Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Silentcorner

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

You'd imagine then that the cab driver who dropped her home wouldn't have batted an eyelid, sure he must see it all the time.

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

Her state of upset was never in question

Sardonicat

givyjoe wrote: »

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.

I do believe her evidence contributed to the reasonable doubt.

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

You'd imagine then that the cab driver who dropped her home wouldn't have batted an eyelid, sure he must see it all the time.

He wasn’t witness for all the time -

AudreyHepburn

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

That was never in question - the issue is why she was upset.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Where does it say 'nasty' tactics?

It doesn't.

Also, just ignore the paragraph where I said Brendan Kelly absolutely crucified the prosecution evidence. He was superb.

You are honestly looking for something to bitch about that isn't there.

It's a fact that the defence accused the judge of being sympathetic towards the complainant in her charge to the jury. That came out in the legal argument this week.

It's also a fact that the defence tried to get the case thrown out on more than one occasion. Again, that was revealed in the legal argument.

Why would they want to have the case thrown out? It wouldn't acquit their clients. That says the complainant was a very credible witness and they knew they had a fight on their hands. There's nothing wrong with that. Defence barristers try to get cases thrown out all the time.

How does any of that equate to me saying it was 'nasty' tactics? Go on, tell me.

You can't. You just want something to bitch at me about.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Where does it say 'nasty' tactics?

It doesn't.

Also, just ignore the paragraph where I said Brendan Kelly absolutely crucified the prosecution evidence. He was superb.

You are honestly looking for something to bitch about that isn't there.

It's a fact that the defence accused the judge of being sympathetic towards the complainant in her charge to the jury. That came out in the legal argument this week.

It's also a fact that the defence tried to get the case thrown out on more than one occasion. Again, that was revealed in the legal argument.

Why would they want to have the case thrown out? It wouldn't acquit their clients. That says the complainant was a very credible witness and they knew they had a fight on their hands. There's nothing wrong with that. Defence barristers try to get cases thrown out all the time.

How does any of that equate to me saying it was 'nasty' tactics? Go on, tell me.

You can't. You just want something to bitch at me about.

Did you mention the tactics of the prosecution to paint these guys as elite bullies...no you didn't.
You slanted your review to make the defence look as if they were using underhand tactics.
But you have now moderated your views. That is good, well done.

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

He wasn’t witness for all the time -

He was the only independent witness to her state after she left the house so I'll take his testimony over any one else's speculation.

Her state made a lasting impression on him, who, I would imagine would come across women is distress all the time...

Silentcorner

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That was never in question - the issue is why she was upset.

That and compared to the average upset person, was she typical, was she at the extreme end of upset...that much is important

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Where does it say 'nasty' tactics?

It doesn't.

Also, just ignore the paragraph where I said Brendan Kelly absolutely crucified the prosecution evidence. He was superb.

You are honestly looking for something to bitch about that isn't there.

It's a fact that the defence accused the judge of being sympathetic towards the complainant in her charge to the jury. That came out in the legal argument this week.

It's also a fact that the defence tried to get the case thrown out on more than one occasion. Again, that was revealed in the legal argument.

Why would they want to have the case thrown out? It wouldn't acquit their clients. That says the complainant was a very credible witness and they knew they had a fight on their hands. There's nothing wrong with that. Defence barristers try to get cases thrown out all the time.

How does any of that equate to me saying it was 'nasty' tactics? Go on, tell me.

You can't. You just want something to bitch at me about.

Did you mention the tactics of the prosecution to paint these guys as elite bullies...no you didn't.
You slanted your review to make the defence look as if they were using underhand tactics.
But you have now moderated your views. That is good, well done.

I didn't slant my view at all. I was talking about the complainant as a credible witness and used the reactions of the defence as a basis for my opinion.

I didn't not criticise the defence. I simply said what they did. I wasn't implying any underhand tactics. You saw me mention them trying to get the case thrown out and assumed I was attacking them.

Absolutely nothing in my post was attacking the defence. If anything, there was praise for them for getting the verdict because, on my perception of the legal argument, they knew they had a tough fight on their hands.

I expect you to acknowledge all of the above and you can reply with:

"I'm sorry. To assume makes an ass of u and me, but in this case I only made an ass out of me."

