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

Chrongen

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

It doesn't make her a liar at all...and that's where peoples' simpleton brains kick in. They think the world is black and white. Logic goes out the window. People like choices to be simple and easy to digest.

Consider this. She was drinking and feeling frisky. She had a romp with these guys in a bedroom. And she felt guilty afterwards. Perhaps she thought that she stepped outside of her "personality" and did something raunchy. She felt weird and confused. It happens. I know so many neurotic American prudish girls who have a one night stand and then are all "I need counselling, I could be a slut". A girl from Liverpool who likes to be a bit of a maneater would look at her and say "You f**king sap!"

I've been in a sexual situation where I've attempted to do something with my partner that wasn't consensual just spontaneous (on my part) but something that she didn't want. Example: Groping, pawing each other, getting undressed, floundering around on the bed naked...then I start to kiss her legs and grab her foot and suck her toes. She immediately screams "NO, NO...that's too ticklish, stop it" and we do other things.

Technically I have sexually assaulted her. In reality I have just done something that she can't bear because she's ticklish and prefers a good regular shag instead of belly licking or ear nibbling.

The point I'm making is that it's very possible to take ONE incident within a sexual encounter that they weren't comfortable with and tell oneself that they were violated or that there was a non-consensual episode.

Tigger

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There is nothing more to say here really. The four accused have been acquitted, and there is no appeal possible against the verdict of a jury.

The woman could of course take a civil case where the burden of proof is not as high as in a rape case. Who knows.

Otherwise it is all over really. And I have no interest in the famous four's future earnings or sponsorship. They will survive. Give it a few months.

They will probably just carry on or go to Australia or something with a clean passport/visa, as is their right. They have no convictions now do they?

Ffs they are not guilty
Innscotland there is a not proven verdict but in NI it’s not guilty
So they shouldn’t have to go anywhere
But I think they will go to Exeter

Huntergonzo

blanch152 wrote: »

This can be viewed on very many different levels.

Two men had sex with a groupie and were dismissive of her in texts afterwards. Very hard to be emotionally supportive of them. At the very least they were very stupid and misogynist.

Of course, that doesn't mean they were guilty of rape.

The grey areas of consent are huge. You meet someone, you go to bed consensually with them, but something changes. Do they know you well enough to sense that from your change of mood, your change of tone? If if they do, is their judgment impaired by drink, or yours?

I have no problem with "no means no", it is the area of "yes sometimes means no" or "maybe yes, maybe no" that it becomes a problem.

I understand that it's a grey area, but there are lots of grey areas in life, the best we can do is go with the best available evidence.

In this instance a complainant took a case against 4 people, the jury was present for 9 weeks and heard all the evidence. Ultimately they decided not to find the defendants guilty, that was their decision, that's the system we use, flawed as it may be it's the best currently available.

So why are the media very much taking one side over the other, incredibly even though the other side was found not guilty. It's pretty obvious that there is something very toxic about that.

Faugheen

Tigger wrote: »

spookwoman wrote: »

By law Victims of a sex offence are entitled to remain anonymous for life under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
10 people that released Ched Evans accusers name went before the courts.

She wasn’t a victim tho ?

Says who, you?

Vladimir Poontang

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

Strazdas

Muahahaha wrote: »

What a strange case.

For me the evidence of Dara Florance was what got them off the charges. She walked into the room and testified that the Jackson and Olding asked her did she want to join in. Hardly what anyone would expect to happen if a rape was underway.

However Dara Florances evidence also conflicts with Paddy Jacksons. She said she was 100% certain that Jackson was penetrating the girl whereas Jackson says he did no such thing and only ever fingered her. So who is telling the truth here because their accounts of what happened in the bedroom do not tally. Then you also have Blaine McIllory who says that he got a brief blow job whereas the girl says that she didnt engage him sexually at all and actually ran out of the room when he arrived in naked.

Then you have the girl being upset in the taxi, I dont think anyone can dispute this as Harrisons texts said she was hysterical and "that it wasnt going to end well". The taxi driver also testified that Harrison appeared to be talking in code so it certainly appears that something fishy was going on.

