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

hill16bhoy

Flipper22 wrote: »

She gave evidence as she saw fit.

The fact that her evidence corroborates some elements of both versions and that she was sober speaks to her credibility.

She was there on the night. Her evidence shows that she personally believed the incident was consensual, both at the time and subsequently.

Had she beleived the complainant she could very easily have said that she had no idea whether the act was consensual, or even a statement directly in favour of the complainants story.

That she actively chose to say it looked consensual, for me, is the most relevant corroborative evidence which has been reported.

Her belief that the act was consensual may have been informed not only by the few seconds she saw it, but also her direct experience of the night in question and the people involved.

Florence's evidence corroborated the woman's account of what state she was in.

The complainant didn't claim she was fighting or screaming.

Florence backed this up and also stated she observed no signs of positive consent.

The only way that one can categorically state that a woman who is not fighting or screaming is not being raped, is for one to believe that if a woman doesn't fight or scream, it can't be rape.

That idea, as we know, is categorically false.

TerrorFirmer

kylith wrote: »

He could have been using his fingers, but why would he be thrusting with his pelvis while fingering someone?

I don't know? Perhaps he wasn't even thrusting. Maybe he was and perhaps he was brushing his penis off her thigh. Who knows.

The pivotal piece of evidence from Dara is that she established it was quite consensual and she was witness for a considerable period of time to assert this opinion.

That's not discounting that she could have possibly gotten that wrong for a variety of reasons, but the balance of probability is heavily on her side.

Everyone was drunk, she was sober, and bore witness to this, as a woman, for 'less than a minute' I think she said?

She didn't peek in the door for 2 seconds.

Yet people here want to question or even seek to discredit her evidence, and instead give immense weight to hypothetical situations, ifs and maybes, and attach proof to irrelevant information.

It is bordering on conspiracy theory from certain posters. (not saying that in relation to Kylith, who I've quoted).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nermal wrote: »

Men aren't mind readers. If you don't like what's happening, say so. An account of your mental state after the fact is not evidence.

I paritally agree: a woman has a right to change her mind mid-way through, but also a responsibility to make that change known. That said, if the mates show up and she doesn't say yes, then don't assume it's yes. That's making trouble for yourself right there.

In any case, if a man is a "shag legend" he'll be able to sense when a girl is not enjoying the sex and either make neccesary adjustments or stop.

Nermal

Faugheen wrote: »

Or.. you know.. you can ask instead of thinking it's a free for all unless stated otherwise..

You can, but you are not legally obligated to.

tretorn

Dara Florence was invited by Jackson to join in,she opened the door to the bedrom the same way Olding did. Olding testified that the woman waved him in to join in and this fits in with Jacksons invitation too.

It sounds like that parties consist of people walking into bedrooms and if they get the nod then its ok to join in.

This mightnt be everyones cup of tea but if all adults consent then its no ones elses business.

These men thought the woman consented and she gave no indication she wasnt, she could have left anytime she liked.

kylith

Nermal wrote: »

Men aren't mind readers. If you don't like what's happening, say so. An account of your mental state after the fact is not evidence.

Rape victims often freeze, especially when outnumbered by larger assailants.

Since men aren’t mind readers could they not ask ‘would you like to?’ Before they get their genitals out?

irishrebe

The Talking Bread wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't think any of it is relevant to the case. What doesn't sit right is trying to insist that victims of a crime should behave in a certain way. That writing 'lol' somehow proves anything at all. I was the victim of a physical assault in Dublin years ago. I was shell shocked, angry and in disbelief, moving between trying to joke about it and ranting about my assailants. I'm sure if the guards had examined my phone, they'd have found similar messages with 'lol' in them. Proves absolutely nothing at all. People process shock in different ways. 
And if you're going to say calming music proves nothing, then you can't insinuate that her sending 'lol' meant she wasn't acting traumatised enough for your liking.

Another tick on the box for you. Again you seem to fabricate a new story everytime to help counter a point because you seemingly can't discuss a subject without entailing it with another supposed experience you went through.

Anyway, I retire from your posts. You aren't helping the discussion at all

You must have lived one hell of a sheltered life if you think being assaulted by a group of scobes once in all the time I lived in Dublin and being harassed by w*nkers in vans are so far fetched they must be lies. Must be nice for ya is all I can say.

Strazdas

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh FFS, there are no false allegations.

People seem to be very confused on this "false allegation" issue. They think that if a person goes to court alleging that they were assaulted and the defendant is found not guilty, this therefore automatically means the complainant made a false allegation and was lying on the stand.

