Replacement 10

[Snipe Watson]

What? Who? Why? When? Where?

3 years without so much as a postcard and then scatter gun questions?

Nothing to report.

[widerball]

What? Who? Why? When? Where?

3 years without so much as a postcard and then scatter gun questions?

Nothing to report.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Were no minutes taken?

[Snipe Watson]

What? Who? Why? When? Where?

3 years without so much as a postcard and then scatter gun questions?

Nothing to report.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Were no minutes taken?

About 210.

[Deraless]

What? Who? Why? When? Where?

3 years without so much as a postcard and then scatter gun questions?

Nothing to report.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Were no minutes taken?

About 210.

Saw some people suggesting today that the fact the jury took such a short time meant that they didn't take it seriously or examine the evidence properly! The idiocy of some people is astounding.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[rumncoke]

For the ladies of this world
the moral of this sad tale is

never lie to you mates because they enjoy F-cling you more than rapists

Never claim to be raped if all you've done is give a couple of guys a BJ
and had your pussy tickled or may ladies you'd rather it was described as nanny fingered .

personally I would describe it as some vigorous foreplay or maybe mutual masturbation .

The problem is it becomes difficult to create a plausible story which will
agree to that of the other party bar the issue of consent or when and how agreement or non consent was communicated to the other party .

Her problem was she created the lie before she had a story to support it -- because she never thought she would have to
prove the lie .

Other fact is the accused doesn't have to give evidence .

Because anything he's says maybe used against him.

Some one pointed out you might drive a bus through Jackson's evidence .

Jackson stated he didn't penetrative sex with her - said he didn't have any condoms -- appeared to be lying on his back on the receiving end of a BJ when Olding came in ( why)--forensic found or did not report finding PJ semen on any of her garments or on her person ( why ) Paddy Jackson did not have a sexual
climax on the night and therefore it is fair to conclude did not have penetrative sex on the night -- therefore the claimants accusation of rape is without foundation thus anything omitted from or confusing in
Paddy Jackson's evidence is meaningless.

His Barrister doesn't have to identify why and the prosecutor is definitely not going to ask why he didn't have sex with her .








Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[BaggyTrousers]

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the British legal system. Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Correct, unless you are in that boy band The Birmingham Six, or the Guildford Fab Four, whereas it should have been a certain member of the Jackson Five (no relative) who saw time in Chokey. Or any of several folk, not FOLK, fitted up by what I assume, like all things British, is the best police force in the world, pushing the B Specials into a close second.

[BaggyTrousers]

Baggy

Her story between 3 04 and 3 50 has précision and clarity her story between the time she discovered period had come early that is the phone call to Uber, have précision and clarity and therefore are almost certainly true

The confusion and variation and totally lacking in plausibility and totally out of agreement with the defendants is from 3 50 and 4 43

Since both Jackson and Olding were recovering from a 12 + hours flight from South Africa and 12 hours of fairly heavy drinking where the average input was 2 drinks an hour I would be surprised if their stories dovetailed in every detail but there is sufficient agreement to make them plausible — their is little or no agreement with her recall of that time which is extremely surprising .

The only difference one would expect when a parties admit to sexual activity would be the matter of consent or the nature of the threat or force exerted to impose the rapist’s will .

Her story is so full of the unbelievable - he undid her belt - pulled down her pants to her knees she then asks ?? He use a condom — he replies I am and he is holding or forcing her face down on the bed - she then - face down on the bed - looks him in the eye when Stuart Olding comes in «  not him too « 
She couldn’t remember when or how her upper garments were removed -

I froze - in walks Dara and she turns her head so as not to be photographed

The best evidence she could have produced to support her claim would have been a photograph - but she didn’t want one — she’s not that stupid !!

The problem with her evidence is it is a mixture of truth and fiction .

The problem with McIllroy’s evidence is that it has no tie into hers or Jackson’s or Olding’s

Except in her first text
raped by 3?- thus there is that link to make his evidence to be true in parts and imperfect recall in other but he had flown from America and had a large consumption of Alcohol confusion is possible .

