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.

DF also said that she was 100 percent sure that Jackson was having sex with her, which he denies.

She also said that she couldn't be sure that the woman was positively consenting.

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.

Conviction rates are low because it's mostly one word against another, and there's not enough to believe a persons story to convict someone.

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.

If the police were so sure she was no case to answer, why did they forward the case to the PPS?

If the PPS saw the same thing, then why did they bring the case to trial? Absolute nonsense statement.

Roger Hassenforder

Appledreams15 wrote: »

You left out the calming music he sent her. Why?
And the text the next day. "Are you feeling better now?"

I didnt highlight "lol"
Maybe i should...

TerrorFirmer

Appledreams15 wrote: »

You left out the calming music he sent her. Why?
And the text the next day. "Are you feeling better now?"

Can you please spell out what this is supposed to prove?

You're trying to add 1 and 1 together to actually get 5, let alone 3.

Appledreams15

goz83 wrote: »

It’s a dispicable thing if and when a rapist goes free due to lack of evidence. That we can all agree on. At the risk of sounding cold....the rape has happened and there is no undoing it. A conviction gives some solace and justice in genuine cases.

However, convicting an innocent person is something we as a society need to avoid at any cost. This is why there must be certainty and is also why some get away a horrible crime. You can’t have one without the other, but it is absolutely a priority to protect innocent men from being jailed. And I say innocent men, because legally a woman can’t rape a man (which is a farce). The only exception is where a woman has sex with a minor, which is a different category.

My OH always uses that film 40 days and 40 nights as an example if a woman raping a man. For those who haven’t seen the film, the actor Josh Hartnett has himself handcuffed to his bed at the eleventh hour in preparation to have sex with a girl he likes/loves. He is the perpetual ladies man and very sexually active. He hasn’t had sex or self soothed in 40 days and there is a big cash bet on when he will crack. He is incoherent, sleepy and drowsy at the end. His ex girlfriend (who he refused earlier in the film) let herself into his place and had sex with him without his consent. To add salt to the wound, she claimed the cash prize and was like the cat who got the cream. I don’t recall there even being a hint of punishment/karma/outrage about that scene.

How are innocent people ending up in Jail when Ireland has for a long time had one of the lowest conviction rates in Europe?
I saw a post there,: most rapists in Ireland walk free, abortion aftee rape is illegal, if a woman gets an illegal abortion in Ireland she can face jail.

Stone age Ireland.

Im in so many whatsapp groups with people from other countries. Everyone is on the women of Ireland's side. If you look at it logically you can see women are being treated like they are in the stone age in Ireland

Appledreams15

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Can you please spell out what this is supposed to prove?

You're trying to add 1 and 1 together to actually get 5, let alone 3.

I didnt say Rory Harrison going after her equals she was raped.
I asked what do you think about him going after her, talking in code in the taxi (according to driver) sending her calming music.
Asked by b.m the next day 'did you calm her'.
I think it looks suspicious.
He has been called the fixer in a number of articles

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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'.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_immobility

I think it is deeply ironic that you are accusing me on not thinking this through...

Owryan

_Dara_ wrote: »

What will locking up innocent people do to solve the above?

It would make some posters very happy apparently.

tayto lover

Appledreams15 wrote: »

How are innocent people ending up in Jail when Ireland has for a long time had one of the lowest conviction rates in Europe?
I saw a post there,: most rapists in Ireland walk free, abortion aftee rape is illegal, if a woman gets an illegal abortion in Ireland she can face jail.

Stone age Ireland.

Im in so many whatsapp groups with people from other countries. Everyone is on the women of Ireland's side. If you look at it logically you can see women are being treated like they are in the stone age in Ireland[/QUOTE]

That's just BS.
Women are treated the same.
This case was about evidence and there was not enough to convict. Please don't try to make it otherwise.

BrianBoru00

Hill16Bhoy must have been on an awfuly bender last night :rolleyes::rolleyes:

IrishRebe continues to quote laws from various duristictions without clarification - Ill say this if any potential employer was to identify you there wouldn't be a hope in hell of them giving you work as a legal translator.

