Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

meeeeh

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I genuinely can’t remember, I’ll have to look it up.

As for the relevance I was replying to the poster who asked if she knew who they were, that’s all so don’t try and twist if.

If only defence would have that information, the trial would be much shorter. You are peddling some online gossip as gospel and then you complain about quality of evidence.

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

If only defence would have that information, the trial would be much shorter. You are peddling some online gossip as gospel and then you complain about quality of evidence.

I never said it was gospel, just that it was something I read.

I also recall there being texts between the girl and friends where there was talk of her pretending she didn’t know who they were.

It’s just a bit odd that they’d do that I suppose.

givyjoe

Sardonicat wrote: »

I didn't know oral sex could result in a tear of the vaginal wall.

And what is the relevance of whether she knew the men or not?

A careless drunken finger could, or of course paddy could have razors a top of his flaccid penis.

meeeeh

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I never said it was gospel, just that it was something I read.

I don’t understand what you want from me? I’m not going to change my views on what happens no matter how you needle me.

You don't have to but use the same standards for yourself as you do for others.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

No I was implying you consider girls who have sex with someone because they are famous prostitutes. Being judgemental and all that.

Youve implied incorrectly as i hope my subsequent post clarified, to which youve responded.
So was that a withdrawal or a doubling down?

Or am i still judgmental?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Jackson was also charged and alleged to have unlawfully penetrated her with his fingers so that could explain that tear.

My point is why would she go upstairs with guys she didnt know? Granted they were rugby players but she was a young girl who didnt know them personally.

I know a young woman while in rooms in college, invited a friend (who she knew through her boyfriend) into her room to watch a movie. He raped her.

I'd imagine you would think it was her fault for being foolish enough to invite him into her room. She thought no one would believe her, so she never reported it.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

They were rightfully cleared of rape, the evidence just wasn't enough. But your opinion that it was just a threesome she regreted is also pure speculation. Versions of events from all involved were pretty confused so you can only make a conclusion it was just sex she regretted because it's a conclusion that suits certain narrative.

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

You don't have to but use the same standards for yourself as you do for others.

Ah get over yourself.
She clearly said

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think I read that...

This is an online discussion, not a court.
Maybe if the 4 lads faced you as QC, they might be swinging in a gibbet.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Dara Florence also thought that PJ was having penetrative sex with her which he denied.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jackson was also charged and alleged to have unlawfully penetrated her with his fingers so that could explain that tear.

My point is why would she go upstairs with guys she didnt know? Granted they were rugby players but she was a young girl who didnt know them personally.

I'm aware of that. He was acquired of that charge, so apparently it can't explain the tear that required a suture to stop the bleeding. It must have been all the oral sex cos Jackson didn't fist her.

Why did she go into a room with someone she didn't know? For a snog? Ever done that? And to retrieve a handbag that she left in the room later. Are you actually suggesting that the only reason to enter the room was for sex?

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Have you deliberately ignored where i explicitly expressed empathy for either a girl raped, or a girl in tears? You seem to have.
Its a pity because you're now just repeating yourself.

A girl in tears certainly does not mean she was raped. There are several reasons that could explain wby a girl is in tears, one of which could be rape. But it isnt evidence of rape. You need to divest yourself of this notion, and stop repeating it enough times in the hope it will make it true in some way.


It was an asendum to a paragraph where i doubted the lads were top shaggers as they claimed. What is wrong with the logic though, lets tease it out:

Women enjoys sex with famous sports star?
Ends up with two of them? Bonus? I know if i pulled a famous sportstar, lets say Anna kourinikova, and in the middle of it on walked Maria Sharapova in her undies id be thrilled.
Men generally prefer MFF rather than MMF. But hang on, are you saying maybe we're not equal afterall? That a women couldnt enjoy a threesome? Thats a serious contention.

Roger, you are another spoofer.

I did not ignore anything you said.

