Lol. You can preach all you want, There’s not a sane juror alive who at this stage would think those lads are telling the truth. Pack of cowards.
of course they are lying, that is clear. it doesnt make them guilty of rape though. not yet anyway.
In reply, the alleged victim messaged: “I got raped by three Ulster rugby f***ing scum. Brilliant night.”
Was she wrong here or lying or trauma or cannot remember?
It is clear none of them remember details because of alcohol.
She goes on to explain… 2 and a third tried to get involved.
All are lying or telling stories to put best foot forward as they don’t truthfully remember. Defendants and complainant.
So she was not raped by 3 players as her text message says.
She is not lying. Her story, even given their messages, makes perfect sense in the context they are talking about. Two independent witnesses also backing her up…call logs and forensics too. Even if one of the defendants were telling the truth, it makes everyone else involved a liar.
Twister - read the context of the messages.
are you taking her texts as statements now? because if you are, are the lads texts going to be taken as statements too? top shaggers, spit roasting, etc? or just an exaggeration of her part (that she did explain further) or bravado on their part in a group setting.
Not at all. Just pointing out all the stories and statements and text messages are inconsistent. Defendants and complainant.
When all else fails, try false equivalence.
Which is a form of lying.
This is account given to doctor at medical centre
When the doctor was asked what the complainant told him, he read a statement he made that night, which stated:
Went to an address after a nightclub. There a male ‘came on to me’. She refused his advances. Decided to leave, went back upstairs to get bag, male followed her in to the bedroom. He pushed her onto the bed, face down. Took off her trousers and underwear and vaginally raped her from behind, then turned her over and raped her from in front.
“No condom was used, unsure whether there was ejaculation. He caused pain as he was ‘rough’. She noticed vaginal bleeding at this time. He kissed and touched her breasts and neck.”
“A second male entered the room and vaginally raped her while she was on her back. Unsure whether a condom was used, unsure about ejaculation. Second man kissed her neck.”
“A third male came in to the room, took his trousers off. When the second man got off her, she took her trousers and ran away.”
Have we not been over this a million times already? If that’s all you go about her being a liar, it pales in significance in comparison to them.
You are missing the point. The trial is not about establishing truth. It is about proving something beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her account has significant inconsistencies. A police officer has given evidence to that effect.
The defendants accounts have significant inconsistencies too.
My view is none of them really remember and they are all latching on to information to make their best case.
Well there is no reason to believe their word over hers anymore. They seem quite at ease being able to tell lies.
This trial is about both those things.
“ Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.“
So is she…(can we all pack our briefcases and headboard to the other thread(
Something you keep preaching - but have not been able to back up. I’m not engaging with you, you’re a hypocrite. You told me to keep an open mind, yet you also think Harrison is not guilty of withholding evidence and McIlroy is also not guilty. Laughable.
To establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt you have to search for truth.
To establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt without searching for truth is an oxymoron.