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

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

What is it you don't get here?

I was highlighting the inaccuracy of the description of what was being talked about.

For someone who pretends to know what's going on, you just sound like you're angry. So many misfires and mistakes.

Ohmeha

Silentcorner wrote: »

She didn't see any fingers either...

Because she was unable to confirm level of penetration

She was 100% sure she saw Jackson engaging in a sexual act with the complainant, what type of level of penetrative sex should could not confirm.

Her evidence was consistent on this, as was Jackson's.

Mrsmum

Silentcorner wrote: »

She didn't see any fingers either...

And she didn't see what happened after she left the room either.

Faugheen

Ohmeha wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

She didn't see any fingers either...

Because she was unable to confirm level of penetration

She was 100% sure she saw Jackson engaging in a sexual act with the complainant, what type of level of penetrative sex should could not confirm.

Her evidence was consistent on this, as was Jackson's.

She also said she couldn't determine if the complainant was positively consenting.

tretorn

Faugheen wrote: »

She didn't go back to get her phone after the rape. When she went upstairs to get her bag, that's when she said the rape happened.

Honestly how many times does this have to be said to people?

You can believe whatever side of the story you like but don't use false statements to back it up.

She went into the bedroom three times that night.
According to Jackson she followed him upstairs the first itme but turned on her heel when he didnt even know her name.

She went to the bedroom the second time to get her bag, this is her evidence, this was when Jackson is supposed to have raped her, she was face down on the bed but at the same time looking Olding in the eye.

She left the bedroom after forty five minutes and was out of the house when she realised she didnt have her phone, she went into the bedroom for the third time that night, her alleged rapists, three in number were still in that house and yet she went unaccompanied up the stairs to get her phone, hmmmmmmmm

I think the point about Olding ejaculating on his stomach is a very good one, I definitely dont believe a rapist would have done that, he wouldnt have cared about the person receiving the blowjob at all.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

What is it you don't get here?

I was highlighting the inaccuracy of the description of what was being talked about.

For someone who pretends to know what's going on, you just sound like you're angry. So many misfires and mistakes.

Actually, the discussion was about sex acts.

Intercourse and oral sex are sex acts.

But you keep ignoring the facts presented to you like a good, deluded little boy.

The Talking Bread

Ohmeha wrote: »

Jackson said he had digitally penetrative sex with the complainant.

Dara Florence could not confirm that she saw any genitally penetrative sex

No, Dara Florence said she was 100 % sure there was penetrative sex. Now if she she is mistaken in such a definitive degree as to that (ie if PJ was telling the truth that he did not have penetrative sex), then how can you consider her a completely reliable witness.

"Brendan Kelly, QC for Mr Jackson, put it to Ms Florence that she had “assumed” this from “the movement” she had observed.

“It wasn’t assumption,” she told him, adamant and almost in surprise.

“It was 100pc, I saw sex, from the movement.”"

Sure she even claimed that she saw no positive signs of consenting. Now we also have to consider that someone having a quick glance into a room may not be able to determine whether everything is consensual.

As I said I can't make head nor tail of the case in a definitive manner given the conflicting evidence which is why I agreed with the Jury decision.

The Talking Bread

Ohmeha wrote: »

Because she was unable to confirm level of penetration

She was 100% sure she saw Jackson engaging in a sexual act with the complainant, what type of level of penetrative sex should could not confirm.

Her evidence was consistent on this, as was Jackson's.

NO, she was 100% sure it was penetrative sex, as in sex with penis and vagina to make it clear. There is no grey area in what she was "sure" she saw. It is quite clear what she claimed she was "sure" she saw

Silentcorner

tretorn wrote: »

She went into the bedroom three times that night.
According to Jackson she followed him upstairs the first itme but turned on her heel when he didnt even know her name.

She went to the bedroom the second time to get her bag, this is her evidence, this was when Jackson is supposed to have raped her, she was face down on the bed but at the same time looking Olding in the eye.

She left the bedroom after forty five minutes and was out of the house when she realised she didnt have her phone, she went into the bedroom for the third time that night, her alleged rapists, three in number were still in that house and yet she went unaccompanied up the stairs to get her phone, hmmmmmmmm

I think the point about Olding ejaculating on his stomach is a very good one, I definitely dont believe a rapist would have done that, he wouldnt have cared about the person receiving the blowjob at all.

You are correct about the three trips into the room...to be fair...if she is telling the truth...her phone would have been the first thing she would have gone for after she left the house...in fact you could argue, it is a positive sign she legged it out of the room...which I'm sure is something her own defence barrister would have argued had she access to one...

Oldings semen was all over the young lady jeans and top...which had been pulled down by that point....

Just so you know...

I don't believe Dara Florence was the pivitol witness...

I think there is more to this trial than what we currently know...which I'm guessing is damaging to the prosecutions case...