You said you would have empathy for a girl in tears? I then asked you where in your post (to which I was referring) was there evidence of empathy for this young woman who was in tears....you, thought she should have been happy with the deal she got on the night, which is a repulsive thing to suggest when you consider the state she arrived home in.

Ignoring the state she was in does not resolve you from revealing that twisted suggestion!

Your fantasy's have no place in this thread.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I know a young woman while in rooms in college, invited a friend (who she knew through her boyfriend) into her room to watch a movie. He raped her.

I'd imagine you would think it was her fault for being foolish enough to invite him into her room. She thought no one would believe her, so she never reported it.

This is a very different scenario and yeah i do feel a huge degree of sympathy for the girl here. She invited him into the room to watch a movie believing they had a purely platonic friendship. There was no key witness to contradict her evidence here but also none to prove this crime. Its a pity she didnt report it because a good prosecuting barrister may have caught him out in court.

In the Jackson case there was a key witness which completely contradicted the claimants tale of events. My theory in this case is that the girl felt a fool and wanted to save face. Some rape claims are bogus and some are genuine. Thats just the way it goes.

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

You don't have to but use the same standards for yourself as you do for others.

Oh get off your pedestal.

This is a discussion board not the Supreme Court.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

They were rightfully cleared of rape, the evidence just wasn't enough. But your opinion that it was just a threesome she regreted is also pure speculation. Versions of events from all involved were pretty confused so you can only make a conclusion it was just sex she regretted because it's a conclusion that suits certain narrative.

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Dara Florence gave her perception on the basis of the 1 minute or so that she saw.

It's very possible that she didn't see the reality of what happened.

However, it doesn't mean that she didn't tell the truth. In that time frame, I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make my perception more accurate.

You have to remember that Dara Florence also said she 100% saw Jackson having sex with her (which he denied) and she also said she couldn't be sure that the complainant was positively consenting.

Again, I'm not saying she's lying, but she can't testify as to how the complainant was feeling at that time.

Everyone has different perceptions of the night, including Dara Florence.

skearnsot

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If I have learned one thing from this whole debacle it’s that far from being an enlightened and forward thinking country when it comes to sexual matters we still seem to be trapped in a 19th century mindset where sex is something a man does to a woman rather than it being a consensual act between two people.

As a woman this really bothers me - on the one hand my fellow women go on about wanting equality and being seen as strong and liberated and independent yet on the other hand they can’t revert to the victim mentality quick enough when it comes to their interactions with men

I think it’s time we start acting like the grown women we are and take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. That’s what a truly strong woman does. She doesn’t revert to man hating and acting like a victim to get her way.

OMG I LOVE YOU!! I’m fed up listening to women like that and I work with a ****load of them! I’m quite happy to be as strong and as independent as is possible but there are times when I just need a male perspective/help/touch etc! The nicest boss Iv ever had is a man!!! Iv no time whatsoever for women’s ......... i dunno what the hell to call it apart from BS

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'm aware of that. He was acquired of that charge, so apparently it can't explain the tear that required a suture to stop the bleeding. It must have been all the oral sex cos Jackson didn't fist her.

Why did she go into a room with someone she didn't know? For a snog? Ever done that? And to retrieve a handbag that she left in the room later. Are you actually suggesting that the only reason to enter the room was for sex?

Im suggesting you should not enter a strangers bedroom because if it does go to court it could make it that bit harder to prove. Common sense.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If I have learned one thing from this whole debacle it’s that far from being an enlightened and forward thinking country when it comes to sexual matters we still seem to be trapped in a 19th century mindset where sex is something a man does to a woman rather than it being a consensual act between two people.

As a woman this really bothers me - on the one hand my fellow women go on about wanting equality and being seen as strong and liberated and independent yet on the other hand they can’t revert to the victim mentality quick enough when it comes to their interactions with men

I think it’s time we start acting like the grown women we are and take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. That’s what a truly strong woman does. She doesn’t revert to man hating and acting like a victim to get her way.

Your a breath of fresh air in this world in which dumb people are increasingly trying to suffocate us.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Dara's version corresponded with neither the accused or the complainant.

