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

Samuel T. Cogley

_Dara_ wrote: »

But what's the shtory with all the tweets that are basically slandering them now?

It very much depends on what's said but they could of course look at suing people individually or trying to take on twitter. They probably want to keep their heads down tbh.

I'm only (in passing) familiar with Irish Defamation so the NI position could be different.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I never said it was okay, did I?
My point was both men and women can take part in this kind of chat in my experience.

Of course they can, and it's reprehensible whoever does it. But some posters seem to think that because they're in a whatsapp group that does similar that it's perfectly okay. It's worrying that some people are normalising that kind of behaviour and attitude, whether towards men or women.

pjohnson

_Dara_ wrote: »

Oh my god, my sister has a status with the hashtags #IBelieveHer and #TogetherForYes. As a passionate repealer, I'm annoyed at her and others for conflating the two issues.

Sis said the female jurors agreed because a unanimous decision was needed. How would she know that? Very irrational stuff. We used to agree on a lot of things but have diverged quite sharply in recent years.

Thats the rubbish that could stop the repeal happening.

meeeeh

Mr.H wrote: »

Exactly. I know loads of girls who talk like that about men

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

Nerdlingr

Augeo wrote: »

An eye witness account is a type of evidence.

The eye witness account was a major reason why they got off.
She said it looked like a threesome and that the girl wasnt in distress.

manwithaplan

It's entirely possible that the accuser and the accused had different interpretations of the same thing. It is also entirely possible that the accuser is convinced she did not give or maintain consent and that the accused believe that consent was given and maintained.

The fact is that they are not guilty. That does not mean that she is a liar. They have all, accuser and accused, been through a pretty horrible few months (couple of years in fact). I hope they can all move on and that they don't suffer professionally or personally in the longer term.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-players-will-continue-to-be-relieved-of-all-duties-while-irfu-review-in-process-36752705.html

The IRFU released a statement following the verdicts, which read;

"The IRFU and Ulster Rugby note the verdict handed down today at the Belfast Crown Court in relation to the case brought against Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We wish to acknowledge that this has undoubtedly been a difficult and extremely traumatic time for all involved.

"To respect the judicial proceedings, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby postponed any internal review of the matter with the players, until the proceedings concluded.

"IRFU and Ulster Rugby officials will review the matter, in line with existing procedures for all contracted players. A Review Committee, made up of senior representatives of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby, has been appointed and will conclude its review as soon as practicable.

"The players will continue to be relieved of all duties while the Review Committee is in process and determining its findings."


I would have expected a more supportive statement from the IRFU.

Mr.H

Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: »

Well hopefully it's been a wake up call for those guys, and they might think more carefully about how they conduct themselves, and behave around women and speak about them in future.

Why???

They are innocent

Samuel T. Cogley

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

Jesus I dunno what gets me more the people who want to try these lads in the court of public opinion or the PC gone mad brigade. Adults can talk like idiots with no malice behind it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mr.H wrote: »

Why???

They are innocent

Them being innocent doesn't mean they were gentlemen. A higher standard is expected of people in the public eye - if they wish to remain in the public eye.

Mr.H

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

You must have never been around a group of women

Women and men are the exact same. Both sides talk about sex and what they would do to, or have done by, certain attractive members of the opposite sex.

Im sure you dont know any women who went nuts for the fifthy shades movies or magic mike.

Nerdlingr

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The eye witness account was a major reason why they got off.
She said it looked like a threesome and that the girl wasnt in distress.

But she said Jackson was having sex with the girl, from behind. Jackson denies this, the girl claims he was raping her.

So the witness and the girl are both claiming that he penetrated her with his penis, Jackson denies this.

I cannot fathom how a jury can take the eye witness account as a major reason of finding Jackson not guilty. If they found her credible than why seemingly ignore the penetratiion aspect of her account?

ArmaniJeanss

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Is it time for the tables to be turned on this woman now? Slander? Character defamation? Loss of earnings?

Interesting the way it only seem to be in rape cases that a not guilty verdict automatically leads to people assuming that the main witness/complainant must be guilty of something.

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

This kind of snobbery helps nothing. Do we really think these lads are the only 4 young men in the country who talk like that amongst themselves?

It doesn’t mean they feel any malice or that they believe women are beneath them. It’s just them being lads.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Mr.H wrote: »

Why???

