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

average_runner

GreeBo wrote: »

Its vile to accuse someone of rape, especially to do it publically.

I dont see how she is entitled to have her frame of mind brought in as a defense yet the lads texts arent viewed in the same way.
They were the morning after a boozy night before and sending private messages to others that were involved, yet we just decide that they are filth.

Yes it's vile to accuse someone of rape if she actually knows they didn't do it.
But if she believes it then its not. But we will never know the answer to that.

The only thing we seem to know is that they were all out of their head and none of them knew what really happened, as the statement from the one sober person contradicts jackson statement and her statement.

El Weirdo

jr86 wrote: »

Deleted

How handy would it be if any lunatic within Ireland/Northern Ireland who has deleted a tweet in the last 24 hours is automatically banned from twitter

It's still up for me.

jr86

El Weirdo wrote: »

It's still up for me.

Nope it's gone now. Just a retweet there from a fellow headcase

ShowMeTheCash

Mr.H wrote: »

I said the evidence proves they did not rape her. That is probably because there wasnt enough evidence to prove they did. But the evidence that was there proved they didnt.

Wrong again - You keep doing it.
The evidence does not prove they did not rape her.
The persecution could did not prove they did!

You will get it eventually..... perhaps!

_Dara_

jr86 wrote: »

Deleted

How handy would it be if any lunatic within Ireland/Northern Ireland who has deleted a tweet in the last 24 hours is automatically banned from twitter

That's mad. I DID challenge her on it but I made sure to keep it respectful. Forthright but respectful. What does that say that she couldn't even take a bit of debate? Did she see my point or did she not want anyone questioning hers? Do people only want agreement on Twitter?

Assetbacked

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I think the biggest problem of this sort of trial is that regardless of the outcome both sides loose.

A large % of people still see them men as being Guilty regardless of the fact they were found innocent. Not Guilty for men is seen in rape cases as "not enough evidence" and doesnt mean innocent in the public eye.

Also a large % of people will see the woman as a liar instead of possibly the not guilty verdict being because there was "not enough evidence".

Unfortunately the court system doesnt say "not guilty because of not enough evidence" vs "not guilty because they are 100% innocent"

I think rape cases should be kept 100% confidential until a Guilty verdict has been passed. If they accused is found innocent then absolutely nothing.

It should be illegal for papers to report on rape cases until after a guilty verdict.

I agree with this. Just to note that in Ireland, details of the identity of the accused and victim cannot be published in newspapers while the trial is ongoing. This seems like a pre-requisite to a fair trial as often being accused can be enough to destroy someone's life.

GreeBo

average_runner wrote: »

Yes it's vile to accuse someone of rape if she actually knows they didn't do it.
But if she believes it then its not. But we will never know the answer to that.

The only thing we seem to know is that they were all out of their head and none of them knew what really happened, as the statement from the one sober person contradicts jackson statement and her statement.

Exactly, yet for some reasons the lads texts are almost being used as proof that they did something wrong.

Sidebaro wrote: »

Never said this.



No I don't know her so I haven't made definite assumptions either way. It seems a lot more open and shut with the lads texts. I'll admit, as I have a few posts back (not in reply to you), the culture lads grow up in makes it hard to deteriorate from the script in situations like this but that's not a great excuse, is it? They don't have to join in, they could just not say those things.

What is open and shut about their texts exactly? Why are we free to distil something from their texts but not from hers? Does this not seem somewhat unfair to you?

People say all sorts of rubbish in texts and posts online, none of which should be used to prove anything tbh.

kylith wrote: »

Are you a world expert on how rape victims react?

During my time on Boards i’ve Seen rape victims accused of both overreacting and underreacting. There is no proscribed formula for how someone behaves after a trauma.

Right, yet there is a prescribed formula for how the lads should text each other after a threesome?
Its the blatant inconsistency in how people are choosing to interpret the texts that I find baffling. People excuse the flippancy in her text but not in theirs.

pjohnson

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Wrong again - You keep doing it.
The evidence does not prove they did not rape her.
The persecution could did not prove they did!

You will get it eventually..... perhaps!

That phrasing.

jr86

_Dara_ wrote: »

That's mad. I DID challenge her on it but I made sure to keep it respectful. Forthright but respectful. What does that say that she couldn't even take a bit of debate? Did she see my point or did she not want anyone questioning hers? Do people only want agreement on Twitter?

It had no likes anyway and all it had was (rightly so) comments disagreeing, so the precious poor thing went and took it down

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GreeBo

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Wrong again - You keep doing it.
The evidence does not prove they did not rape her.
The persecution could did not prove they did!

You will get it eventually..... perhaps!

As I posted pages ago, until you have actually sat on a jury you have no idea how poorly most people understand what it is they are being asked to do.

Despite the Judge explaining it over and over again and people nodding their heads, as soon as you go back to your jurors room everyone is talking about "do you think he/she/they did it?"

I sincerely hope I am never in the hands of a jury.

Noveight

I see the marching crowd today chanting "we want justice". Their inability to accept the result of a fair trial almost likens them to a lynching mob.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

It's just so bizarre how much weight is hung on someone's behaviour to try and claim that they were or weren't a victim.

Imagine if my phone was stolen today and I went after work and bought a new one. And then in court that was presented as evidence that my phone wasn't really robbed. Ridiculous, right?

But this is exactly the logic that was presented in the Tinder rape case. Because she went back on Tindr after being attacked, that there's no way she was attacked.

It's in the courtroom where we really see how far we have (or haven't) come with attitudes towards sex and promiscuity.

In an imperfect world where the jury were not privy to the events that transpired, witness credibility has a huge bearing on the outcome.

In relation to promiscuity, there are in fact many restrictions in place in relation to questioning e.g. in relation to sexual history evidence etc.

yourdeadwright

Serious question but what exactly is the goal of the march in the city centre ?

Franz Von Peppercorn

GreeBo wrote: »

100% agree, delving into peoples personal lives and making them public is not good for anyone involved.

But I think its highly unfair to say the lads spoke about her in a "vile nature" yet its fine for her to accuse them of rape via the same medium.

Because she believed she was raped.

GreeBo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Describing her as a teenager and yet them as men is a very emotive way to post about it, its implies a predatory angle to their actions, at least to me anyway.

They were all adults, I just dont see why you would bring the word teenager into it, unless you are trying to subtly convey something.

Apologies if I am way off base.

Boom_Bap

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, yet there is a prescribed formula for how the lads should text each other after a threesome?
Its the blatant inconsistency in how people are choosing to interpret the texts that I find baffling. People excuse the flippancy in her text but not in theirs.

The one thing that I keep going back to is why would the lads boast in a whatsapp group about raping someone?
There are other people in the group chat as well that were not at the party.

Boasting about a 3some in a group, I get.
Boasting about raping someone, I don't get.


FYI - I'm not presuming saying innocent or guilt for anyone, I don't know what happened, but the above is something I ask myself in my inner deliberations.

Mr.H

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Wrong again - You keep doing it.
The evidence does not prove they did not rape her.
The persecution could did not prove they did!

You will get it eventually..... perhaps!

did the evidence prove rape?

so it proved they didnt rape her. it proved they were not guilty therefore they didnt rape her



but dont worry youll get it eventually...................... probably not;)

Sidebaro

Mossy Monk wrote:

What are the subcategories of rape?

Violent and non violent for instance, which can then be subcategories further into sexual violence, abuse, spousal, etc. Basically, it's an ambiguous term. Maybe I'm wrong on that, if so, I'm open to correction.

GreeBo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Because she believed she was raped.

And they believe they had a drunken, consensual threesome.

yourdeadwright

Noveight wrote: »

I see the marching crowd today chanting "we want justice". Their inability to accept the result of a fair trial almost likens them to a lynching mob.

It makes no sense who do they want this Justice from  ?

Mr.H

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The one thing that I keep going back to is why would the lads boast in a whatsapp group about raping someone?
There are other people in the group chat as well that were not at the party.

Boasting about a 3some in a group, I get.
Boasting about raping someone, I don't get.


FYI - I'm not presuming saying innocent or guilt for anyone, I don't know what happened, but the above is something I ask myself in my inner deliberations.

did they actually say they raped someone???? or is this the mandela effect?

ELM327

Mr.H wrote: »

did they actually say they raped someone???? or is this the mandela effect?

Purple monkey dishwasher

GreeBo

Mr.H wrote: »

did the evidence prove rape?

so it proved they didnt rape her. it proved they were not guilty therefore they didnt rape her

Im afraid thats both a logic and an understand of legal matters failure.

Failure to prove something doesnt prove the opposite of it.

I cant prove that there is no life on Mars...does that mean I just proved there is?

