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

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.

markodaly

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.

Someone was raped at the rally today?:eek:
Best get to AGS.

cloudatlas

Fann Linn 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.

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

You're completely mixed up about the time line.

Hoboo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

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

Thats beyond nonsense from Patrick Freyne.

Women for their personal safety need to assess a given situation and rationally decide if they are putting themselves in any possible danger. Thats not misogyny, thats being sensible.

I do it all the time.

Of course every woman or man has the right to do anything they want without being raped, and they shouldn't have to assume they might be raped, but fook me, has it occurred that life isn't as simple as that, and there is a possibility it could happen. And therefore rather than put yourself in that position of possible danger, remove yourself from it, or don't approach it in the first place.

No rape victim is to blame. Im not talking about blame? Im talking about the need to educate people about recognising danger and avoiding it, and not just to educate on consent. I dont know one person who doesn't understand no means no, and to be honest those that ignore it choose to do so. No amount of education will change those people, but education on personal safety might help women (and indeed men) to avoid these men.

But hey, thats just the misogynist in me :rolleyes:

cloudatlas

Fann Linn 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.

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

You're completely mixed up about the time line.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Sorry but this isnt a court mate.

She was clearly interested in Jackson and followed him up to his room presumably looking for some sort of sexual activity.

Now you can say i have no definite proof for this mate but given this is a discussion board mate i couldnt care less.

Faugheen

Fann Linn 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.

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

Read the second paragraph of my post.

She never went back up after the alleged incident.

She said the incident happened AFTER she went to get her bag.

Not that difficult.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Sorry but this isnt a court mate.

She was clearly interested in Jackson and followed him up to his room presumably looking for some sort of sexual activity.

Now you can say i have no definite proof for this mate but given this is a discussion board mate i couldnt care less.

It's not a court yet you're saying she's filed a false rape allegation? Good man.

Hoboo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

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.

Ive followed the case every day from numerous outlets and never once heard that. Not one bit of it.

OwlsZat

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?

If your hugging strangers or putting your arm on their waist you really ought to stop. At best your wierding people out.

Faugheen

Hoboo wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

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.

Ive followed the case every day from numerous outlets and never once heard that. Not one bit of it.

She swapped phone numbers with Harrison in Ollie's. It was widely reported they swapped numbers and he had tried to FaceTime her before they left the nightclub..

hill16bhoy

Hoboo wrote: »

Thats beyond nonsense from Patrick Freyne.

Women for their personal safety need to assess a given situation and rationally decide if they are putting themselves in any possible danger. Thats not misogyny, thats being sensible.

I do it all the time.

Of course every woman or man has the right to do anything they want without being raped, and they shouldn't have to assume they might be raped, but fook me, has it occurred that life isn't as simple as that, and there is a possibility it could happen. And therefore rather than put yourself in that position of possible danger, remove yourself from it, or don't approach it in the first place.

No rape victim is to blame. Im not talking about blame? Im talking about the need to educate people about recognising danger and avoiding it, and not just to educate on consent. I dont know one person who doesn't understand no means no, and to be honest those that ignore it choose to do so. No amount of education will change those people, but education on personal safety might help women (and indeed men) to avoid these men.

But hey, thats just the misogynist in me :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as the personal responsibility of somebody to not be the victim of a crime.

There is only the responsibility of a criminal.

Funny how the "personal responsibility" merchants tend to only ever focus on the "personal responsibility" of victims, never on the personal responsibility of criminals.

That would indeed be the misogynist coming out in you.

Faugheen

OwlsZat 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?

If your hugging strangers or putting your arm on their waist you really ought to stop. At best your wierding people out.

Who said anything about strangers?

cloudatlas

Hoboo wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

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

Thats beyond nonsense from Patrick Freyne.

Women for their personal safety need to assess a given situation and rationally decide if they are putting themselves in any possible danger. Thats not misogyny, thats being sensible.

I do it all the time.

Of course every woman or man has the right to do anything they want without being raped, and they shouldn't have to assume they might be raped, but fook me, has it occurred that life isn't as simple as that, and there is a possibility it could happen. And therefore rather than put yourself in that position of possible danger, remove yourself from it, or don't approach it in the first place.

