Gang of 12 'allegedly' rape British Citizen in Cyprus

[dowie]

There is a clip that shows her having consensual sex with one boy before telling him to get his friends out of the room. That's the only real clip.

That is false, not the existence of that clip but your assertion that it is the only real clip. In fact that clip doesn’t even appear to be circulated.

That's the claim, that's me questioning it... since then there has been a lot of noise and diversion.

My assertion is no, that's not the only clip - there are (AFAIK) two clips out there and they aren't actually that one, AFAIK that one hasn't actually been leaked but has only been seen by police prosecutors (unless there are even more clips out there).

One clip shows her bouncing up and down on one guy in the room (the room is identifiable from the press pictures) while another guy films. The other clip shows her giving oral sex to one of the guys in a bathroom - her face is identifiable.

The name and face of the girl are out there, the pictures of the room are out there and the clips have been posted/taken down and shared across twitter etc... anyone who's stumbled across these clips on social media can verify.

To claim there is only one clip is false, to claim that someone disputing that is disagreeing with the Cypriot police is false... At no point have the Cypriot police stated there is only one video clip. The post I specifically quoted and took issue with is false, the other poster can't back it up for this reason and you @Threepwood have added very little except additional noise.

 

[NVP]

 

[Threepwood]

To claim there is only one clip is false

Only if the clips you are talking about can be verified as true. Can you provide proof this is the case (other than in your opinion)?

to claim that someone disputing that is disagreeing with the Cypriot police is false...

Only if the cypus police witheld evidence from the defence lawyer. Can you provide proof this is the case (other than in your opinion)?


Edit: And, again, what would they have to do with the case anyway? Other than showing there was some consensual sex?

 

[dowie]

Only if the clips you are talking about can be verified as true. Can you provide proof this is the case (other than in your opinion)?

Sure I'll just post the clips in here...

Like I said anyone who has seen them can make their own minds up. Also re: your claim "Only if the clips you are talking about can be verified as true" - that there exist more that one clip isn't contingent on my claim re: the clips that have been released. This isn't too hard to follow.

And again, no one has provided anything to substantiate the claim I quoted and took issue with.

Only if the cypus police witheld evidence from the defence lawyer. Can you provide proof this is the case (other than in your opinion)?

No one has made any claims about withholding evidence from the defence lawyer.

 

[Threepwood]

Sure I'll just post the clips in here...

Like I said anyone who has seen them can make their own minds up. Also re: your claim "Only if the clips you are talking about can be verified as true" - that there exist more that one clip isn't contingent on my claim re: the clips that have been released. This isn't too hard to follow.

And again, no one has provided anything to substantiate the claim I quoted and took issue with.

So no, you can't. Okay. And even if you could it would be a matter of opinion, okay.

"that there exist more that one clip isn't contingent on my claim" was based on a strawman to begin with, totally ignoring the context of the original premise.

No one has made any claims about withholding evidence from the defence lawyer.

Can you think of another reason why the defence lawyer would say what he did, then?

 

[dowie]

So no, you can't. Okay.

"that there exist more that one clip isn't contingent on my claim" was based on a strawman to begin with, totally ignoring the context of the original premise.

No, I can't go off and find then post links to the clips here... for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean they don't exist and nor is that required to dispute the claim that there is only one clip.

Can you think of another reason why the defence lawyer would say what he did, then?

Please be specific with regards to what you're referring to re: what he said and how it relates to what I've said re: these clips?

Is this related to the claim re: there being only one clip or are you going to conflate that with something else?

 

[Threepwood]

No, I can't go off and find then post links to the clips here... for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean they don't exist and nor is that required to dispute the claim that there is only one clip.

I'm not even asking you to post the clips, all I'm asking is for some kind of official word that they are real, other than opinion. I can only presume they are the same clips as ChroniC has seen...

In hindsight it looks like they are fake. The room changes colour as does the headboard in the 3 vids. Ive also possibly found out her real name and it doesn't look like the same girl in the video.
I take back what I said.

-----------------------

Please be specific with regards to what you're referring to re: what he said and how it relates to what I've said re: these clips?

Is this related to the claim re: there being only one clip or are you going to conflate that with something else?

There is a clip that shows her having consensual sex with one boy before telling him to get his friends out of the room. That's the only real clip.

That is false, not the existence of that clip but your assertion that it is the only real clip. In fact that clip doesn’t even appear to be circulated.

There seems to be no official word that there are any other real clips. We have no official word that the other clips are real.

You might have watched some clips that you believe to be real, but there is no offical word on such.

You are asking for him to prove that, but it is akin to asking to prove a negative.

You cannot provide any evidence that the footage is real, yet he has provided a quote from the defence lawyer saying not so.


If this is all just in your opinion, thats fine, but he is working from offical word, while you are not.

 

[dowie]

You cannot provide any evidence that the footage is real, yet he has provided a quote from the defence lawyer saying not so.

Again what are you referring to? Can you perhaps use the quote function or be specific re: what you're saying and how it relates to what I'm disputing as this is just time wasting now.

And again he's provided nothing to support the claim re: there being only one clip.

As for videos seen by the other poster - no that doesn't sound like what I've seen.

 

[Threepwood]

Again what are you referring to? Can you perhaps use the quote function or be specific re: what you're saying and how it relates to what I'm disputing as this is just time wasting now.

I did, its there... you are being selective, or obtuse on purpose, if you don't want to waste time, stop wasting it.

 

[dowie]

I did, its there... you are being selective, or obtuse on purpose, if you don't want to waste time, stop wasting it.

Sorry but I'm posting in good faith here - you've added in a lot of noise etc.. and I've requested you be specific - you're referring to the defence lawyer - what specifically are you referring to and how does it relate to me disputing the claim I've disputed?

 

[Threepwood]

dowie said: ↑
Please be specific with regards to what you're referring to re: what he said and how it relates to what I've said re: these clips?

Is this related to the claim re: there being only one clip or are you going to conflate that with something else?

There is a clip that shows her having consensual sex with one boy before telling him to get his friends out of the room. That's the only real clip.

That is false, not the existence of that clip but your assertion that it is the only real clip. In fact that clip doesn’t even appear to be circulated.

SPECIFICALLY: There seems to be no official word that there are any other real clips. We have no official word that the other clips are real.

You might have watched some clips that you believe to be real, but there is no offical word on such.

You are asking for him to prove that, but it is akin to asking to prove a negative.

SPECIFICALLY: You cannot provide any evidence that the footage is real, yet he has provided a quote from the defence lawyer saying not so.


If this is all just in your opinion, thats fine, but he is working from offical word, while you are not.



--------------------------

you're referring to the defence lawyer

To what the defence lawyer said... yes.

 

[dowie]

To what the defence lawyer said... yes.

Specifically, what? What did he say? What specifically are you referring to and how does it relate to me disputing the claim I've disputed?

I still don't see any quote from you re: what he's said or an explanation of its relation to what I'm disputing...

You're not being specific here - just writing "specific" and then giving me a vague, unsubstantiated reply doesn't add much here.

 

[Threepwood]

I still don't see any quote from you re: what he's said or an explanation of its relation to what I'm disputing...

Then you are being selective in your understanding, why?

 

[dowie]

Then you are being selective in your understanding, why?

I'm not - I'm just trying to get to the point - you made claims about something a defence lawyer has said - I'm asking you what you're referring to and how it relates to what I'm disputing. So far I see no quote from you re: any defence lawyer nor any explanation relating that quote from the defence lawyer to the claim I'm disputing.

If you're going to make claims re: what someone has said then just quote what you're referring to, it makes things rather clearer.

 

[Threepwood]

If you're going to make claims re: what someone has said then just quote what you're referring to, it makes things rather clearer.

I already have, multiple people have, but you cant see it, why?

 

[dowie]

I already have, multiple people have, but you cant see it, why?

It might be more constructive therefore to just link to it or re-quote it... you're just adding yet more replies that add nothing - all I'm asking is what you're referring to (that's an invitation for you to add in a quote/link) and how it relates to what I'm disputing...(thats an invitation for you to add an explanation re: your quote/link in relation to what I've posted - feel free to quote my posts too).

 

[Threepwood]

It might be more constructive therefore to just link to it or re-quote it...

I'm tired of reposting stuff that has already been given to you, stop wasting time and read it all again with your eyes open. (stop pretending to be asleep)

 

[dowie]

I'm tired of reposting stuff that has already been given to you, stop wasting time and read it all again with your eyes open. (stop pretending to be asleep)

You've replied to me multiple times above and don't seem to have given any quote from a defence lawyer nor any explanation of how that quote relates to what I've posted... it isn't me that is wasting time here... you've replied to me yet again after being asked for clarification and failing to provide any.

Not being funny but if I was to make reference to what someone had said and was asked about it then I'd just quote what I was referring to - why is that so hard for you to do? How can you credibly ask me to respond if you're not even going to clarify what you're referring to.

 

[Threepwood]

and don't seem to have given any quote from a defence lawyer

Its already been given to you. (stop pretending to be asleep)

 

[dowie]

Its already been given to you. (stop pretending to be asleep)

I'm not pretending and have asked for it multiple times in the above back and forth posts - where has it been? Feel free to re-quote it or link to the post where you quoted it....