you claim "I do not believe this assault was the first by these particular individuals", well what basis for that belief do you have? as this is a new allegation.
you claim "all I can tell you is that falsehoods have been told", cite 1/any, as I welcome any real substantive discussion (rather than unsubstantiated claims), and have always said publicly or privatly I will discuss any details with anyone.
you allege "and anything that cast light on the non-consensual nature of the assault was purposefully omitted from the alleged perpetrators’ version of events" what do you allege has been ommitted? if you have anything substantive please elabotate rather than allude to things that don't exist.
the one bit i fully agree with "I completely understand how people can take sides. But let’s be clear here, just because you decide to believe your friend isn’t capable of something, does that give you the right to attack and degrade the person who has stood up and said that they did something horrible? No." as I do not encourage any attacks against Z I only have asked for details of what is alleged, and for those uninvolved and willfully ignorant(you and James because you never sought any semblece of truth) to either fix the ignorance(discuss) or cease the ongoing(I assume from this post) malicious whisper campaign.
you say "Friends of the alleged perpetrators have started to feel victimised for some reason. Though I am totally confused as to why?" not even just friends even strangers who reshared my statement were barraged with abusive comments on facebook by yourself(in some cases) and others, even when the post was prefaced with language stateing they were taking neither side., why the anon commenter above chose to remain so (unless a third party who wont reveal her identity to yourself wishes to verify her statement, in this cse she is happy to reveal herself to them)
if someone is INFLUENCED they cannot consent legally/morally/or any other way, this is not the same as 'has had any drink' as you are considered legally capable of driving/consent/many other activities up until a point/level of INFLUENCE/effect
the point in SA law is "to the extent that B's consciousness or judgement is adversely affected"
the point is when long before intoxication, most people do appear visibly/verbally or otherwise show signs if they are becoming influenced/intoxicated/drunk/high, and I have declined to have sex if asked by someone in any state of intoxication (unless I know them very well) before and will continue to do so, Z did not in any way appear so at the time discussion and penetration occoured, she did not appear intoxicated till many drinks(and hours) later that evening.
divergent note: as normal human living in the real world, I can tell you I have possibly only a handfull of times had someone ask for even a kiss/snog while neither has consumed any alcohol, not because it was a factor, but simply because most meetings happen within the confines of a pub/club/party where I and They have had a drink before even meeting, (and im sure most of us that consume alcohol can say the same), those that drink responsibly also are perfectly capable of consent exchange (as long as still uninfluenced by it), furthermore I have declined due to believed emotional vulnerability(breakup) and many other stressors not because I believe these cases to be potential rape, simply because I wish to avoid being anyones regreted encounter, and have as far as I am aware been always over-carefull in this
it is possible Z could be capable of appearing/talking/acting sober while influenced (I have no way to know I was not in her head), but I did not detect any signs and am usually quite adept at telling, but again as it was imperceptible it is not rape.
also then as I had also consumed alcohol, do you claim I also was raped?, as by your SA definition (c) my consent was apparently obtained "under false pretences or fraudulent means", as at the time she claimed and obtained my consent through her claim that she found us both attractive as a couple, yet later claimed "I have zero attraction towards him", if the latter is true the former was an intentional lie to obtain my consent by false pretence (kinda re-enforcing my suspicion at the time that her motives were suspect), I wouldn't (consider it rape) but I would consider it a reprehensible violation of my trust
also we are not talking about a simple yes/no conversation, were talking about a proper discussion where I expresed my reservations to her and she convincingly and at length talked about her feelings towards me and (c) and how she wanted to share this experience etc. and was not wanting to do this for any of the 'wrong reasons' I was concerned about, Its not easy/likely she(or anyone) could hold that kind of conversation while drunk without showing hints of drunkenness (especially when if later testimony was true, the convincing arguments she made were intentionally false, its extremly hard to convincingly lie and appear sober when drunk).
My public responses (because no comments allowed on blog) to Megan Baumgartner's 3nd blog post in which discusses alcohol but misses all the salient points, and again insinuates new allegations, blog now deleted?
she states "We also almost all accept the statement that initiating sexual acts with someone who is intoxicated is a sexual violation.", with that thinking the Z clearly sexually violated me (as I was drinking at same pace as her, if not more, thus as she initiated, if we were intoxicated(which I believe firmly we were not) it would be her abuse. I disagree as despite my drinking I consented after recieving assurances of her motives, and would not claim she abused my state
she states most believe "that if someone is awake enough to say "yes" that means all's go for sex," that is diametricly opposed to my opinion, I will and have often refused to have sex with someone if they are in my opinion in any way judgment compromised whether its emotional/consumption/tired/whatever, it is disengenuous to suggest otherwise
she states incorrectly (letters changed for clarity)"If someone (A) openly admits to having sex with someone (Z) who had drunk a lot of alcohol and taken drugs then they (A) are culpable of a sexual violation, even if that intoxicated person (Z) 'verbally consented' a few hours after showing drunken behavior. If someone (A) also openly admits that they were unsure of said person's (Z) 'motives' or state of mind and had to get verbal confirmation from intoxicated person (Z), then that also shows that the person (A) was aware of the intoxication. Meaning that they cannot prove consent occurred." now lets break this down,
"who had drunk a lot of alcohol" is a lie, she had drunk yes, but not yet a lot, as had I,
" taken drugs", yes as had I, but such a small dose as to be innefective,
"'verbally consented' a few hours after showing drunken behavior", this is a direct lie, they showed no drunen behaviour till hours and many drins later and at the earlier time they sought consent, and only recieved it after examination/questioning not the other way round.
