Simple question - have you ever said "fuck me harder"

[BeyondPolkadots]

That's it

Me - yes.

Yes. More than once. In various positions.

Aren't you embarrassed to keep posting on this point, cadno, after Felas pwned you about the publication of the phrase in question in the Mirror during the original trial?

HillaryFTW Its not a question of being embarrassed - although, I was surprised about it having been in the public domain - that's true. But then one would have to believe that all these people are in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - that's years in jail for them all if caught. Its a huge risk - in trying to persuade her former lovers, for something...which has been said is so unremarkable - and for there to have been two false 'witnesses' ( one according be on £50K a year anyway). It doesn't ring true to me.

Is it known what the complainant said about the men's account - I suppose it was put to her in the trial.

No i havent as i dont like it hard!

However i do believe its a popular thing to say

Yes I have. And I would never report a rape.

Yes, many times. I was unaware that it was a code phrase for "I am now unrapeable due to my slaggy ways".

Yes I have, many times

I have said it to my Ex, who also on one occasion raped me
I'd be laughed out of bloody court wouldn't I

This is all very very frightening for the future tbh

On facebook one of the newspapers did an article on him being cleared (i think it was the sun) and the comments on it were truely shocking! Nearly everyone was saying she should be charged with lying etc.

Not those very words but similar.

cadno There are many relevant things here.

1. His girlfriend is the child of a multi millionaire and has been offering money to witnesses to change their story.This was not told to the jury.
2. In British law, the past sex life of victims should not be brought up unless extreme circumstances. I am not convinced that these are extreme circumstances.
3. Memory is not a tape recorder - can you remember exactly what the person you had sex with in 2011 actually said - word for word?
4. The words that were said were in the public domain and so have been heard over and over again. It would be more convincing if the witnesses had been asked "what did she say" without them already knowing that "fuck me harder" is a suitable answer.
5. The "exact same words" are words that it seems many many women say during sex. Imagine the coincidence if they both claimed she said "Ooooh!" Or "have you got a condom" Or "That's nice" as well!

Its disgusting that he got off.

He appealed his sentence about 4 times and each time it got rejected. Suddenly her family stepped in throwing money around and hey presto suspicious new evidence came to light that got conveniently forgotten first time round.

How that woman can even look at him never mind go to bed with him knocks me sick!

I just read this elsewhere, perhaps it has a bearing on the discussion. Please don't attack me.....I have my own views, not expressed here.

"Admissibility of this or that piece of evidence is a tricky, complex subject in English Law at the best of times, but never more so than in cases of historical abuse and adult rape. A few of us knew, for instance, that the woman who brought this charge had a documented history of hotel encounters spookily identical to the format (à trois) and ‘come-on’ wording of sexual events that got Evans and his friend into trouble. Further, she had done the same thing two days before and two days after the Evans encounter.

That doesn’t prove Evans thought he had consent in this case. But without collusion, two other men came forward to say she had tried the exact same modus operandum to threaten them. It was, therefore, more than enough to cast a shadow of doubt; and in English Law, a shadow of doubt cannot be left".

weasal

Not attacking you but i think thats the biggest load of bollocks i have heard in my entire life

And i have just been on a thread in Feminism with an op using tinder as evidence

cadno

I understand what you are saying but i think people can be very, very stupid

Thanks for not attacking me Rufus, .....what exactly is bollocks? that the young lady had 3 encounters within 4 days etc broadly similar. The whole affair is so seedy that I dislike talking about it.

The bit that stinks for me is, it strikes me as odd that they have said a phrase that it's public knowledge he has used in his defence, they've only said it after several years and after several attempts at appeal have been thrown out, after offers of money have been made publicly, after witnesses have been contacted privately with offers of money...

Also, the woman didn't bring a charge. And if she had a documented history of hotel threesomes, I haven't seen this presented by the defence or prosecution - where is this info coming from?

She did not have hotel threesomes with strangers two days before, or two weeks after. On each of those occasions, it was sex with one man that was known to her.

And you don't even need to collude if those words were already in the public domain.

Three encounters in four days... Where did you get this information?

Having sex on a Thursday does not mean you can't be raped on the followings Saturday, and the circumstances were not remotely similar.

Having sex two weeks after a rape is perfectly possible as well. The circumstances were also completely different.

Not even the defence claimed she had three threesomes wirh strangers in hotels within four days. So whatevr you're reading is a pile o shite and best ignored.

MoreKopp, I took "same modus operandi" to mean that the sexual encounters were similar to each other.

Having sex with someone you know is not the same as someone you don't know obtaining a hotel key by deception, sneaking into a room while your brother and his mate watch from the window outside, then asking your mate if you can have a go at the woman he is having sex with. It's probably his modus operandi that should be questioned, given that he was the one on trial. But rape trials are different. We might as well change it so that being raped is the crime.

Marble, I have assumed that the person who wrote it has looked into the trial notes....I have been trying to find out what is different about this trial and it appears (I assume) that is the calling additional witnesses. Presumably 3 encounters in 4 days has come from these witnesses.

During his re trial did the woman he raped have to give evidence again?

Marble, please don't think I am defending him, I'm not.

Weasel, not even the defence claimed that, so whoever wrote what you quoted is chatting shit and it's not worth further comment.

No Weasel, just pointing out that whoever you are quoting has either woeful comprehension skills or an agenda and is spreading outright lies. I have my theory as to which it is.