Boom_Bap

Mr.H wrote: »

did they actually say they raped someone???? or is this the mandela effect?

No, they boasted about a 3some.

wexie

yourdeadwright wrote: »

It makes no sense who do they want this Justice from  ?

**** knows....the equal rights faeries presumably

Sidebaro

GreeBo wrote:

What is open and shut about their texts exactly? Why are we free to distil something from their texts but not from hers? Does this not seem somewhat unfair to you?

It's the manner of how you scrutinised hers. You said it didn't seem like something a rape victim would say, which is silly. I can't think of a comparative example you could pick from their texts as they are all pretty incriminating, hers wasn't, it's mere speculation on your part.

GreeBo wrote:

People say all sorts of rubbish in texts and posts online, none of which should be used to prove anything tbh.

Agreed, yet you commented on hers?

GreeBo

Mr.H wrote: »

did they actually say they raped someone???? or is this the mandela effect?

No, but like I didnt appreciate the tone they used so basically yeah they did...damn rapists.

GreeBo

Sidebaro wrote: »

It's the manner of how you scrutinised hers. You said it didn't seem like something a rape victim would say, which is silly. I can't think of a comparative example you could pick from their texts as they are all pretty incriminating, hers wasn't, it's mere speculation on your part.



Agreed, yet you commented on hers?

I commented on hers to expose the fallacy on solely commenting on theirs and somehow drawing conclusions from them.

What in their texts is incriminating them of rape exactly?

Mr.H

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, they boasted about a 3some.

Threesomes are not rape

Threesomes are a sexual act performed by consenting adults.

Some people like them

Nesta99

Maybe this has been braoched already but bear with this hypothetical for a moment:o

It has been said that there was a reluctance among some of the legal profession to take on the prosecution for the PPS. I think its a fair question to ask why the PPS would proceed to trial if there was such doubt on securing a guilty verdict among the legal profession in Belfast.

There is massive outrage after total due process because people disagree with a decision made by fellow peers while exercising the rule of law to the letter.

Imagine the outrage if the PPS/PSNI had decided not to go to trial because they knew there wasnt sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, maybe thinking about saving the girl the from the distress of a long shot trial. This gets in to the public domain and knowing that the accused (even without names) are people of privilege, celebrity etc There would be a massive outcry of cronyism, protecting privilaged and wealthy people and there would be serious issue of credibility for the PPS and with the PPS probably not being able to say too much, leading to accusations of laking transparency and seriously damaging the institution. Trust is not easily won in Northern Ireland!

The PPS forsee this maelstrom happening and think that the least potentially damaging of the two options is to take the case to trial knowing that a guilty verdict is unlikely due to lack of tangible, forensic evidence and hence reasonable doubt. There will be criticism if the conviction isnt secured, there will be questions to be answered on why do all this. But those questions can be batted away, certainly a lot easier than questions about why they didnt take these well heeled lads to trial and then be unable to answer those questions due to legal constraints in this scenario.

The point of this long winded post is that due to a system of naming the accused before any verdict never mind a guilty one, could very well have led to a horrible situation where the girl was put through an awful ordeal, in a no win case if going by the consensus of quite a few barristers, to preserve the integrity of the prosecuting institutions. The seriously flawed legal system may have led to an already vulnerable person being thrown to the wolves as the alternative could have been more damaging to how sexual assualt victims are feel they will be treated.

I think the anger at the verdict is misdirected and should be agitating for change to the system eg not naming the accused until a guilty verdict, minimising the impact of social media on cases, educating young people (and not so young) on issues of consent, as much as is possible creat awareness of what to do after an assault eg to preserve evidence, some sort of duty of care even - particularly in relation to the use of social media, showing support for the courage shown by the complainant in the wake of a not guilty verdict to try and prevent this from discouraging the reporting of sexual assault by others.

Just not a witchhunt against people whether like it or not have been cleared of all charges in an open court of law!!

SAMTALK

It's frightening to see what people will put up on Social Media without actually stopping for 2 seconds and thinking about what they are saying.

Its jumping from they were found not guilty therefore she's a lying slag to they're guilty and the jury got it wrong, but this case is so much more complex than this.

I do believe she thinks she was raped and I also think they believe they didn't rape her but in a case like this it is always going to be hard to prove without any doubt that it was rape. I have an opinion of what I think happened but that doesn't mean it's right but what really annoys me is the amount of people who are saying what way she should have reacted etc etc. Unless you are in that situation there is no possible way you could tell how you would react.