No other reply will suffice.

Faugheen

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?

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

False rape claims are made all the time. Look at Quinton Hann, Look at Robin Van Persie.

The accusation is made without any consequences for the future

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

So you are saying this harlot made up a bag of lies?

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

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.

OMG, the arbiter of onlie fora has spoken.


I said i had empathy for a girl raped.
I said i had empathy for a girl in tears.
Do the math.
I didnt say i had no empathy for her.

But such is your blinkered view of the issue, youre unable to see anything that doesnt conform to your interpretation, as anything other than confrontational and hostile, and yet you persist in misinterpretation and strawmaning.

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?

Maybe you are.
She was upset at something.
Not necessarily rape.
This fact is being completely lost on you.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

I didn't slant my view at all. I was talking about the complainant as a credible witness and used the reactions of the defence as a basis for my opinion.

I didn't not criticise the defence. I simply said what they did. I wasn't implying any underhand tactics. You saw me mention them trying to get the case thrown out and assumed I was attacking them.

Absolutely nothing in my post was attacking the defence. If anything, there was praise for them for getting the verdict because, on my perception of the legal argument, they knew they had a tough fight on their hands.

I expect you to acknowledge all of the above and you can reply with:

"I'm sorry. To assume makes an ass of u and me, but in this case I only made an ass out of me."

No other reply will suffice.

I didn't say you 'attacked ' the defence.
I said you 'slanted' the view of the trial to make it look like only the defence was using these tactics.

Before going on a rant, understand what is being said. It isn't the first time somebody has sensationalised or misrepresented what went on in the trial.

Carry on.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

False rape claims are made all the time. Look at Quinton Hann, Look at Robin Van Persie.

The accusation is made without any consequences for the future

So you're accusing her of making a false accusation?

Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. This verdict does not mean she filed a false accusation.

If you flip the tables and she was accused of this, brought to court by the state, with the same evidence, the same witnesses, the same reasonable doubt and her access to her own representation and character witnesses, how could a jury find her guilty? They couldn't.

If that verdict happens, then what?

sporina

goz83 wrote: »

Was there a point you were making?

you asked about messages that Jackson sent in a previous post

he obviously sent inappropriate messages if he is apologizing for same

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

So you are saying this harlot made up a bag of lies?

I honestly think its highly probable that in this case, she may have.
Yes, she had sex with them. Yes, maybe it was a little rough, but i dont believe the girl was raped. Maybe in her own head she believes she was.
The key witness gave testimony that she believed that the act she witnessed was consensual. Yes she didnt see the whole act, but 1 minute is enough to form an opinion in your own mind that nothing illegal is occuring here

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

You'd imagine then that the cab driver who dropped her home wouldn't have batted an eyelid, sure he must see it all the time.

He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence! I would NEARLY go as far as to say what humiliated her was when the 3rd guy said “you f***ed them why not me” or words to that affect!
Now for the record whilst I don’t think rape happened - I think she got more than she bargained for (no smutty pun intended) and the behaviour of the lads was less than gentlemanly at the time!
Plus with high profilers if one complaint of this nature comes forward there are generally more that follow!! I haven’t heard of anymore complaints against these lads other than crude what’s app messages?
If I’m wrong I’m open to correction

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

OMG, the arbiter of onlie fora has spoken.


I said i had empathy for a girl raped.
I said i had empathy for a girl in tears.
Do the math.
I didnt say i had no empathy for her.

But such is your blinkered view of the issue, youre unable to see anything that doesnt conform to your interpretation, as anything other than confrontational and hostile, and yet you persist in misinterpretation and strawmaning.





Maybe you are.
She was upset at something.
Not necessarily rape.
This fact is being completely lost on you.

What rubbish...you will not address any points, your slippery style won't fool me.

OK you agree she was in tears getting home, you also suggested that same young woman got a better deal than the two lads. Where is the empathy in that? Answer that please?

I recognised that I place a lot of importance on her state of distress. As in I have recognised that I place a lot of importance on her state of distress....I have asked another poster to answer a question for me that might help me understand that I may be incorrect in thinking that.

You are even more blinkered than I am, at least I have a little room for understanding that I might be getting something wrong.

