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

Maxpfizer

suicide_circus wrote: »

Which is worse?

a. That some rapists can walk free

b. That innocent people are imprisoned

I would offer a slight adjustment, worth considering for anyone pondering this:

Which is worse?

a. That some rapists can walk free

b. That YOU are wrongfully imprisoned

kerplun k

freshpopcorn wrote: »

A girl I went to college with would have being up for it.

I’ve never met a girl who went out looking for multiple cocks in one go, especially a 19yo, and one who came across so well when speaking about her ordeal when questioned by the defense.The lads crossed the f**king line and they knew it. I’m not saying they are out and out rapists, but they definitely crossed a line.

Faugheen

Kivaro wrote: »

Not if the EVIDENCE contradicted her statements.
The EVIDENCE in this instance included a woman at the party who gave her account of the scene when she walked into the room.

You'd call your own daughter a liar then would you if she went through all this?

If so, don't ever have a daughter.

ohnonotgmail

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Given that the jury returned a not guilty verdict we have to assume she is lying or mistaken about what occurred.

Or that the defence managed to create sufficient doubt about what happened. So we dont have to assume either of those things.

sightband

retro:electro wrote: »

This is the second time you’ve said something like this on this thread and I’ve no idea what point you’re trying to make?

it was suggested that it’s unlikely that a 19 year old would go out looking for a spit roast. In response to this the popcorn poster said he knew some tart from college that would be up for it so a wild guess at his point is that there are plenty of sluts out there that will go out for a night looking for dick and maybe even more than one dick. what’s so hard to understand?

C__MC

Is this the end of it? Can Jackson and co take this any further?

suicide_circus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Given that the jury returned a not guilty verdict we have to assume she is lying or mistaken about what occurred.

I don't think we can assert she was lying. "Wrong" seems to be a more appropriate label.

ohnonotgmail

Kivaro wrote: »

Not if the EVIDENCE contradicted her statements.
The EVIDENCE in this instance included a woman at the party who gave her account of the scene when she walked into the room.

that same woman also contradicted the evidence of paddy jackson.

AudreyHepburn

kerplun k wrote: »

I’ve never met a girl who went out looking for multiple cocks in one go, especially a 19yo, and one who came across so well when speaking about her ordeal when questioned by the defense.The lads crossed the f**king line and they knew up. I’m not saying they are out and out rapists, but they definitely crossed a line.

You haven’t been out with many 19 year old women then.

No line was crossed here - at worst there’s was a misunderstanding about consent but that doesn’t make it rape.

Neamhshuntasach

kerplun k wrote: »

Agree with this. Not to mention, what 19yo goes out looking for a gang bang, like she might have been up for something with PJ, and then thinks do you know that this needs, more cocks please, the lads were ****faced and treated her like a piece of meat. I bet each and everyone of them knew they crossed the line the morning after.

You are unbelievably naive if you don't think girls like that exist at that age. I've come across plenty during my college years and heard plenty of corroborative stories. One being at a party where a girl had a threesome with 2 lads, followed by 2 more lads in a row with a trip out to the kitchen in between asking, who's next?! They exist. And it tends to be girls/women like that men don't respect. Not a thing applied to all women.

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

I don't think we can assert she was lying. "Wrong" seems to be a more appropriate label.

we cant even say she was wrong. All we can say is that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The reason why I believe Jackson on this point aside the fact that there is no DNA evidence is that he admitted to suffering with problems down stairs on the night in question.

No man, especially a 25 yr old macho rugby player is going to admit to that in public unless they absolutely have to.

Meh, I was 26 when it happened me and I said it to plenty of people and most of the lads said it's happened to them as well.

yourdeadwright

kerplun k wrote: »

freshpopcorn wrote: »

A girl I went to college with would have being up for it.

I’ve never met a girl who went out looking for multiple cocks in one go, especially a 19yo, and one who came across so well when speaking about her ordeal when questioned by the defense.The lads crossed the f**king line and they knew it. I’m not saying they are out and out rapists, but they definitely crossed a line.

U'v no idea what happened like the rest of the country who where not in the room ,

AudreyHepburn

suicide_circus wrote: »

I don't think we can assert she was lying. "Wrong" seems to be a more appropriate label.

Well if not that then she was wrong about what occurred.

dark crystal

suicide_circus wrote: »

I believe that she believes she was raped. And I believe that the men believed they didn't rape her. I don't think she is intentionally lying.

That's quite probable, I don't know for sure what happened either.

The problem I have is how she's immediately branded a liar (no rape took place) by people on the internet who weren't there that night. This is a large part of the reason many victims don't bother to seek prosecution. Unless you're one of the 1% who manage to prove your case and secure a conviction, there's a good chance a case like this would put you off completely.

PCeeeee

dark crystal wrote: »

That's quite probable, I don't know for sure what happened either.

The problem I have is how she's immediately branded a liar (no rape took place) by people on the internet who weren't there that night. This is a large part of the reason many victims don't bother to seek prosecution. Unless you're one of the 1% who manage to prove your case and secure a conviction, there's a good chance a case like this would put you off completely.

1% of what?

pjohnson

dark crystal wrote: »

You know this how?

I'm assuming you weren't in the room at the time?

Neither were the jurors who said unanimously no rape occured.

suicide_circus

dark crystal wrote: »

That's quite probable, I don't know for sure what happened either.

The problem I have is how she's immediately branded a liar (no rape took place) by people on the internet who weren't there that night. This is a large part of the reason many victims don't bother to seek prosecution. Unless you're one of the 1% who manage to prove your case and secure a conviction, there's a good chance a case like this would put you off completely.

And that's desperately sad. Rape is extremely hard to prove, it's just one of those things. People calling her a liar are just ignorant.

dark crystal

pjohnson wrote: »

Neither were the jurors who said unanimously no rape occured.

When did they say that?

Maxpfizer

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.

Theoretically, what would you want if you were accused?

The justice system locks you up and that's that?

You get a trial where a jury will hear your defense and make a decision based on the evidence?

I'm not sure how acknowledging that if myself or anyone I know was accused I would want to have a fair trail makes me a "fragile Menimist"?

Are we really at this stage where we are seriously considering throwing due process away and demanding that people be imprisoned based on accusation alone?

Should this apply to other crimes too?

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The reason why I believe Jackson on this point aside the fact that there is no DNA evidence is that he admitted to suffering with problems down stairs on the night in question.

No man, especially a 25 yr old macho rugby player is going to admit to that in public unless they absolutely have to.

Meh, I was 26 when it happened me and I said it to plenty of people and most of the lads said it's happened to them as well.

Some people don't live in the real world there is all types of girls and lads out there that are into all sorts that's life,
But I for one think NONE OF US have a clue what happened as we where not there, so all we can go on is the Jury's verdict ,

ohnonotgmail

pjohnson wrote: »

Neither were the jurors who said unanimously no rape occured.

the jurors didnt say that. You fundamentally misunderstand what it is a jury is asked to decide.

david75

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Given that the jury returned a not guilty verdict we have to assume she is lying or mistaken about what occurred.

You said this. Only yesterday. So what if this girl tuned out to be pregnant?regardless of rape/not rape whichever it is? You support rapists walking free but are against abortion in cases of rape?


Quote: AudreyHepburn
That’s how I interpreted his words too and I am in full agreement.

There has to be some sort of legislation in place so that we don’t end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one.

freshpopcorn

kerplun k wrote: »

I’ve never met a girl who went out looking for multiple cocks in one go, especially a 19yo, and one who came across so well when speaking about her ordeal when questioned by the defense.The lads crossed the f**king line and they knew it. I’m not saying they are out and out rapists, but they definitely crossed a line.

The girl I knew was from a rural area went to mass. Her parents were a teacher and nurse. She was very well spoken and friendly. She manages a sector in a hotel now. I went on cinema/food dates with her but when I got to know her well. I found out what was normal bedroom behavoir and it was what you mentioned a 19 year old wouldn't do

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

dark crystal

PCeeeee wrote: »

1% of what?

1% of reported rapes in Ireland end in a conviction.

http://humanrights.ie/gender-sexuality-and-the-law/rape-and-justice-in-ireland/

mariaalice

I haven't a clue what to make of the whole thing.

The things they said about her afterward are vile and says a lot about them notwithstanding the fact that they were found not guilty, that will affect their careers because of the cold hard cash of the sponsors, Ulster, and Irish rugby have not said welcome back lads they are putting a committee together to look at it.

Something that struck me the night out seems slightly old-fashioned in today's society. I know a lot of young people and they all socialise together they have friends of the opposite sex that is the milieu they mix in. I wonder did they have any female friends or girlfriend or even sisters.

They do come across as dislikeable and very immature.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

You'd call your own daughter a liar then would you if she went through all this?

Would you call your son a liar if he was accused?

Faugheen wrote:

If so, don't ever have a daughter.

Please don't procreate at all if that's your attitude. We don't need any more victim complex young girls or young lads ashamed for being male

david75

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The girl I knew was from a rural area went to mass. Her parents were a teacher and nurse. She was very well spoken and friendly. She manages a sector in a hotel now. I went on cinema/food dates with her but when I got to know her well. I found out what was normal bedroom behavoir and it was what you mentioned a 19 year old wouldn't do

You’re repetitive posting about ‘this girl you knew’ is rather telling.

AudreyHepburn

david75 wrote: »

You said this. Only yesterday. So what if this girl tuned out to be pregnant?regardless of rape/not rape whichever it is? You support rapists walking free but are against abortion in cases of rape?


Quote: AudreyHepburn
That’s how I interpreted his words too and I am in full agreement.

There has to be some sort of legislation in place so that we don’t end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one.

This is completely OT bit when or where did I ever say I was against abortion in that situation?
To keep on topic what has that to do with this case? No rapists walked free here - 4 innocent men did

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Some people don't live in the real world there is all types of girls and lads out there that are into all sorts that's life,
But I for one think NONE OF US have a clue what happened as we where not there, so all we can go on is the Jury's verdict ,

Again, to make my opinion clear.
I think on balance there probably was rape.
If I had to say beyond a reasonable doubt based on what I've heard then I'd be right on the fence.
11 people heard all of the evidence for weeks and made a unanimous decision very quickly which implies that for them it wasn't too close to reasonable doubt for those who heard all the evidence.

Doctors room ghost

Any court case discussed on boards that involves a strange outcome,sentence and it’s the justice system is wrong and the judge should be jailed etc from most posters.
This case though and people are willing to put all faith in a not guilty ruling by the jury and suddenly all faith is restored in the justice system with some posters stating if they are innocent they are innocent.simple as.Strange one
Was it not a case of all jury members having to come to the same conclusion and if one member of the jury went not guilty then they would have to rule not guilty.what happened to a majority vote by jury.

retro:electro

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The girl I knew was from a rural area went to mass. Her parents were a teacher and nurse. She was very well spoken and friendly. She manages a sector in a hotel now. I went on cinema/food dates with her but when I got to know her well. I found out what was normal bedroom behavoir and it was what you mentioned a 19 year old wouldn't do

Okay we get it. Knew a girl once who liked sex was experimental.. and??
I’ve literally no idea what this has to do with anything

freshpopcorn

david75 wrote: »

You’re repetitive posting about ‘this girl you knew’ is rather telling.

We did the same course at college. I got to know her. I left the course after two years. She went abroad and is back home and I haven't seen her since 2013. I don't we know much about her now in her late twenties apart from where she works/lives but I knew loads about her during her college years.

ahnowbrowncow

Anyone listening to the Matt Cooper show? Four feminists on complaining about the justice system and how it needs to change as a result of this case. He had invited numerous male guests but they all declined. It's hardly surprising when you see what happened to George Hook for speaking common sense.

freshpopcorn

retro:electro wrote: »

Okay we get it. Knew a girl once who liked sex was experimental.. and??
I’ve literally no idea what this has to do with anything

Somebody is saying a 19 year woiuldn't get up to that type of stuff. My point is some do. Is that okay with you?

Vicxas

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Anyone listening to the Matt Cooper show? Four feminists on complaining about the justice system and how it needs to change as a result of this case. He had invited numerous male guests but they all declined. It's hardly surprising when you see what happened to George Hook for speaking common sense.

All people want to hear is how they got away with it, not a logical argument from someone with a penis.

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you call your son a liar if he was accused?

Please don't procreate at all if that's your attitude. We don't need any more victim complex young girls or young lads ashamed for being male

In the real world; daughters lie, sons lie.
But according to some posters, daughters don't lie and need to be believed unconditionally; otherwise we should not have daughters. What an odd supposition.

erica74

I think based on the evidence presented I agree with the jury and I'd like to think I would have come to the same decision had I sat on that jury. I agree that the 4 involved shouldn't be found guilty based on that evidence. However, like many people, I also don't believe the woman fabricated her story. I believe what happened that night wasn't consensual, there just wasn't enough proof that it wasn't consensual.
I think there were far too many inconsistencies on both sides for anyone to form a balanced version of events. I'd say all of the participants don't even know exactly what happened that night.

I know I would not like to be in that woman's shoes today.

Strazdas

A legal expert was on with Ivan Yates a few minutes ago and he says having listened to all the evidence, the woman probably believes she was raped and the men believed they didn't rape her, that's what it comes down to.

Probably nobody on the stand was lying, they were all giving their version of the 'truth'.

Doctors room ghost

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, to make my opinion clear.
I think on balance there probably was rape.
If I had to say beyond a reasonable doubt based on what I've heard then I'd be right on the fence.
11 people heard all of the evidence for weeks and made a unanimous decision very quickly which implies that for them it wasn't too close to reasonable doubt for those who heard all the evidence.

It wasn’t unanimous by 11 for not guilty.jury were told before deliberations that all 11 had to come to a guilty verdict or else they wouldn’t be convinced.all 11 with the same verdict of guilty is what I heard on the radio.was that right as opposed to majority vote

mariaalice

Strazdas wrote: »

A legal expert was on with Ivan Yates a few minutes ago and he says having listened to all the evidence, the woman probably believes she was raped and the men believed they didn't rape her, that's what it comes down to.

Probably nobody on the stand was lying, they were all giving their version of the 'truth'.

My truth, your truth, and the truth.

ebbsy

Probably lots of stupidity on all sides that night.

kunst nugget

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

It wasn’t unanimous by 11 for not guilty.jury were told before deliberations that all 11 had to come to a guilty verdict or else they wouldn’t be convinced.all 11 with the same verdict of guilty is what I heard on the radio.was that right as opposed to majority vote

Either verdict would have had to been unanimous. If they were deadlocked then the judge might have directed then for a majority verdict but it never got to that.

Cyrus

Strazdas wrote: »

A legal expert was on with Ivan Yates a few minutes ago and he says having listened to all the evidence, the woman probably believes she was raped and the men believed they didn't rape her, that's what it comes down to.

Probably nobody on the stand was lying, they were all giving their version of the 'truth'.

i think thats most sensible peoples understanding of events, the whole ordeal was unfortunate but i think that distills it best.

Mebuntu

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I I only ask because twitter has returned a guilty verdict. So many women on there are certain they are guilty.

What else would you expect from twitterwomen?

Diceicle

Can someone clarify, why are the defendants named but not the complainant? Are closed hearinga not a good idea in these types of cases?

professore

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.

There is a huge difference between being not credible and mistaking two very similar activities. And anyway maybe he DID penetrate her with his penis - still doesn't make it rape.

Odhinn

ebbsy wrote: »

Probably lots of stupidity on all sides that night.

It's yet another example of why both accuser and accused should be given anonimity during such trials.

PHG

Vicxas wrote: »

All people want to hear is how they got away with it, not a logical argument from someone with a penis.

Wow, what a generalisation there. Someone with a penis can't be logical? People can be falsely accused. As with any crime, the accuser is wrong until they can prove the guilt of the defendant.

Neither you or I were there that night. There is no winner here but gender hating does not help anyone. If I criticised a female for their the way they came to a decision just because thay have a vagina I would be criticised and rightly so. Discriminating based on someone's gender is low!