Whether we agree with the verdict of not we have to take it as it is. I do think that if we didnt see the messages the lads sent to each other there wouldnt be quite the outrage as these messages don't shed them in a good light (but this does not make them rapists.)

fash

seamus wrote: »

Justice is justice, if the jury who sat there and heard all of the evidence weren't convinced it was rape, then it probably wasn't.

haven't followed this case too closely, but I wouldn't draw that conclusion: I sat as jury on one case where for one of the charges we thought it probably happened, but weren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. Civil proceedings would be the forum due determining what probably happened.

VinLieger

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, they boasted about a 3some.

So you lied when you said they boasted about raping someone, you know thats exactly how this **** gets even more messed up yeah?

Blud

Mr.H wrote: »

did the evidence prove rape?

so it proved they didnt rape her. it proved they were not guilty therefore they didnt rape her



but dont worry youll get it eventually...................... probably not;)

Jesus it baffles me how many times this has to be explained, but here goes with my effort.

Your saying "did the evidence prove rape?", with the obvious answer being no it did not hence the verdict, but your conclusion that follows is "so it proved they didnt rape her" - this absolutely does not automatically follow on.

I'm not sure this is even difficult to understand

If I go all rogue and ninja tonight, break into someone's house and kill them without there being any witnesses and leaving behind zero evidence, then the evidence will not prove I killed that person. The lack of evidence proving I did it is not proof I didn't, because in this hypothetical I did in fact do it.

Not enough evidence to convict is not proof of innocence. Innocence is presumed until found guilty, but never proven.

Proving they didn't commit the crime is not the point of the trial.

Noveight

yourdeadwright wrote: »

It makes no sense who do they want this Justice from  ?

I'm at a loss myself as well. Might as well be shouting "we didn't get what we want, appease us!"

Boom_Bap

Mr.H wrote: »

Threesomes are not rape

Threesomes are a sexual act performed by consenting adults.

Some people like them

I think that you are missing what is confusing me.

People for eternity have probably boasted about having a 3some. There is no problem with that.

It's that fact that I don't think lads would boast in a group chat about having a 3some, if it was infact a rape. It's not something I would imagine lads would boast about.

Sidebaro

GreeBo wrote:

I commented on hers to expose the fallacy on solely commenting on theirs and somehow drawing conclusions from them.

Well then your intent went over my head. Mostly because there was no allusion to your expose.

GreeBo wrote:

What in their texts is incriminating them of rape exactly?

Nothing. Incriminating was probably a poor choice of words. Basically, made them look scummy. Their texts made them look a lot worse than her texts.

Mr.H

GreeBo wrote: »

Im afraid thats both a logic and an understand of legal matters failure.

Failure to prove something doesnt prove the opposite of it.

I cant prove that there is no life on Mars...does that mean I just proved there is?

So what your saying is there is life on mars?? and this was proven in the evidence at the trail? I really wasnt paying attention

Of course it doesnt mean the opposite but, my point is that. By default these men are innocent. They stand trial for rape. They are found not guilty. The evidence couldnt prove they were guilty so they were found not guilty because of the evidence. Therefore the evidence provided found them not guilty. That means they are still innocent.

Im not saying she lied. I am just saying they are innocent and there was no evidence that they raped her.

GreeBo wrote: »

No, but like I didnt appreciate the tone they used so basically yeah they did...damn rapists.

They are dicks to be fair but thats doesnt mean they are rapists

Boom_Bap

VinLieger wrote: »

So you lied when you said they boasted about raping someone, you know thats exactly how this **** gets even more messed up yeah?

No, you are not reading me right, or I expressed it wrong. Apologies if the latter.
My intention is to say that I find it hard to believe that they would boast about raping someone in a whatsapp group.

Mr.H

Blud wrote: »

Jesus it baffles me how many times this has to be explained, but here goes with my effort.

Your saying "did the evidence prove rape?", with the obvious answer being no it did not hence the verdict, but your conclusion that follows is "so it proved they didnt rape her" - this absolutely does not automatically follow on.

I'm not sure this is even difficult to understand

If I go all rogue and ninja tonight, break into someone's house and kill them without there being any witnesses and leaving behind zero evidence, then the evidence will not prove I killed that person. The lack of evidence proving I did it is not proof I didn't, because in this hypothetical I did in fact do it.