They are innocent

Yes, they are innocent of rape. But their general behaviour did not really stand up well when put under a spotlight. They come across as a group of self entitled brats who treat women like objects, to be used and then laughed about later.

I'm not saying that means they should be accused of rape. I'm just wondering how they felt when their drunken, loutish behaviour was being held up to cold scrutiny.

suicide_circus

This is the verdict I expected. At no point did we hear of a knock out piece of testimony or evidence that pushed the question beyond reasonable doubt. There was only really one verdict open to the jury on that basis.

It felt like buyers remorse on her part which probably morphed into really believing she had been raped. I don't think she took the case for a laugh.

While the whatsapp group messages were obviously crass and juvenile to me this actually pointed more to their innocence - no one but an individual with the most twisted and evil mind who had just knowingly participated in a rape would describe themselves as "top shaggers" (cringe). This indicated that they fully believed it was consensual.

Mr.H

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Them being innocent doesn't mean they were gentlemen. A higher standard is expected of people in the public eye - if they wish to remain in the public eye.

I disagree

Just look at celebs in the US. Do you really think that they act like ladies and gents??

I dont like the way they talked dont get me wrong. But it happens and its not just men that talk like that.

meeeeh

Augeo wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-players-will-continue-to-be-relieved-of-all-duties-while-irfu-review-in-process-36752705.html

The IRFU released a statement following the verdicts, which read;

"The IRFU and Ulster Rugby note the verdict handed down today at the Belfast Crown Court in relation to the case brought against Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We wish to acknowledge that this has undoubtedly been a difficult and extremely traumatic time for all involved.

"To respect the judicial proceedings, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby postponed any internal review of the matter with the players, until the proceedings concluded.

"IRFU and Ulster Rugby officials will review the matter, in line with existing procedures for all contracted players. A Review Committee, made up of senior representatives of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby, has been appointed and will conclude its review as soon as practicable.

"The players will continue to be relieved of all duties while the Review Committee is in process and determining its findings."


I would have expected a more supportive statement from the IRFU.

With those what's app messages it would be stupid to come out with strong support. I would think part of review process will be assessing sponsor reaction. The boys don't come accross as people sponsors would like to be associated with.

garbo speaks

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Is it time for the tables to be turned on this woman now? Slander? Character defamation? Loss of earnings?

Here's hoping

Mr.H

Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: »

No, sadly they're not.

And women do it too!!

It sucks but it happens. I dont talk like that but I cant just shout down everyone who does.

garbo speaks

Has Louise O'Neill exploded yet?

Sleeper12

Mr.H wrote:

Its also in the headlines

Mr.H wrote:

NOT GUILTY

I accept not guilty but the whatsapp messages were a scumbag type of mentally

freshpopcorn

Mr.H wrote: »

Exactly. I know loads of girls who talk like that about men

Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: »

Of course they can, and it's reprehensible whoever does it. But some posters seem to think that because they're in a whatsapp group that does similar that it's perfectly okay. It's worrying that some people are normalising that kind of behaviour and attitude, whether towards men or women.

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

To be honest in my opinion I think lots of people have different standard when it comes to sex or sexual discussion and what is considered okay and not okay. Once everything is legal and consenting.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mr.H wrote: »

I disagree

Just look at celebs in the US. Do you really think that they act like ladies and gents??

I dont like the way they talked dont get me wrong. But it happens and its not just men that talk like that.

Plenty of Sports people in the US have come acropper with various issues towards women. Sports people are role models. I concede some people are in the public eye but should not be role models.

I completely agree on the talk part - that's a complete non issue IMO. However a drunken gang-bang is not great behaviour even from Rugby players.

SlickRic

This is an example of a tweet I've seen, which just encompasses what is wrong with all the fallout from this.

I was her when I was 16.

Another rugby prick whose privilege knows no bounds took my virginity unconscious.

Then threatened me in to silence with his solicitor dad when I told the truth.

This is being a woman in Ireland.

#IBelieveHer

whatever about the lads acting like disgusting pricks, the above is nothing like what happened to the woman in question, by all accounts, and to call them the same thing is silly.

just because you were raped doesn't mean you can project your experience onto what happened to somebody else. Your experiences were not the same. and that's what's happening on social media. Raped women are projecting their own terrible experiences onto this case, and condemning these guys as rapists, simply because they themselves were raped and these rugby lads seem like misogynistic bards. it's understandable, and it's horrific what has happened to so many women in this country, but that's not how the law works.

but this is a sad day. less women will now come forward with their rape cases because the system that is in place is sh and these prosecutors didn't do their jobs properly.