There wasn't enough evidence to convict the accused likewise there's not enough to throw accusations of making false claims at the complaintant.

They most likely were all so pissed that they didn't know what they were doing ( in terms of consent). Doesn't mean a rape happened, doesn't mean it didn't.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Im suggesting you should not enter a strangers bedroom because if it does go to court it could make it that bit harder to prove. Common sense.

I take it you follow your own advice and also don't invite strangers into yours.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Francie, which part of the post have I said or even suggested it should have been otherwise?

Seriously, read it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I've said in it. I haven't said the lads raped her, I haven't said they should have been found guilty. I've simply said that she felt she could have been and the lads were none the wiser.

I even said you can't convict based off all that.

Seriously, why do I have to explain myself every single time to you when you simply refuse to read what the post even says?

Because of your repeatedly slanted posts that make it seem that it was all stacked against the complainant. The prosecution worked just as hard as the defence at their job, but you neglect to mention that, why is that I wonder?

Sardonicat

givyjoe wrote: »

A careless drunken finger could, or of course paddy could have razors a top of his flaccid penis.

But no one digitally penetrated her, remember?

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

Your a breath of fresh air in this world in which dumb people are increasingly trying to suffocate us.

That’s very kind of you 😊

I don’t think I’m doing or saying anything extraordinary - I just don’t like be made out be to a fragile porcelain doll that needs protection from big bad men nor do I relish the idea that men may feel the need to pussyfoot around me for fear of offending me or being accused of doing something they didn’t.

AudreyHepburn

skearnsot wrote: »

OMG I LOVE YOU!! I’m fed up listening to women like that and I work with a ****load of them! I’m quite happy to be as strong and as independent as is possible but there are times when I just need a male perspective/help/touch etc! The nicest boss Iv ever had is a man!!! Iv no time whatsoever for women’s ......... i dunno what the hell to call it apart from BS

I’d call it a victim mentality and I have no time for it either.

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

She was sobbing for the best part of half an hour!!!

So, unless she had a leg chopped off I think we can rule out soreness.

If it was humiliation that caused that reaction, then it was some humiliation!!

There are holes in everyones stories, including Dara Florence.

What do you think she wasn't able to handle?

Iv been humiliated by a man when Iv has drink taken - and I sobbed for an hour!!!!! When I sobered up and thought about it the next day I realised what the man had said to me the night before was in fact correct at the time - drink and emotions can be like fire and gasoline

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Youve implied incorrectly as i hope my subsequent post clarified, to which youve responded.
So was that a withdrawal or a doubling down?

Or am i still judgmental?

No you went on a rant about how women can enjoy sex as much as anyone. I actually don't know exactly what you were on about except to imply it has something to do with me having moralistic attitude to sex. It's completely nonsense (about my attitude to sex) and not something I would bother replying to.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Dara Florence also thought that PJ was having penetrative sex with her which he denied.

No he denied putting his whole hand inside her but said he penetrated her with his fingers consentsually. See count 2.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-what-are-the-charges-and-what-must-jury-do-to-reach-verdicts-1.3440548

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

Iv been humiliated by a man when Iv has drink taken - and I sobbed for an hour!!!!! When I sobered up and thought about it the next day I realised what the man had said to me the night before was in fact correct at the time - drink and emotions can be like fire and gasoline

What?? A man said something, that humiliated you (at least you felt humiliated) and you sobbed for an hour!!! And then the next day you realised he was right? I'm sorry to be asking this, because I think the state that young lady was in is important, I may be placing more importance than I should, but what did he say that was that upsetting?

Had you had much to drink?

meeeeh

Silentcorner wrote: »

What?? A man said something, that humiliated you (at least you felt humiliated) and you sobbed for an hour!!! And then the next day you realised he was right? I'm sorry to asking this, because I think the state that young lady was in is important, I may be placing more importance than I should, but what did he say that was that upsetting?

Had you had much to drink?

Why would anyone drink if they cry when drunk. Surely you would make sure not to drink and put yourself in that position.

FrancieBrady

skearnsot wrote: »

Iv been humiliated by a man when Iv has drink taken - and I sobbed for an hour!!!!! When I sobered up and thought about it the next day I realised what the man had said to me the night before was in fact correct at the time - drink and emotions can be like fire and gasoline

I have seen this happen so many times in my 50 or so years. And have taken the wrong end of the stick many times myself only to wise up the next day.

In and of itself, somebody leaving a drunken party upset is nothing unusual.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

No you went on a rant about how women can enjoy sex as much as anyone. I actually don't know exactly what you were on about except to imply it has something to do with me having moralistic attitude to sex. It's completely nonsense (about my attitude to sex) and not something I would bother replying to.

Yet you accuse me of being judgemental!

Oh the double standards...

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a very different scenario and yeah i do feel a huge degree of sympathy for the girl here. She invited him into the room to watch a movie believing they had a purely platonic friendship. There was no key witness to contradict her evidence here but also none to prove this crime. Its a pity she didnt report it because a good prosecuting barrister may have caught him out in court.

In the Jackson case there was a key witness which completely contradicted the claimants tale of events. My theory in this case is that the girl felt a fool and wanted to save face. Some rape claims are bogus and some are genuine. Thats just the way it goes.

One of the other reasons the young woman I know didn't report it was because of the negative effect it would have on her career prospects. She was just finishing in college and was hoping to get a job. The time it would take wouldn't help if she had to take a few months off for the court case.

Incidentally, there is a good chance that the man involved thought that it was an invitation for sex. All a jury needs is reasonable doubt that the sex was consensual and he gets off.

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

What?? A man said something, that humiliated you (at least you felt humiliated) and you sobbed for an hour!!! And then the next day you realised he was right? I'm sorry to be asking this, because I think the state that young lady was in is important, I may be placing more importance than I should, but what did he say that was that upsetting?

Had you had much to drink?

Should it matter how much or what he said?

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

I take it you follow your own advice and also don't invite strangers into yours.

Yes even before this case was highlighted the risks of doing so are well and truly real so I certainly am picky about choosing a sexual partner or inviting someone into my home or even going to theirs.

Ive had ONS's when i was younger and not as wise to the world but even then i would make ensure that my partner was 100% comfortable and safe in the environment but even being the perfect gentleman could land you in bother now.

My own opinion on this is that the girl went up to that room with the intention of having sex with at least one of the men but ended up consenting to three, was subsequently seen by another woman, feared severe reputational damage and cried rape. That may not be what happened but using my own judgement based on what ive read about the case i would come to that conclusion.

upandcumming

Silentcorner wrote: »

She was sobbing for the best part of half an hour!!!

And?

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Francie, which part of the post have I said or even suggested it should have been otherwise?

Seriously, read it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I've said in it. I haven't said the lads raped her, I haven't said they should have been found guilty. I've simply said that she felt she could have been and the lads were none the wiser.

I even said you can't convict based off all that.

Seriously, why do I have to explain myself every single time to you when you simply refuse to read what the post even says?

Because of your repeatedly slanted posts that make it seem that it was all stacked against the complainant. The prosecution worked just as hard as the defence at their job, but you neglect to mention that, why is that I wonder?

Again, point out where I implied any of that in my post?

Stop telling me what I'm saying, if you're going to, back it up with examples.

Otherwise, go away.

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

Should it matter how much or what he said?

I'm only asking, you don't have to answer.

I mentioned the reason I'm asking, you don't have to help me understand.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

No he denied putting his whole hand inside her but said he penetrated her with his fingers consentsually. See count 2.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-what-are-the-charges-and-what-must-jury-do-to-reach-verdicts-1.3440548

You have not responded to what Dara Florence thought she saw was happening.

Do you think she is infallible for one part of her testimony and just wrong with that part?

goz83

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I noticed today that I did something different because of this thread. My colleague asked to go for a walk with me today, to a river.

