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

hill16bhoy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's just made up. Essentially you are saying that a vaginal tear is only possible through violent sex.

That's not consistent with an independent witness stating they observed a threesome.

I didn't say that a vaginal tear was only possible through violent sex.

But it's a very logical assumption to assume that it is consistent with rape. It doesn't prove rape. But it is consistent with it, or at least consistent with sexual assault.

By the way, the victim in the Mike Tyson rape trial had a similar vaginal tear. That was classed by the medical expert in that trial as being "consistent with rape".

In this case, as well as the vaginal tear, there was also bruising.

I would suggest it is unlikely for both a vaginal tear and bruising to occur if there was not a violent sex act of some sort occurring.

Dara Florence perceived consensual sex. Perception is not fact, she was in no position to judge for sure whether it was consensual or rape. People don't walk into such a situation and automatically assume a rape is taking place, they revert to a default assumption that what is going on is consensual.

She was however in a position to judge whether Jackson was penetrating the complainant, and to judge whether there were any signs of positive consent from the complainant. The answer was yes to the former and no to the latter.

RuMan

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

If you had consensual sex with a woman and she falsely accused you of rape you would be pretty annoyed. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

C__MC

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I didn't say that a vaginal tear was only possible through violent sex.

But it's a very logical assumption to assume that it is consistent with rape. It doesn't prove rape. But it is consistent with it, or at least consistent with sexual assault.

By the way, the victim in the Mike Tyson rape trial had a similar vaginal tear. That was classed by the medical expert in that trial as being "consistent with rape".

In this case, as well as the vaginal tear, there was also bruising.

I would suggest it is unlikely for both a vaginal tear and bruising to occur if there was not a violent sex act of some sort occurring.

Dara Florence perceived consensual sex. Perception is not fact, she was in no position to judge for sure whether it was consensual or rape. People don't walk into such a situation and automatically assume a rape is taking place, they revert to a default assumption that what is going on is consensual.

She was however in a position to judge whether Jackson was penetrating the complainant, and to judge whether there were any signs of positive consent from the complainant. The answer was yes to the former and no to the latter.

Florence was asked did she want to join in, that opens up another angle for me in the consent thing

RabbleRouser2k

GreeBo wrote: »

Rape trials in the Republic are private.
Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

It's pretty brave for someone to reveal their identity in order to name their rapist I know there was a young woman raped in a hotel a few years back (Case was last year, or the year before) who waived her anonymity in order for her rapist to be named and shamed. It wasn't her burden to bear.

Saw a few folks who work for RTE who showed clear bias against the guys. Tweeting things like 'are you surprised?' regarding the verdict. Isn't the national broadcaster supposed to be neutral?

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

She filed a report because she felt she was raped.

And it got to trial because the PPS thought they had a case to answer.

Don't forget, the complainant was only a witness to this case. She didn't sue anyone.

Based on the reporting in the media and the unanimous and quick verdict the PPS seem to have done a very poor job.

Clearly the innocent men suffered however the woman was also put through a trial which appeared to have zero chance of securing a conviction.
Paddy Jacksons solicitor seemed very unhappy and i cant say i blame him. I cant see how this was allowed to proceed to trial given the evidence we have heard.

There was plenty of reasons on the face of it.

Fact is, the defence barristers earned their money and then some, making the prosecution look like amateurs.

It still doesn't mean that she's lying or that she filed a false allegation. She's also entitled to the tag of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

If the PPS were to pursue a case against her, with the same witnesses, the same statements, the same inconsistencies from both sides (the 4 lads stories were all over the place. Blane Mcilroy's in particular. Doesn't mean guilt of course) then there's no way a jury could find her guilty. Then what? Are the lads suddenly liars again?