"(A) also openly admits that they were unsure of said person's (Z) 'motives'", this was as stated was nothing to do with her consent (or ability to) it is entirely because I had no interest in being involved sexualy with another if their motive is solely to effect a response from a third (c), My need for reassurance that the desire for sex was honestly motivated would have been the case even when sober, I will not be used as a tool by others in any circumstances. (as I now feel, from subsequent admissions bt Z "I have zero attraction towards him" that I obviously was, lied to and used as a tool by her to excite (c), such successful duplicity also contradicts the assertion she was incapacitated metally)
"'motives' or state of mind and had to get verbal confirmation from intoxicated person", I had no suspicions as to her state of mind to claim I had is again flatly untrue, and I sought no verbal consent, I sought reassurances before I would give mine. as stated repeatedly now, but continually ignored, also referring to her as intoxicated is again a lie
"then that also shows that the person (A) was aware of the intoxication. Meaning that they cannot prove consent occurred.", again I repeat, my resons for seeking assurances were entirely because of my initial belief/suspicion that she was not interested in me (as a person) but because she was only interested in my functional male anatomy (which is for me not good enough), or that she somehow thought that the activity would get (c) more 'hot and bothered' (equally for me not a good motive), she convinced me neither of these were true during our conversation after I raised my concerns, only her later statemets mae me believe that she in fact must have chosen to convincingly lie at the time
I as you one obvious question, In light of her later claim to have no memory of the night, and the fact that she was immediatly told of what had trannspired (till we were interupted), if I had anything to hide, why would I have told her?, yes its a pity she dosn't remember, its a greater pity for me that she dosn't remember choosing to lie/mislead me about her motivations when directly questioned, and its a pity that even if she does someday remember she will never have a motivation to admit it.
she confusingly ends with "This has been an argument given by someone who actually openly admitted to witnessing other sexual acts being performed even prior to this excuse of consent. Which means the assault was taking place already and they did nothing to stop it.", I am assuming you refer to the acts between her and (c) prior to my involvement and long after, these were entirely consentual and had been begun before any amount of drinks or drugs had been consumed (neither had even finished their first drinks) and it is not my place to comment/speculate or testify about what arrangements they made/limits they set etc. as I was not a party to their conversation, but had there been any question as to eithers ability to consent I would have intervened (as i have done before with others). I only testified about the circumstances of my own involvemet when I was being asked for my consent. and (z) stated afterwards that she had no issues with anything that happened between her and (c)
Again I have to ask, how as the person who is not initiating the sex(seeking consent), am I reffered to in terms such as "the responsibility for recognising intoxication falls on the accused", as someone equally drinking (if not moreso, everyone knows how little it takes to get me drunk) 'responsibility for recognising intoxication falls on all parties', yet I know I was uninfluenced at that stage (so doubt she could have been yet, as her tolerance is much higher than mine), is it somehow that as the man present in your mind I have sole responsibility for others actions?
As had I initiated the encounter and lied to obtain consent and remembered nothing afterwards , would I as a man be the victim in your eyes?
is for you the determination of who is the victim, the female? the person with no memory? the person lied to to obtain consent?, as there are many victims here, only all could have been avoided if (Z) when questioned had have been honest about her lack of real emotional/physical interest in myself, rather than lie to achieve her goal (presumably the further excitement of (c) as suspected), all would have been avoided, she chose instead to mislead me and all events stem from that dishonesty and choice.
To anyone with copies of any of the various allegations spread on Facebook or via direct message etc. please consider sharing them with me. and encouraging those involved to cease/desist or at least investigate by talking to all parties
Now you have read all, I hope you can understand why I beg you to do me one favour and re-share widely, as this way maybe it will reach those who have only heard the negative fiction. And if re-sharing please respect peoples identity privacy, suggested descriptive text: 'If you heard the scandal about a certain Dublin goth over the last years here is his version of events' or 'I don't know who to believe, but I think we should hear both', If worried about work/family/etc reading simply select a goth only group to share with, or turn off comments (or someone will link) and dont link but mention #veritas, 'so #veritas I belive A/Z' or '#veritas who do you believe' or anything that would encourage the truth to out/conversation to happen