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Actually, the discussion was about sex acts.

Intercourse and oral sex are sex acts.

But you keep ignoring the facts presented to you like a good, deluded little boy.

The mask is slipping and every bit of credibility you have left is disappearing with each condescending remark.

baylah17

FFS the lads are innocent
Why should they any more undeserved commentary
Leave them be and let them get back to their lives
# ibelievethejury

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Actually, the discussion was about sex acts.

Intercourse and oral sex are sex acts.

But you keep ignoring the facts presented to you like a good, deluded little boy.

The mask is slipping and every bit of credibility you have left is disappearing with each condescending remark.

How is the mask slipping, exactly?

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

How is the mask slipping, exactly?

Am I a deluded little boy?

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

How is the mask slipping, exactly?

Am I a deluded little boy?

Anything you have said on the subject of sex acts while someone is asleep has been arguing my point that it is illegal.

Numerous times this is said, numerous times the law is provided for you to read.

And yet you pick one post where someone said sex rather than oral sex when they are both sex acts.

So yes, based on what has been said above, you are exactly what I have described.

Now, I'll be happy to withdraw that statement if you can give me a legitimate reason to do so.

Otherwise, run along. The adults are talking.

Mrsmum

So someone back further said the girl was in the bedroom while the situation was ongoing for 45 mins. Does anyone know at what time during that 45 mins did Dara Florence enter the bedroom. I'm just curious.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Otherwise, run along. The adults are talking.

Absolutely amazing lack of self-awareness.

Anyways, it's 4am where I am so I'm off to bed.

Creol1

Faugheen wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print#sec48

(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if—

(a) he or she permits the act to take place or submits to it because of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of the threat of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of a well-founded fear that force may be applied to him or her or to some other person,

(b) he or she is asleep or unconscious

===

Oral sex and intercourse are sexual acts, it doesn't matter which one the person is talking about.

If you wake up a partner then proceed to give them oral sex, that's fine providing the partner is ok with it.

Waking up to a partner giving you oral sex, is wrong in the eyes of the law because it was initiated when the person is asleep.

What is it you don't get here?

As I understand it, the law is that lack of consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be classified as rape; the alleged rapist must also have known that the alleged victim was not consenting or have been "reckless" as to whether or not she was consenting.

Happy Monday

In my view the men are absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing.
They should also be allowed to return to work at the earliest opportunity.
It will be an absolute disgrace if PJ and SO are not given the opportunity to be part of Ireland's World Cup odyssey in 2019.

Flipper22

Mrsmum wrote: »

It is a big question. Boils down to perception. Personally I think it is very possible for a girl in this type of situation to feel her wishes were completely overridden whereas in the mind of the guy, he may genuinely feel she was just being encouraged to have a great time. Something like that. I say that as a woman who like all women imo know the pressure from guys to keep going further when you're trying to slow them down. Guys on here must also know how persistent thay can be in these situations.

Her account included saying things like, not you too, how many times can I say no before it sinks in. She also described herself as not actively engaging or instigating any of the sexual activity (other than kissing pj). If this account is true, then she did not consent. Anyone stating that they believe her therefore believes that she did not consent.

That's all I was saying, I don't disagree with your post

Happy Monday

Flipper22 wrote: »

Her account included saying things like, not you too, how many times can I say no before it sinks in. She also described herself as not actively engaging or instigating any of the sexual activity (other than kissing pj). If this account is true, then she did not consent. Anyone stating that they believe her therefore believes that she did not consent.

That's all I was saying, I don't disagree with your post

Not her original account but a later account given by the accuser.
The question why she didn't mention this at the very beginning.
Why go back to the house to get her phone from men who had raped her and could possibly detain her and repeat the act?
The point is her story does not add up........not even close.

Faugheen

Creol1 wrote: »

As I understand it, the law is that lack of consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be classified as rape; the alleged rapist must also have known that the alleged victim was not consenting or have been "reckless" as to whether or not she was consenting.

That's nice and all but we're talking about the law surrounding a sex act when someone is sleeping, which is very black and white.

FrancieBrady

Creol1 wrote: »

As I understand it, the law is that lack of consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be classified as rape; the alleged rapist must also have known that the alleged victim was not consenting or have been "reckless" as to whether or not she was consenting.

Most normal people would sort it out and no harm done. They have just had a night of sex, one of them attempts to initiate more the next morning, If you don't like it, you say no and it ends.
A third party leaping in to say that a crime has been committed regardles is just bizarre and abnormal.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely amazing lack of self-awareness.

Anyways, it's 4am where I am so I'm off to bed.

I'm very condescending to people that have no idea about the law surrounding sexual offences in this country but act like they do. I make no secret of that.

So how can a mask be slipping when I was never wearing one? I'm well aware of what I'm doing.

irishrebe

Happy Monday wrote: »

Flipper22 wrote: »

Her account included saying things like, not you too, how many times can I say no before it sinks in. She also described herself as not actively engaging or instigating any of the sexual activity (other than kissing pj). If this account is true, then she did not consent. Anyone stating that they believe her therefore believes that she did not consent.

That's all I was saying, I don't disagree with your post

Not her original account but a later account given by the accuser.
The question why she didn't mention this at the very beginning.
Why go back to the house to get her phone from men who had raped her and could possibly detain her and repeat the act?
The point is her story does not add up........not even close.

This is such a weird thing people do on here to discredit people. You do realise that absolutely nobody in the world gives every single detail of a story the first time around? They give a summary of what they think the important points are. If the person listening needs to know more in order to form an opinion, they ask for specific details, which are they then given. The fact she didn't mention these things at the beginning is completely irrelevant. Maybe she thought they were obvious? Maybe she thought they weren't as important as other points? Maybe they didn't come to mind immediately? No normal human being in the entire world recounts something that happening to them mentioning every single detail in linear order.

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

This is such a weird thing people do on here to discredit people. You do realise that absolutely nobody in the world gives every single detail of a story the first time around? They give a summary of what they think the important points are. If the person listening needs to know more in order to form an opinion, they ask for specific details, which are they then given. The fact she didn't mention these things at the beginning is completely irrelevant. Maybe she thought they were obvious? Maybe she thought they weren't as important as other points? Maybe they didn't come to mind immediately? No normal human being in the entire world recounts something that happening to them mentioning every single detail in linear order.

And you are not trying to discredit the men involved or the jury. No siree. :rolleyes:

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most normal people would sort it out and no harm done. They have just had a night of sex, one of them attempts to initiate more the next morning, If you don't like it, you say no and it ends.
A third party leaping in to say that a crime has been committed regardles is just bizarre and abnormal.

Once again Francie, because you don't seem to get it.

If a woman is asleep, and you try to perform a sex act on them before they wake up, you are committing sexual assault.

People can sort it out yes. Someone might say never do it again and trust you on your word for that.

However someone might go to the guards, you find yourself questioned, charged and found guilty (especially when you said earlier you would admit it to the guards).

Do you know whose fault that will be? Yours.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Once again Francie, because you don't seem to get it.

If a woman is asleep, and you try to perform a sex act on them before they wake up, you are committing sexual assault.

People can sort it out yes. Someone might say never do it again and trust you on your word for that.

However someone might go to the guards, you find yourself questioned, charged and found guilty (especially when you said earlier you would admit it to the guards).

Do you know whose fault that will be? Yours.

We are still waiting for a case history of someone being done for sexual assault for initiating an act a person woke up enjoying.

Whenever you are ready.

Fann Linn

irishrebe wrote: »

This is such a weird thing people do on here to discredit people. You do realise that absolutely nobody in the world gives every single detail of a story the first time around? They give a summary of what they think the important points are. If the person listening needs to know more in order to form an opinion, they ask for specific details, which are they then given. The fact she didn't mention these things at the beginning is completely irrelevant. Maybe she thought they were obvious? Maybe she thought they weren't as important as other points? Maybe they didn't come to mind immediately? No normal human being in the entire world recounts something that happening to them mentioning every single detail in linear order.

Jackson's solicitor said on the steps of the court the other day that her evidence was filled with inconsistencies, or words to that effect, from day one.

By the way I've heard the PSNI are investigating threats against Jackson's solicitor also.
Some nice people out there supposedly calling out for legal reforms.
When it suits.

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

This is such a weird thing people do on here to discredit people. You do realise that absolutely nobody in the world gives every single detail of a story the first time around? They give a summary of what they think the important points are. If the person listening needs to know more in order to form an opinion, they ask for specific details, which are they then given. The fact she didn't mention these things at the beginning is completely irrelevant. Maybe she thought they were obvious? Maybe she thought they weren't as important as other points? Maybe they didn't come to mind immediately? No normal human being in the entire world recounts something that happening to them mentioning every single detail in linear order.

And you are not trying to discredit the men involved or the jury. No siree. :rolleyes:

No.

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Once again Francie, because you don't seem to get it.

If a woman is asleep, and you try to perform a sex act on them before they wake up, you are committing sexual assault.

People can sort it out yes. Someone might say never do it again and trust you on your word for that.

However someone might go to the guards, you find yourself questioned, charged and found guilty (especially when you said earlier you would admit it to the guards).

Do you know whose fault that will be? Yours.

We are still waiting for a case history of someone being done for sexual assault for initiating an act a person woke up enjoying.

Whenever you are ready.

Jesus H. Christ. A person who wakes up enjoying it isn't going to go to the Gardai and report you, are they? What if one day you do it to someone who wakes up raging and goes straight to the guards? Did this never occur to you?