Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Bannasidhe

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

She said in a statement that she was "entirely vindicated."

Therefore, I assume she was satisfied with the outcome, hair-splitting semantics aside.

Hardly hair splitting to point out that the word vindicated does not mean the same thing as satisfied, which presumably is why you did not use it when you were trying to make your point.

Maurice McCabe has been vindicated - do you think he is satisfied?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hardly hair splitting to point out that the word vindicated does not mean the same thing as satisfied, which presumably is why you did not use it when you were trying to make your point.

Maurice McCabe has been vindicated - do you think he is satisfied?

Maurice McCabe has pronounced himself "very happy" about the recent report by the Disclosures Tribunal, and said that now he and his family can get back to normal.

He sounds satisfied to me.

PlaneSpeeking

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Maurice McCabe has pronounced himself to be "very happy" by the recent report of the Disclosures Tribunal, and said that now he and his family can get back to normal.

He sounds satisfied to me.

Ah but don't forget, a ramdomer on the internet with a point to make knows better than the person the case concerned - so Gda McCabe may in fact not be "very happy"!

tritium

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Greater than 0 days is the prevailing answer.

But the average is 10 years! By no standard is that a lenient average sentence. Yet the same posters will over and over cherry pick individual cases and highlight that there a “problem”. They’re strangely quiet when a particularly tough sentence is applied though.

The link I posted a while back included a reference to that fact that rape support groups are broadly happy with sentencing in this country. That doesn’t mean some cases don’t get a light sentence- generally the reasons for mitigation are outlined by a judge in support of the final sentence. Indeed I believe if it’s unduly lenient it can be appealed, for any crime. Yet self appointed internet experts feel they have a better handle. I’d mind less if they had actual data to support their case, but every single ****ing time it’s the same cherry picking.

And then they complain that victims are afraid to report: guess what? Those people complaining are part of the damn problem.

retro:electro

tritium wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation.

What about those who admit guilt? God forbid they get punished either

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Candies post is talking about a case where a man plead guilty. How is your response relevant to that?

Candies point is about this thread in general. The key was they said the following

This thread is disappointing. The names might change but the same obdurate victim blaming remains, and also proof that women can be among the worst misogynists.

PlaneSpeeking

retro:electro wrote: »

What about those who admire guilt? God forbid they get punished either

"Admire guilt" ?

You'll need to explain that. Who has said here that they "admire guilt" ?

tritium

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah, this ****e. If you don’t agree with us you’re just a misogynist. Was wondering when we’d get to this.

Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view of oppression.

Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation. Whatever the changes we want in the legal system, removing the right of a defendant to a fair trial isn’t one of them. Especially on the back of whipped up outrage based on a trial that few seem to know all the details about.

If we hang on long enough I’m sure “rape culture” will make an appearance.

I neither said nor implied any of that.

In the case I was referring to, the accused admitted guilt.

Sleeper12

tritium wrote:

How do you know when or where he got married or what vows he took? How do you know how he and his wife agree to live their marriage.

Everyones vows include being faithful. It does not matter what religion or lack of religion. Its what marriage is.

It never ceases to amaze me how posters on boards will thy to defend the indefensible.

Bannasidhe

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Maurice McCabe has pronounced himself "very happy" about the recent report by the Disclosures Tribunal, and said that now he and his family can get back to normal.

He sounds satisfied to me.

Then I concede McCabe may be satisfied.

Did the victim of the man who plead guilt also say she was "very happy" or did she use a word that means something entirely different?
A word that means her accusation has been proven correct and this is what "satisfies" her.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

The SC was only doing her job, giving her client every advantage.

I was giving you an example of other reasons why women wear thongs but you seem hell bent on thinking they are a sign of sexual intent end of story. With respect your personal experience is only based on the situations where a woman in a thong presented herself to you and most likely that was in a sexual context. But you just cannot in any safe fashion extrapolate from that that thongs = being up for sex. Because every woman will tell you there's more to thongs than sex. You said yourself people "have different reasons for doing things" so no-one else can say what her reasons were.

And what the hell has that got to do with someone who is raped? It’s that sort of denial

Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Admire guilt" ?

You'll need to explain that. Who has said here that they "admire guilt" ?

Typo, *admit guilt*

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Everyones vows include being faithful. It does not matter what religion or lack of religion. Its what marriage is.

It never ceases to amaze me how posters on boards will thy to defend the indefensible.

Ah yeah, keep going with the character assassinations why don’t you. Do you actually know anyone who has never lied about anything? Why is this lie worse than other lies. Why do you feel you can impinge on the acquitteds character but have nothing to say on the accusers character?

Jack Moore

Candie wrote: »

What do you think you would consider a proper sentence if you fell asleep after drinking and woke up to find a mans fingers inside you?

"Sorry mate, my bad"?

This thread is disappointing. The names might change but the same obdurate victim blaming remains, and also proof that women can be among the worst misogynists.

Hopefully the judge would find it was self defence and let me off with a suspended sentence

Cleopatra_

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

This attitude is one of the reasons why I didn't report what happened to me. I got black out drunk and couldn't remember most of my night out. I came to and there was a guy getting dressed and about to leave. I was still so drunk at this stage (6am) that my conversation is hazy with him in parts. He was horribly nasty to me. I had no idea what had happened or how I'd even gotten home, I had no memory. I had to ask him what happened. I remembered chatting to him in a pub with his friends and thinking he was a bit of an arsehole and my friend was there, then my memory was blank aside from a few flashes. He told me that I gave him a sh1t blow job and that he was sorry he ever came back with me. He also told me that we had sex but that I passed out. Then he told me that he was sure he'd see me posting about how much I regretted it on boards. He left me in floods of tears in my bed, sore from sex and god knows what else he may or may not have done to me. I came out in bruises on my thighs and wrist a couple of days later.



Of course I felt it was my fault for getting so drunk, for putting myself in that position, for possibly encouraging him. But you know what I've realised over time? He had to have been more sober than me to have been able to ''perform'', he remembered the night and I didn't and he had his wits about him and was about to feck off as I was still out of it. So, I'm sure there are posters like planespeeking who would argue that I was asking for it or that I consented. I have the courage to say now that I was raped, I was too drunk to consent and that would have been obvious to anyone who saw me. I can't even remember how I got home, nothing, it's all a blank.

PlaneSpeeking

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah, keep going with the character assassinations why don’t you. Do you actually know anyone who has never lied about anything? Why is this lie worse than other lies. Why do you feel you can impinge on the acquitteds character but have nothing to say on the accusers character?

There's one side that are all about the double standards - hint, it's not those of us who believe in a fair justice system.

Worrying to read Sinn Fein TD Donnchadh O Laoghaire's comments about changing the laws on rape prosecutions. His rhetotic beginning "the treatment of rape victims in court". So the presumption of belief for all complainants is his plan to be enshrined in law ?

Where does it end ?

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I did say before, the reason that certain posters will refuse to entertain a discussion on the sentences for rape, is that they genuinely would be satisfied only with castration.

Well there’s a remarkable leap if ever I saw one. God forbid justice be served to someone who openly admitted to assault.
And what about yourself there PlaneSpeeking, what punishment do you think is fitting for someone who openely admitted to digital penetration of a sleeping girl? Slap on the wrist? Ah sure at least you admitted it off ya go son.
You minimised his actions earlier as “copping a feel”. You might as well just come out and write all women are sluts because we all know that’s the way your posts are going.
We all know you love men but surely you know there are better ways of getting their attention than making an absolute holy show of yourself across the site day in day out.

tritium

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

It has nothing to do with being raped.

The defence never implied it did (and would have been extraordinarily dumb if they had)

As per your own question above, wearing a thong for sexual purposes has to do with sexual purposes, which may include consensual sex. The defence would then need to make this link as part of addressing the entire evidence. Given no one has posted a link to a trial transcript, I can only assume that the 12 jurors who reached a unanimous verdict were satisfied this had been done

Cleopatra, I'm so sorry that happened to you. You didn't do anything to deserve that, it's the sole fault of the person who decided to hurt you when you couldn't defend yourself. I hope you get some help to deal with this, its a huge deal and a burden you don't have to bear alone.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then I concede McCabe may be satisfied.

Did the victim of the man who plead guilt also say she was "very happy" or did she use a word that means something entirely different?
A word that means her accusation has been proven correct and this is what "satisfies" her.

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with all this semantic hair-splitting.

In the context of a court case, someone who professes herself "entirely vindicated" can be presumed to be satisfied with the outcome.

PlaneSpeeking

retro:electro wrote: »

Well there’s a remarkable leap if ever I saw one. God forbid justice be served to someone who openly admitted to assault.
And what about yourself there PlaneSpeeking, what punishment do you think is fitting for someone who openely admitted to digital penetration of a sleeping girl? Slap on the wrist? Ah sure at least you admitted it off ya go son.
You minimised his actions earlier as “copping a feel”. You might as well just come out and write all women are sluts because we all know that’s the way your posts are going.

I'd kindly thank you to either respond CIVILLY as demanded by the site rules or refrain from saying what you think I am saying, or more accurately what you'd like me to say so you can respond as you'd wish.

And pointless it may be of course, but reported - again. And on ignore.

I bid you good day.

joe40

Does anyone know exactly what point the barrister was making, when holding up the Thong.

I cannot for the life of me think of a single possible reason it would be relevant to the case, but I don't know the details. Was the case in secret or is there an actual report from the case.
Please don't tell me the Barrister was suggesting that "sexy" underwear (for want of a better term) gave implied consent, or that someone in this day and age would take it as implied consent.

Surely that is not the case.

Sleeper12

tritium wrote:

Or do you just want to build a character assassination narriative? Would it be ok on your opinion to do the same with the accuser. Would it be ok to question if for example her drinking while underage called her integrity into question- “ after all judge, how could we trust someone who clearly doesn’t respect the law.....â€

I'll just point out that I'm not questioning the defendant. I've repeatedly said that this thread is about the thong. Not him and not the verdict itself. If you bother to read the thread it was other posters saying that he cheated on his wife. I pointed out that the prosicution would have used this to show him as a dishonest man with low morals.

My own personal belief is anyone who cheats on their partner, male or female are scumbags. The lowest of the low.

As for her underage drinking you could try challange her integrity but as she is a minor & not an adult it wouldn't really wash. She is a teenager. Her brain hasn't stopped developing yet. She isn't even mature enough to vote. Children do stupid things. There is a big difference in her a minor doing something wrong and a 27 year old man. He's an out and out dope. He took stupid risks. Possibly came close to losing his family or maybe has lost them. This girl could have turned out to be 15. What sort of mess would he be in then. The risks he took were massive. There is nothing reported about him that shows he has any cop on at all. 27 years of age I was four years into my first mortgage, self employed and, married with two children.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

The SC was only doing her job, giving her client every advantage.

I was giving you an example of other reasons why women wear thongs but you seem hell bent on thinking they are a sign of sexual intent end of story. With respect your personal experience is only based on the situations where a woman in a thong presented herself to you and most likely that was in a sexual context. But you just cannot in any safe fashion extrapolate from that that thongs = being up for sex. Because every woman will tell you there's more to thongs than sex. You said yourself people "have different reasons for doing things" so no-one else can say what her reasons were.

And what the hell has that got to do with someone who is raped? It’s that sort of denial

Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I didn't say she was too young for sex. I said that she is a minor & she is. she is not an adult. He is an adult. He showed poor judgement at best. Did he check her birth cert? She easily could have been 2 years younger & he'd be in a whole mess of trouble. He left himself open to a lot of risks. Very, very poor judgment for a 27 year old

We're forever being told women mature quicker than men, is there much really both mentally and emotionally between a 17 year old woman and a 27 year old man ?

That any woman would use such a pathetic, desperate excuse for rape of a minor is desperately depressing

SusieBlue

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd kindly thank you to either respond CIVILLY as demanded by the site rules or refrain from saying what you think I am saying, or more accurately what you'd like me to say so you can respond as you'd wish.

And pointless it may be of course, but reported - again. And on ignore.

I bid you good day.

But you did say that the lad had ‘copped a feel’ in regards to the man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman.
No one put those words in your mouth, you posted them yourself.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd kindly thank you to either respond CIVILLY as demanded by the site rules or refrain from saying what you think I am saying, or more accurately what you'd like me to say so you can respond as you'd wish.

And pointless it may be of course, but reported - again. And on ignore.

I bid you good day.

I hope that means you're bidding us all good day.

AndrewJRenko

Snipp wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not missing any point. Prosecutor or defense barrister can't just say anything they want. It has to be rellivent to the case The judge can ask "where are you going with this" & then allow or refuse. For the judge to allow suggests that he/she also has the view that a teenagers knickers is proof of intent for sex. This is clearly wrong. It's this type of nonsense we are trying to remove from the court room. A judge with this type of belief has no p[lace in a rape trial.

A judge is highly trained in applying objective reasoning, not his beliefs.

And yet we frequently hear comments from judges in the media indicating a total absence of objective reasoning - anti-traveller, anti-cyclist, anti people from certain areas or certain family backgrounds

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'll just point out that I'm not questioning the defendant. I've repeatedly said that this thread is about the thong. Not him and not the verdict itself. If you bother to read the thread it was other posters saying that he cheated on his wife. I pointed out that the prosicution would have used this to show him as a dishonest man with low morals.

My own personal belief is anyone who cheats on their partner, male or female are scumbags. The lowest of the low.

As for her underage drinking you could try challange her integrity but as she is a minor & not an adult it wouldn't really wash. She is a teenager. Her brain hasn't stopped developing yet. She isn't even mature enough to vote. Children do stupid things. There is a big difference in her a minor doing something wrong and a 27 year old man. He's an out and out dope. He took stupid risks. Possibly came close to losing his family or maybe has lost them. This girl could have turned out to be 15. What sort of mess would he be in then. The risks he took were massive. There is nothing reported about him that shows he has any cop on at all. 27 years of age I was four years into my first mortgage, self employed and, married with two children.

There should be nothing reported about him at all- he as anonymity legally in this jurisdiction. Reading this thread I see why.

nullzero

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

This attitude is one of the reasons why I didn't report what happened to me. I got black out drunk and couldn't remember most of my night out. I came to and there was a guy getting dressed and about to leave. I was still so drunk at this stage (6am) that my conversation is hazy with him in parts. He was horribly nasty to me. I had no idea what had happened or how I'd even gotten home, I had no memory. I had to ask him what happened. I remembered chatting to him in a pub with his friends and thinking he was a bit of an arsehole and my friend was there, then my memory was blank aside from a few flashes. He told me that I gave him a sh1t blow job and that he was sorry he ever came back with me. He also told me that we had sex but that I passed out. Then he told me that he was sure he'd see me posting about how much I regretted it on boards. He left me in floods of tears in my bed, sore from sex and god knows what else he may or may not have done to me. I came out in bruises on my thighs and wrist a couple of days later.



Of course I felt it was my fault for getting so drunk, for putting myself in that position, for possibly encouraging him. But you know what I've realised over time? He had to have been more sober than me to have been able to ''perform'', he remembered the night and I didn't and he had his wits about him and was about to feck off as I was still out of it. So, I'm sure there are posters like planespeeking who would argue that I was asking for it or that I consented. I have the courage to say now that I was raped, I was too drunk to consent and that would have been obvious to anyone who saw me. I can't even remember how I got home, nothing, it's all a blank.

If you felt what happened was sexual assault (and its sounds like you may well be correct to say that) you should have gone to the Gardai.
The man sounds like a swine. You were both in a pub, cctv would have captured his image(you previously stated that you weren't sure how to find him) and he could be quite easily located.

I'm not entertaining the notion of you being to blame for getting drunk, the majority of men wouldn't take advantage of a person passed out in front of them.

PlaneSpeeking

tritium wrote: »

There should be nothing reported about him at all- he as anonymity legally in this jurisdiction. Reading this thread I see why.

Can we be absolutely sure there's not some "activist" who is going to release his details ?

There are several posters here who would happily release personal information and sit back and watch the fallout.

One has just used the phrase "rape of a minor" - that is the very definition of libellous comment.

Bigbagofcans

Cleopatra, I'm so so sorry to hear of the assault you went through. I'm so glad you stopped blaming yourself and I hope you find some peace after what you went through

The posters in this thread who belittle sexual assault by using phrases such as 'copped a feel' should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope you never have to go through such a thing.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is nothing reported about him that shows he has any cop on at all. 27 years of age I was four years into my first mortgage, self employed and, married with two children.

Having no cop-on is not a crime, thankfully, or else half the country would be in jail.

The jury were also not asked to pass judgment on his maturity, good sense, or whether he had a mortgage, wife, or children. They were asked to decide whether he committed a rape.

By the way, the average age of an Irish groom is now 36, so an unmarried 27-year-old is hardly remarkable. And a 17-year-old in Ireland is over the age of consent, so there's no offense there, either.

