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

hill16bhoy

Hoboo wrote: »

Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.

Stuart Olding managed to use his and he was well into the 20s drinks wise.

Faugheen

blanch152 wrote: »

Dara Florence was sober.

Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

At the very least Dara Florence was unsure whether it was consensual or not. That the only eyewitness said that is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt. I am actually surprised that the judge didn't order an acquittal following her testimony.

I'm not arguing about the verdict.

I'm arguing that people are presenting their own facts about the case when they weren't even there.

blanch152

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given.

And she said that it wasn't consensual.

You are contradicting yourself there. She couldn't say there was positive consent, she couldn't say it wasn't consensual. Therefore there is a reasonable doubt, hence they had to be found not guilty.

GreeBo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Balderdash

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

No, its fact.

There is a clue to why you are incorrect in your link, "ScientificAmerican".

https://www.psni.police.uk/crime/sexual-violence-and-abuse/ wrote:

Rape is when a male intentionally penetrates the vagina, mouth or anus of another person, male or female (including wife or civil partner), with his penis, without that persons consent or understanding. This offence can only be committed by a male. However, while a female cannot commit the offence of 'Rape', a female can commit other serious sexual offences.

OwlsZat

Hoboo wrote: »

Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.

I'd say he was banging her from behind (consentually) theres zero reason for Dara to make it what she didn't see. Because Jackson didn't have a condom on it could have been argued that he was being reckless to the point of it being rape (not 100% on how the law is applied in this situation) but I reckon since he knew he didn't ejaculate he thought he was safer denying it..

C__MC

Hoboo wrote: »

Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.

The woman didn’t initially mention Dara Florence to police, really really strange.

Faugheen

blanch152 wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself there. She couldn't say there was positive consent, she couldn't say it wasn't consensual. Therefore there is a reasonable doubt, hence they had to be found not guilty.

Sorry, second sentence was referring to the complainant.

GreeBo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those attacking GreenBo, incredibly depressingly it is actually correct that rape is defined as penetration without consent, not intercourse without consent. So in most Western legal systems, the definition of rape physically cannot extend to a woman having sex with a man who did not consent.

Attacking the messenger over this is pointless, this is just another archaic piece of legislation which should be changed. Plain and simple. Getting mad at people for pointing out that it is, indeed, the current situation, is pointless.

In the North and rest of UK it actually goes further, it has to be penetration with a penis.

In the Republic its any unwanted penetration, so a woman can rape a man down here.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given.

And she said that it wasn't consensual.

The lads couldn't be found guilty based on the evidence. There's holes in all of the stories. That doesn't mean her account is false.

Not guilty of rape was the verdict, but she wasn't found guilty of anything either. Why are you throwing guilt of her lying when it hasn't been proven?

Again, you weren't there. Stop telling people what happened as if it's factual.

Dara Florencec said quite clearly it was a threesome not a rape. All the men claim the same why are you accusing them of lying?

She was drunk and maybe she cant remember what is clear is the court did not believe her account.

Christy42

RuMan wrote: »

All the men and Dara Florence claimed it was consensual and clearly they were more credible given the verdict.

Bit of consensual fun which one party regretted after.
No guilty of rape was the verdict

This is just as bad as those calling the men guilty. You have no evidence that is what happened. This is why the distinction between innocent and not proven guilty.

I get the assumption of innocence but too many then take the leap to the woman in the wrong. She also gets the benefit of the assumption of innocence and in this trial the burden of proof was higher on her side (rightfully as she was the prosecution but we can't blame her because of the outcome).

C__MC

RuMan wrote: »

Dara Florencec said quite clearly it was a threesome not a rape. All the men claim the same why are you accusing them of lying?

She was drunk and maybe she cant remember what is clear is the court did not believe her account.

Was it true Jackson also asked Florence to join in, did she testify to this? I thought I read that during the trial

GreeBo

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

As far as i understand it women can commit rape, but only to other women.

A woman cannot rape a man under our current laws(statutory rape not included), the most serious crime she can commit to a man is aggravated sexual assault.


4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.


Open to correction.

This is correct for the republic of Ireland, but this case is in the North where the laws are different, there is no section 4 equivalent that allows for the definition of rape by a woman in the UK.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given.

And the complainant said that it wasn't consensual.

