Hoboo wrote: » Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.
blanch152 wrote: » You are contradicting yourself there. She couldn't say there was positive consent, she couldn't say it wasn't consensual. Therefore there is a reasonable doubt, hence they had to be found not guilty.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » To those attacking GreenBo, incredibly depressingly it is actually correct that rape is defined as penetration without consent, not intercourse without consent. So in most Western legal systems, the definition of rape physically cannot extend to a woman having sex with a man who did not consent. Attacking the messenger over this is pointless, this is just another archaic piece of legislation which should be changed. Plain and simple. Getting mad at people for pointing out that it is, indeed, the current situation, is pointless.
Faugheen wrote: » Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given. And she said that it wasn't consensual. The lads couldn't be found guilty based on the evidence. There's holes in all of the stories. That doesn't mean her account is false. Not guilty of rape was the verdict, but she wasn't found guilty of anything either. Why are you throwing guilt of her lying when it hasn't been proven? Again, you weren't there. Stop telling people what happened as if it's factual.
RuMan wrote: » All the men and Dara Florence claimed it was consensual and clearly they were more credible given the verdict. Bit of consensual fun which one party regretted after. No guilty of rape was the verdict
RuMan wrote: » Dara Florencec said quite clearly it was a threesome not a rape. All the men claim the same why are you accusing them of lying? She was drunk and maybe she cant remember what is clear is the court did not believe her account.
Arne_Saknussem wrote: » As far as i understand it women can commit rape, but only to other women. A woman cannot rape a man under our current laws(statutory rape not included), the most serious crime she can commit to a man is aggravated sexual assault. 4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes— (a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or (b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person. Open to correction.
Faugheen wrote: » Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given. And the complainant said that it wasn't consensual. The lads couldn't be found guilty based on the evidence. There's holes in all of the stories. That doesn't mean her account is false. Not guilty of rape was the verdict, but she wasn't found guilty of anything either. Why are you throwing guilt of her lying when it hasn't been proven? Again, you weren't there. Stop telling people what happened as if it's factual.
GreeBo wrote: » http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html Thats the legals of consent. I dont know how anyone is supposed to prove that consent was given at any stage. I think you can (easily) only prove that it wasnt by citing one of the items from 48.(9).2 Also the reason she wasnt found guilty of anything was because she wasnt on trial for anything! This doesnt mean that she is not guilty of perjury (and also obviously doesnt imply that she is)
Faugheen wrote: » Also, the lads were very drunk as well. How come the drunk narrative is only put on her and not them?
Faugheen wrote: » Dara Florence also said she was 100% sure she saw a threesome where Jackson was riding her from behind (which he denies and disputes), and that she couldn't be sure that what she witnessed was positive consent. Why are you just choosing to ignore this? I have never once said the lads are lying. Also, the lads were very drunk as well. How come the drunk narrative is only put on her and not them? Again, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury didn't believe her. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.
VinLieger wrote: » The thing that really bugs me is the stuff along the lines of "of course they got off they are rugby players" That specifically just shows the people making those comments have an issue with the lads and rugby/sports in general and don't really care about the girl or the facts of the case.
cantdecide wrote: » Because if they were drunk and she were sober, they could retrospectively revoke consent and they could all accuse her of gang rape.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Stuart Olding managed to use his and he was well into the 20s drinks wise.
Faugheen wrote: » But none of that happened so how is that relevant?
OwlsZat wrote: » The fisting was mentioned as an explanation for the vaginal bleed. My initial suspicion was vigorous fingering with a long fingernail. As your article states it was agreed the injury couldn't have been inflicted by a penis. However, the length of time it was bleeding some 8 hours, was argued makes it less likely to have been inflicted and more likely to have been period related.
GreeBo wrote: » Without knowing the graphic details of what she actually saw, its very possible that she assumed he was having sex with her when in fact he was "only" using his fingers. To be blunt, if he was facing her as she opened the door then it would be impossible for her to know where his penis was.
munsterlegend wrote: » Well up north unlike here they identify the defendants and let the public into trials of this nature which is crazy really. However it would have been impossible to keep the identity of the two rugby players private as everyone would have been asking why are they not playing? The only way that could be avoided is to let them still play but that would cause more problems given the nature of the alleged offence.
Faugheen wrote: » And the woman could have just as easily been raped despite what DF said. She looked in for less than a minute. Nobody can say for sure what was going on in that time. However, that being said, if I was in her shoes I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make it accurate. Stuart Oldings statement summed it up. This case is all about perceptions and recollections, and it sounds like all of them can't remember a whole lot of the night.
hill16bhoy wrote: » In regard to the complainant's bruising at the entrance to the vagina and the internal tear to the vagina, both medical witnesses stated that this was not proof of rape. And indeed, one has to accept that is so. But it is consistent with rape. I mean, is there even such a thing as an injury that can prove rape? So, the question is - was the bruising and vaginal tear discounted completely as evidence, or did it remain to be used as one part of the puzzle?
RuMan wrote: » Yes the lads and woman were drunk. Dara Florence however wasnt. A threesome that one party regretted. You are the person making things up. The woman should be thankful the rugby lads probably just want to move on. Others might take action against her for making false accusations.The extremely quick decision makes me wonder why the case was brought to trial. The prosecutor has a case to answer in that regard.
Faugheen wrote: » I have never once said the lads are lying.
RuMan wrote: » So why did she file a complaint and more importantly why and how did it get to trial? The public prosecutor let the lads and indeed woman down by proceeding given the apparent complete lack of evidence.
