Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

take everything · 08-06-2018 03:20PM

Can I ask why people think Jackson's and Olding's respective responses matter so much.
I get the impression the thinking from Twitter is Olding is less guilty somehow because he apologised in the way he did.

But could it be interpreted that Jackson is furious at what happened to him. At being falsely accused of rape. And didn't hold back about it. I would imagine anyone falsely accused of rape would be furious at the accusation and intent on vindicating himself.

And Olding was more savvy, played the game and apologised hoping this would sate his accusers so he could get on with his life.

FrancieBrady · 08-06-2018 03:20PM

Faugheen wrote: »

I never once said they raped her, but it doesn't take anything away from the facts. One out of the three parties involved was not happy with what happened and it started before she even left the house.

I've stated numerous times that I think she believes she was raped, but because she said nothing and 'froze' that Jackson and Olding were not aware of what's going on, and you can't do them for that either.

Olding at least showed some remorse for what happened and at least acknowledged that she gave her account from her perceptions as well as suggesting that it wasn't going to get easy for him from there.

Jackson did f*ck all until his back was against the wall, and even then gave a half-arsed apology.

If you're earning anywhere near the fortune Jackson was on, then you better believe that it doesn't entitle you to be an arsehole, because the public will find out about it. Him and his mates were clearly flinging women around like they were pieces of meat before and after this night in question.

This time, someone didn't like it, and Jackson went on to claim through his solicitor that all of this only happened because he was an international rugby player. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Yet it's people like some here who support them doing this and celebrating when he starts earning six figures again just to stick it to 'the mob' that give them that sense.

The more you earn, the more you have to conform to what YOU expect of them up there on the high moral ground??

Maybe Jackson was just angry that his life and career was in tatters because of this? Is that not a real emotion too?

upandcumming · 08-06-2018 03:32PM

take everything wrote: »

Can I ask why people think Jackson's and Olding's respective responses matter so much.
I get the impression the thinking from Twitter is Olding is less guilty somehow because he apologised in the way he did.

But could it be interpreted that Jackson is furious at what happened to him. At being falsely accused of rape. And didn't hold back about it. I would imagine anyone falsely accused of rape would be furious at the accusation and intent on vindicating himself.

And Olding was more savvy, played the game and apologised hoping this would sate his accusers so he could get on with his life.

They don't matter at all really, just people clutching at straws.

backspin. · 08-06-2018 03:42PM

Can I ask what those who are raging at this move. What do they want for paddy? That he never work again? That he be shunned from society for the rest of his life? What do you want?

DavidLyons_ · 08-06-2018 03:46PM

Faugheen wrote: »

I never once said they raped her, but it doesn't take anything away from the facts. One out of the three parties involved was not happy with what happened and it started before she even left the house.

I've stated numerous times that I think she believes she was raped, but because she said nothing and 'froze' that Jackson and Olding were not aware of what's going on, and you can't do them for that either.

Olding at least showed some remorse for what happened and at least acknowledged that she gave her account from her perceptions as well as suggesting that it wasn't going to get easy for him from there.

Jackson did f*ck all until his back was against the wall, and even then gave a half-arsed apology.

If you're earning anywhere near the fortune Jackson was on, then you better believe that it doesn't entitle you to be an arsehole, because the public will find out about it. Him and his mates were clearly flinging women around like they were pieces of meat before and after this night in question.

This time, someone didn't like it, and Jackson went on to claim through his solicitor that all of this only happened because he was an international rugby player. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Yet it's people like some here who support them doing this and celebrating when he starts earning six figures again just to stick it to 'the mob' that give them that sense.

So you accept they didn't rape her (ie. you accept the legitimate verdict of a court of law). So then, what exactly is it you would like to see Jackson punished for? Being unchivilrous? A single, innocuous, hungover Whatsapp message?

As far as I can see if the witch hunt mob are sickened by the fact that these young, not guilty men are free to pursue their chosen careers and not have their lives ruined then brilliant. That is cause to celebrate.

