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

Faugheen

jimmynokia wrote: »

jr86 wrote: »

Haha great news re Aodhan O'Riordan. Lucking for cheap publicity and it has backfired spectacularly

Great opportunity here to hold people account for their daft ill-informed Tweets! Plenty more to come I imagine, given PJ's legal team are actively monitoring Social Media activity

He wont be the last either many journos have started a campaign all female no doubt also the same ones pushing their views on social media an libel. My two cents on this thing is from now on NO MEDIA should be allowed in court and nobody should be named until verdict has been decided and no media or jpurnalists have their veiws aired on social media they should be blacklisted from such events again,trial by media and socialmedia is a major issue.

If you don't allow the media or the public in court then how can it be determined that the defendant gets a fair trial?

Absolute nonsense statement to make. You can put restrictions on what the media can report (naming complainants and defendants, for example) but to say court sittings should be behind closed doors completely is absolutely preposterous.

sheroman01

bigpink wrote: »

Why he getting sued

The answer to this is literally in the link just a few posts up...

Phoebas

What was defamatory in Ó Ríordáin's tweet?
I'm not seeing it myself.

Strazdas

Keyzer wrote: »

These are the same type of people who show up to anti-trump rallies in the states . These men were tried in a court of law in a different country with a different judicial system to our own and were found not guilty. Yet this nonsense goes on. Its like a bunch of toddlers having a tantrum because they didn't get what they want.

They have no idea of the intricacy of a legal case like this, what evidence was presented to the jury etc. They base their opinions on the one sided tripe spouted by "social influencers" online as opposed to truly immersing themselves in the facts of the case.

Social media has done this - at its very heart, social media is destroying rational thinking and turning people into mobs baying for something someone else told them they should be baying for.

Society is doomed.

In fairness though, you're assuming the protests were about the trial result and nothing else. But it was stated at the protest that one of the things they were concerned with was how female complainants are treated on the stand by defence lawyers and there were other aspects of the trial they were unhappy with.

We've seen plenty of people describe the woman as a "liar" for example,when there's not much evidence she didn't believe what she was saying (she left the house in tears and was crying in the taxi all the way home).

AudreyHepburn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Jackson has done himself no favours at all over the last two days.

Olding on the other hand showed at least some smarts with his statement.

Jackson should be aware that if he goes ahead with his action against O'Riordain he'll be:

i) Securing O'Riordain's re-election to the Dail.
ii) On, at best, very shaky legal ground for an action.
iii) Only bringing more trouble upon himself.

He's being extremely badly advised here.

So Jackson, an innocent man, should just keep silent and let people defame and slander him all they like?

And there I thinking we lived in a progressive and rational thinking country. I’m scared for society, I really am.

Amalgam

I hope Jackson wins, the irony of a public representative ****ting on the concept of law and justice, when the seat they take on, is underwritten by swathes of legal framework, to underpin their role/work.

jr86

Best one yet, people are sharing a picture of the WhatsApp quotes and berating Jackson.

LOL - not one of the quotes in it are even his!!!

tritium

super_furry wrote: »

Feminazis, snowflakes, virtue-signalling, feminism is a cancer, etc - all the language of people who spend too much time on weird red-pill, PUA and women hating sites and youtube channels. Usually the same kind of people who are frothing at the mouth about immigrants, muslims and the unemployed.

True, but tbh it’s just the other side of the gang who drone on about rape culture, patriarchical structures, toxic masculinity and frankly the whole #ibelieveher trend

super_furry

paw patrol wrote: »

you are talking through your hoop....

Well at least you didn't call me a cuck. Probably thinking about it though, go on, you'll feel better if you do.

Uncharted

I'm just thrilled for the Senator.
I hope he gets his ass handed to him in court.
A pathetic attempt at grasping the ' lefty SJW offended female snowflake ' vote.

The great unshaven won't save him now.
Will they march on the high court to defend him?
Will they fcuk.....

super_furry

Phoebas wrote: »

What was defamatory in Ó Ríordáin's tweet?
I'm not seeing it myself.

I'd venture very little, but he is the highest profile person to come out with a tweet like that and going after him is a good way to scare other people into being quiet.

RuMan

Amalgam wrote: »

I hope Jackson wins, the irony of a public representative ****ting on the concept of law and justice, when the seat they take on, is underwritten by swathes of legal framework, to underpin their role/work.

Amadan didnt respect democracy when the voters rejected him and now he doesnt respect a court ruling

super_furry

Uncharted wrote: »

I'm just thrilled for the Senator.
I hope he gets his ass handed to him in court.
A pathetic attempt at grasping the ' lefty SJW offended female snowflake ' vote.

Ahhh SJW! How could I forget SJW? I'm annoyed with myself now.

RuMan

RuMan wrote: »

he will earn decent money in france disgusting if he is forced abroad because of completely false rape allegations. Love to see him in the Ireland No 10 jersey again

False rape allegations?