Jack Moore

We do not live in a world where getting so drunk that one can not control their actions and would pass out and not even notice someone haveing sex with them is safe
It should be
It could be
But it isn’t

neonsofa

nullzero wrote: »

If you felt what happened was sexual assault (and its sounds like you may well be correct to say that) you should have gone to the Gardai.
.

Easier said than done sometimes.

Sleeper12

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Can we be absolutely sure there's not some "activist" who is going to release his details ?

There are several posters here who would happily release personal information and sit back and watch the fallout.

One has just used the phrase "rape of a minor" - that is the very definition of libellous comment.

Unfortunately we can not be sure. Some idiot could post a link to his Facebook account or worse still identify the minor in this case. Both deserve privacy. Sadly we live in a world where our privacy can't be protected 100 percent

nullzero

neonsofa wrote: »

Easier said than done sometimes.

That's down to the individual.

Sleeper12

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Having no cop-on is not a crime, thankfully, or else half the country would be in jail.

The jury were also not asked to pass judgment on his maturity, good sense, or whether he had a mortgage, wife, or children. They were asked to decide whether he committed a rape.

By the way, the average age of an Irish groom is now 36, so an unmarried 27-year-old is hardly remarkable. And a 17-year-old in Ireland is over the age of consent, so there's no offense there, either.

I believe he is married as it's been posted that he was cheating on his wife & children.



He was found not guilty & yes he is a very lucky man that the court wasn't judging him on stupidity



I don't know why everyone feels the need to point out that 17 is above the age to consent. We all know this but that doen't change the fact that she is a minor in this case.

The Bishop Basher

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I have the courage to say now that I was raped, I was too drunk to consent and that would have been obvious to anyone who saw me. I can't even remember how I got home, nothing, it's all a blank.

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you..

The guy sounds like a complete scumbag however the bit in bold above is not always true.

People can be in the middle of a black out and appear drunk but otherwise relatively normal as in able to walk and speak etc..

I know because I was like that myself. People would often tell me that I seemed grand while on a night out but I wouldn't remember speaking to them.

I recall this coming up in a rape case in the UK where the accuser said they couldn't remember anything yet CCTV showed them walking into the hotel unaided and looking relatively sober.

neonsofa

nullzero wrote: »

That's down to the individual.

Yeah exactly. So no point saying what anybody should have done. In theory that's obviously the right course of action but it's not always easy to do and shoulda woulda coulda is all great in hindsight.

Jack Moore

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe he is married as it's been posted that he was cheating on his wife & children.



He was found not guilty & yes he is a very lucky man that the court wasn't judging him on stupidity



I don't know why everyone feels the need to point out that 17 is above the age to consent. We all know this but that doen't change the fact that she is a minor in this case.

Sex with a minor is sex with someone under the age of 17 in this country
So how was she a minor

PlaneSpeeking

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe he is married as it's been posted that he was cheating on his wife & children.



He was found not guilty & yes he is a very lucky man that the court wasn't judging him on stupidity



I don't know why everyone feels the need to point out that 17 is above the age to consent. We all know this but that doen't change the fact that she is a minor in this case.

It's being pointed out because some posters are stressing "minor" to try and sully the waters and imply that instead of an innocent man who may have cheated on his partner (her concern, not ours) he's actually some kind of paedophile who got lucky.

nullzero

neonsofa wrote: »

Yeah exactly. So no point saying what anybody should have done. In theory that's obviously the right course of action but it's not always easy to do and shoulda woulda coulda is all great in hindsight.

Hang on a minute, where the hell do you get off jumping down my neck like that?
Rape should be reported, that isn't in theory because rapists are a danger to other members of society.
Get down off of your soap box and while you're at it have a rummage for your manners, I think you dropped them somewhere.

Lillybloom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Everyones vows include being faithful. It does not matter what religion or lack of religion. Its what marriage is.

It never ceases to amaze me how posters on boards will thy to defend the indefensible.

Yes and some married couples agree to have an open marriage or become swingers. Are such people worthy really of your contempt?

Sleeper12

Jack Moore wrote: »

Sex with a minor is sex with someone under the age of 17 in this country
So how was she a minor

You do know that everyone under the age of 18 is a minor. Don't confuse this fact with the age of consent. A minor means someone under the age of 18. It has nothing to do with sex. You are a minor under 18 & become an adult when you turn 18.



