Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Woman convicted for false rape allegation against 12 men in Cyprus (Overturned in Jan22)

13567…14

Comments

  • #62
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Yes they were found not guilty but that doesn't mean that she lied. Of course it could have occurred as she claimed & there could be a not guilty verdict. It is possible that she didn't lie & it's possible that the lads didn't lie. If you followed the story then you would know that both sides probably told the truth. She didn't say no. She froze. The lads assumed consent & she didn't resist or say no.
    It does mean that she lied because the jury did not find truth in her claims and dismissed it accordingly - you can twist it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter.
    I can't stress this enough, a not guilty verdict means that they were found not guilty. It does NOT mean that the claimant lied. This goes for all cases. If a not guilty verdict automatically means that the claimant lied then the DPP would have to automatically prosecute the claimant. This does not happen because not guilty does not mean claimant lied.

    Not guilty means not guilty, it means the claim is without merit. Stop your armchair detective nonsense.
    It's very wrong of you to claim that a claimant lied in court when there is absolutely no evidence pointing to this. The lads publicly apologised for the misunderstanding

    There is no evidence she told any sort of truth and was judged as so. End of story.


  • #63
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,153 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    The Specialist wrote:
    A lie is a lie and one that has been decided as not guilty in front of a judge and jury is a ****ing lie. Stop your “what if†bull****.


    That's simply not true.

    Please explain why the claimant isn't charged with purgery. Why are they let leave every court in Ireland without being charged if they lied in court? The answer is that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the claimant lied. You have zero understanding of what a not guilty verdict means.


  • #64
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    hetuzozaho wrote: »
    I do accept it.

    You clearly don’t.


  • #65
    Kadence Angry Nectar
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Kadence Angry Nectar


    The Specialist wrote: »
    It does mean that she lied

    no, of course it doesn't. it means there wasn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt


  • #66
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    That's simply not true.

    Please explain why the claimant isn't charged with purgery. Why are they let leave every court in Ireland without being charged if they lied in court? The answer is that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the claimant lied. You have zero understanding of what a not guilty verdict means.

    Because it’s a female and even though she lied no judge would stick his neck out in this climate to say that. The rest of us can see it though, she told a lie to cover her own shame and the jury saw through it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    hetuzozaho
    Registered Users Posts: 2,840 ✭✭✭hetuzozaho


    The Specialist wrote: »
    There is no evidence she told any sort of truth.

    I don't think it would make it to court if that was the case.


  • #68
    hetuzozaho
    Registered Users Posts: 2,840 ✭✭✭hetuzozaho


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    You clearly don’t.

    I clearly do.


  • #69
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Yes that's the primary aim of feminism. Shagging men.

    The primary aim of feminism is to have equality with men. To have the same privileges as men which includes sex with strangers with no strings or consequences.
    They’ve got that now.
    All that has to happen now is for women to realize that there’s actually no such thing as free sex with strangers and there are always consequences and strings and we’ll have come full circle back to where we all started.


  • #70
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,153 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    The Specialist wrote:
    It does mean that she lied because the jury did not find truth in her claims and dismissed it accordingly - you can twist it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter.

    Why wasn't she charged? You are rewriting history with your wild claims.

    Can you point me to legislation /statue that states that the claimant has been proved to be lying in a not guilty verdict


  • #71
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Yes they were found not guilty but that doesn't mean that she lied. Of course it could have occurred as she claimed & there could be a not guilty verdict. It is possible that she didn't lie & it's possible that the lads didn't lie. If you followed the story then you would know that both sides probably told the truth. She didn't say no. She froze. The lads assumed consent & she didn't resist or say no.

    I can't stress this enough, a not guilty verdict means that they were found not guilty. It does NOT mean that the claimant lied. This goes for all cases. If a not guilty verdict automatically means that the claimant lied then the DPP would have to automatically prosecute the claimant. This does not happen because not guilty does not mean claimant lied.

    It's very wrong of you to claim that a claimant lied in court when there is absolutely no evidence pointing to this. The lads publicly apologised for the misunderstanding

    She claimed she was raped. The jury didn’t agree.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Why wasn't she charged?