If you are going to answer this post, please read it properly and please answer that specific question that you are refusing to answer.

Muff Richardson II

Silentcorner wrote: »

That and compared to the average upset person, was she typical, was she at the extreme end of upset...that much is important

I splashed out and treated myself to two top quality brazzers in the famous orchard towers ‘four floors of whores’ in Singapore on a return leg after a long stint in Asia. I had dreamt of this threesome moment for years...all round it was a very disappointing experience and I was extremely upset at having dropped a few hundred dollars on an awkward situation.

Some things don’t live up to your expectations and you can be left very upset as a result of it, especially if your flute (my case) or vagina (her case) is used during this disappointing experience and you can experience an awful lot of regret as a result of it. I believe this is what happened to yer one. I also got up and went down on this massive fat yoke whilst skin deep in lager and regretted it massively the following day...**** happens, she got roasted and didn’t like it, hard luck.

This testimony should’ve been used in the defences closing arguments.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

So you're accusing her of making a false accusation?

Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. This verdict does not mean she filed a false accusation.

If you flip the tables and she was accused of this, brought to court by the state, with the same evidence, the same witnesses, the same reasonable doubt and her access to her own representation and character witnesses, how could a jury find her guilty? They couldn't.

If that verdict happens, then what?

That isn't the way the law works i'm afraid. Beyond reasonable doubt as in she had to prove beyond reasonable doubt she was raped.

Yes, your right, I couldnt prove that she was lying if the tables were turned but its a theory i have based on probability having heard an account of what happened. I firmly believe the sex was consensual in this instance.

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence!

You are absolutely incorrect, as soon as the police made contact with him he knew exactly why.

Silentcorner

Muff Richardson II wrote: »

I splashed out and treated myself to two top quality brazzers in the famous orchard towers ‘four floors of whores’ in Singapore on a return leg after a long stint in Asia. I had dreamt of this threesome moment for years...all round it was a very disappointing experience and I was extremely upset at having dropped a few hundred dollars on an awkward situation.

Some things don’t live up to your expectations and you can be left very upset as a result of it, especially if your flute (my case) or vagina (her case) is used during this disappointing experience and you can experience an awful lot of regret as a result of it. I believe this is what happened to yer one. I also got up and went down on this massive fat yoke whilst skin deep in lager and regretted it massively the following day...**** happens, she got roasted and didn’t like it, hard luck.

This testimony should’ve been used in the defences closing arguments.

Let me guess...full time mad bastard?

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I didn't slant my view at all. I was talking about the complainant as a credible witness and used the reactions of the defence as a basis for my opinion.

I didn't not criticise the defence. I simply said what they did. I wasn't implying any underhand tactics. You saw me mention them trying to get the case thrown out and assumed I was attacking them.

Absolutely nothing in my post was attacking the defence. If anything, there was praise for them for getting the verdict because, on my perception of the legal argument, they knew they had a tough fight on their hands.

I expect you to acknowledge all of the above and you can reply with:

"I'm sorry. To assume makes an ass of u and me, but in this case I only made an ass out of me."

No other reply will suffice.

I didn't say you 'attacked ' the defence.
I said you 'slanted' the view of the trial to make it look like only the defence was using these tactics.

Before going on a rant, understand what is being said. It isn't the first time somebody has sensationalised or misrepresented what went on in the trial.

Carry on.

You said I was talking about the defence resorting to 'nasty' tactics.

How can you say that in one sentence then in the next say you didn't say I wasn't attacking them?

Seriously, I haven't tried to put a slant on anything in my post. You have.

I didn't call the defences tactics 'nasty'. You did.

Don't give me a lecture about misrepresentation when you are doing just that right now.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are absolutely incorrect, as soon as the police made contact with him he knew exactly why.

'Why' what?

He was concerned about his seats when she left the cab. Her state never once made him feel he had to take it further, alert police etc. She was allowing herself to be comforted by one of the strangers in the house. (Head on his chest etc)
She said nothing about an assault/rape.

That is what we know, nothing more, as far as I can see from the reports.

facehugger99

Muff Richardson II wrote: »

I splashed out and treated myself to two top quality brazzers in the famous orchard towers ‘four floors of whores’ in Singapore on a return leg after a long stint in Asia.

