Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Options
1…4748505253…108

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?

    That isn't the way the law works i'm afraid. Beyond reasonable doubt as in she had to prove beyond reasonable doubt she was raped.

    Yes, your right, I couldnt prove that she was lying if the tables were turned but its a theory i have based on probability having heard an account of what happened. I firmly believe the sex was consensual in this instance.


  • Options
    #1473
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    skearnsot wrote: »
    He probably didn’t think much of it until he got called to give evidence!

    You are absolutely incorrect, as soon as the police made contact with him he knew exactly why.


  • Options
    #1474
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭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.

    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.

    Let me guess...full time mad bastard?


  • Options
    #1475
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.

    You said I was talking about the defence resorting to 'nasty' tactics.

    How can you say that in one sentence then in the next say you didn't say I wasn't attacking them?

    Seriously, I haven't tried to put a slant on anything in my post. You have.

    I didn't call the defences tactics 'nasty'. You did.

    Don't give me a lecture about misrepresentation when you are doing just that right now.


  • Options
    #1476
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,997 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    You are absolutely incorrect, as soon as the police made contact with him he knew exactly why.

    '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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    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.

    ....and I've stopped reading.


  • Options
    #1478
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Let me guess...full time mad bastard?

    I think someone opened an account just to post that. :D


  • Options
    #1479
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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?


  • Options
    #1480
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    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.

    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...


  • Options
    #1481
    mfceiling
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭mfceiling


    Please go out and buy today's Sunday Times.

    In the magazine section is an article about men being falsely accused of rape in England.

    "Where once the police and criminal justice system were criticised for their treatment of alleged victims - often not believing their stories or subjecting women to heavy handed cross examinations about what they had been drinking, how they dressed and previous relationships - now the pendulum has swung the other way.
    When Saunders became head of the CPS in 2013, she promoted a focus on female victims. In rape cases where the complainant is known to have been drunk, Saunders put the onus on men to prove explicit consent. She advised prosecutors to examine alleged rapists previous sexual behaviour and encouraged women to seek advice from a rape counsellor if they woke up in a man's bed with no memory of the previous night".

    Mary Aspinall - Miles the barrister suggests pressure on prosecutors is exacerbated by the emotive nature of sexual assaults, impassioned commentary on social media and a repeated myth that conviction rates in reported rape cases is only 6%. In fact, once rape cases reach court, nearly 60% result in convictions.

    Angela Rafferty QC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association has warned that the police and CPS may show unconscious bias in cases of sexual assault. She worries about "sexual - offence cases where complainants are labelled victims before a trial has started".




    Well worth buying the paper to read this article.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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.

    Read his testimony Francie...he remembered that fare make no mistake,


  • Options
    #1483
    skearnsot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 499 ✭✭skearnsot


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please.
    What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?

    She went with intent to get off with Olding - & succeeded - not quite sure she thought there would be another involved too! Then a 3rd walked in ready for action and she metaphorically “got more than she bargained for”


  • Options
    #1484
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,997 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Read his testimony Francie...he remembered that fare make no mistake,

    Yes he did.
    What difference does that make?


  • Options
    #1485
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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?

    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.


  • Options
    #1486
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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...

    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.


  • Options
    #1487
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    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
    .

    You cant leave us hanging, give us the details


  • Options
    #1488
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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.


  • Options
    #1489
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,997 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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?


  • Options
    #1490
    skearnsot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 499 ✭✭skearnsot


    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.

    No that’s not how I personally would interpret it - nor is it how I meant it to come across - there were lines crossed in terms of general manners or conduct etc - I’m just not convinced rape was that line!


  • Options
    #1491
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    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

    I really do not think that anyone would put themselves through a 9 week trial so as not to be called a slut.
    If you think so you're laughable.
    Growing up in Ireland as a teenager-20's we were called sluts all the time. You were either frigid or a slut. There was nothing nice said about women.
    Ie, someone said to me: jonny told me about you, he said you were a slut. (Jonny lied about being with me).

    Or I would hear about another girl 'jenny from a certain village is the village bike, half the lads have been with her", and a lad would say back "half, I'd say 3/4, hahaha". The men would lie about being with women, and then call them sluts, and we all (the women)knew it.
    There was alot of cruel misogyny growing up in Ireland.
    Time for things to change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    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.

    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...


  • Options
    #1493
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1494
    Muff Richardson II
    Site Banned Posts: 20 ✭Muff Richardson II


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    What do mean got more than she bargained for? Can you explain that please.
    What is less than gentlemanly behaviour?

    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.


  • Options
    #1495
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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...

    You suggested that the young lady, who arrived home sobbing, got a good deal in that she got two men the two men only got one woman.

    If you consider that empathy you need to go back to school. I thought that what you said was vile.


  • Options
    #1496
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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?

    Francie.

    Stop trying to find a ****ing issue with everything I post.

    I'm saying from her perspective, she's surrounded by two, big strong rugby players and she froze because she saw no way out, whereas if she said no, they probably would have backed off.

    I'm not trying to imply anything else.

    Seriously, stop getting so ****ing offended over the smallest things.


  • Options
    #1497
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1498
    Ahhhh for forks sake!
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 143 ✭✭Ahhhh for forks sake!


    You are innocent until proven guilty.

    The lads were found not guilty.

    Therefore they are innocent in law.

    The text messages were graphic, I'll admit, however they were PRIVATE. They were only made public in the course of the trial. If the lads weren't named before the guilty verdict, then the messages wouldn't have been made public.

    The messages were pornographic in nature, however I fail to see how they were misogynistic. There was nothing anti-woman in it.

    The whole thing stinks of Hitler hating Jews so he has to destroy any place they prosper.


  • Options
    #1499
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,175 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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.

    The strangest part for me was when the prosecutor asked Rory Harrisson where McIlroy was when he was at Paddys bedroom door, and he couldn't answer, it was put to him..."Could he have been in the wardrobe?"...."Possibly"...utterly nuts!


  • Options
    #1500
    skearnsot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 499 ✭✭skearnsot


    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.

    Hats off sir!! Excellently said


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    Squatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    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.

    I'm still puzzled by the fact that that those two gins were drank neat. Doesn't add up.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement