Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Dara's version corresponded with neither the accused or the complainant.

There wasn't enough evidence to convict the accused likewise there's not enough to throw accusations of making false claims at the complaintant.

They most likely were all so pissed that they didn't know what they were doing ( in terms of consent). Doesn't mean a rape happened, doesn't mean it didn't.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If I have learned one thing from this whole debacle it’s that far from being an enlightened and forward thinking country when it comes to sexual matters we still seem to be trapped in a 19th century mindset where sex is something a man does to a woman rather than it being a consensual act between two people.

As a woman this really bothers me - on the one hand my fellow women go on about wanting equality and being seen as strong and liberated and independent yet on the other hand they can’t revert to the victim mentality quick enough when it comes to their interactions with men

I think it’s time we start acting like the grown women we are and take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. That’s what a truly strong woman does. She doesn’t revert to man hating and acting like a victim to get her way.

Your a breath of fresh air in this world in which dumb people are increasingly trying to suffocate us.

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'm aware of that. He was acquired of that charge, so apparently it can't explain the tear that required a suture to stop the bleeding. It must have been all the oral sex cos Jackson didn't fist her.

Why did she go into a room with someone she didn't know? For a snog? Ever done that? And to retrieve a handbag that she left in the room later. Are you actually suggesting that the only reason to enter the room was for sex?

Im suggesting you should not enter a strangers bedroom because if it does go to court it could make it that bit harder to prove. Common sense.

skearnsot

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If I have learned one thing from this whole debacle it’s that far from being an enlightened and forward thinking country when it comes to sexual matters we still seem to be trapped in a 19th century mindset where sex is something a man does to a woman rather than it being a consensual act between two people.

As a woman this really bothers me - on the one hand my fellow women go on about wanting equality and being seen as strong and liberated and independent yet on the other hand they can’t revert to the victim mentality quick enough when it comes to their interactions with men

I think it’s time we start acting like the grown women we are and take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. That’s what a truly strong woman does. She doesn’t revert to man hating and acting like a victim to get her way.

OMG I LOVE YOU!! I’m fed up listening to women like that and I work with a ****load of them! I’m quite happy to be as strong and as independent as is possible but there are times when I just need a male perspective/help/touch etc! The nicest boss Iv ever had is a man!!! Iv no time whatsoever for women’s ......... i dunno what the hell to call it apart from BS

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

They were rightfully cleared of rape, the evidence just wasn't enough. But your opinion that it was just a threesome she regreted is also pure speculation. Versions of events from all involved were pretty confused so you can only make a conclusion it was just sex she regretted because it's a conclusion that suits certain narrative.

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Dara Florence gave her perception on the basis of the 1 minute or so that she saw.

It's very possible that she didn't see the reality of what happened.

However, it doesn't mean that she didn't tell the truth. In that time frame, I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make my perception more accurate.

You have to remember that Dara Florence also said she 100% saw Jackson having sex with her (which he denied) and she also said she couldn't be sure that the complainant was positively consenting.

Again, I'm not saying she's lying, but she can't testify as to how the complainant was feeling at that time.

Everyone has different perceptions of the night, including Dara Florence.

meeeeh wrote: »

You don't have to but use the same standards for yourself as you do for others.

Oh get off your pedestal.

This is a discussion board not the Supreme Court.

jm08 wrote: »

I know a young woman while in rooms in college, invited a friend (who she knew through her boyfriend) into her room to watch a movie. He raped her.

I'd imagine you would think it was her fault for being foolish enough to invite him into her room. She thought no one would believe her, so she never reported it.

This is a very different scenario and yeah i do feel a huge degree of sympathy for the girl here. She invited him into the room to watch a movie believing they had a purely platonic friendship. There was no key witness to contradict her evidence here but also none to prove this crime. Its a pity she didnt report it because a good prosecuting barrister may have caught him out in court.

In the Jackson case there was a key witness which completely contradicted the claimants tale of events. My theory in this case is that the girl felt a fool and wanted to save face. Some rape claims are bogus and some are genuine. Thats just the way it goes.

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Have you deliberately ignored where i explicitly expressed empathy for either a girl raped, or a girl in tears? You seem to have.
Its a pity because you're now just repeating yourself.

A girl in tears certainly does not mean she was raped. There are several reasons that could explain wby a girl is in tears, one of which could be rape. But it isnt evidence of rape. You need to divest yourself of this notion, and stop repeating it enough times in the hope it will make it true in some way.