It means nothing of the sort of course. The court simply comes to a not guilty verdict for the defendant and comes to no conclusion about the testimony of the accuser. It's very possible that the defendant might be lying through their teeth in some cases but the prosecution was unable to convince the jury.

Venom

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Yup, thousands posting up their poverty and screenshots even of tiny bank balances laughing in the face of the threat. He’s gone back onto the front pages for wrong reasons and has even given thousands a chant they used up and down the country.

If you still think that was a wise move, we’ll just have to agree to disagree vehemently. Absolutely stupid.

Are you for real?

Can you honestly not see the difference between some nobody mouthing off a hashtag on Twitter and a member of the Irish Senate, publicly claiming on social media that someone is a rapist who's gotten away with it due to "reasons".

irishrebe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nermal wrote: »

Men aren't mind readers. If you don't like what's happening, say so. An account of your mental state after the fact is not evidence.

I paritally agree: a woman has a right to change her mind mid-way through, but also a responsibility to make that change known. That said, if the mates show up and she doesn't say yes, then don't assume it's yes. That's making trouble for yourself right there.

In any case, if a man is a "shag legend" he'll be able to sense when a girl is not enjoying the sex and either make neccesary adjustments or stop.

I don't think any man who was actually a shag legend would refer to himself as such.

hill16bhoy

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I don't know? Perhaps he wasn't even thrusting. Maybe he was and perhaps he was brushing his penis off her thigh. Who knows.

The pivotal piece of evidence from Dara is that she established it was quite consensual and she was witness for a considerable period of time to assert this opinion.

That's not discounting that she could have possibly gotten that wrong for a variety of reasons, but the balance of probability is heavily on her side.

Everyone was drunk, she was sober, and bore witness to this, as a woman, for 'less than a minute' I think she said?

She didn't peek in the door for 2 seconds.

Yet people here want to question or even seek to discredit her evidence, and instead give immense weight to hypothetical situations, ifs and maybes, and attach proof to irrelevant information.

It is bordering on conspiracy theory from certain posters. (not saying that in relation to Kylith, who I've quoted).

The only people who are categorically discounting Florence's evidence are those who maintain that Jackson did not have intercourse with the complainant, despite Florence stating "100%" that such did occur.

kylith

Nermal wrote: »

You can, but you are not legally obligated to.

You need to be legally obligated before you check that the person you’re about to have sex with is up for it?

Outlaw Pete

What all these #suemepaddy tweeters don't seem to appreciate is that they are actually making Paddy's case against Aodhan O'Riordan for him. One of the main requirements in defamation cases is that the person suing has to be able to show that members of society were negatively influenced by a false statement made about them. Well, when his legal team sued all they had was that Aodhan had x amount of followers and that he was a senator and so perhaps some people may have seen it before he deleted it, but now they have thousands of retweets and a footage of a crowd marching through Dublin chanting about it. They couldn't have strengthened his case anymore if they tried.

upandcumming

irishrebe wrote: »

Slow clap. I hope you're never on a jury.

Ah will you stop... my sides!

padd b1975

James Raspberry wrote: »

He could have been rubbing his penis off her leg

One in the pink and one in the stink.

Nermal

kylith wrote: »

Since men aren’t mind readers could they not ask ‘would you like to?’ Before they get their genitals out?

You're asking men to talk themselves out of sex. Why would they do that? Why should they have to? Because the alternative is the chance of a destroyed career and a half-a-million pound legal bill?

RuMan

Spent most of my late teens and early 20's going out gettting pissed, off my face and having sex with women in a similar state. Most people i know were the same.
In all cases while sex was consensual never once did i seek consent nor indeed did the woman.
I have passed out and woken up having oral sex performed on me.
Did the woman seek consent ? No
Did i consider it assault? Absolutely not, we went to bed for one reason only.
Some of the prudish comnentry makes me wonder what planet people are living in.

irishrebe

Nermal wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Since men aren’t mind readers could they not ask ‘would you like to?’ Before they get their genitals out?

You're asking men to talk themselves out of sex. Why would they do that? Why should they have to? Because the alternative is the chance of a destroyed career and a half-a-million pound legal bill?

Jesus Christ. This is chilling.

kylith

Nermal wrote: »

You're asking men to talk themselves out of sex. Why would they do that? Why should they have to? Because the alternative is the chance of a destroyed career and a half-a-million pound legal bill?

Because the alternative could well be RAPING SOMEONE. would you rather not have sex or be a rapist because you didn’t take 5 seconds to check she was into it?

Nermal

kylith wrote: »

Because the alternative could well be RAPING SOMEONE. would you rather not have sex or be a rapist because you didn’t take 5 seconds to check she was into it?

If you want positive consent to be the law, say so.

Do I have to keep getting positive consent at five minute intervals? For each action? Perhaps we should fill in a sheet ticking various items off before we start, and have it signed and witnessed?

The idea is ridiculous.

py2006

I'm never having sex again...










Close thread.

johnpatrick81

Venom wrote: »

Are you for real?

Can you honestly not see the difference between some nobody mouthing off a hashtag on Twitter and a member of the Irish Senate, publicly claiming on social media that someone is a rapist who's gotten away with it due to "reasons".

Are you slow? They said they’d come after anyone, not just the politician who deleted his tweet.

Flipper22

irishrebe wrote: »

Never in my life has a man asking 'can I f**k you?' ruined the heat of the moment. You must be doing it wrong.

You can't be serious

Silentcorner

RuMan wrote: »

Spent most of my late teens and early 20's going out gettting pissed, off my face and having sex with women in a similar state. Most people i know were the same.
In all cases while sex was consensual never once did i seek consent nor indeed did the woman.
I have passed out and woken up having oral sex performed on me.
Did the woman seek consent ? No
Did i consider it assault? Absolutely not, we went to bed for one reason only.
Some of the prudish comnentry makes me wonder what planet people are living in.

Another legend I see...

What prudish commentary....

Strazdas

RuMan wrote: »

Spent most of my late teens and early 20's going out gettting pissed, off my face and having sex with women in a similar state. Most people i know were the same.
In all cases while sex was consensual never once did i seek consent nor indeed did the woman.
I have passed out and woken up having oral sex performed on me.
Did the woman seek consent ? No
Did i consider it assault? Absolutely not, we went to bed for one reason only.
Some of the prudish comnentry makes me wonder what planet people are living in.

That may well be the case with the majority of people, but the Belfast case was very different in that it started out with two people alone in a bedroom and then other men started arriving in the room completely uninvited.

If the woman had been making an accusation against Paddy Jackson alone, we would have seen a very different type of court case and a far less sensational one. Much of the eye catching elements of the story is that it involved four defendants (two high profile) and they were subsequently bragging about their sexual exploits to each other etc.

kylith

Nermal wrote: »

If you want positive consent to be the law, say so.

Do I have to keep getting positive consent at five minute intervals? For each action? Perhaps we should fill in a sheet ticking various items off before we start, and have it signed and witnessed?

The idea is ridiculous.

Irishrebe is right. You’re definitely doing it wrong.

irishrebe

Flipper22 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Never in my life has a man asking 'can I f**k you?' ruined the heat of the moment. You must be doing it wrong.

You can't be serious

Can you?

BBDBB

surely it's "may I f**k you, please?"

Mrsmum

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The witness believes she saw sex because PJ was behind the complainant in a 'sex' position and thrusting.

That does not mean he had penetrative sex, he could have (and likely was) using his fingers but it was misinterpreted as sex.

The logic here is mind-numbing.

"She thought she saw sex so how can she know it wasn't rape!"

Notwithstanding that establishing a gut feeling on whether or not something is consensual is a lot easier than being able to account for the exact positioning of genitalia.

Next we'll be told she might have been wrong in even seeing a third person in the room!

That is just not true. It totally shows you think if she isn't struggling, it is consensual and that is a discredited viewpoint nowadays. Also I don't understand why what Dara saw or thinks she saw has to be the end of it. Even let's say if the girl was consenting when Dara was there, who can say she didn't take back consent after that and was ignored. So much made of Dara's evidence as if she stayed there in the bedroom and saw everything until the girl left rather than just less than a minute. Just because in a general sense you go upstairs, kiss, get into bed , do a particular act doesn't mean you can't say stop at any point. But let's face it, rape in such a case is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which is a necessary but very high bar. And knowing that as we all do then we should also appreciate that a not guilty verdict only means not proven, nothing more. The tragedy for victims is there's not much point in taking a case and if you do it's a gruesome process and the tragedy for every man accused is that although they usually are acquitted, there is a stain on their reputation forever. It's s depressing all round and it's in all our best interests to open up conversations around consent and taking back consent because I would think very few women or men for that matter are dragged upstairs by cavemen but I would think many protests are smothered by continuation.

Faugheen

Nermal wrote: »

You can, but you are not legally obligated to.

So you're saying that a man doesn't have to seek consent?

That's a very rapey statement if I ever heard one, if that's the case