....and I've stopped reading.

meeeeh

Silentcorner wrote: »

Let me guess...full time mad bastard?

I think someone opened an account just to post that.

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence! I would NEARLY go as far as to say what humiliated her was when the 3rd guy said “you f***ed them why not me” or words to that affect!
Now for the record whilst I don’t think rape happened - I think she got more than she bargained for (no smutty pun intended) and the behaviour of the lads was less than gentlemanly at the time!
Plus with high profilers if one complaint of this nature comes forward there are generally more that follow!! I haven’t heard of anymore complaints against these lads other than crude what’s app messages?
If I’m wrong I’m open to correction

What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please.
What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

What rubbish...you will not address any points, your slippery style won't fool me.

OK you agree she was in tears getting home, you also suggested that same young woman got a better deal than the two lads. Where is the empathy in that? Answer that please?

I recognised that I place a lot of importance on her state of distress. As in I have recognised that I place a lot of importance on her state of distress....I have asked another poster to answer a question for me that might help me understand that I may be incorrect in thinking that.

You are even more blinkered than I am, at least I have a little room for understanding that I might be getting something wrong.

If you are going to answer this post, please read it properly and please answer that specific question that you are refusing to answer.

Whats slippy about this:

*I empathise with a girl in tears.
*I empathise with a girl who was raped.
*A girl who was raped maybe in tears afterwards.
*A girl in tears does not prove she was raped.

Is there anything in those 4 points you cannot understand?

You're floundering badly in this thread lately, and failing to make any sense, or make a point that hasnt been repeatedly rebuffed, and have resorted to ad hominens which are becoming more frequent as you slip beneath the surface...

What question is it you think you've clearly asked that im avoiding?
Theres only one of us spoofing now Silentcorner...

mfceiling

Please go out and buy today's Sunday Times.

In the magazine section is an article about men being falsely accused of rape in England.

"Where once the police and criminal justice system were criticised for their treatment of alleged victims - often not believing their stories or subjecting women to heavy handed cross examinations about what they had been drinking, how they dressed and previous relationships - now the pendulum has swung the other way.
When Saunders became head of the CPS in 2013, she promoted a focus on female victims. In rape cases where the complainant is known to have been drunk, Saunders put the onus on men to prove explicit consent. She advised prosecutors to examine alleged rapists previous sexual behaviour and encouraged women to seek advice from a rape counsellor if they woke up in a man's bed with no memory of the previous night".

Mary Aspinall - Miles the barrister suggests pressure on prosecutors is exacerbated by the emotive nature of sexual assaults, impassioned commentary on social media and a repeated myth that conviction rates in reported rape cases is only 6%. In fact, once rape cases reach court, nearly 60% result in convictions.

Angela Rafferty QC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association has warned that the police and CPS may show unconscious bias in cases of sexual assault. She worries about "sexual - offence cases where complainants are labelled victims before a trial has started".




Well worth buying the paper to read this article.

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Why' what?

He was concerned about his seats when she left the cab. Her state never once made him feel he had to take it further, alert police etc. She was allowing herself to be comforted by one of the strangers in the house. (Head on his chest etc)
She said nothing about an assault/rape.

That is what we know, nothing more, as far as I can see from the reports.

Read his testimony Francie...he remembered that fare make no mistake,

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please.
What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?

She went with intent to get off with Olding - & succeeded - not quite sure she thought there would be another involved too! Then a 3rd walked in ready for action and she metaphorically “got more than she bargained for”

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

Read his testimony Francie...he remembered that fare make no mistake,

Yes he did.
What difference does that make?

Faugheen

Silentcorner wrote: »

skearnsot wrote: »

He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence! I would NEARLY go as far as to say what humiliated her was when the 3rd guy said “you f***ed them why not me” or words to that affect!
Now for the record whilst I don’t think rape happened - I think she got more than she bargained for (no smutty pun intended) and the behaviour of the lads was less than gentlemanly at the time!
Plus with high profilers if one complaint of this nature comes forward there are generally more that follow!! I haven’t heard of anymore complaints against these lads other than crude what’s app messages?
If I’m wrong I’m open to correction

What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please.
What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?