AudreyHepburn

jr86 wrote: »

Best one yet, people are sharing a picture of the WhatsApp quotes and berating Jackson.

LOL - not one of the quotes in it are even his!!!

And even they were they in no take prove rape - if anything they speak against because why in the world would a rapist take the risk of bragging on any form of social media?

You’d think no-one in this county ever made mistakes when they were young or ever sent regrettable texts.

Sidebaro

GreeBo wrote:

In fairness, the comment was about white males.

Was it not about privilege? The guy was a white male but the privilege that was being referred to didn't mention that, you seemed to add it.

jr86

super_furry wrote: »

I'd venture very little, but he is the highest profile person to come out with a tweet like that and going after him is a good way to scare other people into being quiet.

I think that's the idea alright

AOR will come out publicly apologise, and it'll prevent high profile people coming out spouting nonsense

RuMan

super_furry wrote: »

Ahhh SJW! How could I forget SJW? I'm annoyed with myself now.

Amadan of course was part of the government that cut the grant for carers for the disabled he has no concern for vulnerable people this is just virtue signalling for him

Stonedpilot

Canterelle wrote: »

And these “subtle” comments, including the earlier one about the “smell of unwashed fanny” show the mindset that needs protesting against.

Oh please these eejits protesting a case they know nothing about and willingly ignoring

THE FACT THESE MEN WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY.

I was using humour to show how irrational and biased these people are.

Mokuba

Some of the WhatsApp quotes I have seen shared were not by any of the 4 who were on trial.

jr86

jr86 wrote: »

Best one yet, people are sharing a picture of the WhatsApp quotes and berating Jackson.

LOL - not one of the quotes in it are even his!!!

Yeah, he didn't say much if anything on whatsapp after the spitroasting message.

Phoebas

jr86 wrote: »

I think that's the idea alright

AOR will come out publicly apologise, and it'll prevent high profile people coming out spouting nonsense

Scare people away from expressing opinions on social media.?

That doesn't sound like a good idea.

AudreyHepburn

Phoebas wrote: »

What was defamatory in Ó Ríordáin's tweet?
I'm not seeing it myself.

Then open your eyes and read it properly.

Jackson has been found not guil But the tweet intimates that he is guilty and got away with because of wealth and who he is - there is absolutely no basis for such an assumption.

This is slander/defamation in anyone’s book.

super_furry

RuMan wrote: »

Amadan of course was part of the government that cut the grant for carers for the disabled he has no concern for vulnerable people this is just virtue signalling for him

Ah see I already had virtue signalling in there. Gimme a feminazi and a femanism is cancer and you've earned yourself a bingo.

jimmynokia

Faugheen wrote: »

If you don't allow the media or the public in court then how can it be determined that the defendant gets a fair trial?

Absolute nonsense statement to make. You can put restrictions on what the media can report (naming complainants and defendants, for example) but to say court sittings should be behind closed doors completely is absolutely preposterous.

You are blind then, its because of social media and journalists the situatition is the way it is the lads where named but the girl was not, to stop the current situation going on and happening again is ban the press until the verdict is read out if you did not realise the sitation is between A and B not the public to decide thats what the jury is there for i think you need to take a reality check...

tritium

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Personally I would prefer not to have men who speaks about women like they did on their whatsapp messages to be seen as a good example . I wouldn't like to think that young boys or girls would see them as heroes to look up to . Think what you like of that kind of behaviour and language about a young woman but I am entitled to my opinion too . Thankfully no men in my life would dream of demeaning women like that .

Do you really contend that if someone pores through your internet and text history they wouldn’t be able to find something, a single snapshot in time, that would paint you in a less favourable light that the person you think you are? No text or message that with benefit of hindsight you might not have sent

Do you think that the same wouldn’t be true for al the men in your life?

Or indeed for most of us?

super_furry

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I was using humour to show how irrational and biased these people are.

Isn't humour supposed to be funny?

jr86

Augeo wrote: »

Yeah, he didn't say much if anything on whatsapp after the spitroasting message.

And that one isn't even in this image!

tretorn

It doesnt actually matter anymore, the mob are on the loose so truth and fiction are one and the same.

Do these people actually want the four men to be hanged in public or maybe stoned to death.

If they commit suicide would that calm the mob down.

jr86

Phoebas wrote: »

Scare people away from expressing opinions on social media.?

That doesn't sound like a good idea.

Scaring people away from twitter seems like the best idea ever!!!

razorblunt

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I have never been upset after sex the morning after. I certainly wouldnt put myself through 9 weeks of a trial after sex that I wanted.
Why do you think she was injured with the laceration?

Jackson isn't big on cutting his nails?

torqtorq

jr86 wrote: »

I think that's the idea alright

AOR will come out publicly apologise, and it'll prevent high profile people coming out spouting nonsense

A mealy mouth apology will not prevent more high profile people coming out spouting nonsense.

It will do exactly the opposite.