The lads couldn't be found guilty based on the evidence. There's holes in all of the stories. That doesn't mean her account is false.

Not guilty of rape was the verdict, but she wasn't found guilty of anything either. Why are you throwing guilt of her lying when it hasn't been proven?

Again, you weren't there. Stop telling people what happened as if it's factual.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

Thats the legals of consent.
I dont know how anyone is supposed to prove that consent was given at any stage. I think you can (easily) only prove that it wasnt by citing one of the items from 48.(9).2

Also the reason she wasnt found guilty of anything was because she wasnt on trial for anything!
This doesnt mean that she is not guilty of perjury (and also obviously doesnt imply that she is)

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Dara Florencec said quite clearly it was a threesome not a rape. All the men claim the same why are you accusing them of lying?

She was drunk and maybe she cant remember what is clear is the court did not believe her account.

Dara Florence also said she was 100% sure she saw a threesome where Jackson was riding her from behind (which he denies and disputes), and that she couldn't be sure that what she witnessed was positive consent. Why are you just choosing to ignore this?

I have never once said the lads are lying.

Also, the lads were very drunk as well. How come the drunk narrative is only put on her and not them?

Again, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury didn't believe her. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

GreeBo

RuMan wrote: »

Dara Florencec said quite clearly it was a threesome not a rape. All the men claim the same why are you accusing them of lying?

She was drunk and maybe she cant remember what is clear is the court did not believe her account.

Its not about believing her or believing them, its about the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that she is telling the truth.

As a juror you can believe 100% that they are guilty of it, but without evidence proving it, you are obligated to return a not guilty verdict.

Again, there is a huge misconception about what jurors are being asked to do, both in the courtroom and on this thread.

Faugheen

GreeBo wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

Thats the legals of consent.
I dont know how anyone is supposed to prove that consent was given at any stage. I think you can (easily) only prove that it wasnt by citing one of the items from 48.(9).2

Also the reason she wasnt found guilty of anything was because she wasnt on trial for anything!
This doesnt mean that she is not guilty of perjury (and also obviously doesnt imply that she is)

Thanks for providing me with the law of Ireland when the trial took place in the U.K.

She wasn't on trial for anything but yet people are saying that they were found not guilty and in the same sentence are calling her a liar. How is that accurate and fair? That's my argument here, not the verdict as I have pointed out so many times.

cantdecide

Faugheen wrote: »

Also, the lads were very drunk as well. How come the drunk narrative is only put on her and not them?

Because if they were drunk and she were sober, they could retrospectively revoke consent and they could all accuse her of rape.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence also said she was 100% sure she saw a threesome where Jackson was riding her from behind (which he denies and disputes), and that she couldn't be sure that what she witnessed was positive consent. Why are you just choosing to ignore this?

I have never once said the lads are lying.

Also, the lads were very drunk as well. How come the drunk narrative is only put on her and not them?

Again, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury didn't believe her. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

Without knowing the graphic details of what she actually saw, its very possible that she assumed he was having sex with her when in fact he was "only" using his fingers. To be blunt, if he was facing her as she opened the door then it would be impossible for her to know where his penis was.

RabbleRouser2k

VinLieger wrote: »

The thing that really bugs me is the stuff along the lines of "of course they got off they are rugby players"

That specifically just shows the people making those comments have an issue with the lads and rugby/sports in general and don't really care about the girl or the facts of the case.

Saw someone who works for Goss.ie talking about her own rape, when she was 16. She was unconscious, and the a rugby player fella 'took her virginity'.

His dad was a solicitor, and essentially the whole thing was paid off or so.

Feel very sorry for her, obviously, but if she was on the jury, she'd be clearly biased against the 4 guys. (She should have pursued a case, for definite-as she was unconscious, he couldn't claim 'consent'-think that situation was badly handled).

As I said, I have doubts about the case, for sure. I wasn't there, so obviously, I am left with doubts. The guys come across as horrible individuals, just based on their whatsapp messages.

Another person was talking about how she 'never reported her rape' because 'what was the point' or something. And I thought that was more damaging than the outcome of the trial. You most definitely should pursue justice.
Even if just to prove you understand it is not your burden to bear.