Not enough evidence to convict is not proof of innocence. Innocence is presumed until found guilty, but never proven.

Proving they didn't commit the crime is not the point of the trial.

Ok try to stick to the actual trail and not some fantasy you have.

Did the evidence provided lead to a guilty or not guilty?

Simple question

c.p.w.g.w

Nesta99 wrote: »

Maybe this has been braoched already but bear with this hypothetical for a moment:o

It has been said that there was a reluctance among some of the legal profession to take on the prosecution for the PPS. I think its a fair question to ask why the PPS would proceed to trial if there was such doubt on securing a guilty verdict among the legal profession in Belfast.

There is massive outrage after total due process because people disagree with a decision made by fellow peers while exercising the rule of law to the letter.

Imagine the outrage if the PPS/PSNI had decided not to go to trial because they knew there wasnt sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, maybe thinking about saving the girl the from the distress of a long shot trial. This gets in to the public domain and knowing that the accused (even without names) are people of privilege, celebrity etc There would be a massive outcry of cronyism, protecting privilaged and wealthy people and there would be serious issue of credibility for the PPS and with the PPS probably not being able to say too much, leading to accusations of laking transparency and seriously damaging the institution. Trust is not easily won in Northern Ireland!

The PPS forsee this maelstrom happening and think that the least potentially damaging of the two options is to take the case to trial knowing that a guilty verdict is unlikely due to lack of tangible, forensic evidence and hence reasonable doubt. There will be criticism if the conviction isnt secured, there will be questions to be answered on why do all this. But those questions can be batted away, certainly a lot easier than questions about why they didnt take these well heeled lads to trial and then be unable to answer those questions due to legal constraints in this scenario.

The point of this long winded post is that due to a system of naming the accused before any verdict never mind a guilty one, could very well have led to a horrible situation where the girl was put through an awful ordeal, in a no win case if going by the consensus of quite a few barristers, to preserve the integrity of the prosecuting institutions. The seriously flawed legal system may have led to an already vulnerable person being thrown to the wolves as the alternative could have been more damaging to how sexual assualt victims are feel they will be treated.

I think the anger at the verdict is misdirected and should be agitating for change to the system eg not naming the accused until a guilty verdict, minimising the impact of social media on cases, educating young people (and not so young) on issues of consent, as much as is possible creat awareness of what to do after an assault eg to preserve evidence, some sort of duty of care even - particularly in relation to the use of social media, showing support for the courage shown by the complainant in the wake of a not guilty verdict to try and prevent this from discouraging the reporting of sexual assault by others.

Just not a witchhunt against people whether like it or not have been cleared of all charges in an open court of law!!

Very good point, but with education. It was mentioned a while back about education girls of the dangers of alcohol. That getting too drunk can lead to losing control of your body and decisions making can become impaired...But apparently it was wrong to suggest education... Because if was sexist and victim blaming...

If I go out tonight, get blind drunk and walk into a dodgy area and get jumped. I'm partly at fault for getting to state which leads me into a situation I'd not do when in full control of my facilities.

Mr.H

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, you are not reading me right, or I expressed it wrong. Apologies if the latter.
My intention is to say that I find it hard to believe that they would boast about raping someone in a whatsapp group.

Yea I completely thought you meant they actually were boasting about raping someone:D

irishrebe

seamus wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's far too much being made about the messages because people are unable to see context.

Where they see "posh rapey guys boasting online about raping a woman", when the actual context is, "private chat between close friends after a night of partying and interesting sexual encounters".

The language used by these guys appears in private chats all over the world, by both men and women.

We've all got messages containing the picture of that black dude with the huge dick, right?

How much stuff pops up in your whatsapp chats that you'd never ever want your colleagues or even your family to see?

A lot.

I understand that some people won't have Whatsapp chats like this. They don't have a crude mate with colourful language, and it's mostly just texts to your mother or your kids.

But lots of people have pretty open and unrestrained private chats. It's completely normal.[/quote]
No, it's NOT normal. The language used is absolutely vile and misogynistic. If you think it's normal to refer to a woman you just slept with as a 'sl*t', then you have a problem. There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

SAMTALK

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The one thing that I keep going back to is why would the lads boast in a whatsapp group about raping someone?
There are other people in the group chat as well that were not at the party.

Boasting about a 3some in a group, I get.
Boasting about raping someone, I don't get.


FYI - I'm not presuming saying innocent or guilt for anyone, I don't know what happened, but the above is something I ask myself in my inner deliberations.

