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

Strazdas

seamus wrote: »

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.

A complicating factor is that it seems to have started with Jackson and the woman alone in the bedroom, and then they were joined by others, but at no point were there four people in the room. The last two to enter the room would probably have no knowledge of what went on before or how the sexual encounter was initiated.

Zulu

sheroman01 wrote: »

Out of interest, why exactly would you feel sorry for the girl if she was lying?

Why wouldn't I. It's clear she isn't happy.

....and just to head things off at the pass - feeling sorry for her is not the same as condoning her actions, and it's not mutually exclusive to feeling sorry for the others in this case.

david75

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

pjohnson

Adamocovic wrote: »

It's hard enough trying to find someone willing to let me sleep with them, let alone trying to find someone to actually be my friend.

:pac:

PokeHerKing

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

Possibly, but putting her self through this lot for it? I just don't see it. Perhaps naively

Very naively I'm afraid. Her Instagram tells a story.

Vicxas

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Jesus christ......

suicide_circus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Very naively I'm afraid. Her Instagram tells a story.

What story is that? A summary...

.......

This post has been deleted.

Christy42

benneca1 wrote: »

Google Stuart Olding and see what comes up. Not guilty he may be but the online encyclopedia has its own views.  This is libel so could be interesting.

Prove it is libel. As long as they don't say he was found guilty they should be OK. For libel he needs to prove it did not happen which has not happened yet and would be difficult.

DEFTLEFTHAND

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Do you not accept the verdict?

professore

Augeo wrote: »

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?

Even if he DID penetrate her with his penis, that is not the same thing as rape. And there was zero DNA evidence of it - whereas Stuart Olding's semen was all over her.

I actually think Paddy Jackson told the truth - he was too drunk to do anything other than finger her. If he was kneeling behind her and making rhythmic movements this could easily be mistaken for sex.

Also the "sexual noises" and "moaning" described by the other girl outside the room.

When she came in the room they stopped. This means presumably Paddy would have stopped what he was doing.

The witness told the police in her statement: “I would not say the female was distressed”. This afternoon in Laganside Crown Court she said this remains her recollection “100 per cent.”

She agreed with counsel for Mr Jackson, Brendan Kelly QC, that “there was no sign of any distress at all”.

Before reaching the bedroom she said she was calling her friend’s name. She said she heard “moaning and noise” coming from the bedroom. She said the moaning did not sound “distressed”.

On day 12 of the trial, Belfast Crown Court today heard Ms Florence describe the scene as she opened Mr Jackson’s bedroom door in search of the friend.

She told the jury: “Paddy was like sitting on his knees, (the complainant) had her bum up against him having sex and her head was down towards Stuart’s middle.”

Ms Florence, who said she had never met the rugby players before that night, later told police: “When I left the room I did not feel as if I had witnessed rape.”

Dara Florence, who didn’t know at the time that her friend had gone to sleep upstairs, told the court she was only one in the house who was not drinking on the night.

As she walked up the stairs she said she heard “some kind of noise, moaning, I thought it was Emily.

“It wasn’t distressed or anything like that”

She added it was a female and that: “I don’t know if I would describe it as sexual.”

She was asked, she said, by Mr Jackson: “Do you want to join in?”

“I said ‘no’,” Ms Florence said.

“I closed the door, kind of laughed and turned around and said ‘I just seen a threesome’ and then we went downstairs.”

I don't know about anyone else but this doesn't sound like rape at all and there is no way in hell I could convict based on that evidence from a sober witness.

Adamocovic

Deleted User wrote: »

Also it means all 3 with each other, with one at each end the only contact would usually be eye. And maybe a high five.

Off-topic to the trial but on topic to this discussion.

Once was asked by someone in work what my plans for the weekend were, told her two of my friends may be visiting and we will just go site seeing. When she found out they were both women she asked me deadpan seriously "ménage à trois?"

I wish I had recorded my shocked and confused reaction while I stuttered out that we were just friends. She just nodded said ok and went back to work. Still can't believe how normal her question seemed to her haha!

pjohnson

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

The fcuk is a menimist?

