Houellebecq-<That's just your story. Why did the jury not convict. They had much more time and evidence than you. Oh that's right it's all a conspiracy why don't we do away with juries and just ask you.>

I was told that the jury actually couldn't agree on this and they are considering whether to have a retrial or not.

My story is based on eye witness accounts and the findings of a forensic medical examiner, what's yours based on?

As I said in my earlier post, I watched a man being interviewed on T.V one night who had been tried 3 times for rape and found not guilty by 3 juries because they did not know of his other rape trials because of the law that this cannot be revealed in a rape case.
Although the defence lawyer is allowed to tear the victim apart with information about her past sexual history which may be fairly normal but sounds sordid when harped upon and headlined in the media.

Ask any of the women's rape crisis centres how often there is a miscarriage of justice in these cases I think I've read that the number is quite high.

Also one of the men in the Mrs Brimble's persons of interest, had gone to trial before for rape and been found not guilty. Now here he is in another highly suspicious gang rape.

If for a moment we consider your version of events that Mrs Brimble was a recreational drug user. How come she has never overdosed and died on all those other occasions, only this time when gang sex was involved

So your thesis is that all trials should not be based on their own merits, but based on the history and trials (not even convictions) of the accused.

I like your 'when there's smoke there's fire' attitude. Maybe you should add 'guilty until proven innocent' and put the burden of proof on the accused while you're at it.

'My story is based on eye witness accounts and the findings of a forensic medical examiner, what's yours based on? '

That's exactly right. Your *story*. I don't have a story, I merely suggested an alternative version of events that was equally plausible. Not plausible in your mind of course, as any woman who has group sex is raped and women only take drugs if tricked by a man in your world.

I can accept I wasn't there and have no idea what *really* happened, but of course you 'know' for sure to this level of detail don't you. You were even telling us about her motives and such and what she wanted out of the cruise. 'Looking for love and companionship'. You know her so intimately! Come on! When one of the guys says something that fits in with your story they're telling the truth, but when they say something inconvenient, well, they're just a lying rapist and cant be believed. Anyone can cherry-pick facts from second hand reports and add emotive spin.

As with the recent revelations in the Greg Bird case, where his 'victim' has recently admitted being the aggressor, all of these events are under the category of speculation. Your average irate feminist will always only be able to see the woman as a victim and the man as an abuser. Life is generally more complex than that.

Even in the face of his partners sworn testimony to this being the case, I'm sure you now believe that's just a cover up huh? Which is my point all along. You believe what you *want* to believe and that's the spin you will put on it. I'm glad the legal system isn't based around your prejudices.

Houellebecq, <"I'm glad the legal system isn't based around your prejudices.">

- but you're quite ok with the legal system being based on yours aren't you.

Btw: sharkfin didn't say any trial should be "...based on the history and trials (not even convictions) of the accused.". Your dramatic confabulation = red herring.

- but why shouldn't the history of the accused be taken into account?
What's fair and ok about the defence being able to bring the victim's prior history into consideration while the accused's history isn't?

As to the current case: there are facts yet to be made known like the whys and wherefores of shaving Ms. Brimble's public hair or the blood in the cabin.

I would like to know - maybe someone with legal expertise can explain - why some of the comments made to other passengers are not being acted upon (or are they?). Like one of the fellows skiting that she died during a certain sex act, indicating that he at least knew she had died but still hadn't summoned help. Whether or not it was a fellow she had been seen with or agreed to have sex with is another matter too.

Btw: I appreciated your frank description of the drug scene etc. and safety issues. Thank you for that. Could you just educate me a bit further:

1. If someone is so out of it that they mightn't be able to summon help even for a friend in distress; is that because they are *unaware* that the person is in distress or because they are *unable to dial* a phone or something?

2. Is it possible for someone in such a drugged state that they are unaware that someone needs help or they are unable to dial a phone - to still have an erection, fumble through a sex act and take pics ?

3. Lastly, a personal question for you. If you came across an attractive, naked, unconscious or semi conscious woman - would you jump aboard or walk away ? Please explain your decision.

Pynchme, you're flogging the deadest of horses. The fact that these men were of the type they were stood out like the proverbial leg-humping Pomeranian's appendage. She chose to go with them and predictably there were bad consequences. Had she chosen differently, things would have worked out differently.

We all have responsibility for the choices we make. The men involved have already paid a heavy price and will no doubt have a lot more to go through yet. That's what happens when lots of irresponsible people get together: tragic accidents occur.

If one of the men had died and she had lived, would you be as hot under the collar, or would you regard it as paying the price for excess?

Still waiting on an answer to this one, pynchme, sharkfin, et al:

"If one of the men had died and she had lived, would you be as hot under the collar, or would you regard it as paying the price for excess?"

Take your time...

Well neither you nor mini-u has answered my questions either have you.

As for your usual red herring technique; if anyone dies using drugs it's an unnecessary thing and a sad waste; if the person dies while surrounded by fellow party goers, it's painful to think that people could be so lost to conscious awareness that they wouldn't even notice someone distressed or dying in their midst. If the fellow's body had been defiled; had pics taken and flashed around and he died because, although people were aware he was unconscious, they saw it as an opportunity for them rather than an occasion to summon aid - I would be outraged as well as sad.

I suppose it's inconceivable to you that a person can care and feel compassion towards the opposite sex; being devoid of such feelings yourself, but it's cause for sadness when anyone in a vulnerable state is subject to callousness and depredation by others.