No rape victim is to blame. Im not talking about blame? Im talking about the need to educate people about recognising danger and avoiding it, and not just to educate on consent. I dont know one person who doesn't understand no means no, and to be honest those that ignore it choose to do so. No amount of education will change those people, but education on personal safety might help women (and indeed men) to avoid these men.

But hey, thats just the misogynist in me :rolleyes:

Why is the onus on the victim, why don't we look at the young men in our society and find out what is wrong with them why they cant stop themselves from not reading signals or why they are so messed up they feel entitled to assault someone and take what they want from someone against their will. It's always 'she shouldn't have been there'. Never he 'shouldn't have been there'.

Lackey

Anyone commenting on how girls dress from a young age (wtf?)
or saying what did she go to his house for/up to his room ...
What did she expect?

are doing as much as of a disservice to men (if not more so) as they are to women.

Because what you are really saying is men are not capable of controlling themselves in any of the above situations. That they have no autonomy of their own bodies are slaves to their desires.

hatrickpatrick

Honest question for everyone here, on both sides of this:

Have any of you ever gotten so drunk that you black out (not pass out - black out as in your memory shuts down for a bit) but instead of waking up the next morning with the fear, you come to your senses mid way through the night and ask yourself "what the f*ck, how did I end up here and what the hell am I even doing right now"?

This is far more common than you might think and this explains how someone might have drunkebly been enthusiastic about something and then suddenly come back to reality and say "wait what? No no no this is f*cked up".

I had one such experience myself a few years ago, I was drinking extremely heavily with a platonic friend and an hour or so later I "resurfaced" and we were making out in her bed. I had no idea how I even ended up in the bed with her and I was momentarily freaked out because I thought that *I* might have started this while she was locked, but she told me she did.

Now the funny (scary?) thing about this is that I later saw a video on a friend's phone of myself very enthusiastically reciprocating with her when she'd been grinding on me before we kissed. Under normal circumstances I'd never have even contemplated getting involved with her due to an already complicated relationship situation with her and another person in our friend group but I had done this - and not only done it, but been fully into it. Yet when I "surfaced" from my drunken haze mid way through fooling around with her, I was like "oh f*ck, oh sh!t, what have I done like???"

I'd never dream of calling that non consensual or anything, and besides I'm very laid back about this stuff so it wasn't like I regretted it enough to be upset, we just laughed it off as "one of those nights".

In that context, I can fully see how somebody might genuinely believe that they didn't consent to something. In this case there's a particularly hilarious video out there somewhere of me trying to do a very clumsy lapdance after she had, and it's very obvious that I'm totally into it. But with different people, under different circumstances, it's very possible that a false allegation might emerge from a scenario like that - without any deliberate malice on the part of the person who believes that they did not consent to something.

That's why I'm so hesitant to (and indeed downright disgusted by those who) accuse this woman of being malicious, or a liar, or whatever. The reality of even the sober human mind is that memory is an inherently unreliable record of reality - multiply this by a thousand if there are drinks or drugs involved.

I'm absolutely furious and disgusted by the "accusation = guilt" morons who have the gall to call themselves feminists, but the fact that this wasn't rape doesn't necessarily mean that the complainant didn't, under the influence of a mind altering substance, genuinely and entirely innocently believe that it was.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

It's not a court yet you're saying she's filed a false rape allegation? Good man.

No i didnt, although its a possibility and given this is a discussion forum worth raising my little friend.

Do you have any personal opinions for this discussion forum or do you just like to paste media reports and inaccurately quote other posters?

My opinion is she wanted to shag Jackson, its only an assumption but i'm confident enough its accurate. Cheers

hill16bhoy

Faugheen wrote: »

She swapped phone numbers with Harrison in Ollie's. It was widely reported they swapped numbers and he had tried to FaceTime her before they left the nightclub..

Indeed.

It's specifically mentioned in Rosanna Cooney's article "Anatomy Of A Night Out".

Fann Linn

Lackey wrote: »

Anyone commenting on how girls dress from a young age (wtf?)
or saying what did she go to his house for/up to his room ...
What did she expect?

are doing as much as of a disservice to men (if not more so) as they are to women.

