Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She could have been sobbing at the result of being humiliated or sore. Rough sex does not constitute rape. Sobbing does not constitute guilt on the mens part. So if you see a woman sobbing does it mean she has just been raped?

Did you read the part where she claimed to have looked at Paddy Jackson pleadingly in the eye while lying on her stomach? She must be a contortionist. And she returned to the house to collect her belongings a couple of minutes later in spite of her trauma?

I think the girl was humiliated but there is holes in her story and given the key witness Dara Florences testimony, it would be very very hard to prove that consent wasnt given here.

My honest belief is that was young and stupid she got herself into a situation where she wasnt mature enough to handle the outcome and thought to get revenge on the men in question. As a result, everyones a loser.

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why do you persist in misinterpreting what I am saying?

I never said it was all women’s fault. I never said we can’t enjoy sex I never said that standing up for yourself is man hating.

I am simply making the point that as women our unwillingness to take personal responsibility for our choices when it comes to sexual matters is dangerous.

We simply can’t blame men for everything that goes wrong- if we truly are the strong modern women we claim to be then we should be able take responsibility for our own choices and accept the mistakes we make.

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.

Sardonicat wrote: »

Who is blaming men fot their mistakes? What mistakes are you referring to? Your post is very unclear.

I was referring to the idea a lot women seem to have that if you regret having sex then it’s rape.

I think that was possibly the case in this trial but everyone seems determined to blame only the four lads and to absolve the girl of any responsibility.

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.

Tbh I lean more towards it being a misunderstanding as regards consent but I am willing to accept that it could be simply regret.

There is no evidence of it being rape at all and to claim otherwise is just silly.

meeeeh wrote: »

Did you notice how you used the used expression 'cheaply' like they are selling sex?

Nice attempt to affect some affront. God , the preciousness.
Its a turn of phrase, at the risk of mansplaining*

Ill rephrase it as you may have difficulties.
Maybe if the girls held themselves in higher regard, not to throw themselves at someone who wont appreciate them for who they are as a person, rather than someone to fcuk on a particular night.
Its a two way street. Ive been fcuked by girls who couldnt remember my name. Im sure i was used a few times for gratification on ONS. As i have. Its called casual sex. Women and men engage enthusiastically in it. All. The. Time.

We're not living in some backward society where women are expected to remain pure and chaste for their future husbands. There are the odd throwback of a Neanderthal that wishes this was the case, and youre coming accross as someone who seems to want to deny female sexuality). Newsflash: women enjoy sex. Women can initate a sexual relationship with a stranger. However, if a girl initates such a relationship, while she doesnt deserve to be raped, she may be "used" for sex as other women use other men.
This isnt a difficult concept. Its equality.
Freedom to fcuk who we want as long as its consensual.

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

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

She could have been sobbing at the result of being humiliated or sore. Rough sex does not constitute rape. Sobbing does not constitute guilt on the mens part. So if you see a woman sobbing does it mean she has just been raped?

Did you read the part where she claimed to have looked at Paddy Jackson pleadingly in the eye while lying on her stomach? She must be a contortionist. And she returned to the house to collect her belongings a couple of minutes later in spite of her trauma?

I think the girl was humiliated but there is holes in her story and given the key witness Dara Florences testimony, it would be very very hard to prove that consent wasnt given here.

My honest belief is that was young and stupid she got herself into a situation where she wasnt mature enough to handle the outcome and thought to get revenge on the men in question. As a result, everyones a loser.

Dont get me wrong, the men in question dont come out of this smelling of roses in any way shape or form but they are not rapists

She was sobbing for the best part of half an hour!!!

So, unless she had a leg chopped off I think we can rule out soreness.

If it was humiliation that caused that reaction, then it was some humiliation!!

There are holes in everyones stories, including Dara Florence.

What do you think she wasn't able to handle?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is no evidence of it being rape at all and to claim otherwise is just silly.

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

[Deleted User]

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?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I was referring to the idea a lot women seem to have that if you regret having sex then it’s rape.

I think that was probably the case in this trial but everyone seems determined to blame only the four lads and to absolve the girl of any responsibility.

I haven't come across these women who have that idea.

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.

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.

[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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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.