Appledreams15 wrote: » Are you ignoring the facts that she was hysterical and bleeding?
FrancieBrady wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I'm not doing any more research for free, so no. Ask the person who originally brought it up or do your own googling. This concept was used by lawyers in the trial, so you're clearly very ill informed if you think it's all a joke. I did google it and it is associated with a physical threat to the victim, they fear for their safety. There is no mention that I can find that suggests (as you stated) it occurs during penetration. There was zero evidence presented that the victim was threatened. A prosecutor will enter such buzz words in an attempt to convince a jury that there was a threat of violence and restraint. They are just as mercenary as a defence in this regard. In other words it is not a given unless accompanied by hard evidence, if you wish to be fair to everyone.
irishrebe wrote: » I'm not doing any more research for free, so no. Ask the person who originally brought it up or do your own googling. This concept was used by lawyers in the trial, so you're clearly very ill informed if you think it's all a joke.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » The trial concluded that nobody had any sex ar all, twas all fingers and bjs. Which is odd.
irishrebe wrote: » And the idea of innocent people having to live their whole lives with no justice, bumping into their accuser and their friends and family isn't abhorrent? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying that life isn't 'fair' when when it's not fair to the accuser, they're pretty much told to get over it.
Appledreams15 wrote: » What do people think about R Harrison sending her a link to calming music that night to calm her down?
tretorn wrote: » Its not really that odd. Its quite likely that Jackson couldnt get an erection, I dont think there was any evidence that penile sex took place at all, if it did there was no evidence that it did, ie none of Jacksons semen. Olding was charged with vaginal rape becasue the woman said he had raped her vaginally, it was eventually accepted by the prosecution that he hadnt raped her vaginally. Im a bit confused, if someone is frozen in fear how can they bring a man to ejaculation by giving him a blowjob. If the blowjob was forced wouldnt a womans mouth be very bruised. I know the woman didnt mention the oral sex to the staff in the sexual assault unit but surely the police could have had her mouth investigated when she gave them a different version of what happened.
irishrebe wrote: » You don't think someone who is about to be penetrated without their consent, possibly exposed to pregnancy and a number of potentially lethal diseases is in fear of their safety? Are you spoofing? Because it's not very funny.
Owryan wrote: » And that is proof of what exactly? Maybe it was a drunken attempt at a nice gesture. There is a lot of grasping at straws here to try prove something that a jury concluded didn't happen.
irishrebe wrote: » Aside from the fact that it's a ridiculous example which doesn't compare like with like (a penis is required for the legal definition of rape and both genders are capable of being racist), can you give me some examples of consent classes which are exclusively for men? Actual classes, and not hysteria from the Daily Mail?
irishrebe wrote: » A smart one, you. Someone who joined a month before the other people quoted, and made posts on completely different topics, and who has now posted almost exclusively about the biggest story in Ireland for the past few days, must be a fake account to push an agenda? Riiiiight. Slow clap. I hope you're never on a jury.
Appledreams15 wrote: » These emotional people have brought rape cases to the courts?
_Dara_ wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » And the idea of innocent people having to live their whole lives with no justice, bumping into their accuser and their friends and family isn't abhorrent? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying that life isn't 'fair' when when it's not fair to the accuser, they're pretty much told to get over it. The justice-seeker is free. That’s the difference. If there’s doubt, a person shouldn’t be jailed.
Appledreams15 wrote: » It is certainly proof that she was in a terrible state, so bad he was sent after her to calm her down. The next day text "did you calm her"
irishrebe wrote: » I know it is, which is why things won't change. It's just hilarious that the very suggestion that the odd person might get locked up for something they didn't do is so terrifying to you, while the much more likely scenario of being raped and not being able to prove it is grand.
BrianBoru00 wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Aside from the fact that it's a ridiculous example which doesn't compare like with like (a penis is required for the legal definition of rape and both genders are capable of being racist), can you give me some examples of consent classes which are exclusively for men? Actual classes, and not hysteria from the Daily Mail? Not in this country - there you go again making claims which are simply not true. irishrebe wrote: » A smart one, you. Someone who joined a month before the other people quoted, and made posts on completely different topics, and who has now posted almost exclusively about the biggest story in Ireland for the past few days, must be a fake account to push an agenda? Riiiiight. Slow clap. I hope you're never on a jury. Because I made a plausible suggestion and backed it up? Because I'm balanced in my arguments? Because I can discuss points without deflecting and failing to answer the question? I see your buddy has woken up / you've switched on your laptop as well
BrianBoru00 wrote: » Not in this country - there you go again making claims which are simply not true. Because I made a plausible suggestion and backed it up? Because I'm balanced in my arguments? Because I can discuss points without deflecting and failing to answer the question? I see your buddy has woken up / you've switched on your laptop as well
irishrebe wrote: » 'Free'? I know rape victims who can barely leave the house, have no social life, and whose lives are basically over. If that's being 'free', then yeah. There are no winners.
James Raspberry wrote: » I've seen women turn hysterical on nights out after consuming large quantities of alcohol. One woman that springs to mind went scarily hysterical after I refused to have sex with her as I wanted to have sex with her friend instead. She was a mess, but that was her problem, she was simply nuts. We were all back at a house at this stage, so off I went to a bedroom with the friend and we had sex. About 30 mins later who comes in to the room without even knocking, the hyserical woman, now calmed down, and she knew what we were doing. So I know for a fact it's perfectly possible for women to be hysterical without any crimes taking place.
tretorn wrote: » We have had a nine week trial silentcorner so stop making up "evidence" The victim could have been bleeding if she was menstruating, was it ever established whether she had her period, Jackson testified that he thought the blood on his fingers was period blood. The forensic expert for the prosecution didnt say there was obvious bruising and he couldnt tell whether the sex that had taken place was non consensual or not, this being the case in spite of the fact that jackson is supposed to have ripped her clothes off raped her twice and then put his fist inside her. Its not actually possible to state for certain that Jackson had penile sex at all because there wasnt a single drop of semen anywhere in the room. Thats very odd. The men said she wasnt traumatised and Dara F saw a consensual threesome. She was crying in the taxi but that could be becasue she was disappointed with the night, there is no evidence that she couldnt talk and no evidence that she was traumatised. After this case I am beginning to understand why conviction rates are low. Silentcorner is fabricating nonsense, utter total nonsense about this case and yet she thinks these men werent convicted because there is something wrong with a system of justice. They werent convicted because the victim told so many different stories and experienced police officers should have known the accounts didnt stack up. They had an independent witness who corroborated the mens accounts and that should have been the end of the matter. It took twenty months and a jury of eight men and three women to see what the police saw and the CPS saw and the Jury in possibly the shortest ever deliberation time in a rape case came back with a not guilty verdict. End of the matter.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » At 5:16am, Rory Harrison sent a message to the complainant saying, “Keep the chin up you wonderful young woman.” She replies to say, “Thank you so much for leaving me home, I really appreciate it Rory, you've been far too kind.” Rory Harrison then replies, “My pleasure...have you earphones close? (At 9:51am, the complainant messages the same friend she told she was back at Paddy Jackson’s house to say, “worst night ever, so I got raped.") At 10:08am in response to Rory Harrison's message about the earphones, the complainant replies “yea, why? lol." Is this evidence of rape?
GreeBo wrote: » That's the entire basis of the innocent until proven guilty legal system. What law do you want changed that will make it easier to get a conviction, other than removing the need for actual evidence?
tretorn wrote: » We have had a nine week trial silentcorner so stop making up "evidence" The victim could have been bleeding if she was menstruating, was it ever established whether she had her period, Jackson testified that he thought the blood on his fingers was period blood.
The forensic expert for the prosecution didnt say there was obvious bruising and he couldnt tell whether the sex that had taken place was non consensual or not, this being the case in spite of the fact that jackson is supposed to have ripped her clothes off raped her twice and then put his fist inside her. Its not actually possible to state for certain that Jackson had penile sex at all because there wasnt a single drop of semen anywhere in the room. Thats very odd. The men said she wasnt traumatised and Dara F saw a consensual threesome. She was crying in the taxi but that could be becasue she was disappointed with the night, there is no evidence that she couldnt talk and no evidence that she was traumatised.
After this case I am beginning to understand why conviction rates are low. Silentcorner is fabricating nonsense, utter total nonsense about this case and yet she thinks these men werent convicted because there is something wrong with a system of justice.
They werent convicted because the victim told so many different stories and experienced police officers should have known the accounts didnt stack up. They had an independent witness who corroborated the mens accounts and that should have been the end of the matter. It took twenty months and a jury of eight men and three women to see what the police saw and the CPS saw and the Jury in possibly the shortest ever deliberation time in a rape case came back with a not guilty verdict. End of the matter.
Appledreams15 wrote: » You left out the calming music he sent her. Why? And the text the next day. "Are you feeling better now?"
goz83 wrote: » It’s a dispicable thing if and when a rapist goes free due to lack of evidence. That we can all agree on. At the risk of sounding cold....the rape has happened and there is no undoing it. A conviction gives some solace and justice in genuine cases. However, convicting an innocent person is something we as a society need to avoid at any cost. This is why there must be certainty and is also why some get away a horrible crime. You can’t have one without the other, but it is absolutely a priority to protect innocent men from being jailed. And I say innocent men, because legally a woman can’t rape a man (which is a farce). The only exception is where a woman has sex with a minor, which is a different category. My OH always uses that film 40 days and 40 nights as an example if a woman raping a man. For those who haven’t seen the film, the actor Josh Hartnett has himself handcuffed to his bed at the eleventh hour in preparation to have sex with a girl he likes/loves. He is the perpetual ladies man and very sexually active. He hasn’t had sex or self soothed in 40 days and there is a big cash bet on when he will crack. He is incoherent, sleepy and drowsy at the end. His ex girlfriend (who he refused earlier in the film) let herself into his place and had sex with him without his consent. To add salt to the wound, she claimed the cash prize and was like the cat who got the cream. I don’t recall there even being a hint of punishment/karma/outrage about that scene.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » Can you please spell out what this is supposed to prove? You're trying to add 1 and 1 together to actually get 5, let alone 3.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How can it be a dangerous situation then, dangerous enough for you to freeze? The 'body' would have to percieve a threat. Not sure you have thought this through in the effort to throw out another buzz word - 'tonic immobilisation'.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