Because what you are really saying is men are not capable of controlling themselves in any of the above situations. That they have no autonomy of their own bodies are slaves to their desires.

Don't think so.

Silentcorner

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Honest question for everyone here, on both sides of this:

Have any of you ever gotten so drunk that you black out (not pass out - black out as in your memory shuts down for a bit) but instead of waking up the next morning with the fear, you come to your senses mid way through the night and ask yourself "what the f*ck, how did I end up here and what the hell am I even doing right now"?

This is far more common than you might think and this explains how someone might have drunkebly been enthusiastic about something and then suddenly come back to reality and say "wait what? No no no this is f*cked up".

I had one such experience myself a few years ago, I was drinking extremely heavily with a platonic friend and an hour or so later I "resurfaced" and we were making out in her bed. I had no idea how I even ended up in the bed with her and I was momentarily freaked out because I thought that *I* might have started this while she was locked, but she told me she did.

Now the funny (scary?) thing about this is that I later saw a video on a friend's phone of myself very enthusiastically reciprocating with her when she'd been grinding on me before we kissed. Under normal circumstances I'd never have even contemplated getting involved with her due to an already complicated relationship situation with her and another person in our friend group but I had done this - and not only done it, but been fully into it. Yet when I "surfaced" from my drunken haze mid way through fooling around with her, I was like "oh f*ck, oh sh!t, what have I done like???"

I'd never dream of calling that non consensual or anything, and besides I'm very laid back about this stuff so it wasn't like I regretted it enough to be upset, we just laughed it off as "one of those nights".

In that context, I can fully see how somebody might genuinely believe that they didn't consent to something. In this case there's a particularly hilarious video out there somewhere of me trying to do a very clumsy lapdance after she had, and it's very obvious that I'm totally into it. But with different people, under different circumstances, it's very possible that a false allegation might emerge from a scenario like that - without any deliberate malice on the part of the person who believes that they did not consent to something.

That's why I'm so hesitant to (and indeed downright disgusted by those who) accuse this woman of being malicious, or a liar, or whatever. The reality of even the sober human mind is that memory is an inherently unreliable record of reality - multiply this by a thousand if there are drinks or drugs involved.

I'm absolutely furious and disgusted by the "accusation = guilt" morons who have the gall to call themselves feminists, but the fact that this wasn't rape doesn't necessarily mean that the complainant didn't, under the influence of a mind altering substance, genuinely and entirely innocently believe that it was.

I don't wish to antagonise you...but have you looked at who drunk what that night...and asked yourself, what if the lads had so much to drink....

Fann Linn

cloudatlas wrote: »

Why is the onus on the victim, why don't we look at the young men in our society and find out what is wrong with them why they cant stop themselves from not reading signals or why they are so messed up they feel entitled to assault someone and take what they want from someone against their will. It's always 'she shouldn't have been there'. Never he 'shouldn't have been there'.

Who is the victim in this case considering 4 men were found 'not guilty'?

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

It's not a court yet you're saying she's filed a false rape allegation? Good man.

No i didnt, although its a possibility and given this is a discussion forum worth raising my little friend.

Do you have any personal opinions for this discussion forum or do you just like to paste media reports and inaccurately quote other posters?

My opinion is she wanted to shag Jackson, its only an assumption but i'm confident enough its accurate. Cheers

You said earlier that this was a consensual threesome and displayed that as fact, and I called you out on it.

My opinion is that they were all locked and none of them truly remembers what happened. I got that from the inconsistencies in both the defence and prosecution statements.

RuMan

Fann Linn wrote: »

Who is the victim in this case considering 4 men were found 'not guilty'?

The men who had consensual sex and have had their names destroyed?

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

You said earlier that this was a consensual threesome and displayed that as fact, and I called you out on it.

My opinion is that they were all locked and none of them truly remembers what happened. I got that from the inconsistencies in both the defence and prosecution statements.

I believe it was consensual and they were all locked.

