nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

givyjoe

Sardonicat wrote: »

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.

That's a bit of a leap regarding the independent witness evidence. Dana stated that she couldn't be see PJ'S penis, but that what she saw and heard sounded like consensual sex. If you don't believe that her evidence significantly contributed to the reasonable doubt, you are sticking your head in the sand.

joe40

"She feared reputational damage so cried rape"

Is that a view shared by many on this thread I wonder. Could be

AudreyHepburn

Silentcorner wrote: »

And??....she was upset....

That doesn’t mean she was raped

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would anyone drink if they cry when drunk. Surely you would make sure not to drink and put yourself in that position.

You clearly don’t get out much - drink can change a person’s mood completely and it can make even the smallest most innocent of slights seem like the end of the world

givyjoe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You clearly don’t get out much - drink can change a person’s mood completely and it can make even the smallest most innocent of slights seem like the end of the world

Just go take a walk down dame Street at 3am of a Sunday morning.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Again, point out where I implied any of that in my post?

Stop telling me what I'm saying, if you're going to, back it up with examples.

Otherwise, go away.

You slanted the view of the trial as being all about the 'nasty' tactics of the defence.

You don't even realise you are doing it yourself.

Faugheen wrote:

Even the defence thought the judge was so convinced by the complainants story that they accused her of being more sympathic to the complainant in her charge to the jury.

Faugheen wrote:

By all accounts, this woman was a very credible witness (so say most of the journos in the room). Otherwise, the defence wouldn't have tried to get the case thrown out so many times.

goz83

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would anyone drink if they cry when drunk. Surely you would make sure not to drink and put yourself in that position.

Why would anyone drink when they become violent drunks?

Why would anyone drink when it puts them at risk of many things?

Why would anyone drink and plan to drive after?

Why are you asking a blantantly stupid question?

meeeeh

skearnsot wrote: »

Oh seriously please - that comment doesn’t even warrant a reply

I didn't expect a reply, I was just making a point. Well intended advice and all that...

Silentcorner

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That doesn’t mean she was raped

It doesn't mean she wasn't upset either.

meeeeh

goz83 wrote: »

Why would anyone drink when they become violent drunks?

Why would anyone drink when it puts them at risk of many things?

Why would anyone drink and plan to drive after?

Why are you asking a blantantly stupid question?

It was for my own amusement . You know why would anyone go into man's bedroom...

Silentcorner

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You clearly don’t get out much - drink can change a person’s mood completely and it can make even the smallest most innocent of slights seem like the end of the world

You'd imagine then that the cab driver who dropped her home wouldn't have batted an eyelid, sure he must see it all the time.

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

It doesn't mean she wasn't upset either.

Her state of upset was never in question

Sardonicat

givyjoe wrote: »

That's a bit of a leap regarding the independent witness evidence. Dana stated that she couldn't be see PJ'S penis, but that what she saw and heard sounded like consensual sex. If you don't believe that her evidence significantly contributed to the reasonable doubt, you are sticking your head in the sand.

I do believe her evidence contributed to the reasonable doubt.

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

You'd imagine then that the cab driver who dropped her home wouldn't have batted an eyelid, sure he must see it all the time.

He wasn’t witness for all the time -

AudreyHepburn

Silentcorner wrote: »

It doesn't mean she wasn't upset either.

That was never in question - the issue is why she was upset.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Again, point out where I implied any of that in my post?

Stop telling me what I'm saying, if you're going to, back it up with examples.

Otherwise, go away.

You slanted the view of the trial as being all about the 'nasty' tactics of the defence.

You don't even realise you are doing it yourself.

Faugheen wrote:

Even the defence thought the judge was so convinced by the complainants story that they accused her of being more sympathic to the complainant in her charge to the jury.

Faugheen wrote:

By all accounts, this woman was a very credible witness (so say most of the journos in the room). Otherwise, the defence wouldn't have tried to get the case thrown out so many times.

Where does it say 'nasty' tactics?

It doesn't.

Also, just ignore the paragraph where I said Brendan Kelly absolutely crucified the prosecution evidence. He was superb.

You are honestly looking for something to bitch about that isn't there.

It's a fact that the defence accused the judge of being sympathetic towards the complainant in her charge to the jury. That came out in the legal argument this week.

It's also a fact that the defence tried to get the case thrown out on more than one occasion. Again, that was revealed in the legal argument.