Possibly Olding had left the room and was asleep elsewhere and Jackson could also been asleep from the effects of flight drink and alcohol .

But McIllroy’s evidence is the most questionable of those made by the defendants and yet his charge is the vaguest but the fact it is questionable in my view makes a conspiracy less likely .

The four gentlemen are well educate and too clever to muck up a conspiracy their stories would dovetail together like a James Patterson collaboration.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ron'n, sorry to be rude but I read my name and then the first line and thought, feck it, Ron was accurate last night so I'm not going to wade my way through it. I assume you were the foreman of the Jjjjjjjjury and you used to be a man but now you are apparently a woman ............ something like that I think. Anyway glad you got a spot on the jury, did you influence the decision? Dessie isn't convinced.

I'm hoping to hear from Liz Fraser, there is a woman knows her rugby & I tell you what Ron'n, she is also a transexual or I'm not gayer than the next man ..................and I am, so I am.

Right boys & girls, up at 7am to head to Limerick, pray for me those of you who pray, the rest wish me luck as I head for BelieverLand and feckin' Mexico on Sunday.

[Tender]

Baggy I guess Dessie has chosen not to accept that all four defendants were found not guilty, by a jury who sat through nine weeks of evidence and cross examinations and closing arguments. He/she wants to inhabit some middle ground, where he/she remains unconvinced of guilt or innocence. Ignoring the eye witness account, when she stated she’d witnessed a threesome (Not a rape), which Paddy invited her to join.
Pity, I had high hopes for Dessie, but like my Granda always said ‘No need to take a Dick with you when you go out, you’ll always find one wherever you go’

[TheSnapper]

1BE6D68D-C9F5-4CB4-A1E9-5FA0A5D0CAB8.jpeg (101.34 KiB) Viewed 571 times

Russ, Dave and Baggy at Welders charity summer ball

[Tender]

Thon Waistcoat is pulling a bit on Dave

[rumncoke]

Baggy
Not on the jury but and avid daily reader of the reports .

To a certain extent the legal process is normally weighted in the favour of the defendants because you have prove the crime was committed .

As the bird said in this case more so because of the number of defendants .

Therefore given the number of defendants unless you considered the evidence closely you could like those on «  ibelieveher «  consider it was the process defeated her claim rather than the truth .

Being a father of daughters places you in a camp that wants to see justice but realising the evidence will never prefect a mixture of truth , vague memories and sometimes lies thus it requires careful consideration .

I followed the reports very very closely from a variety of papers because some differ from others in the information they reported

Very soon it was obvious her story had never been tested , and vague where it should have had detail and therefore implausible .

I always considered the charges were a shotgun at the defendants where if a lesser charge had been considered as proved then it may have effected the consideration of the major charges .

McIllroy’s evidence always was the Achilles heal in the defence because he described a major offence but was charged with a minor and yet was the defendant most disliked by the claimant .

The fact is two young lads have been destroyed by a false allegation of rape which should never have gone to court .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rumncoke]

Is the one in the skirt not Baggy

He’s as gay as the next man or so he says




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Russ]

What?

Sorry, I thought the video was pretty self-evident on why it's worthwhile asking questions about the systems that pass judgement on people. I express some concern in this area, and that makes me an insane cretin? Cheers... roll on 1984.

Im confused how your reply fits into me watching Jonathan Pie?
I've not called you insane or a cretin

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Russ]

1BE6D68D-C9F5-4CB4-A1E9-5FA0A5D0CAB8.jpeg

Russ, Dave and Baggy at Welders charity summer ball

Looks like ive lost 30kg

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Deraless]

1BE6D68D-C9F5-4CB4-A1E9-5FA0A5D0CAB8.jpeg

Russ, Dave and Baggy at Welders charity summer ball

Looks like ive lost 30kg

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You know the old saying: "blacking up for the camera takes off 30 kilos".

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk