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

keith_sixteen

Strazdas wrote: »

He was declared not guilty in the trial, he doesn't need to hammer home this point.

Apparently he does given all of the people who seem to think otherwise.

freshpopcorn

Augeo wrote: »

You've gone though all of their profiles on facebook to establish that?

There wasn't many of them. It took about to clicks.

Faugheen

jimmynokia wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here.

Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable.

What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system.

I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested.

You are proving yourslef to be a lost soul here, the jury is there to give a verdict,regadless of UK /BRITISH law it should be implemented. The problem is once again the foooking media and journalists which are now out in their droves and have been during the trial pushing their personal agenda on the issue and people tend to believe what is read in the papers or online so wake up and see the logic behind my comment.
How hard is that to take in ffs...

Oh my god.

Public prosecution is in place to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial.

How hard is that to understand?

If you have private prosecution. You take that away from the defendant.

You can grant the defendant anonymity while still having a public prosecution. However, whether the defendant is entitled to anonymity is an issue for the law in that jurisdiction.

RebelButtMunch

Heres Johnny wrote: »

The ones in the clip were gay too. Any straight man getting involved in the campaign is definitely looking for the ride.
I've 1 mate in a rugby team WhatsApp group who believes 100% they are innocent. But on social media he's liking and commenting in support of women. Reckons he'll get the end away no bother.

I had to have a double check there to make sure we are in AH

Mrs Shuttleworth

GreeBo wrote: »

So if he believes the woman....he doesn't believe them.

2 + 2 = ?

Why did he take it down?

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

I think the defendants in this case are ugly, brutish and boring. Is that "defamatory", or as the British are so fond of prosecuting, "hate speech"?

Uncharted

hill16bhoy wrote: »

"Feminazis", "lynch mobs".

Cute.

It's very, very easy to get tickets for provincial rugby matches, and anybody can buy them.

Eh........ yeahhhhhh! I know all of the above,but please,surely,even though it's plain for all to see that you just want an argument for arguments sake..... you will surely concede that the majority of rugby attendees do not fit the demographic of 'penis hater' rally attendees.

freshpopcorn

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

I know what gay means, I'm asking how you know that all the men attending the march are gay?

It says who they are in a relationship with or what gender they are attached to.
It just struck me that their wasn't a lot of straight white men attending. IE The type of one's Louise O'Neill finds it hard to be in a relationship with.

Nesta99

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.

Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?

Strazdas

Keyzer wrote: »

The trial took place in a different country and judicial system to the Republic of Ireland. That being the case, why aren't these same people out protesting about rape cases all over the world? Just because it was close to home they give a toss?



You, me and everyone else on boards or whatever internet based platform discussions relating to this case are being held on have no idea what happened that night. We weren't there. She made her case, the four lads defended themselves. For every "fact" (bleeding and upset in the taxi) stated, there is a counter argument. I'm not going to be a callous bastard and start spouting crap because, as I said, I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.

The only true fact is this: they were found not guilty by unanimous decision.

My point is the protests weren't necessarily about the verdict only, but all aspects of the nine week trial, particularly with how the woman was treated on the stand.

The different jurisdiction thing doesn't really hold up in this particular case. Both Jackson and Olding play for the Ireland rugby team, a team which represents the entire island. Of course people in the ROI are going to be interested in the case and the verdict.

Outlaw Pete

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

AudreyHepburn

Canterelle wrote: »

Ah what’s the point. To be clear, I agree with the verdict. There was not enough to convict, so that was the only reasonable verdict. No point debating anything else with this mindset, I think it’s going over your head.

It really isn’t and I’d appreciate a little less snottiness in your replys.

These protests can’t have anything to do with how rape victims are treated because the girl involved wasn’t a rape victim and she wasn’t treated in any way negatively.

She had to take the stand and she had to be questioned. Her story could not be simply taken as gospel nor could the four lads be expected not that defend themselves.

Therefore I can only assume they are simply about people not liking the outcome of the case.

Stheno

Nesta99 wrote: »

Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?

She made comments about the complainant

Mrs Shuttleworth

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

hill16bhoy

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but she was not on trial, hence the verdict from the jury implies zero about her.