Mossy Monk

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Convinced twitter is turning people daft. You have clowns just spewing out off the cuff nonsense without even thinking about what they are saying. Then you have other reading it, believing it and retweeting the same garbage to hundreds of other gullible fools who are unable to form their own opinions.

Im all for free speech but twitter seems particularly mobbish and attracts certain many ill informed folk.

It's an echo chamber for simple minded fools. They go there because people in the real world rightfully ignore them.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Mr.H wrote: »

And women do it too!!

It sucks but it happens. I dont talk like that but I cant just shout down everyone who does.

Yes, I've said that in a couple of posts. These guys are just representative of a certain type of person who respects nobody, not even themselves. It's horrible.

meeeeh

Mr.H wrote: »

You must have never been around a group of women

Women and men are the exact same. Both sides talk about sex and what they would do to, or have done by, certain attractive members of the opposite sex.

Im sure you dont know any women who went nuts for the fifthy shades movies or magic mike.

And you are unable to distinguish the talk about sex with the type of the talk in those what's app messages. Ok....

freshpopcorn

garbo speaks wrote: »

Has Louise O'Neill exploded yet?

Yes, read her thread or Twitter feed.

suicide_circus

garbo speaks wrote: »

Has Louise O'Neill exploded yet?

Should tweeted that the verdict has made her feel sick to her stomach

Nerdlingr

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Cause there's no proof he penetrated her. No swabs. No DNA. Nothing.
You cannot prove something like that based on what a person thought they saw.

Well rape is a very difficult thing to prove in a court of law, that's more or less common knowledge.

But applying your logic, there's no proof the 3 some was consensual either.

irishrebe

martyc5674 wrote: »

Having been on a Jury for a very similar case(same charges not high profile though) I can say that to get a conviction is extremely difficult.
Out of the 12 of us we all thought he did it... however as jurors you can only give a guilty verdict if you are beyond reasonable doubt.
We unanimously gave a not guilty verdict.

Exactly. This weird assumption so many people on here have that she did this maliciously and wants money and attention...it can only be described as woman hating. How can anyone make such an assumption? The fact they were found not guilty doesn't automatically make her a liar.

lalababa

lalababa wrote: »

Lots of girls I have known love being treated like a piece of meat some of the time as do I.

Something something exploding inbox. :P

c68zapdsm5i1ru

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest in my opinion I think lots of people have different standard when it comes to sex or sexual discussion and what is considered okay and not okay. Once everything is legal and consenting.

I think there are general unspoken standards about what's okay or not okay. And I really do believe that most people would be horrified to know that their son or brother was behaving like these guys. Yes, there will be some who will take a 'lads being lads' attitude, but I don't think they're in the majority.

Samuel T. Cogley

Augeo wrote: »

Well rape is a very difficult thing to prove in a court of law, that's more or less common knowledge.

But applying your logic, there's no proof the 3 some was consensual either.

Again that's not how it works. It has to be proven it was non-consensual.

suicide_circus

I don't see paddy jacksons face on the side of a bus with a bottle of Lucozade Sport in his hand any time soon. Their earning power from sponsorship is gone.

topper75

_Dara_ wrote: »

There’s nothing wrong with sleeping with loads of women. You can do that and still treat those willing women with basic respect.

Excellent point well made.

Mr.H

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Plenty of Sports people in the US have come acropper with various issues towards women. Sports people are role models. I concede some people are in the public eye but should not be role models.

I completely agree on the talk part - that's a complete non issue IMO. However a drunken gang-bang is not great behaviour even from Rugby players.

Why not??

I am an adult and if I want a drunken gangbang I can have one (although not sure about that haha). The same for any CONSENTING adult.

What goes on in someones personal life is none of our business and they can have all kinds of crazy sex acts they want. As long as its legal.

Malayalam

Fecks sake, not only is there trial of alleged sex crime by social media (#MeToo) , now when an actual legal trial takes place in an actual judicial court in an actual political state there are attempts to subvert the court findings by social media (#IBelieveHer).