VinLieger

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Ugh more pathetic attacks by the alphabet soup brigade on our legal systems because they don't get their way.....

VinLieger

pjohnson wrote: »

The fcuk is a menimist?

Some new SJW buzzword by the sounds of it

ChikiChiki

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Think I'll walk the Sydney Harbour Bridge tomorrow in solidarity with the menimist movement. :-)

Nermal

If a case like this doesn't lead to anonymity for defendants, what will?

Bunny Colvin

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

This isn't the OJ case. Nobody was hard done by. Maybe instead of taking part in rallies they should just respect the jury's verdict. I suppose they have an agenda and lots of sympathy to garner.

Vicxas

pjohnson wrote: »

The fcuk is a menimist?

Another term for Male Rights Activists (MRA).

david75

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Do you not accept the verdict?

? I don’t care either way tbh. I was just taking the piss out of a certain element here.

professore

professore wrote: »

Even if he DID penetrate her with his penis, that is not the same thing as rape. And there was zero DNA evidence of it - whereas Stuart Olding's semen was all over her.

I actually think Paddy Jackson told the truth - he was too drunk to do anything other than finger her. If he was kneeling behind her and making rhythmic movements this could easily be mistaken for sex. .................

I don't know about anyone else but this doesn't sound like rape at all and there is no way in hell I could convict based on that evidence from a sober witness.

The same witness that was adament the lady was being penetrated by Jackson, though Jackson denies this. The witness is either credible or not IMO, bits of her account can't be deemed credible and other bits not so.

Samuel T. Cogley

VinLieger wrote: »

Ugh more pathetic attacks by the alphabet soup brigade on the Northern Irish legal systems because they don't get their way.....

FYP

garbo speaks

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Makes sense; a weekday march where the only people marching will be wacko leftist, snowflake student nutjobs with no jobs.

Fanny Wank

I've said it more than once. I really hope I'm never on trial for a crime I didn't commit. Some of the people posting on this thread could be members of the jury FFS

Samuel T. Cogley

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

This isn't the OJ case. Nobody was hard done by. Maybe instead of taking part in rallies they should just respect the jury's verdict. I suppose they have an agenda and lots of sympathy to garner.

:pac:

baylah17

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Didn't take you for the type who would be into populist lynchmob vigilantism

freshpopcorn

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Do you not accept the verdict?

Going by his first post he's part of the hashtag movement!

facehugger99

Debtocracy wrote: »

Looking at social media, I feel very worried that a feminist zeigest could have made an example of these men.

Feminist zeigest (sic)?

It appears your fears were misplaced. The reality is it's extremely difficult to secure a conviction for this type of crime.

baylah17

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Didn't take you for the type who would be into populist lynchmob vigilantism

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

The fcuk is a menimist?

Apparently it's a word mentally defective people call any other people who don't agree with their made-up inferiority/victim complexes

VinLieger

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

FYP

Not from what i'm reading on twitter many are making the same claims about the ROI justice system regardless of the jurisdiction this case was in

david75

pjohnson wrote: »

The fcuk is a menimist?

I wasn’t sure either but I think it’s time it was embraced and taken back from the feminazis!

I’m joking by the way. Menimists is funny though. They’re very fragile

Bunny Colvin

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

:pac:

Less of that now or else I'll organise a rally. I might organise one for myself anyway, been a while since I had a good march on a Thursday.

Harry Palmr

Not all at surprised by the judgement.

I'd always suspected the woman in question was indulging in post "bad-sex" thinking to exculpate her own behaviour

Faugheen

Stuart Oldings statement through his solicitor outside court is a lot classier than a lot of comments here.

He apologised to the girl and acknowledged it was her perception. He doesn't agree with her perception, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he essentially admits nobody wins in this trial.

People need to get into their heads that, while the jury said not guilty, they did not return a guilty verdict to the complainant for lying.

I pray the posters here who make it sound so black and white never have a family member go through the same thing as the complainant.

jimgoose

david75 wrote: »

...Menimists is funny though. They’re very fragile

My fuckin' brain is fragile after reading that word. As if we weren't bad enough, like! :pac:

meeeeh

Augeo wrote: »

The same witness that was adament the lady was being penetrated by Jackson, though Jackson denies this. The witness is either credible or not IMO, bits of her account can't be deemed credible and other bits not so.

In fairness when people walk in on sex they usually don't stare but quickly look away. It's completely possible she thought she saw more than she did. Especially with a bit of alcohol involved.

david75

baylah17 wrote: »

Didn't take you for the type who would be into populist lynchmob vigilantism

God no. I have no dog in this fight whatsoever. Just interesting seeing the polarisation events like this case causes. More and more extreme each time.
Masculine fragility though I do find entertaining.

SAMTALK

py2006 wrote: »

Eh, I am talking about rich and famous guys getting lots of female attention and opportunities.

So because they are rich and famous they don't need to be respectful?

Opportunity does not equal right. Maybe I picked your post up wrong but jesus wept it didn't make for good reading

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

In fairness when people walk in on sex they usually don't stare but quickly look away. It's completely possible she thought she saw more than she did. Especially with a bit of alcohol involved.

she was sober iirc according to the poster I was quoting.
She also admitted that she saw no active consent.

Adamocovic

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Don't really get the purpose of this.

A long trial ends with the jury releasing a unanimous verdict of not-guilty.
Is it a case of just keep on marching and marching until a certain group of people get the verdict they want? Seem childish and a waste of time.

There are many things worth rallying for. This court result is not one of them.

touts

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Over 26 THOUSAND tweets already about #ibelieveher. The 4 men were accquitted by the laws of the land yet there is a mob forming on twitter to say they should have been found guilty on nothing more than the basis that men are evil liars and women always tell the truth. This is modern day mob justice with torches replaced by glowing screens and pitchforks replaced by selfie sticks.

Assetbacked

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.

The BBC wrote a whole article on how the gun control marches were "too white" based entirely on tweets. People who tweet and instagram a lot somehow think that people actually care what they have to say. It is dangerous.

py2006

SAMTALK wrote: »

So because they are rich and famous they don't need to be respectful?

Opportunity does not equal right. Maybe I picked your post up wrong but jesus wept it didn't make for good reading

I would be having a lot more sex if I was rich and famous (and better looking). Taking them up on their offer doesn't mean they are being disrespectful

Nerdlingr

Nerdlingr wrote: »

...........There was no hard evidence to prove this happened .
It really is that simple.

I know https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106564209&postcount=662

_Dara_

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?

They'd need to prove she was lying.

A very dangerous precedent would be set if she could be sued.

tonycascarino

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

I suppose the types who will be out protesting this will be the same individuals doing it when Trump and the Pope arrive here ie. people with nothing to do and all day to do it.

david75

touts wrote: »

Over 26 THOUSAND tweets already about #ibelieveher. The 4 men were accquitted by the laws of the land yet there is a mob forming on twitter to say they should have been found guilty on nothing more than the basis that men are evil liars and women always tell the truth. This is modern day mob justice with torches replaced by glowing screens and pitchforks replaced by selfie sticks.

The only good outcomes I can see from such a rally is to send a message of support to the woman involved and also to let women know they shouldn’t let these things go unreported and suffer in silence. That’s a positive.
But other than that I agree the trial and conviction by social media doesn’t really help. But that’s the age we live in.

Assetbacked

Augeo wrote: »

she was sober iirc according to the poster I was quoting.
She also admitted that she saw no active consent.

That question about positive consent means "did you hear her say something along the lines of 'throw it into me'?". That is not necessarily something she would hear in a short period of time. But the point is that the jury had all of the evidence and a judge who carefully instructed them. The decision as to guilt or not was then made. In the absence of an appeal or evidence of misconduct at play, that is the end of it.

Nerdlingr

Augeo wrote: »

The same witness that was adament the lady was being penetrated by Jackson, though Jackson denies this. The witness is either credible or not IMO, bits of her account can't be deemed credible and other bits not so.

Again...proof. There is no evidence Jackson penetrated the accuser.
She gave 'an account' of what she saw. Its just an account. Its doesn't prove anything. But it can cast doubt or back up other peoples account of what happened.