Hi all
I've been lurking on here for a while, but have decided to break cover as I've been getting quite worked up about this thread. Though the op (see I've picked up the lingo) has pretty much covered what I was going to say in her last post.
I also believe 'Emily' - absolutely. I always did, but even more so since watching the doc. I don't know how anyone who has seen the doc could not believe her, unless they were quite determined to think she was lying from the outset. And why would you be? Why on Earth would anyone think it was more likely that this young woman chose to have group sex with five virtual strangers (the DNA of 5 different men were found on her) than that she was raped by a group of vile men who had had been heard boasting about fucking the English girl in advance and were triumphantly celebrating and calling her a whore afterwards. Hardly the behaviour of innocent boys who had narrowly avoided a false rape charge. Also, the claim (made by the police and judge) that she 'cried rape' after finding out she was being filmed seems bizarre to me. Wouldn't you want to pretend it hadn't happened and hope no-one you knew got to see the footage, rather than drawing attention to it (as well as putting yourself through the added humiliation of an intimate exam and intrusive questioning)?
I was aware of the online video before, as it was mentioned many times in the comments section of the Daily Mail article (of course) about the doc, by people (let's assume men) claiming it was absolute proof she was lying, and that those of us not repulsive enough to have searched for it and watched it, don't know what we're talking about. They've sort of got us over a barrel with that one, because no decent person is going to want to watch it (watching the doc was hard enough). But, with my extremely limited knowledge of Porn Hub, I'm pretty sure it would not be beyond the wit of man (or spotty teenage boy) to fake such a video (I'm sure I've heard, for instance, that there are videos of celebs doing pretty gross things online - which are not actually them) especially as there was some real footage of consensual sex to work with (as admitted by the victim). This footage was shown to the judge during HER trial (the men were not tried) and I think played a large part in the verdict. Because, of course, if a young woman is willing to have sex with one man she barely knows she's clearly willing to have sex with five of them!
If there is real footage of consensual group sex surely she would know that and therefore why would she continue to 'lie'? Wouldn't she just think she was lucky not to have got a year in jail and try and get back to normal life?
As for the differing doctors' reports, I understood that the doctor who saw her first said her injuries were consistent with rape and she was extremely distressed, as was also reported by her friends and a young man who was staying in the same hotel.
Sorry for banging on a bit. But it's a subject I feel very strongly about. Thank you to the OP for raising the subject.