It was an absolute mess of a case, but I can't have people using this verdict as a reason to spout absolute nonsense about how it proves she was lying when it's far from the case.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

If you had consensual sex with a woman and she falsely accused you of rape you would be pretty annoyed. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Of course you would, but even Stuart Olding's statement doesn't hang her out as someone who made a false accusation. There's every chance that she could not have been consenting but he was none the wiser. That's why he's apologising and saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

GreeBo

AllForIt wrote: »

Who decided that? Is it up to the complainant? And if so does that rule apply to any crime or just sex crimes?

No its the law, not up to either party to decide.
Its specific to rape cases.

The convicted can be named after the fact, but only if it will not expose the victim (or if the victim allows it)

martingriff

GreeBo wrote: »

ARGH!
No they could not!:mad:

a) In NI a woman CANNOT rape a man. She may be prosecuted under the rape charge if she is deemed complicit in a man raping another man.
b) You cant retrospectively withdraw consent. Consent can be removed up to the point of intercourse. After that its too late.

I would strongly disagree with you on point b that once intercourse start she can't say please stop. Maybe some on here don't know stop means stop whenever

Hoboo

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

GreeBo

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It's pretty brave for someone to reveal their identity in order to name their rapist I know there was a young woman raped in a hotel a few years back (Case was last year, or the year before) who waived her anonymity in order for her rapist to be named and shamed. It wasn't her burden to bear.

Saw a few folks who work for RTE who showed clear bias against the guys. Tweeting things like 'are you surprised?' regarding the verdict. Isn't the national broadcaster supposed to be neutral?

I believe the requirement is to be politically neutral, not neutral about everything.

policy75

RuMan wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

If you had consensual sex with a woman and she falsely accused you of rape you would be pretty annoyed. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

It seems a lot of feminists see nothing wrong with that

TheValeyard

martingriff wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with you on point b that once intercourse start she can't say please stop. Maybe some on here don't know stop means stop whenever

Id think he means after the consensual sex has taken place a woman cant simply go "ive changed my mind, this means you've raped me"

May seem flippant, but its an important point. She can definitely say stop or no during sex, and that should be it. No more. But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

Aufbau

Louie Moldy Body wrote: »

It is quite obvious, its not happening!


Linky for definition of sexual assault starting to change in UK

Slow down. The REASON it's not happening should be obvious.

And wolf whistling is not the same thing as sexual assault.

upandcumming

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

Seems black and white to me!

backspin.

Hoboo wrote: »

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

Is that you George Hook?

GreeBo

martingriff wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with you on point b that once intercourse start she can't say please stop. Maybe some on here don't know stop means stop whenever

In Ireland she can of course say stop during intercourse, but that mean that the preceding sex was rape. Just that any further consent has been withdrawn.

She cannot withdraw consent after the act is complete, which is what the poster stated.

In NI, consent is so poorly defined that its hard to argue either way, but in my "expert" opinion, the same rules would apply. It cannot be retrospective.

Hoboo

Hoboo wrote: »

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

That would require an acknowledgement of personal responsibility. Not going to happen.

Women don't need to be responsible for their surroundings, decisions, etc. That's what men are for. We also get the collective guilt for anything negative that happens to them.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

Of course you would, but even Stuart Olding's statement doesn't hang her out as someone who made a false accusation. There's every chance that she could not have been consenting but he was none the wiser. That's why he's apologising and saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

Or consenting and then changing ur mind after?

I find it hard to believe anyone could think there wasnt consent for PJ at least.

martingriff

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

Please do not generalise on 1 man

GreeBo

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Id think he means after the consensual sex has taken place a woman cant simply go "ive changed my mind, this means you've raped me"

May seem flippant, but its an important point. She can definitely say stop or no during sex, and that should be it. No more. But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

Its not grey at all in Ireland.

Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.

The argument here is that there was never consent, not that she withdrew it.

Its also worth pointing out that, at least in Ireland, you consent to X does not imply consent to Y. For example, you could freely consent to oral sex and then bring a rape charge if you are forced into having intercourse, or in fact into providing oral sex on other people.

How you go about proving what your consent entailed is a legal and moral minefield tbh.