Finally the four lads meeting up the next day in a cafe. What is suss here is that of the four NONE of them brought their phones with them. That in itself does not mean they are guilty but I think most people would say in this day and age people dont tend to leave the house without their phone. If one of them did it fair enough but all four? I think the prosecution was correct when they said that the cafe meeting the next day was to get their stories straight.

Overall I think how it all went down was that Jackson, Olding & McIllory had this thing of bringing back 3 or 4 girls to the house after a night on the razz. They all knew that this was in the hope of group sex (McIllorys text "any chance of a threesome" to Jackson upstairs would strongly suggest this). I think all 3 men were down for group sex but their technique (for want of a better word) on how to make it happen was totally messed up. Instead of propositioning the girl into group sex their strategy seems to have been along the lines of just springing it on the her when she was already in bed naked. Man no.2 walks in the door "oh whats going on here, heh, heh, Ill join in". It is like like something you see in porn. Then next comes man no.3 and the same happens.

Given the above I think that what actually happened that night was the sex with Jackson was consensual. What the girl wasnt consenting to was a threesome then into a foursome. This escalation in the bedroom was just sprung on her without anyone really asking her if she was cool with it. That is when things rapidly went downhill and I think the texts show that the lads knew it too.

Anyway despite all the above I think the correct verdict was reached. There was too many doubts for them to get convicted of this. However I dont believe they are completely innocent here and their actions would suggest that they at least knew something was up. There has to be a lesson here for any bunch of lads that if you want to have group sex at least make sure it is okay with the girl before any clothes come off. Dont just think that she is a slut and of course she wants it. Thats what really got them into trouble here, they made a huge assumption and it back fired in a way that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

That's an interesting point. It's very possible she fancied Paddy Jackson and perhaps wanted to have sex with him and we do know the encounter started out with just the two alone in the bedroom. Where things got messy and murky was the arrival of the other two in the bedroom (something she certainly wouldn't have been planning for or expected). Perhaps if those other two eejits had stayed away from the bedroom, we would never have seen this trial.

Incidentally it was never a 'foursome', there were only ever three people in the room at one time.

anthonyjmaher

As soon as she admitted her memory was hazy, the case was over. They should have just stopped the trial there and then and saved a few million pounds. The DPP has a lot of questions to answer.

Faugheen

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

Sue her for what, exactly?

She wasn't proven to be lying.

Tigger

Faugheen wrote: »

Says who, you?

Evans was convicted of rape in April 2012 and spent two and a half years in prison. His conviction was quashed on 21 April 2016 by the Court of Appeal, and a retrial was ordered. On 14 October 2016, he was found not guilty. Prior to the retrial, he joined Chesterfield.[3]

Wiki for one

Yer Da sells Avon

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

One of them has already expressed regret for his conduct on that night, apologised for the hurt that was caused to her, while maintaining that he doesn't agree with her perception of events. In that context, I somehow doubt that they will be suing her. Apart from the odd blatant misogynist on the internet, there has been no suggestion that she was lying.

retro:electro

martingriff wrote: »

Your right she does not deserve to be spoken like that no one should BUT that does not make them guilty of a crime. Does it make them been guilty vile and dirty opinions yes but that is not against the law.

Castigate them for that by all means and this may be the reason we see these 2 been pushed sideways out of Ulster and the Irish team

Yep and I never said it made them guilty of a crime, and all things considered I agree with the verdict handed out today- I don’t see how it could have been any other way really. But they are inconsiderate pigs and it does no harm to serve some people a reminder of that every now and again. But like you say, it’s not against the law to be an inconsiderate pig.

Muahahaha

spurious wrote: »

This. Can't believe highly paid barristers didn't go after that.
If you believe she is a credible witness, then the lads are lying.

Still can't believe they discussed it for so little time.

Yeah had thought the same myself. On one hand Dara Florances evidence that (in her opinion) what she saw was consensual sex and that sex was Jackson penetrating the girl. Then on the other hand Jackson is saying he only ever fingered her. Either Jackson is lying here or Dara Florance is.