I don't think these people understand how close they are to espousing anarchy. #Mobocracy :rolleyes:

pjohnson

Love some of the twitter eejits saying men shouldn't be allowed on juries for rape cases.

The women jurors found the defendants not guilty aswell. Or have they lost their right to be classed as a woman?

meeeeh

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest in my opinion I think lots of people have different standard when it comes to sex or sexual discussion and what is considered okay and not okay. Once everything is legal and consenting.

I'm not objecting that. But I also think some people can show complete disrespect to others with their attitude. It's not illegal, they are not breaking the law but I can still feel they are the type of people I would not want spend time with.

facehugger99

The IRFU will drop them like hot potatoes. There'll be some clause in their contracts about bringing disrepute on the organization.

I can't imagine any sponsor is going to want Paddy Jackson running around with their logo plastered on him. Their careers are over

Strazdas

manwithaplan wrote: »

It's entirely possible that the accuser and the accused had different interpretations of the same thing. It is also entirely possible that the accuser is convinced she did not give or maintain consent and that the accused believe that consent was given and maintained.

The fact is that they are not guilty. That does not mean that she is a liar. They have all, accuser and accused, been through a pretty horrible few months (couple of years in fact). I hope they can all move on and that they don't suffer professionally or personally in the longer term.

Stuart Olding's statement actually alludes to this. He acknowledges that she may well believe she was assaulted and he apologises to her for any hurt his actions that evening may have caused (whilst insisting the verdict is correct).

It doesn't necessarily follow that the complainant is "lying", she may have felt that the events that night were non consensual.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Mr.H wrote: »

Why not??

I am an adult and if I want a drunken gangbang I can have one (although not sure about that haha). The same for any CONSENTING adult.

What goes on in someones personal life is none of our business and they can have all kinds of crazy sex acts they want. As long as its legal.

It can be legal and still reprehensible. I would certainly find it hard to respect anyone who behaved like these guys did.

xl500

padd b1975 wrote: »

This won't affect their careers in the slightest, nor should it.
They are innocent.

Well it has already Paddy Jackson at least lost out on a Grand slam win maybe never to come again for him

Samuel T. Cogley

Mr.H wrote: »

Why not??

I am an adult and if I want a drunken gangbang I can have one (although not sure about that haha). The same for any CONSENTING adult.

What goes on in someones personal life is none of our business and they can have all kinds of crazy sex acts they want. As long as its legal.

I simply don't believe you're that naïve. If it came out that a High Court Judge who dealt with Civil cases only was an ex porn-star or indeed a Secondary School maths teacher that person would rightly be in serious trouble professionally. It's entirely correct though that you or I should be able to engage in anything we want, although perhaps not together. :pac:

Laneyh

garbo speaks wrote: »

Well, the jury by finding the defendants innocent, believed their story, thereby making the woman a liar.

The woman was not (supposed to be) on trial

They found the defendants not guilty this does not equate to finding the claimant lying

Mr.H

Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: »

Yes, I've said that in a couple of posts. These guys are just representative of a certain type of person who respects nobody, not even themselves. It's horrible.

Listen I agree that they are tools. I am just saying that while they are tools, they dont deserve to be ridiculed for it.

meeeeh wrote: »

And you are unable to distinguish the talk about sex with the type of the talk in those what's app messages. Ok....

I am. But I am just saying that I know some girls wont went nuts for Fifty shades and said some choice things about what they would let Jamie Doran do to them.

Dies that make them scum?

That is just the way people talk. Its not just a small minority either!!

PokeHerKing

Zulu wrote:

I feel sorry for the girl, whether or not she was telling porkies or not, it's a sorry sorry affair.

Genuinely struggling to understand how anyone could feel sorry for her IF they thought she was lying.

seamus

Augeo wrote: »

But applying your logic, there's no proof the 3 some was consensual either.

Sure. But courts have to take into account that obtaining a consent form before a sex act is not a reasonable expectation (and actually wouldn't make a difference).

The overall measure is to determine whether the defendants believed the act to be consensual, with the requirement that consent must be active and ongoing. So as soon as the person falls asleep, you no longer have active consent. As soon as they say no, you do not have active consent.

If the act starts out with active consent and she continues being conscious, engaged and not attempting to stop you, verbally or physically, then a reasonable person will believe they have consent, even if she feels like she is being forced.

That's how horrible situations like these come about.