Strazdas

GreeBo wrote: »

In Ireland she can of course say stop during intercourse, but that mean that the preceding sex was rape. Just that any further consent has been withdrawn.

She cannot withdraw consent after the act is complete, which is what the poster stated.

In NI, consent is so poorly defined that its hard to argue either way, but in my "expert" opinion, the same rules would apply. It cannot be retrospective.

One big problem with this case is that the young woman was alone in the room with Jackson and then other males entered the room completely uninvited and interrupted a sexual act that was already underway. This can very much blur the lines around consent.

AllForIt

GreeBo wrote: »

No its the law, not up to either party to decide.
Its specific to rape cases.

The convicted can be named after the fact, but only if it will not expose the victim (or if the victim allows it)

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but if a complaint doesn't want their name in the papers in relation to a case not involving a crime of a sexual nature then they don't have the right to request such, if I understand you correctly.

That seems odd to me if that is the case. Why would ppl who make accusations of sexual misconduct be given that right in law when other don't - when the reason is exactly the same i.e. they don't want to be exposed publicly?

OwlsZat

backspin. wrote: »

Is that you George Hook?

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Of course you would, but even Stuart Olding's statement doesn't hang her out as someone who made a false accusation. There's every chance that she could not have been consenting but he was none the wiser. That's why he's apologising and saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

Or consenting and then changing ur mind after?

I find it hard to believe anyone could think there wasnt consent for PJ at least.

She could have consented to Jackson, she could have consented to digital penetration and not intercourse, once intercourse started she could have felt powerless and it all spiralled from there

I'm not insinuating any of the above is true. Fact is this case is far from black and white and that's why we're now talking about consent. The verdict was not guilty, but it doesn't automatically mean she's a liar.

RuMan

OwlsZat wrote: »

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

NI football squad dodged a bullet

prinzeugen

I think that if they had been up for sexual assault then there may have been a different verdict.

The major issue with the Scottish "not-proven" verdict is that innocent peoples lives are still wrecked by it.

Mud sticks.

I don't think this is over yet. I am waiting on the big €€€ tell all story to appear, TV shows etc.

Faugheen

OwlsZat wrote: »

backspin. wrote: »

Is that you George Hook?

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

Well this is just not true.

Faugheen

OwlsZat wrote: »

backspin. wrote: »

Is that you George Hook?

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

Well this is just not true.

Omackeral

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I have heard from a few men today 'who cares'.

When you look at how viciously women are treated in many parts of the world, you'd wonder where this viciousness towards women originated?

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Men know that women are suffering, right?

I know it is conceptually hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone suffering racism, I think that is why men turn a blind eye to all the abuse women receive.

Please try and think of what your fellow human beings are suffering. I spoke to another girl crying about being raped at the rally today.

Are you from the Midlands, Missus?

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

She could have consented to Jackson, she could have consented to digital penetration and not intercourse, once intercourse started she could have felt powerless and it all spiralled from there

I'm not insinuating any of the above is true. Fact is this case is far from black and white and that's why we're now talking about consent. The verdict was not guilty, but it doesn't automatically mean she's a liar.

No but she followed Jackson back to his house uninvited and then up to his room twice.

Was she going up to polish his medals?

C__MC

RuMan wrote: »

No but she followed Jackson back to his house uninvited and then up to his room twice.

Was she going up to polish his medals?

Maybe to look at his superhero drawings or to mime a rap

OwlsZat

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

martingriff

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Id think he means after the consensual sex has taken place a woman cant simply go "ive changed my mind, this means you've raped me"

May seem flippant, but its an important point. She can definitely say stop or no during sex, and that should be it. No more. But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

If that what the poster meant then I agree

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

She could have consented to Jackson, she could have consented to digital penetration and not intercourse, once intercourse started she could have felt powerless and it all spiralled from there

I'm not insinuating any of the above is true. Fact is this case is far from black and white and that's why we're now talking about consent. The verdict was not guilty, but it doesn't automatically mean she's a liar.