Personally I think Jackson is lying through his teeth here. And he is doing it because there are separate charges for both offences. In Northern Ireland penetration by penis is charged as rape. Digital penetration is charged as sexual assault. The prison sentences for each are very different with sexual assault being deemed to be less serious.

What I think happened was Jackson was indeed having full sex with her and I believe Florances witness account of this. But Jackson got talking to his lawyer and by the time the police interview came around he would admit only to fingering her in an attempt to avoid a rape charge. He would have known his DNA was inside her vagina so his explanation as to how it got there was that he fingered her and not penetrated her. The police did not believe his account of events and so went with the rape charge.

facehugger99

Muahahaha wrote: »

Given the above I think that what actually happened that night was the sex with Jackson was consensual. What the girl wasnt consenting to was a threesome then into a foursome. This escalation in the bedroom was just sprung on her without anyone really asking her if she was cool with it. That is when things rapidly went downhill and I think the texts show that the lads knew it too.

I think this is by far the most likely explanation of what went on that night.

spookwoman

Zonda999 wrote: »

Whatever they said in a Whatsapp group was a private conversation. The only reason you know about it is because it was used in evidence in a court of law for a crime they were found not guilty of.

I think its fair to say that the vast majority of people would not want to be judged on the basis of what they say in a private conversation between their friends. I know I wouldn't.

The fact of the matter is what was said in that group was not in the public domain and only is because of this trial. Seeing as they were found not guilty, I can't see how this IRFU "review" can take any action against them. Do you really think many other "celebrities" or sports stars don't use similar language in private conversations ? If you think they don't then, you're quite frankly, deluded, in my opinion.

Furthermore because of the above, I'd say that anyone thinking they should now have their professional contracts terminated, as a result of this trial, only thinks so because the verdict did not confirm with their "world view".

I'm not concurring with what was said by the way, only making the point what was said goes on all the time behind closed doors.

There are many faces people put on and the whatsapps side doesnt look too good for him.
I don't know why they have these character witnesses in trials and then get the accused to tell people about their charity work etc.
You get the nice guy which doesn't mean they are nice. FFS Jeffrey Dahmers neighbours said he was a nice guy and Ted Bundy worked on a suicide helpline.

I don't know some of the stories about their behavior on other occasions might be their downfall. Stories of shouting obscenities and insults at women from the open windows of taxis.

Spanish Eyes

Beanybabog wrote: »

I am astonished at the amount of people who think because the men were found not guilty in court automatically means the woman was lying and should be punished for making false allegations.
The jury has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt. They do not have to be totally sure that they are innocent or that the complainant is lying.

So what is the redress available here if you might tell us. Beyond reasonable doubt is what the jury decided upon.

facehugger99

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I think it's very obvious one of them sexually assaulted the girl and she didn't see him or name him as a perpetrator... He practically confessed to the cops in the absence of a solicitor but wasn't mentioned in the victims statement... The cops made a mess of this case.

Who?

Luxxis

Appledreams15 wrote: »

#ibelieveher no.1 trend on Twitter in Ireland.

I think everyone is just a bit fed up of the legal systems in rep.of Ireland and Northern Ireland that nearly always lets the rape accused off.

I am not talking about the lads in particular, the overall system needs to be changed!!!!

Replaced with what?

Guilty until proven innocent. Any ideas? Anything?

Ash.J.Williams

facehugger99 wrote: »

Who?

The one that I described extremely obviously

Spanish Eyes

It is a not guilty verdict, the famous four are absolved. Has to be respected surely.

What next?

stateofflux

what bothered me is during the trial there were plenty of supposedly 'impartial' journalistic pieces written with an obvious agenda below the surface --- before any verdict was given. that is wrong

Depp

Appledreams15 wrote: »

#ibelieveher no.1 trend on Twitter in Ireland.

crazy the amount of people tweeting that who literally don't understand the north and the republic have separate governments/judicial systems...twitter is bad for the brain sometimes

martingriff

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

Sue for what exactly it was not proven she lied. She may well believe what happened was rape (regret in the morning and other advice) it does not make her a liar even Paddy Jacksons lawyer is given out how she is been victimised by people and how her name and picture was getting out even now (I believe all these case should be held in private with no names given). The lads have admitted so serious crap went on that night (all legal) that should not have and is regretful. If what you are saying here was allowed to happen no rape victim would go and report there case in fear of a not guilt verdict

Deusexmachina

Beanybabog wrote: »

I am astonished at the amount of people who think because the men were found not guilty in court automatically means the woman was lying and should be punished for making false allegations.
The jury has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt. They do not have to be totally sure that they are innocent or that the complainant is lying.