On the way he asked to stop at his appartment to pick up something. I said, ok, I will wait for you outside. And I did.

I realise, especially after reading some of the comments on this thread, "she shouldnt have gone to his house" etc., that I am not safe going into a man's appartment, and that I must protect myself.

That really does say alot. Maybe you shouldnt have gone on a walk if you thought he might be a rapist.

Faugheen wrote: »

So she was afraid of her reputation being damaged she decided having a 2 years before a 9 week trial in which she was questioned for 8 days and had her underwear shown in open court was a better idea?

I’m speculating here. It’s a bit of a wild suggestion of me to make...but maybe, just maybe she wasn’t thinking about a 9 week trial when the accusations were made.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I never said it was gospel, just that it was something I read.

I also recall there being texts between the girl and friends where there was talk of her pretending she didn’t know who they were.

It’s just a bit odd that they’d do that I suppose.

Thats’s right. Her friend suggested in a text that the complainant should pretend she didn’t know they were rugby players. The complainant knew who PJ was.

skearnsot

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would anyone drink if they cry when drunk. Surely you would make sure not to drink and put yourself in that position.

Oh seriously please - that comment doesn’t even warrant a reply

Silentcorner

upandcumming wrote: »

And?

And??....she was upset....

givyjoe

Sardonicat wrote: »

Dara's version corresponded with neither the accused or the complainant.

There wasn't enough evidence to convict the accused likewise there's not enough to throw accusations of making false claims at the complaintant.

They most likely were all so pissed that they didn't know what they were doing ( in terms of consent). Doesn't mean a rape happened, doesn't mean it didn't.

That's a bit of a leap regarding the independent witness evidence. Dana stated that she couldn't be see PJ'S penis, but that what she saw and heard sounded like consensual sex. If you don't believe that her evidence significantly contributed to the reasonable doubt, you are sticking your head in the sand.

joe40

"She feared reputational damage so cried rape"

Is that a view shared by many on this thread I wonder. Could be

AudreyHepburn

Silentcorner wrote: »

And??....she was upset....

That doesn’t mean she was raped

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would anyone drink if they cry when drunk. Surely you would make sure not to drink and put yourself in that position.

You clearly don’t get out much - drink can change a person’s mood completely and it can make even the smallest most innocent of slights seem like the end of the world

givyjoe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You clearly don’t get out much - drink can change a person’s mood completely and it can make even the smallest most innocent of slights seem like the end of the world

Just go take a walk down dame Street at 3am of a Sunday morning.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Again, point out where I implied any of that in my post?

Stop telling me what I'm saying, if you're going to, back it up with examples.

Otherwise, go away.

You slanted the view of the trial as being all about the 'nasty' tactics of the defence.

You don't even realise you are doing it yourself.

Faugheen wrote:

Even the defence thought the judge was so convinced by the complainants story that they accused her of being more sympathic to the complainant in her charge to the jury.

Faugheen wrote:

By all accounts, this woman was a very credible witness (so say most of the journos in the room). Otherwise, the defence wouldn't have tried to get the case thrown out so many times.

goz83

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would anyone drink if they cry when drunk. Surely you would make sure not to drink and put yourself in that position.

Why would anyone drink when they become violent drunks?

Why would anyone drink when it puts them at risk of many things?

Why would anyone drink and plan to drive after?

Why are you asking a blantantly stupid question?

meeeeh

skearnsot wrote: »

Oh seriously please - that comment doesn’t even warrant a reply

I didn't expect a reply, I was just making a point. Well intended advice and all that...

Silentcorner

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That doesn’t mean she was raped

It doesn't mean she wasn't upset either.

meeeeh

goz83 wrote: »

Why would anyone drink when they become violent drunks?

Why would anyone drink when it puts them at risk of many things?

Why would anyone drink and plan to drive after?

Why are you asking a blantantly stupid question?

It was for my own amusement . You know why would anyone go into man's bedroom...