As i said i dont know how it got to trial, i think Jackson has been extremely badly treated and the DPP did a terrible job. I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.

hill16bhoy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm absolutely furious and disgusted by the "accusation = guilt" morons who have the gall to call themselves feminists, but the fact that this wasn't rape doesn't necessarily mean that the complainant didn't, under the influence of a mind altering substance, genuinely and entirely innocently believe that it was.

Of course an accusation doesn't equal guilt.

We don't know for a fact that it wasn't rape, only that a jury ruled that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, thus the verdict was not guilty.

It's possible a civil case could be taken and there could be a ruling that on the balance of probabilities, a rape did take place.

That wouldn't tell us for a fact that a rape did take place either.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

You said earlier that this was a consensual threesome and displayed that as fact, and I called you out on it.

My opinion is that they were all locked and none of them truly remembers what happened. I got that from the inconsistencies in both the defence and prosecution statements.

I believe it was consensual and they were all locked.

As i said i dont know how it got to trial, i think Jackson has been extremely badly treated and the DPP did a terrible job. I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.

That's all well and good, but you've no proof of your judgements. You're just calling her a liar and referring to false allegations when she's entitled to the same 'innocent until proven guilty' tag you believe the lads are entitled to.

It's all well and good to believe something, but don't use the verdict as if it backs up your point and presents it as a fact. It doesn't. Maybe you'll learn that one day.

professore

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

Jackson followed, she said, and grabbed her trousers, pulling them down to her knees. She said she froze as Jackson pushed her down on the bed and with her tight trousers caught at her knees, she couldn’t move. “I was face down on the bed and he was having sex with me.”

Jackson knew she did not want it to happen “but he kept going”, she said.

Then the door opened and Olding walked in. “My heart just sank. I knew what was going to happen. I looked Patrick Jackson straight in the eyes and said ‘please no, not him as well’.”


How did she look him in the eye if she was face down on the bed?

She immediately got off the bed and grabbed her clothes. She put her trousers on and her underpants in her pocket. She said McIlroy said to her: “You f***ed the other guys, why won’t you f**k me?”

When did her tight trousers magically disappear? How did her underpants get off over her tight trousers?

She told McIlroy: “How many times does it take for a girl to say no for it to sink in?”

Doesn't sound like something someone paralysed by fear would say.

hatrickpatrick

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't wish to antagonise you...but have you looked at who drunk what that night...and asked yourself, what if the lads had so much to drink....

You mean that they might have thought it was consensual and in fact it wasn't? Absolutely, but the fact is that they have been found innocent of rape by a jury of their peers. What's relevant now is that some people are accusing the complainant of lying, and I'm merely pointing out that when one's memory is impaired (and depending on the person it can take a surprisingly small amount of alcohol to do this), it's unfair to assume she's deliberately lying. It's extremely possible that her mind is filling in blanks with unpleasant assumptions. Most of us who have experienced "the fear" after a night out for literally no reason can attest to the fact that our brains have a tendency to do this - indeed, it's one of the building blocks of horror movies, the fact that the human brain tends to fill unknowns with scary thoughts.

I'm focus on this because as far as I'm concerned, now that the accused have been found not guilty, there's nothing to discuss as far as their own defense goes. I'm merely countering the suggestion that someone who makes a false allegation necessarily made it deliberately and out of malice.

People get things wrong. People get things especially wrong when they've been drinking. To assume malice on her part requires an extremely unfair filling in of blanks - in much the same manner as I've described.

retro:electro

Can’t tell you how many times I’ve read “the four rapists” over social media today. Can’t be easy for Harrison having his name muddied in with those accused of rape and exposure. A lot of uneducated people spouting nonsense, but that’s on both sides mind you. But people should at least educate themselves on what the charges were before they assert an opinion on the case

Tsipras

OwlsZat 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?

If your hugging strangers or putting your arm on their waist you really ought to stop. At best your wierding people out.

Agree 100%,  Unless you're good friend with a girl, if you put your arm around their waist then you are for sure trying it on, or a you're creep

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

That's all well and good, but you've no proof of your judgements. You're just calling her a liar and referring to false allegations when she's entitled to the same 'innocent until proven guilty' tag you believe the lads are entitled to.