Appledreams15 continues to pluck "pieces of evidence" and present them as reasons to convict

Roger Hassenforder

Appledreams15 wrote: »

How are innocent people ending up in Jail when Ireland has for a long time had one of the lowest conviction rates in Europe?
I saw a post there,: most rapists in Ireland walk free, abortion aftee rape is illegal, if a woman gets an illegal abortion in Ireland she can face jail.

Stone age Ireland.

Im in so many whatsapp groups with people from other countries. Everyone is on the women of Ireland's side. If you look at it logically you can see women are being treated like they are in the stone age in Ireland

We have a tried and trusted legal system that assumes the defendant is innocent in all criminal prosecutions.
Theres scope for enhancing aspects to better serve/assist victims if sexual assaults , but not at the risk of lowering the burden of proof required. Id live to hear your thoughts...

goz83

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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)

I have a high pain threshhold, but I was in the doctors office one time with a torn banjo string....so yeah, there was blood. That happened 3 times. I didn’t want to go into details, but here we are.

irishrebe wrote: »

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

We live together. Was there some point to your post? My wife is not some stranger I happened to have a threesome with. There are a number of reasons a girl might go home in a taxi crying. I don’t think she was hysterical...but maybe I missed that statement. In my opinion, she felt rejected and used and had a shoulder to cry on. There are too many inconsistincies in what she said and what she did. One example is the text message history with the her friend and a co-accused. Takking about being raped with her friend and a few minutes later...LOLing with the co-accused. Sounds odd to me.

Appledreams15

tayto lover wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

How are innocent people ending up in Jail when Ireland has for a long time had one of the lowest conviction rates in Europe?
I saw a post there,: most rapists in Ireland walk free, abortion aftee rape is illegal, if a woman gets an illegal abortion in Ireland she can face jail.

Stone age Ireland.

Im in so many whatsapp groups with people from other countries. Everyone is on the women of Ireland's side. If you look at it logically you can see women are being treated like they are in the stone age in Ireland[/QUOTE]

That's just BS.
Women are treated the same.
This case was about evidence and there was not enough to convict. Please don't try to make it otherwise.

You do know we are one of only few countries that don't allow abortion after rape?
You do know that we have one of the lowest rape conviction rapes as a country?

You dont think we are failing women? Laughable

tretorn

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s important to remember that the victim didn’t bring the prosecution. The police did.
There was evidence given of a cut the victim had inside received her vagina, hence the bleeding.
As the investigation didn’t take place for a couple of days, evidence from the scene no longer existed. This makes horrifying reading.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/paddy-jackson-jury-acquittal-olding-12270685

Oldings semen was found, he said the woman gave him a consensual blowjob and the jury believed him.

There was no evidence whatsoever that Jackson had sex with the woman, he is supposed to have had vaginal sex with her three times, he denies it and the evidence that he told the truth is more compelling.

To state that maybe there was evidence but it no longer exists is nonsense.

Paddy Jackson is supposed to have shoved his whole hand inside her, there would definitely be evidence of this in a forensic examination, there was none. These highly trained staff in sexual assault units know exactly what evidence to note and there was none to note in this case, well apart from a 1 CM tear, she wasnt battered, bleeding, bruised, traumatised and the jury who sat through nine weeks knew this.

I think I will take the word of the jury over silentcorners hysterical posts, thats wimmin for ye.

Appledreams15

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Hill16Bhoy must have been on an awfuly bender last night :rolleyes::rolleyes:

IrishRebe continues to quote laws from various duristictions without clarification - Ill say this if any potential employer was to identify you there wouldn't be a hope in hell of them giving you work as a legal translator.

Appledreams15 continues to pluck "pieces of evidence" and present them as reasons to convict

And would you care to contribute intelligently?

Owryan

Why are people prepared to accept that Dara said she saw paddy having penetrative sex but not prepared to accept that she said she saw a threesome?

You cannot cherry pick which pieces of evidence suit your narrative and which don't.

As for bleeding and what could have caused it, there is a reason my then gf made me cut my nails.

irishrebe

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

You left out the calming music he sent her. Why?
And the text the next day. "Are you feeling better now?"

I didnt highlight "lol"
Maybe i should...