Those idiots who assumed the moral high ground and sought a figurative lynching should be very, very ashamed of themselves and should take a long hard look at themselves.

FrancieBrady · 08-06-2018 03:53PM

Faugheen wrote: »

I never once said they raped her, but it doesn't take anything away from the facts. One out of the three parties involved was not happy with what happened and it started before she even left the house.

I've stated numerous times that I think she believes she was raped, but because she said nothing and 'froze' that Jackson and Olding were not aware of what's going on, and you can't do them for that either.

Olding at least showed some remorse for what happened and at least acknowledged that she gave her account from her perceptions as well as suggesting that it wasn't going to get easy for him from there.

Jackson did f*ck all until his back was against the wall, and even then gave a half-arsed apology.

If you're earning anywhere near the fortune Jackson was on, then you better believe that it doesn't entitle you to be an arsehole, because the public will find out about it. Him and his mates were clearly flinging women around like they were pieces of meat before and after this night in question.

This time, someone didn't like it, and Jackson went on to claim through his solicitor that all of this only happened because he was an international rugby player. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Yet it's people like some here who support them doing this and celebrating when he starts earning six figures again just to stick it to 'the mob' that give them that sense.

The more you earn, the more you have to conform to what YOU expect of them up there on the high moral ground??

Maybe Jackson was just angry that his life and career was in tatters because of this? Is that not a real emotion too?

Silentcorner · 08-06-2018 05:18PM

take everything wrote: »

Can I ask why people think Jackson's and Olding's respective responses matter so much.
I get the impression the thinking from Twitter is Olding is less guilty somehow because he apologised in the way he did.

But could it be interpreted that Jackson is furious at what happened to him. At being falsely accused of rape. And didn't hold back about it. I would imagine anyone falsely accused of rape would be furious at the accusation and intent on vindicating himself.

And Olding was more savvy, played the game and apologised hoping this would sate his accusers so he could get on with his life.

Only a complete idiot would think that this case had at its heart a false accusation of rape, I doubt Jackson is that stupid!

snowbabe · 08-06-2018 05:30PM

Still wouldn't let either of my girls date either of them that's the bottom line for me really

salmocab · 08-06-2018 05:39PM

snowbabe wrote: »

Still wouldn't let either of my girls date either of them that's the bottom line for me really

See I don’t think anyone has said anything to suggest they aren’t a pair of dicks, but that doesn’t mean as some here thought that they should have to get different jobs.

citytillidie · 08-06-2018 06:08PM

Wonder if all those complaining are up in arms about RTE hiring a woman who has a history of committing domestic abuse

c.p.w.g.w · 08-06-2018 06:53PM

citytillidie wrote: »

Wonder if all those complaining are up in arms about RTE hiring a woman who has a history of committing domestic abuse

Of course not, because that doesn't fit their ideology.

With regards the complainant in the trial, if the defendant's character is being questioned then it's only fair to question the complainant's

DavidLyons_ · 08-06-2018 07:13PM

citytillidie wrote: »

Wonder if all those complaining are up in arms about RTE hiring a woman who has a history of committing domestic abuse

Excellent point. Hope Solo seems to be a very unpleasant person. The usual suspects within the Irish media and our moron twitter mob will remain very silent on the topic of her being paid to do her job by the Irish tax payer.

Roger Hassenforder · 08-06-2018 07:17PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Only a complete idiot would think that this case had at its heart a false accusation of rape, I doubt Jackson is that stupid!

I wonder if you're willing to accept she believes she was raped, as he believes he was falsely accused?

Both can be true...

FrancieBrady · 08-06-2018 07:24PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I wonder if you're willing to accept she believes she was raped, as he believes he was falsely accused?

Both can be true...

Going into the trial I believed neither tale of the night. I listened to the testimony and examinations of the witnesses. I suspect she may believe she was raped but that does not make it rape, regardless if you or I believe her.

