Faugheen wrote: » What is it you don't get here?
Silentcorner wrote: » She didn't see any fingers either...
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.
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.
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.
Ohmeha wrote: » Jackson said he had digitally penetrative sex with the complainant. Dara Florence could not confirm that she saw any genitally penetrative sex
Ohmeha wrote: » Because she was unable to confirm level of penetrationShe 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.
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.
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.
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.
Faugheen wrote: » How is the mask slipping, exactly?
Deleted User wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » How is the mask slipping, exactly? Am I a deluded little boy?
Faugheen wrote: » Otherwise, run along. The adults are talking.
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?
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.
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
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.
Deleted User wrote: » Absolutely amazing lack of self-awareness. Anyways, it's 4am where I am so I'm off to bed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