What is the relevance of that?

irishrebe

Owryan wrote: »

Why are people prepared to accept that Dara said she saw  paddy having penetrative sex but not prepared to accept that she said she saw a threesome?

You cannot cherry pick which pieces of evidence suit your narrative and which don't.

As for bleeding and what could have caused it, there is a reason my then gf made me cut my nails.

Why are people prepared to acknowledge that Dara Florence could have made a mistake when she thought she saw one of the defendants having sex with the woman, but not that she could have made a mistake about whether it was consensual?

You cannot cherry pick which pieces of evidence suit your narrative and which don't.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_immobility

I think it is deeply ironic that you are accusing me on not thinking this through...

Where is the evidence of restraint and threat?

There isn't any. She was in a bedroom with a stranger kissing him, left and then came back.

That is what we know.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Ok. :rolleyes:

I am a bit shocked at this reply. If you were walking through a deserted street one night and a thug bigger and stronger than you accosted you & pinned you up against a wall & you were too scared to do anything, too terrified to move or you decided silence was the wisest thing and he robbed you and gave you a few digs - did you give him consent to do so by your inaction ? I am shocked to think there is still a belief out there that is a rape victim isn't fighting for her or his life, they aren't being raped.

Faugheen

tretorn wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s important to remember that the victim didn’t bring the prosecution. The police did.
There was evidence given of a cut the victim had inside received her vagina, hence the bleeding.
As the investigation didn’t take place for a couple of days, evidence from the scene no longer existed. This makes horrifying reading.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/paddy-jackson-jury-acquittal-olding-12270685

Oldings semen was found, he said the woman gave him a consensual blowjob and the jury believed him.

There was no evidence whatsoever that Jackson had sex with the woman, he is supposed to have had vaginal sex with her three times, he denies it and the evidence that he told the truth is more compelling.

To state that maybe there was evidence but it no longer exists is nonsense.

Paddy Jackson is supposed to have shoved his whole hand inside her, there would definitely be evidence of this in a forensic examination, there was none. These highly trained staff in sexual assault units know exactly what evidence to note and there was none to note in this case, well apart from a 1 CM tear, she wasnt battered, bleeding, bruised, traumatised and the jury who sat through nine weeks knew this.

I think I will take the word of the jury over silentcorners hysterical posts, thats wimmin for ye.

Hang on a minute.

There's no indication the the jury believed one story over another. As I have said already, they can believe the complainants case but they can't convict on that belief alone.

People need to stop saying the jury believed the story of one side over the other, or that the jury thought she lied, or whatever.

There's absolutely no evidence or suggestion whatsoever that backs up that claim. You can believe what you want, but don't use the verdict or what you think the jury thought as a presentation of fact.

The Talking Bread

irishrebe wrote: »

'Free'? I know rape victims who can barely leave the house, have no social life, and whose lives are basically over. If that's being 'free', then yeah. There are no winners.

of course you do.

TBH I can't take anything you say seriously after that wishy washy story earlier.

I am not saying it doesn't happen, of course it does, but you seem to have had significantly more exposure to rape, sexual assault, paedophilic verbal abuse, etc etc than your average Joe which is added to everytime you want to counter a point.

It is easy to say all this behind a computer and there is an extreme propaganda machine out there at the moment ever more generalising men as sexual deviants, whether in subtle form or downright straight to the point (see some of the banners at that march, a massive portion of tweets and, indeed, comments on here such as "all my foreign friends see Irish men as misogynist drunkards".

A large segment of feminists have in my opinion taken advantage of the verdict (indeed twisting what the verdict even means) to pursue this agenda and it is an extremely dangerous, divisive route to go down. Social media is powerful and we will have new generations coming in seeing these anti-men trends and it isn't going to be pretty for society. Look at that dose, Louise O'Neill using it to promote her book ffs.

You have refused to account for the fact that your messages have had a similar significant generalisation tone to them, or maybe you have wrapped yourself unintentionally in this manner of thinking, and I expect an ultra defensive retort to this. (like everyone of your posts here - you seem incapable of debate w/o going on the defence which isn't helping people who are attempting to take your posts seriously)