So you don't accept the verdict? Are they actually just getting away with it?

david75

To a large degree they are just getting away with it.

They’ll move off to different clubs and fantastic wages.

She has to live in the town everyone knowing what happened.

The Talking Bread

Deusexmachina wrote: »

So you don't accept the verdict? Are they actually just getting away with it?

That is most definitely not what the poster said. You can accept a fair trial has played out but you cannot automatically factually assume that she was lying.

The ignorance as to how a trial by jury plays out is startling!

dark crystal

Deusexmachina wrote: »

So you don't accept the verdict? Are they actually just getting away with it?

The poster never said they didn't accept the verdict.

They might be getting away with it, they may be totally innocent. No one knows what went on in that bedroom that night except the people involved and with a rake of drink taken, even they mightn't have enough wits about them to know what happened exactly.

The issue is people automatically assuming the woman lied because they were found not guilty. That's not how it works as has been repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread.

freshpopcorn

david75 wrote: »

To a large degree they are just getting away with it.

They’ll move off to different clubs and fantastic wages.

She has to live in the town everyone knowing what happened.

No matter where these guys goes. This will be attached to them. If a club decided to give them a chance. They'd be quickly reminded by people on social media about the case and they what's app chats and how they should drop them.

Deusexmachina

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Not the brightest are you.

That's your strongest argument is it?

Deusexmachina

dark crystal wrote: »

The poster never said they didn't accept the verdict.

They might be getting away with it, they may be totally innocent. No one knows what went on in that bedroom that night except the people involved and with a rake of drink taken, even they mightn't have enough wits about them to know what happened exactly.

The issue is people automatically assuming the woman lied because they were found not guilty. That's not how it works as has been repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread.

Wrong. It is that simple. She lied. She said she was raped. She said it was non consensual. It wasn't.

The Talking Bread

Sue her????

People seem to think a jury decision amounts to factual evidence that could pertain in a civil suit!!

Christ, the ignorance!

Appledreams15

There is a protest organised at the Spire tomorrow between 12.30 and 13.30, to protest about women being failed in rape cases. Thousands expected so far.

Deusexmachina

amcalester wrote: »

You think she lied.

It has not been proven that she lied nor did the jury say that she lied.

All we know is that the jury felt it was not proven that it was rape (which is a decision I agree with) but we cannot say for definite that she lied.

She lied. Read her cross examination.

The Talking Bread

Deusexmachina wrote: »

That's your strongest argument is it?

The evidence is in black and white as to your intellect on this very forum! I don't need to add any more! :rolleyes:

markodaly

dark crystal wrote: »

Without speaking for the poster in question, she appeared to be talking specifically about rape cases. Do you believe the current rate of convictions for rape are excessive? You don't believe any reform is needed in how rape cases are handled?

Has there been independent, judicial led, peer reviewed research on this. If so, share the recommendations. If not, lobby for it.

Making law on a case like this is just bad, bad, bad! Too many emotions.

Show us the evidence needed for reform.

freshpopcorn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

There is a protest organised at the Spire tomorrow between 12.30 and 13.30, to protest about women being failed in rape cases. Thousands expected so far.

There's also one in Cork and Limerick. It's the hashtag movement.

Vladimir Poontang

Appledreams15 wrote: »

There is a protest organised at the Spire tomorrow between 12.30 and 13.30, to protest about women being failed in rape cases. Thousands expected so far.

I hope there is a counter protest by all the men whose lives have been ruined by false rape accusations

Deusexmachina

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The evidence is in black and white as to your intellect on this very forum! I don't need to add any more! :rolleyes:

Emojes and insults. Brilliant.