No but she followed Jackson back to his house uninvited and then up to his room twice.

Was she going up to polish his medals?

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

hill16bhoy

Hoboo wrote: »

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

Deleted User wrote: »

That would require an acknowledgement of personal responsibility. Not going to happen.

Women don't need to be responsible for their surroundings, decisions, etc. That's what men are for. We also get the collective guilt for anything negative that happens to them.

Patrick Freyne skewered these type of bizarre attitudes better than anybody with the following tweets after George Hook's comments. Can't link directly due to post count.

----

Have I this straight, misogynists? Assuming men might rape insults all men, but if women DON'T assume they might be raped, they're to blame

that sounds like the type of no-win situation that would suggest we have a rape culture

Fann Linn

Faugheen wrote: »

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

So ye get raped and ye go back up to get your bag?

jimmycrackcorm

Faugheen wrote:

Fact is, the defence barristers earned their money and then some, making the prosecution look like amateurs.

I don't agree that they made the prosecution look amateurish. If anything the defense comment about the middle class girls showed the opposite.

What's clear for me in this case its how easy it is for two sides to have equally valid points of view. The girl thought from her perspective that there wasn't consent while the men thought there was.

Simply because, unless there is a clear statement where someone says no then is all down to interpretation.

I think there is too much psychobabble otherwise. No does mean NO, but its a single syllable word with two letters. It's not that hard to say.

cloudatlas

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

what are you suggesting exactly, spit it out.

cloudatlas

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

what are you suggesting exactly, spit it out.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

Did i say she went back up after the incident?

Did she not follow Jackson back to his house uninvited?

Did she not follow him up to his room twice?

Was she not staring at Jackson all night?

Faugheen

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

She had her hand on someone's leg? How ****ing dare she.

If I pursued every woman who touched me on the leg or wrapped an arm around my elbow, I wouldn't get with a lot of them.

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

Does it bollocks. I hate the way blokes can do stuff like this and it's grand but a woman does it and she's clearly asking for it.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

Did i say she went back up after the incident?

Did she not follow Jackson back to his house uninvited?

Did she not follow him up to his room twice?

Was she not staring at Jackson all night?

Are you going to address any of my points regarding your accusations towards her or are you just going to keep going around in circles?

I've answered everything you've thrown at me yet you keep telling me she's a liar with no proof of it.

Pac1Man

Faugheen wrote: »

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

Yes.

Faugheen

Pac1Man wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

Yes.

So you're telling me what my motives are?

**** off.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

Are you going to address any of my points regarding your accusations towards her or are you just going to keep going around in circles?

I've answered everything you've thrown at me yet you keep telling me she's a liar with no proof of it.

Well you didnt answer mine so why would i mate!

This is a discussion board not a court of law as such i will offer my OPINION

Personally if a woman came back to my house and followed me up to my bedroom i'd assume she wanted sonething from me. If you want to spout faux mock outrage about that asdumption so be it.

hill16bhoy

RuMan wrote: »

Did she not follow Jackson back to his house uninvited?

She was clearly invited back having swapped phone numbers with Harrison, added him as a WhatsApp contact and him attempting to FaceTime her, all before they got back to the house.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Pac1Man

Faugheen wrote: »

So you're telling me what my motives are?

**** off.

Yes.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Are you going to address any of my points regarding your accusations towards her or are you just going to keep going around in circles?

I've answered everything you've thrown at me yet you keep telling me she's a liar with no proof of it.

Well you didnt answer mine so why would i mate!

This is a discussion board not a court of law as such i will offer my OPINION

Personally if a woman came back to my house and followed me up to my bedroom i'd assume she wanted sonething from me. If you want to spout faux mock outrage about that asdumption so be it.

I've been answering everything you've put to me 'mate'. You haven't, you've just kept throwing questions at me which I answer.

If this case should teach anyone anything, don't ever assume.

Faugheen

Pac1Man wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

So you're telling me what my motives are?

**** off.

Yes.

You would be incorrect then. You can go away now.