It's all well and good to believe something, but don't use the verdict as if it backs up your point and presents it as a fact. It doesn't. Maybe you'll learn that one day.

spare me the condescending last line we are not in court.

Its possible she lied and you seem to think she didnt really know as she was drunk. If she wasnt sure she should not gave filed a complaint.

kittensmittens

professore wrote: »

Jackson followed, she said, and grabbed her trousers, pulling them down to her knees. She said she froze as Jackson pushed her down on the bed and with her tight trousers caught at her knees, she couldn’t move. “I was face down on the bed and he was having sex with me.”

Jackson knew she did not want it to happen “but he kept going”, she said.

Then the door opened and Olding walked in. “My heart just sank. I knew what was going to happen. I looked Patrick Jackson straight in the eyes and said ‘please no, not him as well’.”


How did she look him in the eye if she was face down on the bed?

She immediately got off the bed and grabbed her clothes. She put her trousers on and her underpants in her pocket. She said McIlroy said to her: “You f***ed the other guys, why won’t you f**k me?”

When did her tight trousers magically disappear?

I would imagine she used her neck to turn her head over to look at him

Brae100

I haven't read all of the thread, so apologies if this has been already covered, but has there been any further info or discussion about the WhatsApp group called The Juicers, that McIlroy posted the photo to? Juicer is a well known euphemism for a steroid user. In a trial involving professional sports people, I was sure this would be worthy of investigation.

hatrickpatrick

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Of course an accusation doesn't equal guilt.

This may be obvious to you and to me, but it clearly isn't obvious to many of the self-styled 'feminists' commenting publicly on this case today.

We don't know for a fact that it wasn't rape, only that a jury ruled that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, thus the verdict was not guilty.

As far as I'm concerned, these two statements are synonymous. Found not guilty by a jury = factually not guilty. End of, unless further evidence comes to light. That's how our democracy functions and this is how it must function. The very concept of justice falls apart if it only applies in court, and not to the parties' lives and reputations thereafter. This goes both ways, of course - the people smearing the defendants today are on a direct par with the people queuing up to shake a rapist's hand just after a conviction a few years ago. I make no distinction when I regard the rulings of our justice system as facts in cases of guilt or innocence.

Yes, miscarriages of justice do happen. But for the public at large to assume hat an acquitted party is still guilty, is to deny that individual of their basic, fundamental human rights.

Muahahaha

Just on the alcohol aspect Olding is on record as having had 12 pints, 5 vodkas, 2 gins and three shots for a total of 22 alcoholiic drinks. iirc Jackson is down for a similar amount.

The complainant is on record as having 3 double vodkas, a total of 6 alcoholic drinks.

I think given the above the complainant may have been somewhat drunk but she cannot have been anywhere near as pissed as the two defendants who had consumed 3.5 times more alcoholic drinks than her.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

spare me the condescending last line we are not in court.

Its possible she lied and you seem to think she didnt really know as she was drunk. If she wasnt sure she should not gave filed a complaint.

Yes you have it in one - it's possible.

You have been presenting it as fact. That's what my point has been this entire time. You have no basis to present it as fact.

hatrickpatrick

Brae100 wrote: »

I haven't read all of the thread, so apologies if this has been already covered, but has there been any further info or discussion about the WhatsApp group called The Juicers, that McIlroy posted the photo to? Juicer is a well known euphemism for a steroid user. In a trial involving professional sports people, I was sure this would be worthy of investigation.

Not so much, steroids are something athletes and bodybuilders regularly slag eachother off about without meaning anything. That's just standard banter, like "oh you made a new one rep max, clearly been guzzling the D-Bol ey ey ".

Many groups of lads joke about sh!t like that and it doesn't mean anything.

professore

kittensmittens wrote: »

I would imagine she used her neck to turn her head over to look at him

Thats impossible if you are forced face down on a bed. Just try it.

Hotblack Desiato

These men have been found innocent in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of some, including my other half :rolleyes:

If a court of law can't exonerate you, what can? Is mob rule the future?