Some are also stating that despite their walking out of court-they may be in violation of Irfu codes of conduct. I don't know if they are or aren't, but I know their careers are more than likely over. Even Brian O'Driscoll used to talk about some the shenanigans the team got up to.Initiations and so on.

Faugheen

cantdecide wrote: »

Because if they were drunk and she were sober, they could retrospectively revoke consent and they could all accuse her of gang rape.

But none of that happened so how is that relevant?

hill16bhoy

In regard to the complainant's bruising at the entrance to the vagina and the internal tear to the vagina, both medical witnesses stated that this was not proof of rape.

And indeed, one has to accept that is so.

But it is consistent with rape.

I mean, is there even such a thing as an injury that can prove rape?

So, the question is - was the bruising and vaginal tear discounted completely as evidence, or did it remain to be used as one part of the puzzle?

Hoboo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Stuart Olding managed to use his and he was well into the 20s drinks wise.

By 'use his' you refer to him receiving oral sex and ejaculating? Ejaculation doesn't require the same level of erectness as required to enter a vagina. Ejaculation can occur when someone is quite flacid.

cantdecide

Faugheen wrote: »

But none of that happened so how is that relevant?

It's a comment on the puritanical nature of the narrative regarding alcohol and consent. More of a general point, I suppose.

spookwoman

OwlsZat wrote: »

The fisting was mentioned as an explanation for the vaginal bleed. My initial suspicion was vigorous fingering with a long fingernail. As your article states it was agreed the injury couldn't have been inflicted by a penis. However, the length of time it was bleeding some 8 hours, was argued makes it less likely to have been inflicted and more likely to have been period related.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620
The jury also heard medical evidence of the woman’s injuries when she presented at the Rowan Clinic. Giving evidence for the prosecution, Dr Philip Lavery said the most significant injury was a laceration to the woman’s vaginal wall which was still bleeding when she attended at the clinic on the evening after the rape.

Faugheen

GreeBo wrote: »

Without knowing the graphic details of what she actually saw, its very possible that she assumed he was having sex with her when in fact he was "only" using his fingers. To be blunt, if he was facing her as she opened the door then it would be impossible for her to know where his penis was.

And the woman could have just as easily been raped despite what DF said. She looked in for less than a minute. Nobody can say for sure what was going on in that time.

However, that being said, if I was in her shoes I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Stuart Oldings statement summed it up. This case is all about perceptions and recollections, and it sounds like all of them can't remember a whole lot of the night.

Guy:Incognito

munsterlegend wrote: »

Well up north unlike here they identify the defendants and let the public into trials of this nature which is crazy really. However it would have been impossible to keep the identity of the two rugby players private as everyone would have been asking why are they not playing? The only way that could be avoided is to let them still play but that would cause more problems given the nature of the alleged offence.

It would stop all the media coverage though and outside of rugby circles I doubt it would have whipped up as much of a **** storm.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence also said she was 100% sure she saw a threesome where Jackson was riding her from behind (which he denies and disputes), and that she couldn't be sure that what she witnessed was positive consent. Why are you just choosing to ignore this?

I have never once said the lads are lying.

Also, the lads were very drunk as well. How come the drunk narrative is only put on her and not them?

Again, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury didn't believe her. Stop making things up to suit your narrative.

Yes the lads and woman were drunk. Dara Florence however wasnt. A threesome that one party regretted.

You are the person making things up.
The woman should be thankful the rugby lads probably just want to move on. Others might take action against her for making false accusations.The extremely quick decision makes me wonder why the case was brought to trial. The prosecutor has a case to answer in that regard.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

And the woman could have just as easily been raped despite what DF said. She looked in for less than a minute. Nobody can say for sure what was going on in that time.

However, that being said, if I was in her shoes I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Stuart Oldings statement summed it up. This case is all about perceptions and recollections, and it sounds like all of them can't remember a whole lot of the night.

So why did she file a complaint and more importantly why and how did it get to trial?

The public prosecutor let the lads and indeed woman down by proceeding given the apparent complete lack of evidence.

Silentcorner

hill16bhoy wrote: »

In regard to the complainant's bruising at the entrance to the vagina and the internal tear to the vagina, both medical witnesses stated that this was not proof of rape.

And indeed, one has to accept that is so.

But it is consistent with rape.