    How do you know she wasn’t charged? She had anonymity, for all we know she could have been charged and convicted.


  • #73
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,153 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Eric Cartman wrote:
    there is no evidence to suggest that and never has been, no idea why youre putting it back on the lads.

    This is exactly what each side put forward in the case.


  • #74
    NKante
    Site Banned Posts: 297 ✭✭NKante


    There have been a few high profile cases lately of men refusing to be alone with women in case something like this happens.

    The MeToo thing was great to expose genuine (alleged) scumbags like Cosby, Spacey and Weinstein - but as usual it went too far when the left grabbed hold of the movement and turned it into - "some guy in the 1980's touched my knee"...."My boss made a pass at me in 1992".

    It totally undermined the legit cases and turned it into a farce.

    Now if you run for office and the opposition want to take you down, they just need to find a secretary form 30 years ago who'll claim you brushed up against her whilst squeezing past the Xerox machine.


  • #75
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    How do you know she wasn’t charged? She had anonymity, for all we know she could have been charged and convicted.

    Anonymity doesn’t mean the case wouldn’t be reported on if she was charged.

    I think the burden of proof required would likely just as high in showing that someone made a false allegation. It wouldn’t be a simply a case that if they were found not guilty, then she’s automatically guilty of a making a false allegation.


  • #76
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,153 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    The Specialist wrote:
    Because it’s a female and even though she lied no judge would stick his neck out in this climate to say that. The rest of us can see it though, she told a lie to cover her own shame and the jury saw through it.

    What about all of the male claimants in cases where there is a not guilty verdict? Why aren't these charged with perjury? If you stop & think before posting, your posts mightnt come across as so juvenile.

    "no judge would stick his neck out" You do know that the judge was a she & not a he, right?

    Sonny noggs wrote:
    She claimed she was raped. The jury didn’t agree.

    That still doesn't mean that a single word she said under oath was a lie.

    I'm not suggesting that the lads were guilty but it's very wrong to suggest that a not guilty verdict means that the claimant has lied. Not just this case but in any case.

    There is absolutely no comparison between this case & the Jackson case.


  • #77
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Anonymity doesn’t mean the case wouldn’t be reported on if she was charged.

    I think the burden of proof required would likely just as high in showing that someone made a false allegation. It wouldn’t be a simply a case that if they were found not guilty, then she’s automatically guilty of a making a false allegation.

    No, but not every case it reported in the media and we don’t know her name so there could be a case before the courts right now (unlikely). The media may have chosen not to report for any number of reasons.


  • #78
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    What about all of the male claimants in cases where there is a not guilty verdict? Why aren't these charged with perjury? If you stop & think before posting, your posts mightnt come across as so juvenile.

    "no judge would stick his neck out" You do know that the judge was a she & not a he, right?




    That still doesn't mean that a single word she said under oath was a lie.

    I'm not suggesting that the lads were guilty but it's very wrong to suggest that a not guilty verdict means that the claimant has lied. Not just this case but in any case.

    There is absolutely no comparison between this case & the Jackson case.

    May have been her misunderstanding / misremembering / lying / medication or something else as I said. Neither of us knows either way. Can you say for certain that she told the truth?


  • #79
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,153 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Sonny noggs wrote:
    No, but not every case it reported in the media and we don’t know her name so there could be a case before the courts right now (unlikely). The media may have chosen not to report for any number of reasons.

    Again, why are men & women claimants in not guilty cases not charged with perjury? Surely we'd read about one or two cases? Or is the reason that not guilty does NOT automatically mean that the claimant lied. I would think if there was a single case that the media would be all over it.

    I'll leave it there. There is a Jackson trial thread & this isn't it.


  • #80
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    May have been her misunderstanding / misremembering / lying / medication or something else as I said. Neither of us knows either way. Can you say for certain that she told the truth?

    Stuart Olding thinks she was telling the truth about her perception

    "I want to acknowledge that the complainant came to court and gave evidence about her perception of those events."

