Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

py2006

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a stupid and disgraceful post

Mr.H

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No

I made an original comment and then the Ibelieveher campaign decided to lie about what I said and turned it into a rape v accused debate

I didnt start that debate btw I was dragged into it by people who dont read and like to sensationalize stuff

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

What a stupid and disgraceful post

So is "false accusations are worse than rape"

Mr.H

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They are not rapists!!!!!

razorblunt

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm in a few different WhatsApp groups with different lads and there is some awful stuff in them if they were to be read out of the context of the group.

I've also had the pleasure of reading through one of the missus' all female whatsapp groups and there is similar stuff in there that read out of context of the group would sound disgraceful.

It's the 'private' word that you are skipping over and that these chats are expected to be private. There is also a group dynamic created over the life of the group chat. I'm sure it didn't start out that way for the lads involved.

Yes, this exactly!

Are they gowls? Yes. Would I speak the same way they did in their group? No.
Is it something I see regularly? Yes.
Has my missus commented similar? Yes.


The girl herself in question here also said the girl in the house were "acting slutty". The lads account was accurate enough then.

Mr.H

bluewolf wrote: »

So is "false accusations are worse than rape"

doenst stop you from lying about my post

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

doenst stop you from lying about my post

What lying? You literally wrote that repeatedly

See, here's one post

Mr.H wrote: »

yes

Being labeled a rapist wrongly where it will follow you around for the rest of your life and everyone will call you a rapist and avoid you because your a rapist. When you are not one.

That is worse than being raped yes.

Being raped is a crime that while you may get some sort of (very minimal IMO) justice. Being falsely accused of rape brings no such justice.

The lads even she lied, cant look for justice because people will always say "there wasnt enough evidence to bring a prosecution".

tinpib

Raul Mysterious Revenge wrote: »

If it’s just blokes being blokes speaking about a girl like they spoke about her the following day, then blokes need to take a good long look at themselves.

Women do it too. For a pop culture reference just look at Sex and the City.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very one sided view. The jury took the view that it was consensual and not forced.

The lesson for women here is not to get semi unconscious drunk and if so be careful of the male company you hang out with. There can be a fine line between rape and consensual drunken sex a lot of the time but the line is there none the less.

But there was no real evidence she was restrained or forced into sex and most independent witnesses support.

The language used is very important in stuff like this. They didn't take the view that it was consensual. They took the view that they couldn't say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was forced.
If you asked me if I could drive to Cork on €25 of diesel I would say I probably could. If you said I had to and couldn't have a back-up then I wouldn't be confident enough to try it. I'd think on balance I could do it but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

kunst nugget

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm in a few different WhatsApp groups with different lads and there is some awful stuff in them if they were to be read out of the context of the group.

I've also had the pleasure of reading through one of the missus' all female whatsapp groups and there is similar stuff in there that read out of context of the group would sound disgraceful.

It's the 'private' word that you are skipping over and that these chats are expected to be private. There is also a group dynamic created over the life of the group chat. I'm sure it didn't start out that way for the lads involved.

There's a couple of groups I'd chat with in where a certain amount of slagging would go on and some dark humour.

I've yet to be involved in a group where the lads are on boasting about spit roasting a girl and saying how loose she is. It does come across as very seedy and a bit beyond the pale.

Luxxis

Mutant z wrote: »

They should be well within their rights to sue for defamation of character and the horrible ordeal they have been put through.

No they shouldn't.

If the woman openly admitted to it being false then yes.

But if she believed something happened then she's entitled to due process without repercussions.

meeeeh

BPKS wrote: »

A few years ago, a woman came forward and reported how she had a consensual threesome with two Irish rugby players she met on Grafton Street as she was on her way home from a night out.

Didnt stop them having partners now who do not appear to be mad.

There is nothing wrong with having consensual mutually enjoyable threesome. Treating women as inflatable dolls calling them names and so is pretty despicable.

ligerdub

Deleted User wrote: »

Legalese is not the same as English.


Sure Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are probably sunning themselves on a beach in Belize.

They are innocent in whatever language you want to say.

No Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman aren't sunning themselves in Belize, they were both murdered back in 1994. I know what point you are trying to make there but it's a stunningly poor and nonsensical one.

facehugger99

Mutant z wrote: »

They should be well within their rights to sue for defamation of character .

Mostly self-inflicted.

HONKEY TONK

What happens next? If they have received a not guilty verdict then I would have thought she would be up in court for defamation?

Hector Savage

Jesus can you imagine Louise O Neill ..

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

They are innocent in whatever language you want to say.

No Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman aren't sunning themselves in Belize, they were both murdered back in 1994. I know what point you are trying to make there but it's a stunningly poor and nonsensical one.

But someone was found not guilty ergo nothing happened.
In legalese not guilty involves reasonable doubt. It's roughly the same as innocent in legalese.
In real life (and even non-criminal law) the balance of probability is what applies.

py2006

facehugger99 wrote: »

Mostly self-inflicted.

They didn't accuse themselves of rape

torqtorq

Deleted User wrote: »

Once wheels are in motion it can be very hard to stop it. I was at a party after which a rape accusation was made and it was complete BS. Still took 6 months for the Gardai to get to the point there was no case to answer and she still never backed down. I couldn't count the amount of times I've seen stuff at parties back in the day when the girl's account would be something completely fantastical. Even recently I had a girl come crying to me that a guy had made a pass at her (long backstory) and she didn't get the reaction she expected (I went with "what did you expect?") so she went off in a huff and was basically dry humping him 2 minutes later and despite me walking in and her jumping off has completely denied it happened since. If, as someone suggested, her father got involved on the legal side at all then that's another reason to not back down.
Do I believe her? Yes. From experience would I be able to say it's beyond a reasonable doubt based on what I've heard of this case? It's a coin toss. And the 12 people who were there all went the same way in under 2 hours.

Father is not in the legal profession!

Shurimgreat

Deleted User wrote: »

The language used is very important in stuff like this. They didn't take the view that it was consensual. They took the view that they couldn't say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was forced.
If you asked me if I could drive to Cork on €25 of diesel I would say I probably could. If you said I had to and couldn't have a back-up then I wouldn't be confident enough to try it. I'd think on balance I could do it but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agreed it was not a cut and dried case and the jury could not be 100% sure it was rape. It was not your classic rape down a dark alley or marital or date rape. There was no real evidence of force used. The woman alleged rape but witnesses including the female witness described it as consensual.
Personally I think she was hammered drunk, went along with it and regretted it when she came to her senses. Not rape, more of a case of doing something stupid when drunk. We've all done stupid things when drunk that we regretted later.

HONKEY TONK

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

What happens next? If they have received a not guilty verdict then I would have thought she would be up in court for defamation?

Did OJ ever get compensated.

tinpib

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

What happens next? If they have received a not guilty verdict then I would have thought she would be up in court for defamation?

This is extreme and incorrect black and white thinking. They lads were found not guilty, that's all. Doesn't automatically mean she is a criminal, which it seems many people believe.

Mr.H

You started this whole debate by lying about my original post

I said

Mr.H wrote: »

The worst thing about this is these men now have to live with the "what if's?" for the rest of their lives. They were found not guilty but a lot of people will still judge them.

It sounds bad but I hope she genuinely thought she was raped. Not because I wish harm on anyone, but, because if she made the whole thing up, that is the worst thing you could do to anybody.

You said

bluewolf wrote: »

You hope she was genuinely raped because false accusations are worse than rape? For real?

That started all this.

YOUR LIE

Boom_Bap

kunst nugget wrote: »

There's a couple of groups I'd chat with in where a certain amount of slagging would go on and some dark humour.

I've yet to be involved in a group where the lads are on boasting about spit roasting a girl and saying how loose she is. It does come across as very seedy and a bit beyond the pale.

I'd be the same, there is none of that talk in my groups, probably as we are a bit older and all in relationships.
Now if anyone read the section of one of my chats on the best type of trousers to wear to a strip club, if that got into the public there would be some horrified people.

magnumbud

ELM327 wrote: »

instead of #ibelieveher it should be #lockherup
She's ruined those guys' careers, with false accusations.
They've been found innocent by a jury of their peers. But yet in the eyes of some mouthbreathers they are still guilty.

She's done more to harm genuine victims of rape than anyone outside of actual rape perpetrators.

they were found not guilty due to a lack of evidence proving that the events of that night were rape. they did not prove that she is lying. there is no evidence to say that she is lying.

if there was a trial now against her for false accusations the same outcome of not guilty would likely be found as there is also no evidence saying she is lying and if that outcome came out it would equally not equal that they raped her.

the only way either party can be proved guilty in this situation and many situations of rape is if their was texts or some recording of the accuser saying she was lying or texts or a recording of them admitting they raped her

Shefwedfan

Mutant z wrote: »

They should be well within their rights to sue for defamation of character and the horrible ordeal they have been put through.