I mean, is there even such a thing as an injury that can prove rape?

So, the question is - was the bruising and vaginal tear discounted completely as evidence, or did it remain to be used as one part of the puzzle?

She was asked, while she was in the witness block...if she had been bleeding before the incident....

To create doubt....no doubt...

I don't know how any non violent rape could ever produce enough evidence to convict...

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Why was the poll closed/hidden????

Strazdas

RuMan wrote: »

Yes the lads and woman were drunk. Dara Florence however wasnt. A threesome that one party regretted.

You are the person making things up.
The woman should be thankful the rugby lads probably just want to move on. Others might take action against her for making false accusations.The extremely quick decision makes me wonder why the case was brought to trial. The prosecutor has a case to answer in that regard.

What false accusations? Everyone accepts sexual activity took place : the only question is whether consent was given.

A false accusation would be Dara Florence claiming Jackson, Olding and McIlroy had raped her.

hill16bhoy

Faugheen wrote: »

I have never once said the lads are lying.

I don't see how at least two of them didn't lie, though.

McIlroy claimed he received oral sex from the woman. He claimed he was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

"That didn't happen", according to Jackson.

At least one of them is lying here. It's impossible for both accounts to be correct.

The accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison of what happened when the woman was leaving the house are all over the place too.

They contradict each other. Somebody was lying there.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Yes the lads and woman were drunk. Dara Florence however wasnt. A threesome that one party regretted.

You are the person making things up.
The woman should be thankful the rugby lads probably just want to move on. Others might take action against her for making false accusations.The extremely quick decision makes me wonder why the case was brought to trial. The prosecutor has a case to answer in that regard.

I'm not making anything up. I have presented everything as it was presented in court.

Nobody can take action against her for submitting a false allegation because that hasn't been proven, like a lot of the nonsense you're spouting.

There's as much evidence to prove a rape took place than a regretful threesome (in other words, not enough to convict).

There's no evidence to suggest it was a false accusation.

Stop. Making. Things. Up.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

So why did she file a complaint and more importantly why and how did it get to trial?

The public prosecutor let the lads and indeed woman down by proceeding given the apparent complete lack of evidence.

She filed a report because she felt she was raped.

And it got to trial because the PPS thought they had a case to answer.

Don't forget, the complainant was only a witness to this case. She didn't sue anyone.

jimmycrackcorm

hill16bhoy wrote:

But it is consistent with rape.

That's just made up. Essentially you are saying that a vaginal tear is only possible through violent sex.

That's not consistent with an independent witness stating they observed a threesome.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

Thanks for providing me with the law of Ireland when the trial took place in the U.K.

Actually it took place in NI, which has its own (pathetic) definition of consent.

Sexual Offences Order 2008 wrote:

For the purposes of this Order, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2008/1769/article/3

Unlike Scotland and the Republic, there are no examples of where consent is not/cannot be deemed given.

Faugheen wrote: »

She wasn't on trial for anything but yet people are saying that they were found not guilty and in the same sentence are calling her a liar. How is that accurate and fair? That's my argument here, not the verdict as I have pointed out so many times.

I 100% agree with you here.
Not Guilty is really a ****ty outcome in these cases as its basically lumps the "we dont know who to believe" result with the "we think the accused is/are innocent". Its not clear.


The Scottish "Not Proven" verdict at least allows for the jury to indicate that they believe the accuser, but the burden of proof is lacking.

GreeBo

cantdecide wrote: »

Because if they were drunk and she were sober, they could retrospectively revoke consent and they could all accuse her of rape.

ARGH!
No they could not!:mad:

a) In NI a woman CANNOT rape a man. She may be prosecuted under the rape charge if she is deemed complicit in a man raping another man.
b) You cant retrospectively withdraw consent. Consent can be removed up to the point of intercourse. After that its too late.

Faugheen

GreeBo wrote: »

Actually it took place in NI, which has its own (pathetic) definition of consent.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2008/1769/article/3

Unlike Scotland and the Republic, there are no examples of where consent is not/cannot be deemed given.



I 100% agree with you here.
Not Guilty is really a ****ty outcome in these cases as its basically lumps the "we dont know who to believe" result with the "we think the accused is/are innocent". Its not clear.


The Scottish "Not Proven" verdict at least allows for the jury to indicate that they believe the accuser, but the burden of proof is lacking.

Sorry, you were following on from my post rather than challenging it. Completely misinterpreted that. Apologies.

The 'not proven' verdict is a suggestion I could buy into. It's definitely less definitive than not guilty anyway.

Christy42

RuMan wrote: »

Yes the lads and woman were drunk. Dara Florence however wasnt. A threesome that one party regretted.

You are the person making things up.
The woman should be thankful the rugby lads probably just want to move on. Others might take action against her for making false accusations.The extremely quick decision makes me wonder why the case was brought to trial. The prosecutor has a case to answer in that regard.

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

BBDBB

Louie Moldy Body wrote: »

Why was the poll closed/hidden????

You can't handle the truth!

Faugheen

One thing about rape trials though, they can't be held in private court sessions.

The idea of the court being public is so they don't come under scrutiny and people can see for themselves how the justice system works.

If any case is held behind closed doors then it opens a massive can of worms. People could claim an unfair trial and none of us would be any wiser because if the public and the media aren't allowed in, anything could go on.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

And the woman could have just as easily been raped despite what DF said. She looked in for less than a minute. Nobody can say for sure what was going on in that time.

However, that being said, if I was in her shoes I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Stuart Oldings statement summed it up. This case is all about perceptions and recollections, and it sounds like all of them can't remember a whole lot of the night.

Agreed.
Its difficult enough to prove consent existed between the two people involved without getting an uninvolved 3rd party involved.

However, I firmly believe that a third party could come to the conclusion that consent had *not* been given, based on what she saw.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

hill16bhoy

Hoboo wrote: »

By 'use his' you refer to him receiving oral sex and ejaculating? Ejaculation doesn't require the same level of erectness as required to enter a vagina. Ejaculation can occur when someone is quite flacid.

It doesn't require full erectness, and can stimulated by other means, but it usually requires a certain level of such. A penis can be stimulated by other means too before entering a vagina. Again, that requires a certain level of erectness but I would not say that the level required would be classed as "full" (though we're getting into semantics somewhat).

The legal definition of penetration can certainly be achieved with less than full erectness.

Christy42

Faugheen wrote: »

One thing about rape trials though, they can't be held in private court sessions.

The idea of the court being public is so they don't come under scrutiny and people can see for themselves how the justice system works.

If any case is held behind closed doors then it opens a massive can of worms. People could claim an unfair trial and none of us would be any wiser because if the public and the media aren't allowed in, anything could go on.

Why? Coveney has said it would not be allowed here. Media is allowed in but neither the accused nor the accuser could be named. I have not heard anything to suggest that this has caused issue here though I may have missed it.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

One thing about rape trials though, they can't be held in private court sessions.

The idea of the court being public is so they don't come under scrutiny and people can see for themselves how the justice system works.

If any case is held behind closed doors then it opens a massive can of worms. People could claim an unfair trial and none of us would be any wiser because if the public and the media aren't allowed in, anything could go on.

Rape trials in the Republic are private.
Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

irishman86

C__MC wrote: »

The woman didn’t initially mention Dara Florence to police, really really strange.

Its funny Olding came in and she never thought to scream rape because she knew his intentions. This girl came in and she clearly thought she intended to rape aswell

NAGDEFI

Erect and flaccid penises.. Brings a whole new meaning to Stand Up For The Ulster Men.

Peatys

Is the only time Dara was in the room said to be "less than one minute"?

10 secs is less than a minute, 50 secs is less than a minute.. nothing more specific mentioned?

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

She filed a report because she felt she was raped.

And it got to trial because the PPS thought they had a case to answer.

Don't forget, the complainant was only a witness to this case. She didn't sue anyone.

Based on the reporting in the media and the unanimous and quick verdict the PPS seem to have done a very poor job.

Clearly the innocent men suffered however the woman was also put through a trial which appeared to have zero chance of securing a conviction.
Paddy Jacksons solicitor seemed very unhappy and i cant say i blame him. I cant see how this was allowed to proceed to trial given the evidence we have heard.

AllForIt

GreeBo wrote: »

Rape trials in the Republic are private.
Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

Who decided that? Is it up to the complainant? And if so does that rule apply to any crime or just sex crimes?