Skylinehead

Sheeps wrote: »

She went looking to get her gap filled, ended up alone at a party full of rugby types with a mysogynitic reputation more than willing to oblige her advances, then struggled to deal with her own shame after she sobered up. Rather than accepting responsibility for her own promiscuity or lack of ability to express clear boundaries, she cries rape, ruining four young lads in the process. Maybe next time when she's horny she can just rub one out and save the destruction she's caused.

Mod: Don't post in this thread again.

Jesus.

mcgiggles

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.

Wake up and smell the coffee. They exist. My younger sister used to tell me of the sh*t her college mates got up to and that was 4 or 5 years ago.. Young ones (girls I'm talking about here as half of ye seem to think girls are oh so innocent because they can talk nice later) have gotten progressively more sexually promiscuous from a younger age in the last 10 years. Make no mistake about it.

Appledreams15 wrote:

Women do not talk about men like this. Ever.

Wrong.

Appledreams15 wrote:

Are you a man? I dont believe this. No woman I know, and I know alot, has ever sent me texts or pictures of men that she has been with sexually. We have more respect for men and manners. However I have heard numerous men brag about women they have been with, or taking it to the next level of being the utter macho dickhead, commenting on how 'bad in bed' she is. The way some men talk about women, constantly treating them with disrespect, badly needs to change.

Again you are wrong. It happens. A lot of women aren't the innocent little creatures you believe them to be.

Wheeliebin30

I wonder if the jury were asked if they think she was lying, what would they say??

dark crystal

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Yes I do understand the verdict. She lied. Her accounts of what happened were untrue. If they were true, the jury would have accepted them and the verdict would have been different. Look at the directions given by the judge. It came down to this - if she is telling the truth they are guilty, if not then they are not guilty.

https://www.ppsni.gov.uk/SiteDocuments/PPS%20Press%20Office/PPSNI%20RAPE.pdf

1.15 For there to be a conviction in the criminal court, the prosecution has to
prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

11.16 This is a very high standard of proof and there are many reasons why a
defendant may not be convicted. Victims should not assume that a defendant
has been acquitted because their evidence has not been believed.

markodaly

irishrebe wrote: »

Instead of comparing Ireland to the Middle East, why not compare it to the rest of Europe, and see how well it fares?

It was not me who brought up the Middle East, it was someone who's post you thanked.

Ireland comes in about average actually. Better than France, Sweden, UK, Finland, Denmark among others.

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

Wheeliebin30

How do we know the jury didnt come to their verdict because they thought she was lying?

We don't.

Ergo she COULD have been lying.

Rodin

The rule of law must be respected.

Protests like those planned tomorrow remind me of the Salem Witch trials. No respect for due process.
Innocent until proven guilty? Not in these peoples' eyes.

Vladimir Poontang

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I wonder if the jury were asked if they think she was lying, what would they say??

Given it took them a little over three hours to clear 4 men of all counts I'd say the answer would be equally unanimous and as quick.

spookwoman

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

How do we know the jury didnt come to their verdict because they thought she was lying?

We don't.

Ergo she COULD have been lying.

The same with they could have actually done what they were charged with. We don't know

TheValeyard

Appledreams15 wrote: »

There is a protest organised at the Spire tomorrow between 12.30 and 13.30, to protest about women being failed in rape cases. Thousands expected so far.

What do they hope to achieve? Not everyone who claims rape has been raped. Evidence must be gathered and sorted out in a court of law. I dont see how this march would change anything or what they hope to achieve?

Wheeliebin30

spookwoman wrote: »

The same with they could have actually done what they were charged with. We don't know

But they were found not guilty.

The odds are more she lied.

TheChizler

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

How do we know the jury didnt come to their verdict because they thought she was lying?

We don't.

Ergo she COULD have been lying.

I'm not sure your logic is logical...

Spanish Eyes

I think this time next week we will all have moved on.

The famous four have been acquitted. It is really all over. As are many such cases both here and in NOI.

If the famous four are deprived of earnings for Ulster Rugby they may also have a case to take since they have been proven innocent.