Thanks for the Orgasm

[God-King Dean]

Either way though, the bloke is a prized jack arse, his missus is at home, 6 months pregnant, and he's out on the piss playing silly buggers with other girls.

Again... we don't know if he banged her or not.

 

[Raider_69]

Again... we don't know if he banged her or not.

True, i admit to assuming the bloke she has on tape saying "thanks for the orgasm" has been identified by the alledged victim as Laffrachi, i assume this because if she indicated this was not the man she accused, then it would be complete irrelevent to the case.

 

[Raider_69]

BTW based on the cross examination quotes, the issue of weather intercorse took place seems undisputed, whilst theres nothing direct saying he slept with her, the cross examination revolved around Laffranchi's lawyer putting it to the alledged victim that she wanted payback because she felt disrespected and guilty after sleeping with one or more of men.

You would think if intercourse didnt take place, that would the grounds they would argue against... it seems to me the issue is consent, not weather the event of intercourse occured.

 

[themanonthehill]

I thought this case was to do with Law not morals ?

Jeez if they start locking blokes up who have had a dip behind their wives' back we'll need to build a thousand more jails

 

[Raider_69]

It is about the law, but if Laffrachi was, as you put it, having a dip behind his wives back who is 6 months up the duff with his kid, it speaks volumes about his charactor, absolute scum bag, he'll be innocent of rape, but guilty of being a f**king low prick.

 

[beave]

and of which there is a big difference mate.

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

Has Michael Crockett still got to front Court as well?

 

[Tokyo_Raider]

Not necessarily in reference to this case, but I would be extremely surprised if the police would take this to court without at least:

1. Incriminating physical evidence of a forensic nature
2. Statements from someone else in the house
3. Physical evidence such as recordings or otherwise

`he said, she said' almost never even gets to this point in the legal system.

Interesting days in court coming up.

 

[Y2Eel]

Has Michael Crockett still got to front Court as well?

Thunk the charges were dropped or he wasnt even charged didnt go any further...

 

[Y2Eel]

I thought this case was to do with Law not morals ?

Jeez if they start locking blokes up who have had a dip behind their wives' back we'll need to build a thousand more jails

They guys a complete tool and his mrs must have a few screws loose if she is still supporting him (after listenining to the recording of him saying thanks for the orgasm)

 

[Kid]

It is about the law, but if Laffrachi was, as you put it, having a dip behind his wives back who is 6 months up the duff with his kid, it speaks volumes about his charactor, absolute scum bag, he'll be innocent of rape, but guilty of being a f**king low prick.

It's not often i see your comments and agree with them, but on this i couldn't agree more. Not only Laffranchi, but it's time all footballers pull their heads in and realise they are PART of society not above society. Big heads and big paychecks have built a mindset into these guys about how great they are.

Whether Laffranchi did or didn't rape the woman is a concern for the law to sort out. But from what i have read there is no dispute he had sex with her, just whether it was with consent or not. Either way Laffranchi or any other dropkick who has a pregnant wife and does this sort of thing is a prick of the highest order. Get some balls fellas and start taking some responsibility for your actions and take it like a man! i can just here it now, "oops sorry i'll just have to talk to my manager" :roll:

 

[innsaneink]

They guys a complete tool and his mrs must have a few screws loose if she is still supporting him (after listenining to the recording of him saying thanks for the orgasm)

Thats YOU assuming its him on the recording.
Try and keep up.
What chance does he have if it goes to trial with ordinary numptys like you on a jury?

 

[Y2Eel]

Thats YOU assuming its him on the recording.
Try and keep up.
What chance does he have if it goes to trial with ordinary numptys like you on a jury?

Instead of typing this all out i'll just quote r69er...

True, i admit to assuming the bloke she has on tape saying "thanks for the orgasm" has been identified by the alledged victim as Laffrachi, i assume this because if she indicated this was not the man she accused, then it would be complete irrelevent to the case.

Lets hope there aint no moronic Westie tiger supporters on the jury ;-)

 

[innsaneink]

Best not to assume, especially when theirs a rape charge hanging over someone, but hey, as long as its someone else eh?

It could easily be someone else just talking ...but carry on assuming.

 

[Charlie124]

he's handy to have in VNRL, lets hope he gets off (so to speak)




oh...and that justice is served or whatever.

 

[_Johnsy]

I am yet to hear any sources claim it was not him on the audio. I would imagine that would be the first thing his lawyer/solicitor would be banging on about, at least making some type of statement.

 

[Raider_69]

and of which there is a big difference mate.

absolutely, massive difference, but a low act none the less

Ink, the fact that there hasnt been a single denial of intercorse taking place, no quotes from Laffranchi or his lawyer denying the fact intercorse took place, that suggests to me that they are no disputing he had sex with the girl, the issue is consent.

logically speaking, if he was disputing intercorse took place at all, you'd have quotes galore denying intercorse ever even took place. Based on that, i think its a fairly reasonable assumption that intercorse took place as its not once been disputed by laffranchi or his legal team.

As i said, to me it appears the act of intercorse isnt the issue, that has not ever been disputed, the consent is what is being disputed.

 

[innsaneink]

absolutely, massive difference, but a low act none the less

Ink, the fact that there hasnt been a single denial of intercorse taking place, no quotes from Laffranchi or his lawyer denying the fact intercorse took place, that suggests to me that they are no disputing he had sex with the girl, the issue is consent.

logically speaking, if he was disputing intercorse took place at all, you'd have quotes galore denying intercorse ever even took place. Based on that, i think its a fairly reasonable assumption that intercorse took place as its not once been disputed by laffranchi or his legal team.

As i said, to me it appears the act of intercorse isnt the issue, that has not ever been disputed, the consent is what is being disputed.

Im sure Boof was advised by his mouthpiece straight away to keep it zipped :-#- pardon the pun.

To assume anyhting because the standard action of a lawyer to his client to keep quiet except to said lawyer, police in their enquiries and the court is jumping to conclusions like Y2Eel and yourself did

 

[Y2Eel]

Im sure Boof was advised by his mouthpiece straight away to keep it zipped :-#- pardon the pun.

To assume anyhting because the standard action of a lawyer to his client to keep quiet except to said lawyer, police in their enquiries and the court is jumping to conclusions like Y2Eel and yourself did

If he Hadnt had sex with her and there was no evidence to prove he did have sex he wouldnt be on the stands right now but he is being charged for sexual intercourse without consent. Which has everyone beleive that He did the deed and its up to the courts to prove there was consent or not...

 

[innsaneink]

If he Hadnt had sex with her and there was no evidence to prove he did have sex he wouldnt be on the stands right now but he is being charged for sexual intercourse without consent. Which has everyone beleive that He did the deed and its up to the courts to prove there was consent or not...

No idea.

Which has everyone beleive that He did the deed

Who is everyone?