To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this.

She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in.

She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play.

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Whats slippy about this:

*I empathise with a girl in tears.
*I empathise with a girl who was raped.
*A girl who was raped maybe in tears afterwards.
*A girl in tears does not prove she was raped.

Is there anything in those 4 points you cannot understand?

You're floundering badly in this thread lately, and failing to make any sense, or make a point that hasnt been repeatedly rebuffed, and have resorted to ad hominens which are becoming more frequent as you slip beneath the surface...

What question is it you think you've clearly asked that im avoiding?
Theres only one of us spoofing now Silentcorner...

Where have you shown empathy for the young lady in this case?

Don't keep dodging it or lacing your answer in deflection.

Answer that question please, where have you shown any empathy for the young woman in this case. The one you suggested got a great deal in those two fine specimen that were accused of wrongdoing.

I am repeating myself because you are avoiding that direct question.

Roger Hassenforder

Muff Richardson II wrote: »

I splashed out and treated myself to two top quality brazzers in the famous orchard towers ‘four floors of whores’ in Singapore on a return leg after a long stint in Asia. I had dreamt of this threesome moment for years...all round it was a very disappointing experience and I was extremely upset at having dropped a few hundred dollars on an awkward situation
.

You cant leave us hanging, give us the details

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this.

She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in.

She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play.

I almost agree with you there, but that would be my understanding, if she got more than she bargained for then it implies what she got crossed a line.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this.

She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in.

She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play.

Again with the slant. The same as the prosecution tried. :rolleyes:

Why didn't the 'big strong rugby players' not gang up on anybody else there that night, who had a 'pleasant enjoyable' night out?

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

I almost agree with you there, but that would be my understanding, if she got more than she bargained for then it implies what she got crossed a line.

No that’s not how I personally would interpret it - nor is it how I meant it to come across - there were lines crossed in terms of general manners or conduct etc - I’m just not convinced rape was that line!

Appledreams15

Deleted User wrote: »

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

False rape claims are made all the time. Look at Quinton Hann, Look at Robin Van Persie.

The accusation is made without any consequences for the future

I really do not think that anyone would put themselves through a 9 week trial so as not to be called a slut.
If you think so you're laughable.
Growing up in Ireland as a teenager-20's we were called sluts all the time. You were either frigid or a slut. There was nothing nice said about women.
Ie, someone said to me: jonny told me about you, he said you were a slut. (Jonny lied about being with me).

Or I would hear about another girl 'jenny from a certain village is the village bike, half the lads have been with her", and a lad would say back "half, I'd say 3/4, hahaha". The men would lie about being with women, and then call them sluts, and we all (the women)knew it.
There was alot of cruel misogyny growing up in Ireland.
Time for things to change.

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

Where have you shown empathy for the young lady in this case?

Don't keep dodging it or lacing your answer in deflection.

Answer that question please, where have you shown any empathy for the young woman in this case. The one you suggested got a great deal in those two fine specimen that were accused of wrongdoing.

I am repeating myself because you are avoiding that direct question.

Hi Matlock

Ive repeatedly said ive empathy for a girl in tears.
Ive repeadedly said ive empathy for a girl raped.
If/as she was in tears, ipso facto, point 1 applies.

So where have i said i had no empathy for her?
Where have i given any indication i had no empathy for the complainant. Harken back to "that post" if you will. Nowhere is there an expression of no empathy.

Lets remind ourselves in case theres lawyers watching, those accused of "wrongdoing" were acquitted...

Faugheen

Silentcorner wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this.

She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in.

She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play.

I almost agree with you there, but that would be my understanding, if she got more than she bargained for then it implies what she got crossed a line.

Yeah that's fair, but from Jackson and Olding's point of view, it wasn't crossing a line because they weren't to know that she wasn't consenting to it (because she 'froze').

That idea also explains where the 'no, not him as well' that she claims to have said fits in in her narrative as well.

I think they're all telling the truth about their perceptions of the night, to be honest.

Except Blane McIlroy. Even the complainant and Jackson agree that he wasn't in the room.