Maybe because they didn't think it was rape.
Maybe because it wasn't rape

irishrebe

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Nesta99 wrote: »

Maybe this has been braoched already but bear with this hypothetical for a moment:o

It has been said that there was a reluctance among some of the legal profession to take on the prosecution for the PPS. I think its a fair question to ask why the PPS would proceed to trial if there was such doubt on securing a guilty verdict among the legal profession in Belfast.

There is massive outrage after total due process because people disagree with a decision made by fellow peers while exercising the rule of law to the letter.

Imagine the outrage if the PPS/PSNI had decided not to go to trial because they knew there wasnt sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, maybe thinking about saving the girl the from the distress of a long shot trial. This gets in to the public domain and knowing that the accused (even without names) are people of privilege, celebrity etc  There would be a massive outcry of cronyism, protecting privilaged and wealthy people and there would be serious issue of credibility for the PPS and with the PPS probably not being able to say too much, leading to accusations of laking transparency and seriously damaging the institution. Trust is not easily won in Northern Ireland!

The PPS forsee this maelstrom happening and think that the least potentially damaging of the two options is to take the case to trial knowing that a guilty verdict is unlikely due to lack of tangible, forensic evidence and hence reasonable doubt. There will be criticism if the conviction isnt secured, there will be questions to be answered on why do all this. But those questions can be batted away, certainly a lot easier than questions about why they didnt take these well heeled lads to trial and then be unable to answer those questions due to legal constraints in this scenario.

The point of this long winded post is that due to a system of naming the accused before any verdict never mind a guilty one, could very well have led to a horrible situation where the girl was put through an awful ordeal, in a no win case if going by the consensus of quite a few barristers, to preserve the integrity of the prosecuting institutions. The seriously flawed legal system may have led to an already vulnerable person being thrown to the wolves as the alternative could have been more damaging to how sexual assualt victims are feel they will be treated.

I think the anger at the verdict is misdirected and should be agitating for change to the system eg not naming the accused until a guilty verdict, minimising the impact of social media on cases, educating young people (and not so young) on issues of consent, as much as is possible creat awareness of what to do after an assault eg to preserve evidence, some sort of duty of care even - particularly in relation to the use of social media, showing support for the courage shown by the complainant in the wake of a not guilty verdict to try and prevent this from discouraging the reporting of sexual assault by others.

Just not a witchhunt against people whether like it or not have been cleared of all charges in an open court of law!!

Very good point, but with education. It was mentioned a while back about education girls of the dangers of alcohol. That getting too drunk can lead to losing control of your body and decisions making can become impaired...But apparently it was wrong to suggest education... Because if was sexist and victim blaming...

If I go out tonight, get blind drunk and walk into a dodgy area and get jumped. I'm partly at fault for getting to state which leads me into a situation I'd not do when in full control of my facilities.

So you're equating being drunk in the company of men with being drunk and walking into a dodgy area? And you don't see what you're implying with that?

the_syco

Mr.H wrote: »

Threesomes are not rape

How many of the lads had the threesome?

ShowMeTheCash

Mr.H wrote: »

did the evidence prove rape?

so it proved they didnt rape her. it proved they were not guilty therefore they didnt rape her



but dont worry youll get it eventually...................... probably not;)

These comments are getting better by the post.

They did not prove they did not rape her, she still could of been raped.
They did not have enough evidence to prove she was raped thus they could not prove their guilt.

Before you tie yourself in knots anymore than you are already doing just go back to your earlier statements.
They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. - Correct
They do not need to prove their innocents the prosecution needs to prove their guilt. That is how the court systems works.
If they had to prove they did not rape her, I can assure you they would all be banged up in jail as we speak.

GreeBo

Mr.H wrote: »

Ok try to stick to the actual trail and not some fantasy you have.

Did the evidence provided lead to a guilty or not guilty?

Simple question

a lack of evidence proving guilt led to a verdict of not guilty.
This does not prove innocence as a jury does not return a verdict of innocence, in fact no one proves innocence, its up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

c.p.w.g.w

irishrebe wrote: »

So you're equating being drunk in the company of men with being drunk and walking into a dodgy area? And you don't see what you're implying with that?

I was referring to getting drunk in general. And how it affects decision making process

But with regards this case. Maybe the girl agreed to the threesome because she was drunk, and decision she wouldn't have made sober or with less alcohol in her system.