It was an asendum to a paragraph where i doubted the lads were top shaggers as they claimed. What is wrong with the logic though, lets tease it out:

Women enjoys sex with famous sports star?
Ends up with two of them? Bonus? I know if i pulled a famous sportstar, lets say Anna kourinikova, and in the middle of it on walked Maria Sharapova in her undies id be thrilled.
Men generally prefer MFF rather than MMF. But hang on, are you saying maybe we're not equal afterall? That a women couldnt enjoy a threesome? Thats a serious contention.

Roger, you are another spoofer.

I did not ignore anything you said.

You said you would have empathy for a girl in tears? I then asked you where in your post (to which I was referring) was there evidence of empathy for this young woman who was in tears....you, thought she should have been happy with the deal she got on the night, which is a repulsive thing to suggest when you consider the state she arrived home in.

Ignoring the state she was in does not resolve you from revealing that twisted suggestion!

Your fantasy's have no place in this thread.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jackson was also charged and alleged to have unlawfully penetrated her with his fingers so that could explain that tear.

My point is why would she go upstairs with guys she didnt know? Granted they were rugby players but she was a young girl who didnt know them personally.

I'm aware of that. He was acquired of that charge, so apparently it can't explain the tear that required a suture to stop the bleeding. It must have been all the oral sex cos Jackson didn't fist her.

Why did she go into a room with someone she didn't know? For a snog? Ever done that? And to retrieve a handbag that she left in the room later. Are you actually suggesting that the only reason to enter the room was for sex?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

Dara Florence also thought that PJ was having penetrative sex with her which he denied.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

You don't have to but use the same standards for yourself as you do for others.

Ah get over yourself.
She clearly said

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think I read that...

This is an online discussion, not a court.
Maybe if the 4 lads faced you as QC, they might be swinging in a gibbet.

meeeeh wrote: »

They were rightfully cleared of rape, the evidence just wasn't enough. But your opinion that it was just a threesome she regreted is also pure speculation. Versions of events from all involved were pretty confused so you can only make a conclusion it was just sex she regretted because it's a conclusion that suits certain narrative.

Dara Florence very detailed testimony is highly indictive of the fact that the accuser could well have been a case that she hugely regretted consenting to what was a very debasing experience for her.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Jackson was also charged and alleged to have unlawfully penetrated her with his fingers so that could explain that tear.

My point is why would she go upstairs with guys she didnt know? Granted they were rugby players but she was a young girl who didnt know them personally.

I know a young woman while in rooms in college, invited a friend (who she knew through her boyfriend) into her room to watch a movie. He raped her.

I'd imagine you would think it was her fault for being foolish enough to invite him into her room. She thought no one would believe her, so she never reported it.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

No I was implying you consider girls who have sex with someone because they are famous prostitutes. Being judgemental and all that.

Youve implied incorrectly as i hope my subsequent post clarified, to which youve responded.
So was that a withdrawal or a doubling down?

Or am i still judgmental?

meeeeh

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I never said it was gospel, just that it was something I read.

I don’t understand what you want from me? I’m not going to change my views on what happens no matter how you needle me.

You don't have to but use the same standards for yourself as you do for others.

givyjoe

Sardonicat wrote: »

I didn't know oral sex could result in a tear of the vaginal wall.

And what is the relevance of whether she knew the men or not?

A careless drunken finger could, or of course paddy could have razors a top of his flaccid penis.

meeeeh wrote: »

If only defence would have that information, the trial would be much shorter. You are peddling some online gossip as gospel and then you complain about quality of evidence.

I never said it was gospel, just that it was something I read.

I also recall there being texts between the girl and friends where there was talk of her pretending she didn’t know who they were.

It’s just a bit odd that they’d do that I suppose.

meeeeh

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I genuinely can’t remember, I’ll have to look it up.

As for the relevance I was replying to the poster who asked if she knew who they were, that’s all so don’t try and twist if.

If only defence would have that information, the trial would be much shorter. You are peddling some online gossip as gospel and then you complain about quality of evidence.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I genuinely can’t remember, I’ll have to look it up.

As for the relevance I was replying to the poster who asked if she knew who they were, that’s all so don’t try and twist if.

I'm not trying to twist anything. I genuinely want to understand the relevance of whether or not she knew who these guys were.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

What situation do you think she got herself into that she couldn't handle?

This girl a 19 year old, ended up going back to Paddy Jacksons house with a few rugby players, going into their room and performing oral sex on two to three of the men. This is what i believe happened. I believe her claim was made as a result of deep regret of her actions and the fact that she was seen by a woman and that her reputation would be severely damaged around Belfast as a result.

Did she even know Jackson or Olding before this whole debacle?

So she was afraid of her reputation being damaged she decided having a 2 years before a 9 week trial in which she was questioned for 8 days and had her underwear shown in open court was a better idea?

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

But you were suggesting she got a great deal (getting two fine specimen as opposed to the boys having to share one)....how is that empathy? Did you ignore what state she arrived home in?

Does a girl in tears mean she was raped? I think it is fair to suggest she isn't feeling boastful.

Have you deliberately ignored where i explicitly expressed empathy for either a girl raped, or a girl in tears? You seem to have.
Its a pity because you're now just repeating yourself.

A girl in tears certainly does not mean she was raped. There are several reasons that could explain wby a girl is in tears, one of which could be rape. But it isnt evidence of rape. You need to divest yourself of this notion, and stop repeating it enough times in the hope it will make it true in some way.

It was an asendum to a paragraph where i doubted the lads were top shaggers as they claimed. What is wrong with the logic though, lets tease it out:

Women enjoys sex with famous sports star?
Ends up with two of them? Bonus? I know if i pulled a famous sportstar, lets say Anna kourinikova, and in the middle of it on walked Maria Sharapova in her undies id be thrilled.
Men generally prefer MFF rather than MMF. But hang on, are you saying maybe we're not equal afterall? That a women couldnt enjoy a threesome? Thats a serious contention.

Sardonicat wrote: »

I didn't know oral sex could result in a tear of the vaginal wall.

And what is the relevance of whether she knew the men or not?

Jackson was also charged and alleged to have unlawfully penetrated her with his fingers so that could explain that tear.

My point is why would she go upstairs with guys she didnt know? Granted they were rugby players but she was a young girl who didnt know them personally.

Sardonicat wrote: »

Where did you read thay? And what is the relevance?

I genuinely can’t remember, I’ll have to look it up.

As for the relevance I was replying to the poster who asked if she knew who they were, that’s all so don’t try and twist if.

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Oh dear, im after victim blaming all girls who are just forced to persue high profile sports stars for sex.
I cant win. *rollseyes

*nods to facehugger

No I was implying you consider girls who have sex with someone because they are famous prostitutes. Being judgemental and all that.

meeeeh wrote: »

Because there is always loads of evidence in a rape case...

This is getting tiresome now and I don’t want to waste my time arguing with someone who clearly has a chip on their shoulders and who subscribes to the guilty until proven innocent club.

This was not a rape - at worst it was a misunderstanding in terms of consent.

At the end of the day if women were more willing to take responsibility for their choices instead of putting all the onus on men we would all be much better off.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think I read that she had a crush on Jackson for ages despite the later claims that she had no idea who they were.

Where did you read thay? And what is the relevance?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This girl a 19 year old, ended up going back to Paddy Jacksons house with a few rugby players, going into their room and performing oral sex on two to three of the men. This is what i believe happened. I believe her claim was made as a result of deep regret of her actions and the fact that she was seen by a woman and that her reputation would be severely damaged around Belfast as a result.

Did she even know Jackson or Olding before this whole debacle?

I didn't know oral sex could result in a tear of the vaginal wall.

And what is the relevance of whether she knew the men or not?

Deleted User wrote: »

This girl a 19 year old, ended up going back to Paddy Jacksons house with a few rugby players, going into their room and performing oral sex on two to three of the men. This is what i believe happened. I believe her claim was made as a result of deep regret of her actions and the fact that she was seen by a woman and that her reputation would be severely damaged around Belfast as a result.

Did she even know Jackson or Olding before this whole debacle?

I think I read that she had a crush on Jackson for ages despite the later claims that she had no idea who they were.

Appledreams15

I noticed today that I did something different because of this thread. My colleague asked to go for a walk with me today, to a river.

On the way he asked to stop at his appartment to pick up something. I said, ok, I will wait for you outside. And I did.

I realise, especially after reading some of the comments on this thread, "she shouldnt have gone to his house" etc., that I am not safe going into a man's appartment, and that I must protect myself.