Silentcorner wrote: » What I found most interesting in those messages, was what wasn't said in them. The first thing a bunch of horny lads, who DIDN'T get laid because of a lack of condoms, would mention was the lack of condoms in the house you'd imagine! And the fact that the woman wasn't even referenced in any way, like, she wasn't even described as "fit as f##k" or "a stunner" "was wrecked" or anything....it was like she wasn't even there. That is, in any of the messages that we are aware of!
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The text messages from the guys were entered into evidence by the prosecution though and so they were only likely to include the ones which fitted their narrative, naturally. Same way when the defence spoke of text messages they were ones which only fitted theirs. For example the defense spoke about the girls friend texting the compainant two weeks before a trial saying that if she was ever raped by someone famous that she'd black mail whoever did it. I believe the friend testified that she was just joking around.
Faugheen wrote: » By your logic the jury decided they didn't even do anything (even digital or oral) to her and that nothing happened. By your logic the jury decided that she wasn't even at the house. The jury found them not guilty of rape. That does not mean they didn't leave her bleeding (Jackson admitted having blood on his fingers) or in hysterics (as said by Rory Harrison). Use your brain, mate, and stop making a fool of yourself.
wexie wrote: » <trigger alert> For consensual sex? I'd imagine they generally don't need to look any further than the nearest VIP section of the nearest nightclub *EDIT* I'm not implying that this particular case involved consensual or non consensual sex so stop your moaning. Just implying that (semi) famous sports stars/movie stars/ rock stars /reality stars don't have to have long periods of 'drought' if they don't choose to
tretorn wrote: » There was no evidence they were rough at all, if there was the prosecuting counsel would have referred to it and he didnt. The staff in the sexual assault unit saw no evidence of anything being non consensual. The woman said PJ forced his whole hand inside her and you would expect to see bruising and there wasnt any. Maybe the jury should have sat and had a few cups of coffee rather than arriving back with such a quick a verdict, they sat and deliberated for less than two hours on the final day which was astonishing after a nine week trial, you would think it would take days to go through the evidence but a decision was made to acquit not one but four defendents in less than four hours in total. This reflects very badly on the accuser because it looks like the jurors made their minds up long before the trial was over. This alone sends a very serious message to the CPS about the taking of this case, how much would the proscecution costs alone be, the senior counsel employed by the State is London based so his fees would be astronomical. The only winners in the whole sorry mess as always are the lawyers/
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » By your logic the jury decided they didn't even do anything (even digital or oral) to her and that nothing happened. By your logic the jury decided that she wasn't even at the house. The jury found them not guilty of rape. That does not mean they didn't leave her bleeding (Jackson admitted having blood on his fingers) or in hysterics (as said by Rory Harrison). Use your brain, mate, and stop making a fool of yourself. What? The bleeding and hysterics were not of any relevance to the jury...clearly in a rape and sexual assault case. Why are the relevant to you? What is their importance? No guessing please. Keep to what we actually know about the case please.
FrancieBrady wrote: » tretorn wrote: » There was no evidence they were rough at all, if there was the prosecuting counsel would have referred to it and he didnt. The staff in the sexual assault unit saw no evidence of anything being non consensual. The woman said PJ forced his whole hand inside her and you would expect to see bruising and there wasnt any. Maybe the jury should have sat and had a few cups of coffee rather than arriving back with such a quick a verdict, they sat and deliberated for less than two hours on the final day which was astonishing after a nine week trial, you would think it would take days to go through the evidence but a decision was made to acquit not one but four defendents in less than four hours in total. This reflects very badly on the accuser because it looks like the jurors made their minds up long before the trial was over. This alone sends a very serious message to the CPS about the taking of this case, how much would the proscecution costs alone be, the senior counsel employed by the State is London based so his fees would be astronomical. The only winners in the whole sorry mess as always are the lawyers/ Can a defendant counter sue after a not guilty verdict in the British system? Not that I am suggesting they would, but is it possible?
kumate_champ07 wrote: » As a guy I wonder how easy it would be for me to walk into a VIP section.
Faugheen wrote: » You actually don't realise that you chat absolute brown, do you? I brought up the bleeding and hysterics because when the IRFU conduct their review, they COULD (emphasis on could) use the fact that a woman left their company bleeding and in hysterics as a matter of concern. I'm not saying that they raped her, I am not saying this was intentional, but it happened. This was determined in the trial. There is nothing in the verdict that says this didn't happen. It did. It's not just about the WhatsApp messages here.
Because he and his teammate left a woman bloodied and hysterical That we know for a fact.
tretorn wrote: » I dont know. From my reading the evidence it seems to be that three men got oral sex from one woman and one man fingered her because he couldnt get an erection. He may have inflicted a 1cm tear with his fingernail but everything that happened was consensual. There were tears with witnesses who could verify tears afterwards but no tears noticed by the three men who got blowjobs, far from regretting anything they went on whatsapp to boast about the great evening they had, not that they could remember too much of it anyway. Who would you sue though, the person who accused you or the CPS for taking a case that a jury threw out within a couple of hours. Can any of the men even get their costs back.
Dick phelan wrote: » There seems to be a lack of basic respect in our society creeping in. I think it comes down to the very individualistic culture we have now, all about satisfying ourselves and others be damned. Perhaps if we all just treated each other and ourselves with more respects unfortunate situations like this wouldn't happen.
tretorn wrote: From my reading the evidence it seems to be that three men got oral sex from one woman and one man fingered her because he couldnt get an erection. He may have inflicted a 1cm tear with his fingernail but everything that happened was consensual.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » (I edited it very quickly to make it clear I wasnt trying to offend, its difficult to discuss this without someone being offended) As a guy I wonder how easy it would be for me to walk into a VIP section. I made a post that got no replies asking why women go into the VIP section if they arent VIP/celebrities, they just need to be attractive to gain entry, maybe someone disagrees with this?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » lets not cod ourselves
Mountainsandh wrote: » I see this bleeding being brought up all the time, it jars with me that it is used for dramatic effect, when the girl herself in texts to her friend said that it was her period, brought on a week early because of rough sex. I think menstrual bleed is different than a serious tear bleed. the text in question is in this articlehttps://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425
tretorn wrote: It appears to me that three men got blowjobs and not much else happened.
RuMan wrote: Dara Florence victim of vile abuse from the Twitter mob according to the Belfast Telegraph. Disgusting
Silentcorner wrote: » She didn't know herself. It was during the medical examination that it was discovered to be from a 1cm tear and not menstrual.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Yeah because she gave truthful testimony to what she saw not what the mob wanted to hear.
RuMan wrote: » Dara Florence victim of vile abuse from the Twitter mob according to the Belfast Telegraph. Disgusting
RuMan wrote: Any tweet from Aodhan about it ?