People really need to learn how a trial works before spouting nonsense

You don't have to have been on trial to be defamed.

The jury did not find that the allegations were false.

Therefore anybody who knowingly publishes a statement that complainant made knowingly false allegations is making a knowingly false statement in order to damage her reputation.

dxhound2005

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

I think the defendants in this case are ugly, brutish and boring. Is that "defamatory", or as the British are so fond of prosecuting, "hate speech"?

In what way are they boring?

Mokuba

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

And the people who think that are stupid.

The case was likely only brought to court BECAUSE of their status. No chance they were ever going to be convicted based on the prosecutions evidence and testimonies.

And, Jackson is the only one of the four who did not require legal aid.

Laois_Man

Nesta99 wrote: »

Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?

haven't seen them but somebody said the juror passed comments about the background of the accuser.

The juror has since though made further comments that she said nothing outside the parameters set down by the judge and then had a right moan that they are now changing those parameters retrospectively

She needs to just shut up

Strazdas

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

I completely disagreed with AOR's tweet and thought it was wrong and a stupid thing for a public representative to say. However, I'm not sure at all that it is a good idea for Jackson to get into a legal battle with him.

Laois_Man

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

I can "privately" think you shot JFK if I want

I can't announce it in public though

AudreyHepburn

Strazdas wrote: »

I completely disagreed with AOR's tweet and thought it was wrong and a stupid thing for a public representative to say. However, I'm not sure at all that it is a good idea for Jackson to get into a legal battle with him.

Should he not be allowed to defend his name and reputation?

He’s innocent - he should not have to stay silent and let people defame him.

Canterelle

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It really isn’t and I’d appreciate a little less snottiness in your replys.

These protests can’t have anything to do with how rape victims are treated because the girl involved wasn’t a rape victim and she wasn’t treated in any way negatively.

She had to take the stand and she had to be questioned. Her story could not be simply taken as gospel nor could the four lads be expected not that defend themselves.

Therefore I can only assume they are simply about people not liking the outcome of the case.

You don’t like “snotty” replies yet assume everyone is protesting the verdict. Assume the protests can’t be about how rape victims are treated. Assume anybody is stupid enough to think a person who brings a rape case should automatically be believed. As I said, what’s the point.

Laois_Man

Laois_Man wrote: »

haven't seen them but somebody said the juror passed comments about the background of the accuser.

The juror has since though made further comments that she said nothing outside the parameters set down by the judge and then had a right moan that they are now changing those parameters retrospectively

She needs to just shut up

Grim enough to hear jury members thinking about the ladies background.

hill16bhoy

Uncharted wrote: »

Eh........ yeahhhhhh! I know all of the above,but please,surely,even though it's plain for all to see that you just want an argument for arguments sake..... you will surely concede that the majority of rugby attendees do not fit the demographic of 'penis hater' rally attendees.

I'm very well acquainted with the demographics of rugby crowds, thanks.

Indeed, the majority of rugby attendees are not "penis haters".

Neither are the majority of people who class themselves as feminists or those who have expressed solidarity with the complainant.

I would venture there are very few people in general who class themselves as "penis haters".

But, sure again, it's far easier to argue against a strawman.

I'm merely pointing out that as long as Jackson pursues spurious legal actions he won't be doing himself any favours. Women, even those who don't regularly attend rugby matches, are allowed buy tickets to them.

And those who class anybody who uses the #ibelieveher hashtag as "penis haters" on his behalf are not doing him any favours either.

AudreyHepburn

Canterelle wrote: »

You don’t like “snotty” replies yet assume everyone is protesting the verdict. Assume the protests can’t be about how rape victims are treated. Assume anybody is stupid enough to think a person who brings a rape case should automatically be believed. As I said, what’s the point.

Then explain it to me instead of getting of getting stroppy. Because if it’s not about the case or how rape victims are treated then I can’t see what it’s about.

hill16bhoy

Mokuba wrote: »

And the people who think that are stupid.

The case was likely only brought to court BECAUSE of their status. No chance they were ever going to be convicted based on the prosecutions evidence and testimonies.

So, it's a disgrace that Aodhan O'Riordain may have implied that the defendants' status played a part in them being deemed not guilty.

But it's fine to say that they were only charged because of their status?

What happened to the narrative about respecting the integrity of the judicial process?

Oh, the irony.

Heres Johnny

I'll state my viewpoint here.
I'm a recently retired rugby player. Played all my life. Im now quite well off (but by no means wealthy or privileged) male and im white.

Had **** loads of one night stands and messy situations through being drunk, both me and the female. Regretted a fair few and I'm sure many of the women did too. Woke up some mornings didn't know where I was or who was snoring beside me. I'm sure the feeling was reciprocated too. Had a few give out to me for never contacting them again and call me a dick but that's about it.

The thoughts that one of them could then make an allegation against me saying they didn't consent quite frankly scares the ****e out of me. Don't think there was ever any verbal consent either made by me or to me. But we just got one with things. Took 2 to tango.

I don't hate women in any way. Some of my great workmates are women.
I now coach a women's rugby team. When I was self employed in financial services my best custom came from Women, they really had their heads screwed on with financial planning. So I'm fond of the fairer sex in many many ways. I enjoy their company and I enjoy their point of view. I am in no way misogynist.
But some are just absolute nuts. I've seen some cause serious trouble for men with allegations and lies before.

I can't stand women using their perceived vulnerability because of being physically weaker and defenceless against men to go on these crusades. And I really can't stand women who hate men as a gender and constantly bang their drum and rattle out the same boring tune. Hate individual men that have wronged you by all means but go away with the stereotyping. They are evil, vindictive and dangerous. There's a movement going on and its not good. It's a mob. It's a witch hunt and men are in the firing line.

Rape is wrong, one of the vileist most despicable things a man could do to a woman but in my opinion this woman was no more raped than I was when going home drunk with a woman.

#metoo
#ibelieveher

And such other rubbish.

New hashtag

#ihatewomenwhohatemen

RuMan

Heres Johnny wrote: »

I'll state my viewpoint here.
I'm a recently retired rugby player. Played all my life. Im now quite well off (but by no means wealthy or privileged) male and im white.

Had **** loads of one night stands and messy situations through being drunk, both me and the female. Regretted a fair few and I'm sure many of the women did too. Woke up some mornings didn't know where I was or who was snoring beside me. I'm sure the feeling was reciprocated too. Had a few give out to me for never contacting them again and call me a dick but that's about it.

The thoughts that one of them could then make an allegation against me saying they didn't consent quite frankly scares the ****e out of me. Don't think there was ever any verbal consent either made by me or to me. But we just got one with things. Took 2 to tango.

I don't hate women in any way. Some of my great workmates are women.
I now coach a women's rugby team. When I was self employed in financial services my best custom came from Women, they really had their heads screwed on with financial planning. So I'm fond of the fairer sex in many many ways. I enjoy their company and I enjoy their point of view. I am in no way misogynist.
But some are just absolute nuts. I've seen some cause serious trouble for men with allegations and lies before.

I can't stand women using their perceived vulnerability because of being physically weaker and defenceless against men to go on these crusades. And I really can't stand women who hate men as a gender and constantly bang their drum and rattle out the same boring tune. Hate individual men that have wronged you by all means but go away with the stereotyping. They are evil, vindictive and dangerous. There's a movement going on and its not good. It's a mob. It's a witch hunt and men are in the firing line.

Rape is wrong, one of the vileist most despicable things a man could do to a woman but in my opinion this woman was no more raped than I was when going home drunk with a woman.

#metoo
#ibelieveher

And such other rubbish.

New hashtag

#ihatewomenwhohatemen

Great post

jmayo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

Didn't you say you went to Trinity ?
Ever hear of the concepts of slander and libel ?

Andrew Beef

The jury took less than three hours to acquit the guys; they are innocent. This “I believe her” sh1te is nothing more than a witchhunt. If there’s gonna be a witchhunt, it should be after the girl. The lives of these men have been ruined by false allegations.

Strazdas

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Should he not be allowed to defend his name and reputation?

He’s innocent - he should not have to stay silent and let people defame him.

The trial has only just ended and he was found not guilty. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to immediately commence legal action against someone else to prove that he is not guilty. Many would say he would be better off keeping his head down.