Why would they want to have the case thrown out? It wouldn't acquit their clients. That says the complainant was a very credible witness and they knew they had a fight on their hands. There's nothing wrong with that. Defence barristers try to get cases thrown out all the time.

How does any of that equate to me saying it was 'nasty' tactics? Go on, tell me.

You can't. You just want something to bitch at me about.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Where does it say 'nasty' tactics?

It doesn't.

Also, just ignore the paragraph where I said Brendan Kelly absolutely crucified the prosecution evidence. He was superb.

You are honestly looking for something to bitch about that isn't there.

It's a fact that the defence accused the judge of being sympathetic towards the complainant in her charge to the jury. That came out in the legal argument this week.

It's also a fact that the defence tried to get the case thrown out on more than one occasion. Again, that was revealed in the legal argument.

Why would they want to have the case thrown out? It wouldn't acquit their clients. That says the complainant was a very credible witness and they knew they had a fight on their hands. There's nothing wrong with that. Defence barristers try to get cases thrown out all the time.

How does any of that equate to me saying it was 'nasty' tactics? Go on, tell me.

You can't. You just want something to bitch at me about.

Did you mention the tactics of the prosecution to paint these guys as elite bullies...no you didn't.
You slanted your review to make the defence look as if they were using underhand tactics.
But you have now moderated your views. That is good, well done.

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

He wasn’t witness for all the time -

He was the only independent witness to her state after she left the house so I'll take his testimony over any one else's speculation.

Her state made a lasting impression on him, who, I would imagine would come across women is distress all the time...

Silentcorner

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That was never in question - the issue is why she was upset.

That and compared to the average upset person, was she typical, was she at the extreme end of upset...that much is important

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Where does it say 'nasty' tactics?

It doesn't.

Also, just ignore the paragraph where I said Brendan Kelly absolutely crucified the prosecution evidence. He was superb.

You are honestly looking for something to bitch about that isn't there.

It's a fact that the defence accused the judge of being sympathetic towards the complainant in her charge to the jury. That came out in the legal argument this week.

It's also a fact that the defence tried to get the case thrown out on more than one occasion. Again, that was revealed in the legal argument.

Why would they want to have the case thrown out? It wouldn't acquit their clients. That says the complainant was a very credible witness and they knew they had a fight on their hands. There's nothing wrong with that. Defence barristers try to get cases thrown out all the time.

How does any of that equate to me saying it was 'nasty' tactics? Go on, tell me.

You can't. You just want something to bitch at me about.

Did you mention the tactics of the prosecution to paint these guys as elite bullies...no you didn't.
You slanted your review to make the defence look as if they were using underhand tactics.
But you have now moderated your views. That is good, well done.

I didn't slant my view at all. I was talking about the complainant as a credible witness and used the reactions of the defence as a basis for my opinion.

I didn't not criticise the defence. I simply said what they did. I wasn't implying any underhand tactics. You saw me mention them trying to get the case thrown out and assumed I was attacking them.

Absolutely nothing in my post was attacking the defence. If anything, there was praise for them for getting the verdict because, on my perception of the legal argument, they knew they had a tough fight on their hands.

I expect you to acknowledge all of the above and you can reply with:

"I'm sorry. To assume makes an ass of u and me, but in this case I only made an ass out of me."

No other reply will suffice.

[Deleted User]

Faugheen wrote: »

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?

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

False rape claims are made all the time. Look at Quinton Hann, Look at Robin Van Persie.

The accusation is made without any consequences for the future

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

So you are saying this harlot made up a bag of lies?

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

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.

OMG, the arbiter of onlie fora has spoken.

I said i had empathy for a girl raped.
I said i had empathy for a girl in tears.
Do the math.
I didnt say i had no empathy for her.

But such is your blinkered view of the issue, youre unable to see anything that doesnt conform to your interpretation, as anything other than confrontational and hostile, and yet you persist in misinterpretation and strawmaning.

Silentcorner wrote: »

What?? A man said something, that humiliated you (at least you felt humiliated) and you sobbed for an hour!!! And then the next day you realised he was right? I'm sorry to be asking this, because I think the state that young lady was in is important, I may be placing more importance than I should, but what did he say that was that upsetting?

Maybe you are.
She was upset at something.
Not necessarily rape.
This fact is being completely lost on you.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

I didn't slant my view at all. I was talking about the complainant as a credible witness and used the reactions of the defence as a basis for my opinion.

I didn't not criticise the defence. I simply said what they did. I wasn't implying any underhand tactics. You saw me mention them trying to get the case thrown out and assumed I was attacking them.