That solicitor of PJ is a rottweiler with a bone. He is not for letting go.

ChikiChiki

Mokuba wrote: »

Some of the WhatsApp quotes I have seen shared were not by any of the 4 who were on trial.

Yep, its gone out of hand. Watsapp messages being made up and doctored to further the #ibelieveher cause. Beyond ridiculous. Some people out there could do with laying off social media and seeking help.

professore

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The laceration hasn't exactly been brushed over in all of this. It was dealt with in court and was the subject of testimony from a medical expert who confirmed that a vaginal laceration is not conclusive in determining whether penetration is consensual or not. Bleeding and small cuts can happen in consensual penetration, whether it be done with the fingers, penis or objects. Sure, it can be indicative that the sexual act was roughly or carelessly done, but it does not prove an absence of consent.

I'll ask again ... what sort of penis makes lacerations inside the vagina? I've been having all sorts of vigourous sex for 20 years or more and I've never once caused lacerations or bleeding. There aren't any sharp surfaces on a penis.

super_furry

torqtorq wrote: »

That solicitor of PJ is a rottweiler with a bone. He is not for letting go.

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

Uncharted

I hope the 4 Irish 'rugby players' are taken back immediately by the IRFU....... or else Mc Ilroy will have to go back at the golf, and his backswing ain't what it used to be.

Worrying times indeed....

Laois_Man

I see the foreperson of the jury has been threatened with arrest because of comments she made on broadsheet.ie and advised to get a lawyer.

I also see there are arguments between the judge and the media ongoing whereby the media were forbidden from reporting matters discussed in the absence of the jury for fear of influencing the jury. The media now arguing this is no longer valid and saying they should now be able to report on the exchanges.

This story might have a long way to run yet.

jr86

torqtorq wrote: »

A mealy mouth apology will not prevent more high profile people coming out spouting nonsense.

It will do exactly the opposite.

Of course it will, this a PR nightmare for him and his party

It's brilliant to see action being taken, everyone should be held accountable for what they Tweet

hill16bhoy

Mokuba wrote: »

Wrong on all 3 counts. Spectacularly so.

Laois_Man wrote: »

I disagree completely

Because
i) O'Riordain's is not elected to the Dail for him to be "re-elected" to it
ii) Saying someone got off because they are well connected and not because they are innocent is by no means shaky ground.
iii) May also be bring lots of coin onto himself.....which he may very well need now!

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Amalgam

super_furry wrote: »

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

Oh well, that's your opinion, then. Duly noted.

Heres Johnny

People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously?
Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on.

Is this an attack on all men?

One woman took a case, lost due to lack of any credible evidence and mainly due to another sober woman's testimony that it didn't look like she was in any way being subjected to anything she didn't want to be. 3 female jurors acquitted too.

She has to be grilled in court. Of course she does.

Feminists are coming out of this looking very stupid indeed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I said previously that some of the twitter posters using #ibelieveher were verging on defamatory. I noticed some of the top tweets have disappeared recently.

hill16bhoy

Laois_Man wrote: »

I see the foreperson of the jury has been threatened with arrest because of comments she made on broadsheet.ie and advised to get a lawyer.

I also see there are arguments between the judge and the media ongoing whereby the media were forbidden from reporting matters discussed in the absence of the jury for fear of influencing the jury. The media now arguing this is no longer valid and saying they should now be able to report on the exchanges.

This story might have a long way to run yet.

The juror gave away details of the complainant's family background, socio-economic status and where she lives.


There's no way the last of this has been heard.

hill16bhoy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I said previously that some of the twitter posters using #ibelieveher were verging on defamatory. I noticed some of the top tweets have disappeared recently.

The #ibelieveher hashtag is in no way defamatory.

Mokuba

I don't know what business the IRFU would have with 2 people that aren't contracted to them.

But lets not facts in the way of a good witch hunt.

Phoebas

super_furry wrote: »

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

I think some people are delighted with this because they don't like AOR or they are emotionally invested in this particular case, not on the actual merits of the possible defamation itself.

Uncharted

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Pffft.....yeah.... because every rugby match iv attended,iv sat shoulder to shoulder with purple haired,angry at the planet ,feminazi,men- hating lynchmobs.

Get a grip.

jr86

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Sorry to disappoint, but it'll be long forgotten by then. there'll be plenty more that the mob have moved onto in the meantime

99% of match goers would give them the respect they deserve. Don't mistake a minority of clowns on Social Media for being representative of the general population - particularly rugby fans

Mokuba

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The #ibelieveher hashtag is in no way defamatory.

That's not what he said.

Read it again.

Mrs Shuttleworth

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Correct. I despise AOR but see no reason why he can't express an opinion publicly in a different jurisdiction on this verdict. The fact they were found not guilty does not imply the woman is a liar.

Re the term "well connected" he is saying what a lot of us are privately thinking. Particularly as the head juror then came out after the verdict with some utterly daft and defensive social media posts of her own.