This girl was a minor. Not under the age of consent but a minor all the same

The Bishop Basher

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It's being pointed out because some posters are stressing "minor" to try and sully the waters and imply that instead of an innocent man who may have cheated on his partner (her concern, not ours) he's actually some kind of paedophile who got lucky.

If i was the defendant in that case and my name was ever released, I’d be taking a civil case against a number of posters on this thread.

Lillybloom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do know that everyone under the age of 18 is a minor. Don't confuse this fact with the age of consent. A minor means someone under the age of 18. It has nothing to do with sex. You are a minor under 18 & become an adult when you turn 18.



This girl was a minor. Not under the age of consent but a minor all the same

So two people had legal consenting sex, get over it.

Lillybloom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe he is married as it's been posted that he was cheating on his wife & children.



He was found not guilty & yes he is a very lucky man that the court wasn't judging him on stupidity



I don't know why everyone feels the need to point out that 17 is above the age to consent. We all know this but that doen't change the fact that she is a minor in this case.

Why do you feel the need to point out she's a minor then?

Cleopatra_

Jack Moore wrote: »

We do not live in a world where getting so drunk that one can not control their actions and would pass out and not even notice someone haveing sex with them is safe
It should be
It could be
But it isn’t

Nullzero, this attitude above is part of the reason why I didn't report.

neonsofa wrote: »

Yeah exactly. So no point saying what anybody should have done. In theory that's obviously the right course of action but it's not always easy to do and shoulda woulda coulda is all great in hindsight.

At first I didn't know what to think, I felt guilt and shame and blamed myself thinking I'd encouraged him and it was my fault for getting so drunk. Hindsight really is 20/20

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Cleopatra, I'm so so sorry to hear of the assault you went through. I'm so glad you stopped blaming yourself and I hope you find some peace after what you went through

The posters in this thread who belittle sexual assault by using phrases such as 'copped a feel' should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope you never have to go through such a thing.

Thank you very much for your kinds words, it means a lot.

Rennaws wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you..

The guy sounds like a complete scumbag however the bit in bold above is not always true.

People can be in the middle of a black out and appear drunk but otherwise relatively normal as in able to walk and speak etc..

I know because I was like that myself. People would often tell me that I seemed grand while on a night out but I wouldn't remember speaking to them.

I recall this coming up in a rape case in the UK where the accuser said they couldn't remember anything yet CCTV showed them walking into the hotel unaided and looking relatively sober.

I have some mental health problems so I do occasionally get black out drunk and that is my issue, I take responsibility for that, my friends and family who have seen me in this condition in the past know that it's very obvious that I'm in a state of black out drunk. I don't make any sense, I talk rubbish, sometimes I can be a bit upset or aggressive, I have trouble walking.

Candie wrote: »

Cleopatra, I'm so sorry that happened to you. You didn't do anything to deserve that, it's the sole fault of the person who decided to hurt you when you couldn't defend yourself. I hope you get some help to deal with this, its a huge deal and a burden you don't have to bear alone.

I still feel guilt at times and find it difficult to call it an assault or rape and think it was my fault, I think I'll always struggle with that. But I've gotten to the stage where there are times when I can call it rape and I didn't feel comfortable saying that before as I felt I was being too dramatic. Thank you so much for your kind words, knowing that there are people that believe me and don't think I brought it all on myself helps me.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe he is married as it's been posted that he was cheating on his wife & children.

So what? Surely the question is whether he had non-consensual intercourse with the girl in question, not whether he was married?

I don't know why everyone feels the need to point out that 17 is above the age to consent. We all know this but that doen't change the fact that she is a minor in this case.

As has been noted, she was of legal age when it comes to sex. Her being 17 years old doesn't change the charges brought against the defendant. The charges would have been exactly the same had she been 19, 25, or 45.

newmember2

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I have the courage to say now that I was raped, I was too drunk to consent and that would have been obvious to anyone who saw me. I can't even remember how I got home, nothing, it's all a blank.

How can you say what would have been obvious to anyone?
What's to say the other party may not have been in any position to gauge how drunk you were? Two people drunk, one moreso, they have sex and it's automatically rape? You relinquish all responsibility and the person with you assumes all responsibility?