You can imagine the back lash if they did that...

I would think the guys would love if it all went away now and they could get on with the rest of their Ulster and Ireland careers.....but I doubt that will happen which is a shame

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Agreed it was not a cut and dried case and the jury could not be 100% sure it was rape. It was not your classic rape down a dark alley or marital or date rape. There was no real evidence of force used. The woman alleged rape but witnesses including the female witness described it as consensual.
Personally I think she was hammered drunk, went along with it and regretted it when she came to her senses. Not rape, more of a case of doing something stupid when drunk. We've all done stupid things when drunk that we regretted later.

I think there was probably plenty of coercion involved. But I don't know.

torqtorq wrote: »

Father is not in the legal profession!

Fair enough, that can be struck from what I said. :pac:

ED E

https://www.facebook.com/events/324273031429192/

For fooks sake.

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Legalese is not the same as English.


Sure Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are probably sunning themselves on a beach in Belize.

In legalese some jurisdictions have alternative verdicts such as Scotland and the 'Not Proven' verdict. We don't we have innocent and guilty, termed guilty or not guilty. A not guilty verdict does absolutely nothing, innocent parties are still innocent. To do anything else would imply a system of guilty until proven innocent.

Sleeper12

I respect the decision of the jury but from the way it was reported here in the south I'm very surprised at the decision.

If there's one thing to be learned here it must be the risk we leave ourselves to when so much alcohol is consumed. Even from the fellas point of view, 20 odd pints & bringing strangers into your home puts you at risk. As George would be say is there no responsibility here

Christy42

Mr.H wrote: »

Who cares????

Thats not a crime

What they were FALSELY accused of is

Sorry I may have missed something here. Are you not saying the accusation was false in this post? I could be missing some context.

Because we don't have that legally. We have not enough evidence which I feel is important given the attitude some are displaying here. Your statement means either she is mistaken or lying. We do not have proof of this as she was not on trial.

I am not saying you said she is lying by the way nor did I mean to imply that.

HONKEY TONK

Deleted User wrote: »

Did OJ ever get compensated.

That's not what I asked.

I want to know what happens with false allegations in court in Northern Ireland?

Samuel T. Cogley

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

What happens next? If they have received a not guilty verdict then I would have thought she would be up in court for defamation?

She may succeed in a civil case for assault/battery. As someone has pointed out: OJ.

Mossy Monk

ED E wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/events/324273031429192/

For fooks sake.

Five losers will turn up and realise they are idiots and go home.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In legalese some jurisdictions have alternative verdicts such as Scotland and the 'Not Proven' verdict. We don't we have innocent and guilty, termed guilty or not guilty. A not guilty verdict does absolutely nothing, innocent parties are still innocent. To do anything else would imply a system of guilty until proven innocent.

Yeah a not guilty verdict does nothing. In the eyes of the law the defendant is the same as anyone else. In the real world though it doesn't have some magical innocence directly attached. Plenty of people get done in civil court when the burden of proof is lower. So you'll see (I see more in the UK stuff though) people get found "not guilty" but are still referred to as having done something and they can't sue because they are known to be guilty by the more reasonable proof burden.

_Whimsical_

ELM327 wrote: »

11 men and women decided the men were innocent.
The woman's story had more holes in it than swiss cheese. This case should never have come to trial.

The defence also had a raft of holes in it.

During his police interview Blane McIlroy ,who was only accused of exposing himself during the incident ,actually told police he had full sex with the woman that night.

She and every other man present said Blane had not touched her.

Just think about that.

How did that happen? You don't generally tend to mistake walking into a room with taking part in group sex and having full sex.

I think that clearly pointed to the men involved creating a story about what happened that night. It strongly suggests that they had rehersed something, allocated themselves roles in a consensual act and Blane had somehow confused his role in the story.

If they were completely innocent, if the first they'd heard of this girl being raped was when the police called they'd all have told the truth without hesitation.

There may not have been sufficient evidence to secure a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt, which is a very high threshold. There is more than enough evidence though to leave any thinking person feeling very uneasy about the legitimacy of this groups defense.

