The ulster rugby trial

[whitegoodman]

What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.

[gallsman]

I can't understand how so many people on this board appear to know how and exactly they would react if they were a 19 year old girl being raped by two people in a house full of strangers. Half of you couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time, but congrats on the very progressive attitudes. Impressive for lads from a country with a fiercely conservative attitude of machismo.

[whitegoodman]

An absolutely tremendous contribution to the thread.

[Keyser soze]

1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.

She said she saw no signs of positive consent.

Dara Florence was simply not in a position to be able to say categorically that that it was not rape, because she is not the complainant, and cannot know what the complainant was feeling.

If there were no signs of positive consent, the most that could have been observed is compliance.

Compliance is not consent.

2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.

Not inconclusive. Dr. Lavery who actually examined the complainant, was quite clear on this, and that the source of the blood was not menstrual, rather it was from a "full laceration tear".

The medical witness who questioned this did not examine the complainant, so again, she was in no position to dispute Dr. Lavery's findings. She was basically a hired gun for the defence.

No wound or bruising can by itself prove that rape occurred. But a wound and bruising of that nature is certainly "consistent with rape or sexual assault".

It's all about the framing. That's how a similar wound to the victim of Mike Tyson was framed. It applies in this case too.

Is the wound not consistent with Paddy Jacksons claim of digital penetration.

And on this subject did the IP not state categorically that this was what happened ie that Jackson penetrated her with his fingers.

[nrico2006]

1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.

She said she saw no signs of positive consent.

Dara Florence was simply not in a position to be able to say categorically that that it was not rape, because she is not the complainant, and cannot know what the complainant was feeling.

If there were no signs of positive consent, the most that could have been observed is compliance.

Compliance is not consent.

2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.

Not inconclusive. Dr. Lavery who actually examined the complainant, was quite clear on this, and that the source of the blood was not menstrual, rather it was from a "full laceration tear".

The medical witness who questioned this did not examine the complainant, so again, she was in no position to dispute Dr. Lavery's findings. She was basically a hired gun for the defence.

No wound or bruising can by itself prove that rape occurred. But a wound and bruising of that nature is certainly "consistent with rape or sexual assault".

It's all about the framing. That's how a similar wound to the victim of Mike Tyson was framed. It applies in this case too.

Is the wound not consistent with Paddy Jacksons claim of digital penetration.

And on this subject did the IP not state categorically that this was what happened ie that Jackson penetrated her with his fingers.

IP?

[Owen Brannigan]

IP?

Injured Party

[seafoid]

What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.

Rape is about control and submission. Ms Florence saw the scene of less than a minute and wasn't thinking about rape. She was probably shocked to be asked to.join in.

[whitegoodman]

She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

[seafoid]

She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

They were pissed.

[Syferus]

She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

Why are you trying to apply sober-eyed social norms to something the woman and the State say was rape? Bizarre.

[whitegoodman]

She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

Why are you trying to apply sober-eyed social norms to something the woman and the State say was rape? Bizarre.

Ahh right I missed that bit.  Case closed then, why are they even bothering with this going to trial?  If the she and the state say it's so then that makes it fact !!!!

[Syferus]

She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

Why are you trying to apply sober-eyed social norms to something the woman and the State say was rape? Bizarre.

Ahh right I missed that bit.  Case closed then, why are they even bothering with this going to trial?  If the she and the state say it's so then that makes it fact !!!!

You're some ticket.

[Taylor]

Wrong whitegoodman.....Syf says it was rape.
Case closed.
No need for a trial

[whitegoodman]

Ahh now I get it, thanks for the correction.

[sid waddell]

She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

That's the exact red herring Mr. Kelly QC introduced.

It's almost like people are deliberately feigning ignorance of what rape is for transparently disingenuous reasons.

That or they simply don't understand what it is.

I'm not sure which is worse.