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

Strazdas

markodaly wrote: »

Sounds like a religious sermon to be honest.

Which begs the question, why did the woman in question agree to the threesome? Any role in her own situation? No? All the mens fault I presume?

So, has womens sexual liberation failed, where woman are free to screw whomever and however they wish? If so, why are men then blamed when these situation arise?

Having your cake and eating it.

The feminists today are turning old school sexual conservatives. We are going back to the victorian times of sex!

It should be pointed out she was alone with Paddy Jackson in the bedroom when the next eejit arrives in completely uninvited. Why didn't he make his excuses and close the door the moment he realised he had disturbed a sex act? That's what most normal people would do.

Ipso

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Why does that upset you? Every single element of our society is patriarchal. All of it. What’s the outcome? You’re afraid they’ll come and not let you be ‘a man’?

How would that happen exactly?

Bewildering insecure nonsense and fragility from lads that just adds up to ‘ me man. Me meant to be on top! Clean kitchen woman!’


That’s the lame argument from men. Women’s is far more nuanced and developed.

It's a bloody mob. Some of the individuals aren't the brightest and then they get together in a large group.
The only upside about this is that as usual they will over do it, in their rush to appear just and right they will pick the wrong fight and back someone very dodgy.
A few of the women's rights march leaders in the US have expressed public support for the leader of the nation of Islam.

markodaly

oneilla wrote: »

Dara Florence was in the room for "less than a minute". The prosecuting QC asked her if there were any signs of consent to which she replied no.

I think her participation in all this is something of a red herring since people are working under the assumption that victims of rape fight back or actively struggle rather than wait for the ordeal to be over.

The moaning she heard outside the room stopped when she opened the door.

"She added there was also nothing to indicate “positive consent” during the brief period she witnessed the sexual activity."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-week-three-evidence-focused-on-before-and-after-1.3395241?mode=amp

The most important bit was...

Ms Florence said she saw the woman turn her face away from her. She said Mr Jackson asked her if she wanted to “join in”. She said no and closed the door.

She told the trial she walked in on a “threesome”, not a rape.

Check-mate.

tritium

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape?

Um no it wasnt rape because a jury found (correctly imho) that the evidence didn’t support that conclusion to the extent required by law-the same extent applied in all criminal trials

And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Most posters haven’t called her a liar. As for the poor lads comment, that seems fair given their reputations have been thrashed and their futures damaged for something they have been found not guilty of. The accuser at least retains anonymity, the four guys have been thrown to the wolves. Why is the 4 guys morality being used to beat them with while the accuser is (far more fairly) being given a free pass on this?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

What if your father, brothers or sons are in a position where they’re accused of rape and are adamant they didn’t do it? Would you wish them to go through what the four guys did for the last nine weeks?

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

As would you I’d hope in the scenario I outlined above

policy75

Silentcorner wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Havent I just said two posts ago? It is not about this particular case. It is about the wider issue of women being failed in the court systems in the rep and n.ireland. That can be changed going forward.

I have to say lads, you're doing an awful lot to live up to your current reputation as Irish men as 'sexist, cruel and nasty'. If you want to keep in that vein so be it. I have been talking to men abroad on whatsapl, ive travelled a fair bit, and they were all incredibly supportive. So I think I will go and talk to the supportive people and the Irish women who actually want change. Ye need to take a hardlook at how you're acting, and how you are now looking on a global stage.

I have to say, that in my experience here in Limerick anyway, the men I spoke to yesterday about this were all as gob smacked over this verdict as each other...

This is not a gender divide....at least it is not as big as you might think it is...

Nobody won yesterday....absolutely nobody....

The system with which we treat sexual violence needs to be overhauled it is clearly not fit for purpose...

This case will not put off women who falsely report rape...if anything it could increase it...women who falsely accuse someone of rape are not stable individuals....

This will put off a lot of very distressed victims of sexual assault from seeking justice....

Consent classes need to be introduced to the education system, I found the whole experience of the last two months depressing....how victims react to rape attacks need to be understood also...

If young men, speak about women in the way those men did...then we are failing our young men...that attitude plus the physical difference between young men and women plus a shedload of alcohol is a very dangerous cocktail...

I can't understand why you are gobsmacked. It was consensual sex then, under reflection, non-consensual sex. If the jury had done otherwise it would bring into question even the concept of having sex. Must you first sign a legal agreement before you are allowed to have sex with your partner. Is this where modern life is going?

almostover

Parklife1988 wrote: »

The rallies today were in support of all victims of rape.inspired by but not about this one case.

Statistically each one of us know someone who has been raped. And has never said anything. Given the numbers in this thread, there’s a fair chance a few rapists are posting.

Again, hope it never happens to your own.

I don't anyone personally who has been raped. Or who has even ever alleged they were raped. What you've just written is mental. Please please please consider your words before you write. You cannot make blanket generalisations and accusations like that. It is inflammatory and crude.

Parklife1988

almostover wrote: »

I don't anyone personally who has been raped. Or who has even ever alleged they were raped. What you've just written is mental. Please please please consider your words before you write. You cannot make blanket generalisations and accusations like that. It is inflammatory and crude.

*that you know of. Just cos they never told you doesn’t mean it didn’t happen to them.
And you’re making blanket generalisations by saying nobody knows anyone who’s been raped. You’re wrong.

qwerty ui op

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EDIT: Also, those calling for her to be named are probably doing so because the accused, innocent men involved were also named and will in all probability have their careers completely destroyed on the basis of an allegation.
.

I wouldn't really agree with this, I think it's more the part they played that's out in the open which is doing most of the damage.
Supposing a judge had audio and video of the whole affair and they were judged to be innocent, their actions would still be very damaging almost as damaging as it currently is. ("currently is" is in bold cos i'm not saying as damaging as if being found guilty)
The public view them as assholes because of their attitude towards young woman not the allegation

bsloepro

Parklife1988 wrote: »

And you’re making blanket generalisations by saying nobody knows anyone who’s been raped. You’re wrong.

That is not what was said at all. How did you come to the conclusion that is what was said?

Parklife1988

Ipso wrote: »

Really?

Was replying to a post that saying staunch ‘feminist’ leaders had links to Islamic groups.

Hardcore feminists and extremists Islamic groups? Yeah not usually found in the same sentence never mind same room.
In no universe did that’s happen and the poster was waffling.

FixdePitchmark

I think everyone should move on.

Getting petitions and all, from female friends. I don't have the heart to tell them that I respect the rule of law and the court decision.

I do actually think the lads were out of order or worse. But the evidence of the girl entering room was just too compelling for any jury to convict.

I think she got into a sex situation , it went too far - drink was involved.
Going to court was a mistake by the Public Prosecutor.

The feminist movement is just scary these days. It has stifled any reasonable discussion. Like the George Hook sacking.

The lads were total scumbags - and there is truth in that entitlement upbringing that they have come from.

There is a real discussion to be had around the sexual provocative way that women are dressing (this is from early teens). If you mentioned that in certain circles - you would be lynched.

The most bizarre statement was from the judge claiming

"This was, she said, probably the most difficult trial a jury had ever had to preside over in the history of Northern Ireland."

Genuine question - it is a location that had 3500 deaths in troubles - were none of them in any trial ?
Were any of the bombs - murders in a trial ?

Hoboo

Strazdas wrote: »

It should be pointed out she was alone with Paddy Jackson in the bedroom when the next eejit arrives in completely uninvited. Why didn't he make his excuses and close the door the moment he realised he had disturbed a sex act? That's what most normal people would do.

He didn't walk out because the girl beckoned him over, unzipped his trousers, and began to perform oral sex on him. What is so hard to get? Nothing abnormal about his actions whatsoever.

Why isn't there more focus on the dangers of going to strangers houses and following drunk strange men into their bedrooms?

tritium

qwerty ui op wrote: »

I wouldn't really agree with this, I think it's more the part they played that's out in the open which is doing most of the damage.
Supposing a judge had audio and video of the whole affair and they were judged to be innocent, their actions would still be very damaging almost as damaging as it currently is. ("currently is" is in bold cos i'm not saying as damaging as if being found guilty)
The public view them as assholes because of their attitude towards young woman not the allegation

Yes but they know about this because of the accusation. Otherwise it would be completely private as they had intended. And it just represents a snapshot of a moment yet it will be used to define them far more than any good they may actively do.

Compare that to their accuser who, quite rightly, has the benefit of anonymity. Were she named the stigma of being the one who accused 4 men who were later acquitted of a horrible crime might be expected to follow her, including the social media postings, texts etc that she made. Instead she’s out of the public eye and quite correctly protected from that

Parklife1988

Ipso wrote: »

Also why aren't these feminists getting as worked up about the comments made by the cave man about female genital mutilation.
It's very coincidental that it's always things in the public eye they associate themselves with.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/7/17082030/womens-march-louis-farrakhan-tamika-mallory-anti-semitism-controversy

Purple monkey dishwasher much?

almostover

Parklife1988 wrote: »

*that you know of. Just cos they never told you doesn’t mean it didn’t happen to them.
And you’re making blanket generalisations by saying nobody knows anyone who’s been raped. You’re wrong.

Never said nobody knows anyone who's been raped. Just said I do not know of anyone who has been raped or who has claimed they were raped. How can I know someone has potentially been raped if they don't tell me.

Under what pretence can you claim that rapists are posting on boards.ie about this case? Please enlighten me.

freshpopcorn

Stop mentioning abortion/etc. There's a thread for that.

Fr Tod Umptious

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think everyone should move on.

Getting petitions and all, from female friends. I don't have the heart to tell them that I respect the rule of law and the court decision.

I do actually think the lads were out of order or worse. But the evidence of the girl entering room was just too compelling for any jury to convict.

I think she got into a sex situation , it went too far - drink was involved.
Going to court was a mistake by the Public Prosecutor.

The feminist movement is just scary these days. It has stifled any reasonable discussion. Like the George Hook sacking.

The lads were total scumbags - and there is truth in that entitlement upbringing that they have come from.

There is a real discussion to be had around the sexual provocative way that women are dressing (this is from early teens). If you mentioned that in certain circles - you would be lynched.

The most bizarre statement was from the judge claiming

"This was, she said, probably the most difficult trial a jury had ever had to preside over in the history of Northern Ireland."

Genuine question - it is a location that had 3500 deaths in troubles - were none of them in any trial ?
Were any of the bombs - murders in a trial ?

I though it was bizarre when I first heard it too, but then again many of the terrorist trials were held before non jury courts.

ThunbergsAreGo

Ipso wrote: »

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Good for you. I’m the same.
Look at the messages the lads sent in that WhatsApp group. They’re dragging us down and making us all look bad.
That’s the part everyone defending these lads seem to be missing.
That there’s people even defending these lads, after seeing this kind of evidence is itself disgusting.

Stop this nonsense, that kind of behavior is not limited to men.

Exactly, moron doesn't have a gender

lawred2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I though it was bizarre when I first heard it too, but then again many of the terrorist trials were held before non jury courts.

most terrorist activities went unpunished really

hatrickpatrick

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Exactly . Those men behaved appallingly , their treatment of a woman was disgusting and if any of them were my son I would be horrified . But at this moment in time that is what they are guilty of , they were found innocent of rape and we all must accept that fact right now . Whether I agree with it or not its simply how it is

It was only appalling if it wasn't consensual, which had not been established. Having a cavalier attitude to sex is in no way appalling unless there is a non consensual aspect to it. Plenty of men and women talk about last night's antics using raunchy and cavalier, even derogatory language about those involved - if it's consensual, it isn't wrong.

The only way any of these lads did anything wrong is if they did something non consensual - and that has not been proven, ergo they did indeed do nothing wrong.

Faugheen

Strazdas wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Overall I accept the juries decision, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty must apply in all criminal cases. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence.
But I keep coming back ro why would the woman put herself through this if she did not feel violated and abused. Why would the police and crown prosecution take the case unless they were sure in their minds.
The woman would have to be a monster to send men to jail for years to simply save embarrassment at been caught in a threesome. I honestly believe that she believed she was raped.
However this has to be proven beyond doubt and we have to accept the decision of the jury.

She also said in one of her texts to the Rory guy "Your friends are not very nice people", so she certainly seems to have viewed the evening or the last part of the evening as an unpleasant experience.

This text turned out to be accurate as well I think, because I certainly got the feeling that none of the lads particularly like Rory Harrison. In none of the WhatsApp groups, McIlroy kicking him out of photos with the other girls, Olding even said in court that he wouldn't consider themselves particularly close.

spookwoman

oneilla wrote: »

Dara Florence was in the room for "less than a minute". The prosecuting QC asked her if there were any signs of consent to which she replied no.

I think her participation in all this is something of a red herring since people are working under the assumption that victims of rape fight back or actively struggle rather than wait for the ordeal to be over.

The moaning she heard outside the room stopped when she opened the door.

"She added there was also nothing to indicate “positive consent” during the brief period she witnessed the sexual activity."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-week-three-evidence-focused-on-before-and-after-1.3395241?mode=amp

Thing that stands out for me is she was in there less than a minute so how the hell could someone know 100% if someone was being raped or not. The other thing was if she heard moaning why did she open the door unless she was bloody nosey looking for gossip or was concerned with the noise. This thing of looking for her friend doesnt sound right.

anthonyjmaher

I really despair at these protest marches today, in light of the fact that the four guys were found innocent. I'm not sure what message it is meant to send, and the media coverage will put huge pressure on future juries to find ANY man in such a case guilty. You know, if they'd organised a similar protest against convicted, Irish rapist Larry Murphy I would have been there front row centre. But they will organise marches when four guys are found innocent? It seems like they are just capitalising on the huge media coverage of this case to push their own agenda.

Parklife1988

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

BBDBB

spookwoman wrote: »

Thing that stands out for me is she was in there less than a minute so how the hell could someone know 100% if someone was being raped or not. The other thing was if she heard moaning why did she open the door unless she was bloody nosey looking for gossip or was concerned with the noise. This thing of looking for her friend doesnt sound right.

consider this then

If she walked in (for whatever reason) and she believed a rape was taking place, how long do you think she'd take to determine that? Longer or less than a minute?

endacl

cloudatlas wrote: »

Wow even in this thread you need to mention Lon.

Sorry. Just noticed this response...

As I haven't, to the best of my knowledge, previously referred to the esteemed lady, might I suggest you may be thinking of somebody else? Although I stand firmly over the comedic potential inherent in the mental image of an exploding Louise.

She'd probably hop up and down a bit first, too!

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

You're a clown.

BLUEYK

Quite simply I am sick of the media coverage of this trial. Why were all parties identities not kept private? Should be eff all coverage given unless proven guilty. Can we not trust the justice system? That by the way is Joe Bloggs, me and you, having to make a life changing decisions no matter the outcome if on the jury. Do people not understand basic law? Judged by your peers! These groups protesting sicken the life out of me. I think social media does more damage that good. Before instant access, opinion forming and groups protesting how did we survive? Lock me up to be effed as we are doomed as a race.

Parklife1988

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're a clown.

Try Hatder. Even a little bit.

RuMan

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

Did you follow the case?
It was astonishing it even made it to court given the complete lack of evidence. What exactly do you think they are guilty of and what evidence do you have?

It was a consensual threesome, happens frequently enough. Just because you dont approve doesnt given you the right to question men deemed innocent in a court of law.

Ipso

So the people who think they were guilty, what are you basing it on?
Did the whole "event" start of as rape or did it descend into something where the girls lack of consent was ignored?

To those who think the verdict was correct; why do you think so?

Fr Tod Umptious

lawred2 wrote: »

most terrorist activities went unpunished really

That is sadly true too.

munsterlegend

BLUEYK wrote: »

Quite simply I am sick of the media coverage of this trial. Why were all parties identities not kept private? Should be eff all coverage given unless proven guilty. Can we not trust the justice system? That by the way is Joe Bloggs, me and you, having to make a life changing decisions no matter the outcome if on the jury. Do people not understand basic law? Judged by your peers! These groups protesting sicken the life out of me. I think social media does more damage that good. Before instant access, opinion forming and groups protesting how did we survive? Lock me up to be effed as we are doomed as a race.

Well up north unlike here they identify the defendants and let the public into trials of this nature which is crazy really. However it would have been impossible to keep the identity of the two rugby players private as everyone would have been asking why are they not playing? The only way that could be avoided is to let them still play but that would cause more problems given the nature of the alleged offence.

almostover

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

Yes, I am not privy to any proof that he was guilty.

almostover

Ipso wrote: »

So the people who think they were guilty, what are you basing it on?
Did the whole "event" start of as rape or did it descend into something where the girls lack of consent was ignored?

To those who think the verdict was correct; why do you think so?

The verdict was correct because the jury could not find the men guilty of the alleged crimes beyond reasonable doubt. They judged that there was reasonable doubt that these 4 men were guilty of the alleged crimes.

Do you think the verdict was correct? And if not, why do you think so?

spookwoman

BBDBB wrote: »

consider this then

If she walked in (for whatever reason) and she believed a rape was taking place, how long do you think she'd take to determine that? Longer or less than a minute?

Position of where she was and what she could see would be 1 factor and the other is over a minute because not all rapes are violent where the victim is being held down, beaten etc.
The victim turned her face away so how could dora see her face. The victim was bleeding and it looks like dora didnt see that either.
It was after she went that jackson it seems tried to force his hand fully inside her and at that stage she was bleeding heavy.
I don't know about anyone else but I think any self respecting person would be worried with seeing blood during a fisting

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Did you follow the case?
It was astonishing it even made it to court given the complete lack of evidence. What exactly do you think they are guilty of and what evidence do you have?

It was a consensual threesome, happens frequently enough. Just because you dont approve doesnt given you the right to question men deemed innocent in a court of law.

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

Parklife1988

almostover wrote: »

Yes, I am not privy to any proof that he was guilty.

He was totally innocent. Stupid for getting himself in that situation as these lads were too. They all should have known better. And found to be innocent in court
Like he was.
But the culture and social bible around the Irish team is it’s own fishbow soccial group and groupies l and they definitely fvcked up. The woman involved should have known better too. But she was part of that bubble. They knew that and did it anyway.

Strazdas

Hoboo wrote: »

He didn't walk out because the girl beckoned him over, unzipped his trousers, and began to perform oral sex on him. What is so hard to get? Nothing abnormal about his actions whatsoever.

Why isn't there more focus on the dangers of going to strangers houses and following drunk strange men into their bedrooms?

No independent verification that's how it unfolded bar Olding himself claiming that's how it happened (and this was a guy who had 23 alcoholic drinks in the hours before the encounter).

BLUEYK

munsterlegend wrote: »

Well up north unlike here they identify the defendants and let the public into trials of this nature which is crazy really. However it would have been impossible to keep the identity of the two rugby players private as everyone would have been asking why are they not playing? The only way that could be avoided is to let them still play but that would cause more problems given the nature of the alleged offence.

It's a load of horse manure then the justice system. All parties should be protected until guilty. IMO

Ipso

almostover wrote: »

The verdict was correct because the jury could not find the men guilty of the alleged crimes beyond reasonable doubt. They judged that there was reasonable doubt that these 4 men were guilty of the alleged crimes.

Do you think the verdict was correct? And if not, why do you think so?

To be honest I haven't followed the details, I'm just finding the mob reactions interesting/worrying.