Absolutely nothing in my post was attacking the defence. If anything, there was praise for them for getting the verdict because, on my perception of the legal argument, they knew they had a tough fight on their hands.

I expect you to acknowledge all of the above and you can reply with:

"I'm sorry. To assume makes an ass of u and me, but in this case I only made an ass out of me."

No other reply will suffice.

I didn't say you 'attacked ' the defence.
I said you 'slanted' the view of the trial to make it look like only the defence was using these tactics.

Before going on a rant, understand what is being said. It isn't the first time somebody has sensationalised or misrepresented what went on in the trial.

Carry on.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

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?

Where she has remained anonymous. She didnt want to be known as a harlot around Belfast so she made a rape claim to save face that she would never consent to what she done that night in spite of any stories going around

False rape claims are made all the time. Look at Quinton Hann, Look at Robin Van Persie.

The accusation is made without any consequences for the future

So you're accusing her of making a false accusation?

Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. This verdict does not mean she filed a false accusation.

If you flip the tables and she was accused of this, brought to court by the state, with the same evidence, the same witnesses, the same reasonable doubt and her access to her own representation and character witnesses, how could a jury find her guilty? They couldn't.

If that verdict happens, then what?

sporina

goz83 wrote: »

Was there a point you were making?

you asked about messages that Jackson sent in a previous post

he obviously sent inappropriate messages if he is apologizing for same

[Deleted User]

Silentcorner wrote: »

So you are saying this harlot made up a bag of lies?

I honestly think its highly probable that in this case, she may have.
Yes, she had sex with them. Yes, maybe it was a little rough, but i dont believe the girl was raped. Maybe in her own head she believes she was.
The key witness gave testimony that she believed that the act she witnessed was consensual. Yes she didnt see the whole act, but 1 minute is enough to form an opinion in your own mind that nothing illegal is occuring here

skearnsot

Silentcorner wrote: »

You'd imagine then that the cab driver who dropped her home wouldn't have batted an eyelid, sure he must see it all the time.

He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence! I would NEARLY go as far as to say what humiliated her was when the 3rd guy said “you f***ed them why not me” or words to that affect!
Now for the record whilst I don’t think rape happened - I think she got more than she bargained for (no smutty pun intended) and the behaviour of the lads was less than gentlemanly at the time!
Plus with high profilers if one complaint of this nature comes forward there are generally more that follow!! I haven’t heard of anymore complaints against these lads other than crude what’s app messages?
If I’m wrong I’m open to correction

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

OMG, the arbiter of onlie fora has spoken.

I said i had empathy for a girl raped.
I said i had empathy for a girl in tears.
Do the math.
I didnt say i had no empathy for her.

But such is your blinkered view of the issue, youre unable to see anything that doesnt conform to your interpretation, as anything other than confrontational and hostile, and yet you persist in misinterpretation and strawmaning.

Maybe you are.
She was upset at something.
Not necessarily rape.
This fact is being completely lost on you.

What rubbish...you will not address any points, your slippery style won't fool me.

OK you agree she was in tears getting home, you also suggested that same young woman got a better deal than the two lads. Where is the empathy in that? Answer that please?

I recognised that I place a lot of importance on her state of distress. As in I have recognised that I place a lot of importance on her state of distress....I have asked another poster to answer a question for me that might help me understand that I may be incorrect in thinking that.

You are even more blinkered than I am, at least I have a little room for understanding that I might be getting something wrong.

If you are going to answer this post, please read it properly and please answer that specific question that you are refusing to answer.

Muff Richardson II

Silentcorner wrote: »

That and compared to the average upset person, was she typical, was she at the extreme end of upset...that much is important

I splashed out and treated myself to two top quality brazzers in the famous orchard towers ‘four floors of whores’ in Singapore on a return leg after a long stint in Asia. I had dreamt of this threesome moment for years...all round it was a very disappointing experience and I was extremely upset at having dropped a few hundred dollars on an awkward situation.

Some things don’t live up to your expectations and you can be left very upset as a result of it, especially if your flute (my case) or vagina (her case) is used during this disappointing experience and you can experience an awful lot of regret as a result of it. I believe this is what happened to yer one. I also got up and went down on this massive fat yoke whilst skin deep in lager and regretted it massively the following day...**** happens, she got roasted and didn’t like it, hard luck.

This testimony should’ve been used in the defences closing arguments.