The funniest part of the trial (if you can say that) for me was when he was in the dock and Jackson's barrister was cross-examining him, and asked him if he agreed with the perception of his friends that he talked '****e', and he actually agreed.

Muff Richardson II

Silentcorner wrote: »

What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please.
What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?

I’d say it means she had some idea in her head about a coital encounter with a famous sports star and it might have been a bit more romantic than getting tossed about like a rag doll by two scumbags high fiving each other.

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Hi Matlock

Ive repeatedly said ive empathy for a girl in tears.
Ive repeadedly said ive empathy for a girl raped.
If/as she was in tears, ipso facto, point 1 applies.

So where have i said i had no empathy for her?
Where have i given any indication i had no empathy for the complainant. Harken back to "that post" if you will. Nowhere is there an expression of no empathy.

Lets remind ourselves in case theres lawyers watching, those accused of "wrongdoing" were acquitted...

You suggested that the young lady, who arrived home sobbing, got a good deal in that she got two men the two men only got one woman.

If you consider that empathy you need to go back to school. I thought that what you said was vile.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this.

She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in.

She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play.

Again with the slant. The same as the prosecution tried. :rolleyes:

Why didn't the 'big strong rugby players' not gang up on anybody else there that night, who had a 'pleasant enjoyable' night out?

Francie.

Stop trying to find a ****ing issue with everything I post.

I'm saying from her perspective, she's surrounded by two, big strong rugby players and she froze because she saw no way out, whereas if she said no, they probably would have backed off.

I'm not trying to imply anything else.

Seriously, stop getting so ****ing offended over the smallest things.

Appledreams15

Faugheen wrote: »

Yeah that's fair, but from Jackson and Olding's point of view, it wasn't crossing a line because they weren't to know that she wasn't consenting to it (because she 'froze').

That idea also explains where the 'no, not him as well' that she claims to have said fits in in her narrative as well.

I think they're all telling the truth about their perceptions of the night, to be honest.

Except Blane McIlroy. Even the complainant and Jackson agree that he wasn't in the room.

The funniest part of the trial (if you can say that) for me was when he was in the dock and Jackson's barrister was cross-examining him, and asked him if he agreed with the perception of his friends that he talked '****e', and he actually agreed.

How would Olding know anything on: eight cans of Carlsberg beer, four pints of Guinness, two gins, five vodka and lemonades and three shots of tequila and Sambuca.

Ahhhh for forks sake!

You are innocent until proven guilty.

The lads were found not guilty.

Therefore they are innocent in law.

The text messages were graphic, I'll admit, however they were PRIVATE. They were only made public in the course of the trial. If the lads weren't named before the guilty verdict, then the messages wouldn't have been made public.

The messages were pornographic in nature, however I fail to see how they were misogynistic. There was nothing anti-woman in it.

The whole thing stinks of Hitler hating Jews so he has to destroy any place they prosper.

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

Yeah that's fair, but from Jackson and Olding's point of view, it wasn't crossing a line because they weren't to know that she wasn't consenting to it (because she 'froze').

That idea also explains where the 'no, not him as well' that she claims to have said fits in in her narrative as well.

I think they're all telling the truth about their perceptions of the night, to be honest.

Except Blane McIlroy. Even the complainant and Jackson agree that he wasn't in the room.

The funniest part of the trial (if you can say that) for me was when he was in the dock and Jackson's barrister was cross-examining him, and asked him if he agreed with the perception of his friends that he talked '****e', and he actually agreed.

The strangest part for me was when the prosecutor asked Rory Harrisson where McIlroy was when he was at Paddys bedroom door, and he couldn't answer, it was put to him..."Could he have been in the wardrobe?"...."Possibly"...utterly nuts!

skearnsot

Muff Richardson II wrote: »

I’d say it means she had some idea in her head about a coital encounter with a famous sports star and it might have been a bit more romantic than getting tossed about like a rag doll by two scumbags high fiving each other.

Hats off sir!! Excellently said

Squatter

Appledreams15 wrote: »

How would Olding know anything on: eight cans of Carlsberg beer, four pints of Guinness, two gins, five vodka and lemonades and three shots of tequila and Sambuca.

I'm still puzzled by the fact that that those two gins were drank neat. Doesn't add up.