I'm just interested if there are particular pieces of evidence that have swayed people one way or the other, as in this day and age people can get caught up in the herd mentality and the decline into everything being about identity politics and social media driven is very worrying.

almostover

Parklife1988 wrote: »

He was totally innocent. Stupid for getting himself in that situation as these lads were too. They all should have known better. And found to be innocent in court
Like he was.
But the culture and social bible around the Irish team is it’s own fishbow soccial group and groupies l and they definitely fvcked up. The woman involved should have known better too. But she was part of that bubble. They knew that and did it anyway.

Do you know of some evidence proving his guilt. If I'm being honest I have little or no knowledge of the Michael Jackson case so I choose not to accuse him of anything. We've gone off topic. Can you answer my other question please? Do you feel the jury delivered the correct verdict in the Jackson/Olding/McIlroy/Harrison case? If not, why so?

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

It is so rare that there is a witness in a non violent rape case like this....there is never any evidence...normally it is one persons word against another....

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

All the men and Dara Florence claimed it was consensual and clearly they were more credible given the verdict.

Bit of consensual fun which one party regretted after.
No guilty of rape was the verdict

khaldrogo

Silentcorner wrote:

Ya...as was I...which was a bit foolish on our part really...I mean, what chance did she have?

She had the chance to not willingly take part in a threesome then regret it after and accuse people of rape.

blanch152

Faugheen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

Dara Florence was sober.

Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

At the very least Dara Florence was unsure whether it was consensual or not. That the only eyewitness said that is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt. I am actually surprised that the judge didn't order an acquittal following her testimony.

Hoboo

Faugheen wrote: »

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

All the men and Dara Florence claimed it was consensual and clearly they were more credible given the verdict.

Bit of consensual fun which one party regretted after.
No guilty of rape was the verdict

Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given.

And the complainant said that it wasn't consensual.

The lads couldn't be found guilty based on the evidence. There's holes in all of the stories. That doesn't mean her account is false.

Not guilty of rape was the verdict, but she wasn't found guilty of anything either. Why are you throwing guilt of her lying when it hasn't been proven?

Again, you weren't there. Stop telling people what happened as if it's factual.

OwlsZat

spookwoman wrote: »

Position of where she was and what she could see would be 1 factor and the other is over a minute because not all rapes are violent where the victim is being held down, beaten etc.
The victim turned her face away so how could dora see her face. The victim was bleeding and it looks like dora didnt see that either.
It was after she went that jackson it seems tried to force his hand fully inside her and at that stage she was bleeding heavy.
I don't know about anyone else but I think any self respecting person would be worried with seeing blood during a fisting

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

The fisting was mentioned as an explanation for the vaginal bleed. My initial suspicion was vigorous fingering with a long fingernail. As your article states it was agreed the injury couldn't have been inflicted by a penis. However, the length of time it was bleeding some 8 hours, was argued makes it less likely to have been inflicted and more likely to have been period related.

Infini

Ill be honest when I look at this I was suprised at the ridiculous amount of coverage coming out of the trial. It felt more of a trial by media more so because if it. Still I had a feeling that it was going to be a non guilty verdict because it seemed to me that people were intoxicated or not of sound mind rather than predatory and it might be the reason why it came down to a non guilty verdict.

As for the protest I can understand that there's those out there that feel that rape isn't getting the seriousness some might feel it deserves but lets look at it this way: These things should never be public before a judge / jury makes a verdict on them. Simple reason is that its easy for the percetion to perpetuate to see women as victims and men as predators etc but the problem is that it gets to the case where an accused is being judged as AUTOMATICALLY guilty instead of being considered innocent until proven otherwise. That's also a problem in its own right because even though this went to trial and they were found innocent of rape the accuastion alone means people will just consider them guilty regardless of the fact that they were fairly trialled and found NOT guilty.

It's a dodgy issue but I honestly think those going #Ibelieveher need to step back and realise that noone is winning here. They were taken to trial and found innocent in a court of law not the kangaroo court of cancer media. Its not right that an accusation alone can be SEVERELY damaging to an accused man even when a fair trial deems them innocent.