Squatter · 08-06-2018 07:34PM

take everything wrote: »

I get the impression the thinking from Twitter is Olding is less guilty somehow because he apologised in the way he did.

But could it be interpreted that Jackson is furious at what happened to him. At being falsely accused of rape. And didn't hold back about it. I would imagine anyone falsely accused of rape would be furious at the accusation and intent on vindicating himself.

And Olding was more savvy, played the game and apologised hoping this would sate his accusers so he could get on with his life.

As I see it, Olding had the brains/maturity/sensitivity (call it as you wish) to appreciate that there were actually five people on trial during that court case. And he responded to his acquittal accordingly.

Whereas Jacko failed to grasp that fact, so his lawyer (presumably as instructed) issued a response that came wholly from within the PJ mé féin bubble.

Guy:Incognito · 08-06-2018 07:44PM

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Excellent point. Hope Solo seems to be a very unpleasant person. The usual suspects within the Irish media and our moron twitter mob will remain very silent on the topic of her being paid to do her job by the Irish tax payer.

Sure very little interest was shown in an actual rapist who is playing in the loi now.

Silentcorner · 08-06-2018 07:44PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I wonder if you're willing to accept she believes she was raped, as he believes he was falsely accused?

Both can be true...

Good point, I hadn't thought that he might believe he was genuinely a victim of a false rape accusation, simply because I cannot fathom how anybody could believe this was a false rape accusation.

But both her and his account diverged from the very start, this was not a misunderstanding, or about consent, this was one account verses a completely different account.

In this case, I don't see how both accounts can be true (I could believe that in the case of the woman and SO both could be true, but not with PJ)

Uncharted · 08-06-2018 08:16PM

NOT GUILTY.

FrancieBrady · 08-06-2018 08:22PM

The galling thing ( because there are real human beings involved here, with families etc etc) is that the moral crusaders have; as predicted, disappeared en masse.
Moral cowards would be more apt.
And if I may, I would like to coin a phrase in their dubious honour - 'Toxic Twitteratti' We need to wipe it out!

Roger Hassenforder · 08-06-2018 10:07PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Good point, I hadn't thought that he might believe he was genuinely a victim of a false rape accusation, simply because I cannot fathom how anybody could believe this was a false rape accusation.

But both her and his account diverged from the very start, this was not a misunderstanding, or about consent, this was one account verses a completely different account.

In this case, I don't see how both accounts can be true (I could believe that in the case of the woman and SO both could be true, but not with PJ)

Oh i agree, both (all!).accounts are very different.

Re believing her v believing him.
You're taking people at their word in both instances but choosing to believe one.
The truth is somewhere inbetween all the different accounts, who knows which one is closest to the truth.

if you accept she believes she was raped, you have to accept he believes he didnt rape her.
To reject PJs is just bias

goz83 · 08-06-2018 11:21PM

backspin. wrote: »

Can I ask what those who are raging at this move. What do they want for paddy? That he never work again? That he be shunned from society for the rest of his life? What do you want?

Some of them want him to end his life. Imagine what the mantra would become then. “Well he obviously couldn’t live with his guilt” . Im glad it’s all settling down, but it will never be over. The lads at least have a start again in the game. Good luck to them both.

Silentcorner · 09-06-2018 12:45AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Oh i agree, both (all!).accounts are very different.

Re believing her v believing him.
You're taking people at their word in both instances but choosing to believe one.
The truth is somewhere inbetween all the different accounts, who knows which one is closest to the truth.

if you accept she believes she was raped, you have to accept he believes he didnt rape her.
To reject PJs is just bias

I'm simply choosing to believe the most believable account, the account that makes the most sense, the case the CPS decided to proceed with, that is not bias, indeed we can all be accusing each other of bias if that is the case.

Do I believe that PJ could/does believe that he is the victim of a false rape accusation, I cannot see how, he would also be the victim of massive incompetence at best by the cops, his own mates also did enormous damage to his account.