Mr.H

Christy42 wrote: »

Sorry I may have missed something here. Are you not saying the accusation was false in this post? I could be missing some context.

Because we don't have that legally. We have not enough evidence which I feel is important given the attitude some are displaying here. Your statement means either she is mistaken or lying. We do not have proof of this as she was not on trial.

I am not saying you said she is lying by the way nor did I mean to imply that.

Fair enough. That way I phrased that was unintentional. I meant wrongfully instead of falsely.

If you seen my other posts you will probably (depending if you want to or not) see that I am not accusing her of lying.

HONKEY TONK

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

That's not what I asked.

I want to know what happens with false allegations in court in Northern Ireland?

In relation to this case or in general?

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah a not guilty verdict does nothing. In the eyes of the law the defendant is the same as anyone else. In the real world though it doesn't have some magical innocence directly attached. Plenty of people get done in civil court when the burden of proof is lower. So you'll see (I see more in the UK stuff though) people get found "not guilty" but are still referred to as having done something and they can't sue because they are known to be guilty by the more reasonable proof burden.

That doesn't mean they are guilty of rape or criminally culpable. It means they are found on the preponderance of evidence to be liable for damages for a specified complaint. They are still innocent.

billybonkers

Thread title is incorrect?

irishrebe

Akrasia wrote: »

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Are you serious?

Every lads group on Watsapp has the exact same BS in it....

No it doesn't. And don't be smearing me with your attitudes towards women.

Many of them do though. And this is the root of the issue. 'Joking' and 'messing' and 'bantering' about using women like objects, as if it's normal. Phrases like 'look at the tits on that' completing dehumanising women. I see it and hear it all the time. It's chilling how much is dismissed as 'lads' banter'.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That doesn't mean they are guilty of rape or criminally culpable. It means they are found on the preponderance of evidence to be liable for damages for a specified complaint. They are still innocent.

In purely legal terms they're not guilty. Again, the best example is probably OJ.

torqtorq

The BBC will be taken to court for naming the players within the year.

No doubt they will try and settle out of court.

meeeeh

Mr.H wrote: »

You started this whole debate by lying about my original post

I said


You said


That started all thi

YOUR LIE

Just out of curiosity should a victim who thinks she was raped and is not believed feel any better
than the one who is believed she was raped?

razorblunt

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The defence also had a raft of holes in it.

During his police interview Blane McIlroy ,who was only accused of exposing himself during the incident ,actually told police he had full sex with the woman that night.

She and every other man present said Blane had not touched her.

Just think about that.

How did that happen? You don't generally tend to mistake walking into a room with taking part in group sex and having full sex.

I think that clearly pointed to the men involved creating a story about what happened that night. It strongly suggests that they had rehersed something, allocated themselves roles in a consensual act and Blane had somehow confused his role in the story.

If they were completely innocent, if the first they'd heard of this girl being raped was when the police called they'd all have told the truth without hesitation.

There may not have been sufficient evidence to secure a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt, which is a very high threshold. There is more than enough evidence though to leave any thinking person feeling very uneasy about the legitimacy of this groups defense.

If that indeed were the case then McIlroy would have been torn apart by the police and again on the stand.

As it was I thought they emphasised that McIlroy was a bullshítter, a Jay from the Inbetweeners type character and coat tail hanger oner!

Mahony0509

Just had a look at Twitter there. The amount of women who think this happened in the Irish justice system is mad. The case happened in Northern Ireland ffs.

kunst nugget

torqtorq wrote: »

The BBC will be taken to court for naming the players within the year.

No doubt they will try and settle out of court.

Why? It's not an issue with the Northern Irish judicial system.

HONKEY TONK

Deleted User wrote: »

In relation to this case or in general?

I guess I am wondering is there Perjury laws in Northern Ireland?

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

In purely legal terms they're not guilty. Again, the best example is probably OJ.

In all terms they're innocent. They've not been convicted of a crime. That's all that matters. We don't have degree's of criminal guilt.

BarryD2

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

She may succeed in a civil case for assault/battery.

You must be joking. The most likely course of action for the complainant is emigration.

It's quite clear from the widely conflicting evidence, the changing stories and state of drunkenness of those involved, that this case should never have gone ahead.

The public prosecution service in NI has some serious questions to answer.