Yeah for sure, but that same jury will also be presented with far more complex and contextualised information than what I was referring to from above.
I’m not even saying that the determination is incorrect necesarily, just that we shouldn’t be using simplistic logic to make a significant determination.
The problem with discourse & focusing on last reply is losing context.
This all stems from @Phoebica 's reply of having multiple accusers
7 different women. Not just 1.
You’re saying 7 different women all lied.
It’s unfair on Mendy when we now have adequate evidence post trail that proves that some accusations were evidently fake (video of consensual sex) and others were at best inadequate.
So when Mendy is still being accused because of the count of accusers/accusations, you have to point out the legitimacy of the accusers/accusations.
I am not proactively going after them.
I am simply responding to a simplistic logic of Mendy being guilty based on number of accusers.
What is the human reaction you’re referring to and how have you made the determination that that is the standard human reaction?
Nothing to do with leeway, it’s just the fact your point is based on horrendous oversimplification of a complex situation.
The post of yours that I quoted was directly responding to Sol’s comments around the fact there’s no standard way a person should behave after being raped.
I can’t see anything in that post that suggests Sol was saying Mendy is guilty due to the number of accusers.
there is a whole thread where Joshua & Sol responded to my post which was a response to Pheobica.
I will come back to this discussion later in the day.
From the January trial
Though the jury was repeatedly told there was no “right” way for a victim to behave, Laws (Mendy’s lawyer) focused a lot on what the women said and did after the alleged rapes. Some of the women whom Mendy was ultimately cleared of raping sent messages to friends expressing what Laws described as “unbridled joy and giddiness” about the night they’d just had. They then “reframed” their narrative after Mendy’s arrest was made public, Laws suggested.
The defence also suggested that at least some of those women deliberately went out to meet footballers. They were “hoping for a sprinkle of stardust”, Laws said.
One of Mendy’s accusers, Woman 5, returned to his home 15 times after the alleged attack, the court heard. The jury found him not guilty of raping Woman 5.
When she gave evidence, Woman 5 became angry at Laws’ questioning, calling her “a disgrace to womankind”.
.
Cool but I responded to a specific post which specifically responded to another post.
Maybe you have had a similar discussion before, but what you said in that post is what I was replying to and it is not just a simple response to people saying Mendy is guilty due to number of accusers.
It was quite clearly about the fact that there is no set way a person should react to being raped.
You can easily go up and read for yourself.
Please don’t.
I like to have the last word.
I am really not interested in your pedantic approach to this discussion. I offered the context, if you don’t care for it, cool with me; I won’t be indulging with you henceforth.
“What you have seen in this case is a real life… liar,” Laws said in her closing speech. “Someone who has made a serious criminal sexual allegations against two men and you have watched it play out, unusually, in front of your very eyes.”
Obviously Mendy’s defence would say this…but still
It’s not pedantry at all, I have pointed out exactly what you said and where you said it. I did this after you claimed to have said something different.
It’s a cop-out on your part to suggest I’m being pedantic when I am only making something clear.
I did this after you claimed to have said something different.
I offered my context to Leper before we started interacting, so if we are playing that game, I have it covered.
When Sol & Joshua replied to me, they referred to the original post at the start of the conversation; and I responded to it assuming that Sol, Joshua & other readers would carry the context of the previous post.
I make a similar assumption for subsequent conversations after that.
I am not a mindreader and I wouldn’t have known that Bavin is hell-bent on only focusing on one post within a whole conversation. When you do that, you eradicate all context, it becomes a different discussion altogether.
Additionally, I know of your tendency which is to not indulge in an honest discussion but rather to work on technicalities & taking a scalpel to a conversation, to which I am frankly not interested in contributing.
I do encourage you to consider it as a cop-out. I am not interested.
Speak of the devil
https://twitter.com/fabrizioromano/status/1681591642233487360?s=46&t=eJpgg6uHWRsStnASv-OePg
Here’s what you said:
Your ‘context’ doesn’t matter because it is the content of what you have said and providing the reasoning that you were discussing it with others doesn’t validate what you said.
I responded by saying there is no set way a person should react after being raped. You could absolutely justify all of it depending on the individual and the relevant context. Sure, it might be unlikely behaviour but that is why we have a trial and go through these things in-depth.
You were essentially saying there is a set way that people should react and I responded to that. You may have said it in the middle of a discussion with someone else but that is what you said and I made a point directed at that. Just because you were already discussing something, it doesn’t mean I can’t respond to that or that it somehow makes your point valid.
You still haven’t provided any justification for the above quoted post which is what originally started the discussion between you and me.
It’s quite evident that you can’t back up what you have said which is why you are trying to make the claim that I am a pedant.
You could easily just make a point as to why what you said in the above quoted post is correct but you continue to divert attention away from that with your ad hominem approach.
Hear hear