I think it is very convenient to believe that the truth is somewhere in between all these varied accounts, there are two very different versions of that initial contact, when both PJ and the young woman were on their own in the bedroom.

This, by virtue of those two different accounts, was not a misunderstanding. Therefore, it is impossible for me to consider that both parties feel their accounts are accurate.

BBDBB · 09-06-2018 07:48AM

After 12 weeks of listening to all the accounts, a jury of 11 people took less than 4 hours to deliver not guilty verdicts on 7 charges. That’s less than an hour per man on trial. Seems pretty clear which version of the truth held water

09-06-2018 08:03AM

BBDBB wrote: »

After 12 weeks of listening to all the accounts, a jury of 11 people took less than 4 hours to deliver not guilty verdicts on 7 charges. That’s less than an hour per man on trial. Seems pretty clear which version of the truth held water

Well its not quite as clear cut as which version held water. Her version had to be deemed 100% true.

Roger Hassenforder · 09-06-2018 08:05AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm simply choosing to believe the most believable account, the account that makes the most sense, the case the CPS decided to proceed with, that is not bias, indeed we can all be accusing each other of bias if that is the case.

Do I believe that PJ could/does believe that he is the victim of a false rape accusation, I cannot see how, he would also be the victim of massive incompetence at best by the cops, his own mates also did enormous damage to his account.

I think it is very convenient to believe that the truth is somewhere in between all these varied accounts, there are two very different versions of that initial contact, when both PJ and the young woman were on their own in the bedroom.

This, by virtue of those two different accounts, was not a misunderstanding. Therefore, it is impossible for me to consider that both parties feel their accounts are accurate.

But there were several different accounts, some more aligned than others, including a witnesses account.

She may believe she was raped. PJ may well believe he didnt rape her. A jury held he didnt. Yet you reject his belief? Both "beliefs" can be true. Neither are the facts.
One belief of a version of events was found to be evidentally true, therefore is this belief not closer to the truth?

Your partially pinning your view on CPS prosecuting a case the investigation officers are on record as saying the evidence was insufficient...

Everyone has a bias, some just more biased than others. Her account makes the most sense to you. Not to others. Not to the courts. Not to PJ. Youve simply anchored, and are unwilling to entertain possibilities.

I see no difficulty in her believing she was raped or he beliving he didnt rape her, and believing that she was at the time willing, therefore she was falsely accusing him of raping her. Its recognizing they both might believe they are right.This isnt the same as the police/CPS/complainant concocting a false rape charge.

Silentcorner · 09-06-2018 12:48PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

But there were several different accounts, some more aligned than others, including a witnesses account.

She may believe she was raped. PJ may well believe he didnt rape her. A jury held he didnt. Yet you reject his belief? Both "beliefs" can be true. Neither are the facts.
One belief of a version of events was found to be evidentally true, therefore is this belief not closer to the truth?

Your partially pinning your view on CPS prosecuting a case the investigation officers are on record as saying the evidence was insufficient...

Everyone has a bias, some just more biased than others. Her account makes the most sense to you. Not to others. Not to the courts. Not to PJ. Youve simply anchored, and are unwilling to entertain possibilities.

I see no difficulty in her believing she was raped or he beliving he didnt rape her, and believing that she was at the time willing, therefore she was falsely accusing him of raping her. Its recognizing they both might believe they are right.This isnt the same as the police/CPS/complainant concocting a false rape charge.

The only difficulty with that is of course both accounts are completely different, it cannot be put down to a misunderstanding (unlike SO), those that do are taking the chickens way out, at the very beginning of this incident, one person was not telling the truth...it really is that simple....there is no other explanation, it wasn't an intimate encounter that escalated, it was one person claiming to be heading home, and the other account is completely different...which means both people cannot believe that they were both truthful.

Do you believe that Blaine McIlroy could believe that he too is the victim of a false rape accusation? If so, please explain? His account and hers are also completely different, both cannot be telling the truth.

AudreyHepburn · 09-06-2018 01:30PM

Faugheen wrote: »

I never once said they raped her, but it doesn't take anything away from the facts. One out of the three parties involved was not happy with what happened and it started before she even left the house.

I've stated numerous times that I think she believes she was raped, but because she said nothing and 'froze' that Jackson and Olding were not aware of what's going on, and you can't do them for that either.

Olding at least showed some remorse for what happened and at least acknowledged that she gave her account from her perceptions as well as suggesting that it wasn't going to get easy for him from there.

Jackson did f*ck all until his back was against the wall, and even then gave a half-arsed apology.

If you're earning anywhere near the fortune Jackson was on, then you better believe that it doesn't entitle you to be an arsehole, because the public will find out about it. Him and his mates were clearly flinging women around like they were pieces of meat before and after this night in question.

This time, someone didn't like it, and Jackson went on to claim through his solicitor that all of this only happened because he was an international rugby player. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Yet it's people like some here who support them doing this and celebrating when he starts earning six figures again just to stick it to 'the mob' that give them that sense.

But why should he apologize when he’s done nothing wrong - if as you say she didn’t properly communicate what she was thinking and feeling surely that’s on her and not something he can be blamed for?

Men are men not mind readers. He has every right to be angry - his life life was nearly ruined over something he didn’t do.

salmocab · 09-06-2018 01:38PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

The only difficulty with that is of course both accounts are completely different, it cannot be put down to a misunderstanding (unlike SO), those that do are taking the chickens way out, at the very beginning of this incident, one person was not telling the truth...it really is that simple....there is no other explanation, it wasn't an intimate encounter that escalated, it was one person claiming to be heading home, and the other account is completely different...which means both people cannot believe that they were both truthful.

Do you believe that Blaine McIlroy could believe that he too is the victim of a false rape accusation? If so, please explain? His account and hers are also completely different, both cannot be telling the truth.

Surely you can believe then that both could be lying?
I’m inclined to think that nobody really knows what happened because they were all drunk. If 4 lads met up the next day and still didn’t have coherent stories that makes me think they also don’t know what happened. She shouldn’t be believed just because her story makes the most sense to you because nothing about the whole thing makes sense.
I don’t think any of them know exactly what happened.

Roger Hassenforder · 09-06-2018 01:47PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

The only difficulty with that is of course both accounts are completely different, it cannot be put down to a misunderstanding (unlike SO), those that do are taking the chickens way out, at the very beginning of this incident, one person was not telling the truth...it really is that simple....there is no other explanation, it wasn't an intimate encounter that escalated, it was one person claiming to be heading home, and the other account is completely different...which means both people cannot believe that they were both truthful.

Do you believe that Blaine McIlroy could believe that he too is the victim of a false rape accusation? If so, please explain? His account and hers are also completely different, both cannot be telling the truth.

Not sure what youre saying here TBH.
They could all be lying.
Or they could all be telling what they believe is the truth.

Remind us what Blaine was charged with...

Silentcorner · 09-06-2018 02:07PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not sure what youre saying here TBH.
They could all be lying.
Or they could all be telling what they believe is the truth.

Remind us what Blaine was charged with...

Ok, I do not believe that both people could both believe they were telling the truth, for this you have suggested that my bias is blinding me, I disagree.

So lets take a different situation.

If you had two school kids, John and Mike, John claims that Mike stole his money by force, Mike denys even having the money. All you know for sure is that they were both in the same place at the same time...You can't punish on the basis of a lack of proof, but can you also believe that both John and Mike both believe they are telling the truth? One of them is clearly lying.

The account of the young woman is too different to PJs account, therefore they both cannot be telling the truth.

The following link contains a full explanation of McIlroys role, he was charged with indecent exposure... to a woman he claims wanted to have sex with him... https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/blane-mcilroy-admits-deleting-texts-which-mentioned-alleged-rape-victim-i-thought-they-didnt-read-well-36688227.html kindly explain to me how both the young woman and McIlroy could both believe they are telling the truth?

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments