Fann Linn wrote: » 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.
Silentcorner wrote: » 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...
Fann Linn 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. 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 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: » 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.
Faugheen wrote: » Andrew Beef wrote: » Like many people, I followed the trial pretty closely; my own thoughts are as follows: - Dara Florence’s evidence was key; everyone was drunk except her. She says that she observed a threesome with no hint of menace. It’s the salient evidence. - Stuart Olding ejaculated on his own stomach/chest; a rapist wouldn’t do that in my view. - I’m sceptical when I hear about oral rape; what sort of idiot puts his member somewhere where it could be bitten off? - Paddy Jackson is a god in Belfast; why would he be bothered raping anyone? - If the alleged victim was raped, then why in God’s name would she flee the house, be halfway down the road, realise that she’d forgotten her phone, and then head back to the bedroom full of rapists to get her phone? That’s just not plausible. Too much of this story doesn’t stack up. #Ibelievethem 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.
Andrew Beef wrote: » Like many people, I followed the trial pretty closely; my own thoughts are as follows: - Dara Florence’s evidence was key; everyone was drunk except her. She says that she observed a threesome with no hint of menace. It’s the salient evidence. - Stuart Olding ejaculated on his own stomach/chest; a rapist wouldn’t do that in my view. - I’m sceptical when I hear about oral rape; what sort of idiot puts his member somewhere where it could be bitten off? - Paddy Jackson is a god in Belfast; why would he be bothered raping anyone? - If the alleged victim was raped, then why in God’s name would she flee the house, be halfway down the road, realise that she’d forgotten her phone, and then head back to the bedroom full of rapists to get her phone? That’s just not plausible. Too much of this story doesn’t stack up. #Ibelievethem
Happy Monday wrote: » 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.
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.
Flipper22 wrote: » Correct, and a good summary
irishrebe wrote: » Wow, a solicitor paid to defend the accused tried every method available to try to discredit the accuser, i.e. do his job? Whoever woulda thunk it, huh?
Happy Monday wrote: » 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 wrote: » If someone woke up enjoying it then why would they report it? It. Doesn't. Make. It. Legal What if someone wakes up and they don't enjoy it, Francie? Are you saying they shouldn't be a prude and go to the guards because they felt violated? You actually have no sexual experiences at all apart from watching porn, have you?
Bananaleaf wrote: » Apologies if this has been covered already today - so many posts since I last checked in and I can't go through them all. Two things that disturb me from Justine McCarthy's article in the Sunday Times today (pg 7)"Olding's counsel Frank O'Donoghue said, there were "middle-class girls downstairs who would not tolerate rape" And "The judge advised (the jurors) to take the men's good character into consideration, and to remember that people of good character were less likely to commit a crime or lie in court" Well, if that's what was said and those sentences haven't been ripped out of context, then F me
Fann Linn wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Wow, a solicitor paid to defend the accused tried every method available to try to discredit the accuser, i.e. do his job? Whoever woulda thunk it, huh? He illustrated her inconsistencies as obliged to do. You seem to believe that her evidence was crystal clear. It wasn't.
Becks610 wrote: » What do people make of the third defendant who said he had sex or oral sex with the girl? Do people not find that a bid odd that his story is at odds with everyone else like as if he had taken SOs lines like the prosecution suggested? Personally I don’t believe there was enough to be able to be 100% sure there was rape as reasonable doubt exists but I definitely don’t believe the lads are 100% telling the truth either-there is inconsistencies in their stories too.
irishrebe wrote: » Sure, but that's literally his job. That's what defence lawyers do. Even when they know their client is guilty as sin (not saying this was in any way the case here). Taking anything a defence lawyer says about an accuser as gospel or even taking it seriously at all (depending on what it is they say) is really pretty ridiculous. He was paid to pick apart her story. That was his entire job.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It becomes a crime when he/she doesn't stop. As I said, most normal people work these things out, initiating and declining advances is a normal part of relationships even one night stands. Abnormal people cry crime, even if they were not there.
Mrsmum wrote: » You better pray your partner doesn't ever fall out with you, Francie. She will go to the guards and say you have been sexually assaulting her for years. You will agree that indeed yes you have been waking her up in this way, for her benefit naturally for as long as you can remember and then you can look forward to your cellmate in The Joy waking you up in the same way, for your pleasure naturally.
RuMan wrote: » Probably because they were ****faced. Being honest amazed they could remember as much. Doesnt make them rapists as the jury concluded
Fann Linn wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Sure, but that's literally his job. That's what defence lawyers do. Even when they know their client is guilty as sin (not saying this was in any way the case here). Taking anything a defence lawyer says about an accuser as gospel or even taking it seriously at all (depending on what it is they say) is really pretty ridiculous. He was paid to pick apart her story. That was his entire job. Thanks. So you do agree that her evidence was all over the place.
Strazdas wrote: » This one took a huge amount of flak on social media at the time not surprisingly (as his implication was that working class women would be okay with someone being raped).
FrancieBrady wrote: » My partner is not a sensationalist. We are two consenting adults who don't sit down with contracts and who have spontaneous desires. i.e. the real world.
Faugheen wrote: » Jesus. It's a crime when you do it in the first place. It's written. In Law. Stop ****ing lying. Also, stop referring to sex acts in a general sense. We are talking about when one person is asleep.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That is not your business or anyone else's to make. If the law is an ass in other areas it is also one in this area, where a person wakes up enjoying what is happening. The absurdity of a third person assessing an intimate situation, laid bare.
Faugheen wrote: » Except the legislators, who say it is a crime.