These men may not be gents, but in the eyes of the law they did nothing wrong. Yet they will be reviled and treated as dirt for decades to come. That's not justice.

hatrickpatrick

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the alcohol aspect Olding is on record as having had 12 pints, 5 vodkas, 2 gins and three shots for a total of 22 alcoholiic drinks. iirc Jackson is down for a similar amount.

The complainant is on record as having 3 double vodkas, a total of 6 alcoholic drinks.

I think given the above the complainant may have been somewhat drunk but she cannot have been anywhere near as pissed as the two defendants who had consumed 3.5 times more alcoholic drinks than her.

This is fair. But being honest, depending on a person's height, weight, whether they've eaten etc, I've seen people black out in less than this. I know of one lad who had two double vodkas in quick succession at the beginning of a night, threw up on himself, got kicked immediately out by the bouncers, and at least claims he doesn't remember any of this

kittensmittens

professore wrote: »

Thats impossible if you are forced face down on a bed. Just try it.

She never said she was held down on the bed by the back of her head.
THAT would be impossible to turn your head around so

It says she was forced face down onto the bed. As in on her stomach
Face Downwards.. not held down at the back of the head.
But I would imagine anyone sensible knows what being face downwards means
It means on your stomach.
And as such, you can turn your head around.

Silentcorner

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the alcohol aspect Olding is on record as having had 12 pints, 5 vodkas, 2 gins and three shots for a total of 22 alcoholiic drinks. iirc Jackson is down for a similar amount.

The complainant is on record as having 3 double vodkas, a total of 6 alcoholic drinks.

I think given the above the complainant may have been somewhat drunk but she cannot have been anywhere near as pissed as the two defendants who had consumed 3.5 times more alcoholic drinks than her.

Does anyone know if they had been drinking before they got on that plane in south Africa? I read somewhere that they had....the amount of alcohol listed were what they had when they got back to Belfast...

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

Thats impossible if you are forced face down on a bed. Just try it.

Have a fair amount of experience with this, do you? :pac:

professore

There are far more cut and dried cases of rape out there than this one but no one cares about them. At the end of the day these men will still have flocks of women lining up to have sex with them...if anything more so than before. 50 shades was the last straw on that.

It's as much an indictment of our pathetic society - both men and women. The justice system is the only reasonable and honourable part of it.

The whole thing is bizarre and disgusting.

professore

kittensmittens wrote: »

She never said she was held down on the bed by the back of her head.
THAT would be impossible to turn your head around so

It says she was forced face down onto the bed. As in on her stomach
Face Downwards.. not held down at the back of the head.
But I would imagine anyone sensible knows what being face downwards means
It means on your stomach.
And as such, you can turn your head around.

You can't look someone behind you in the eye lying on your stomach. It's physically impossible.

Tsipras

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

These men have been found innocent in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of some, including my other half :rolleyes:

If a court of law can't exonerate you, what can? Is mob rule the future?

These men may not be gents, but in the eyes of the law they did nothing wrong. Yet they will be reviled and treated as dirt for decades to come. That's not justice.

Are you a bit worried about your OH man?
My wife knew half way through the trial it was a load of nonsense, there are still some sane women out there you know, (not on twitter obviously)

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have a fair amount of experience with this, do you? :pac:

Lol no my sex life isn't that exciting

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

There are far more cut and dried cases of rape out there than this one but no one cares about them. At the end of the day these men will still have flocks of women lining up to have sex with them...if anything more so than before. 50 shades was the last straw on that.

It's as much an indictment of our pathetic society - both men and women. The justice system is the only reasonable and honourable part of it.

The whole thing is bizarre and disgusting.

How does any of that render our society "pathetic"?

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How does any of that render our society "pathetic"?

The obsession with celebrity and sex is pathetic.

kittensmittens

professore wrote: »

You can't look someone behind you in the eye lying on your stomach. It's physically impossible.

Oh give over...there is always wriggle room to turn your head during that position unless you are totally restrained by the back of the head very forcibly at all times.
So unless you are saying he had her head RAMMED into the bed with full force. then it is totally physically possible.

Which is it? Head smashed down full force into the bed or face forward in the bed with ability to look behind over the shoulder? Cant be both