Faugheen wrote: » 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?
skearnsot wrote: » He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence!
Muff Richardson II wrote: » 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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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 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.
Silentcorner wrote: » You are absolutely incorrect, as soon as the police made contact with him he knew exactly why.
Muff Richardson II wrote: » 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.
Silentcorner wrote: » Let me guess...full time mad bastard?
skearnsot wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Why' what? He was concerned about his seats when she left the cab. Her state never once made him feel he had to take it further, alert police etc. She was allowing herself to be comforted by one of the strangers in the house. (Head on his chest etc) She said nothing about an assault/rape. That is what we know, nothing more, as far as I can see from the reports.
Silentcorner wrote: » What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please. What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?
Silentcorner wrote: » Read his testimony Francie...he remembered that fare make no mistake,
Silentcorner wrote: » skearnsot wrote: » 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 What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please. What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Whats slippy about this: *I empathise with a girl in tears. *I empathise with a girl who was raped. *A girl who was raped maybe in tears afterwards. *A girl in tears does not prove she was raped. Is there anything in those 4 points you cannot understand? You're floundering badly in this thread lately, and failing to make any sense, or make a point that hasnt been repeatedly rebuffed, and have resorted to ad hominens which are becoming more frequent as you slip beneath the surface... What question is it you think you've clearly asked that im avoiding? Theres only one of us spoofing now Silentcorner...
Muff Richardson II wrote: » 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 .
Faugheen wrote: » To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this. She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in. She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play.
Silentcorner wrote: » I almost agree with you there, but that would be my understanding, if she got more than she bargained for then it implies what she got crossed a line.
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 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 wrote: » Where have you shown empathy for the young lady in this case? Don't keep dodging it or lacing your answer in deflection. Answer that question please, where have you shown any empathy for the young woman in this case. The one you suggested got a great deal in those two fine specimen that were accused of wrongdoing. I am repeating myself because you are avoiding that direct question.
Silentcorner wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this. She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in. She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play. I almost agree with you there, but that would be my understanding, if she got more than she bargained for then it implies what she got crossed a line.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Hi Matlock Ive repeatedly said ive empathy for a girl in tears. Ive repeadedly said ive empathy for a girl raped. If/as she was in tears, ipso facto, point 1 applies. So where have i said i had no empathy for her? Where have i given any indication i had no empathy for the complainant. Harken back to "that post" if you will. Nowhere is there an expression of no empathy. Lets remind ourselves in case theres lawyers watching, those accused of "wrongdoing" were acquitted...
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » To be fair, my view on what happened wouldn't be far off this. She was doing whatever with Jackson, consensually, then Olding came in. She didn't want to do anything with them as a pair, but she suddenly found herself surrounded by two big strong rugby players, and this is where she 'froze' and where her perception of being raped comes into play. Again with the slant. The same as the prosecution tried. :rolleyes: Why didn't the 'big strong rugby players' not gang up on anybody else there that night, who had a 'pleasant enjoyable' night out?
Faugheen wrote: » Yeah that's fair, but from Jackson and Olding's point of view, it wasn't crossing a line because they weren't to know that she wasn't consenting to it (because she 'froze'). That idea also explains where the 'no, not him as well' that she claims to have said fits in in her narrative as well. I think they're all telling the truth about their perceptions of the night, to be honest. Except Blane McIlroy. Even the complainant and Jackson agree that he wasn't in the room. The funniest part of the trial (if you can say that) for me was when he was in the dock and Jackson's barrister was cross-examining him, and asked him if he agreed with the perception of his friends that he talked '****e', and he actually agreed.
Muff Richardson II wrote: » I’d say it means she had some idea in her head about a coital encounter with a famous sports star and it might have been a bit more romantic than getting tossed about like a rag doll by two scumbags high fiving each other.
Appledreams15 wrote: » How would Olding know anything on: eight cans of Carlsberg beer, four pints of Guinness, two gins, five vodka and lemonades and three shots of tequila and Sambuca.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