    He disagrees with them, but he still acknowledges her side of the story.

    You can have two different sides to the story and.l both can be acknowledged. She said she didn't give consent but Jackson and Olding were under the impression that she had.

    The verdict does not mean she lied, at all.


  • #81
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Again, why are men & women claimants in not guilty cases not charged with perjury? Surely we'd read about one or two cases? Or is the reason that not guilty does NOT automatically mean that the claimant lied. I would think if there was a single case that the media would be all over it.

    I'll leave it there. There is a Jackson trial thread & this isn't it.

    Not sure you you ask me questions and then say you will ‘leave it there’. Seems quite passive aggressive, particularly when you have outstanding questions to answer. Whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Stuart Olding thinks she was telling the truth about her perception

    "I want to acknowledge that the complainant came to court and gave evidence about her perception of those events."

    He disagrees with them, but he still acknowledges her side of the story.

    You can have two different sides to the story and.l both can be acknowledged. She said she didn't give consent but Jackson and Olding were under the impression that she had.

    The verdict does not mean she lied, at all.

    Nor does it necessarily mean she told the truth.


  • #83
    Moghead
    Registered Users Posts: 355 ✭✭Moghead


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    They admit to filming it without her consent.

    IMO if they did film it without her consent it is a form of sexual assault. Not as serious as rape but still a really scummy thing to do.


  • #84
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Nor does it necessarily mean she told the truth.

    Exactly. You're starting to understand what's going on now.


  • #85
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Exactly. You're starting to understand what's going on now.

    Condescending prick.


  • #86
    NKante
    Site Banned Posts: 297 ✭✭NKante


    Moghead wrote: »
    IMO if they did film it without her consent it is a form of sexual assault. Not as serious as rape but still a really scummy thing to do.

    But if that's the evidence that prevented them going to jail for 10 years? what then?

    Some of these were 15 year old boys.


  • #87
    antix80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Faugheen wrote: »
    The verdict does not mean she lied, at all.

    She probably didn't lie.
    It's called cognitive dissonance.
    Good girls dont have group sex, and she is a good girl.. yet people saw what appeared to be her having group sex. If that got out,her world would be turned upsidedown.

    Therefore it couldn't have been sex, it was rape. Being raped means she's a victim so there's no need for people to view her any differently.

    The facts contradict her world view.. so her brain changes the facts. Intoxication likely helps the cognitive dissonance in that memories are missing anyway.


  • #88
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,153 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Not sure you you ask me questions and then say you will ‘leave it there’. Seems quite passive aggressive, particularly when you have outstanding questions to answer. Whatever.




    Here's the thing. The thread is getting derailed with posters insisting that the claimant in a different case, in a different country told lies. I am autistic & can happily argue with you for days on end (weeks even) that a not guilty verdict doesn't automatically mean that the claimant told lies & you can continue not to answer questions that show how ridiculous your stance is on this but at the end of the day it has no bearing on this case at all.


    I never likened it to the Jackson case nor should anyone so for the sake of keeping the thread on topic I won't comment on the Jackson trial. I don't see that as passive aggressive. I see it as common sense


  • #89
    antix80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Moghead wrote: »
    IMO if they did film it without her consent it is a form of sexual assault. Not as serious as rape but still a really scummy thing to do.

    The video evidence likely helped prove their innocence. Otherwise it was just their word against hers.


  • #90
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Moghead wrote: »
    IMO if they did film it without her consent it is a form of sexual assault. Not as serious as rape but still a really scummy thing to do.

    It’s great fun for young guys to be having group sex with an older girl who’s just as gagging for an orgy as the boys are.
    Best practice for the boys now is to film the whole thing in order to protect themselves from “buyers remorse” accusations of rape from the girl in the following days.
    You can never be too careful these days, your life can be ruined before it’s even begun.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    No, but not every case it reported in the media and we don’t know her name so there could be a case before the courts right now (unlikely). The media may have chosen not to report for any number of reasons.

    If the woman in this case was taken to court, we’d be hearing about it.


Advertisement