Stheno

Heres Johnny wrote: »

I'll state my viewpoint here.
I'm a recently retired rugby player. Played all my life. Im now quite well off (but by no means wealthy or privileged) male and im white.

Had **** loads of one night stands and messy situations through being drunk, both me and the female. Regretted a fair few and I'm sure many of the women did too. Woke up some mornings didn't know where I was or who was snoring beside me. I'm sure the feeling was reciprocated too. Had a few give out to me for never contacting them again and call me a dick

Jamie?????

Is that you? And does Sheena know of your bad boy days?

AudreyHepburn

Strazdas wrote: »

The trial has only just ended and he was found not guilty. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to immediately commence legal action against someone else to prove that he is not guilty. Many would say he would be better off keeping his head down.

But why shouldn’t he? I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation.

GreeBo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

I think the defendants in this case are ugly, brutish and boring. Is that "defamatory", or as the British are so fond of prosecuting, "hate speech"?

No, because that's not defamatory, implying someone is a rapist in public is. Simples.

Maybe you should research the meaning of the term before arguing about it?

Sidebaro wrote: »

I'm assuming it was his fame, social status and upbringing.

Sorry I'm confused. So he is privileged because he became a successful, famous sportsman?

I think people are losing the run of what privilege actually means. It's not a silver bullet point you can use when you can't actually build a supporting argument for yourself.

citytillidie

over 90 pages of going around in circles.

The woman made a complaint to the police, passed on to the PPS, went to court.

I jury of peers sat and listened to the evidence presented for 9 weeks, more than what we the general public know and found there was not enough evidence to find the 4 men guilty.

Protests are just a carry on from the #MeToo and #TimesUp since they really did not hit Ireland. It is one way to alienate half the population by telling them they are all rapists

Uncharted

Stheno wrote: »

Jamie?????

Is that you? And does Sheena know of your bad boy days?

Couldn't be him.... he only invests in 'bright ideas'.


He said so himself on the radio

Heres Johnny

Stheno wrote: »

Heres Johnny wrote: »

I'll state my viewpoint here.
I'm a recently retired rugby player. Played all my life. Im now quite well off (but by no means wealthy or privileged) male and im white.

Had **** loads of one night stands and messy situations through being drunk, both me and the female. Regretted a fair few and I'm sure many of the women did too. Woke up some mornings didn't know where I was or who was snoring beside me. I'm sure the feeling was reciprocated too. Had a few give out to me for never contacting them again and call me a dick

Jamie?????

Is that you? And does Sheena know of your bad boy days?

Busted!! But no thats not me

Fann Linn

Strazdas wrote: »

The trial has only just ended and he was found not guilty. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to immediately commence legal action against someone else to prove that he is not guilty. Many would say he would be better off keeping his head down.

He was found 'not guilty' why should he hide?

dark crystal

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The jury took less than three hours to acquit the guys; they are innocent. This “I believe her” sh1te is nothing more than a witchhunt. If there’s gonna be a witchhunt, it should be after the girl. The lives of these men have been ruined by false allegations.

When was she found guilty of providing false allegations?

GreeBo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You don't have to have been on trial to be defamed.

The jury did not find that the allegations were false.

Therefore anybody who knowingly publishes a statement that complainant made knowingly false allegations is making a knowingly false statement in order to damage her reputation.

They didn't find anything about her allegations other than they couldn't be proven. It's not knowingingly false to accuse hey of lying, there has been no trial to ascertain that.

Strazdas

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But why shouldn’t he? I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation.

He might be not guilty of rape but he doesn't exactly come out of this case looking like a hero - those disgusting WhatsApp messages, the fact that that night and the trial was undoubtedly traumatic for the young woman etc.

Suing someone for libel is entirely optional, there is no requirement for him to do this and he could leave it be if he wanted.

Uncharted

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Busted!! But no thats not me

John Fogarty.......?

Mokuba

Strazdas wrote: »

He might be not guilty of rape but he doesn't exactly come out of this case looking like a hero - those disgusting WhatsApp messages, the fact that that night and the trial was undoubtedly traumatic for the young woman etc.

Suing someone for libel is entirely optional, there is no requirement for him to do this and he could leave it be if he wanted.

The trial was traumatic for the young woman? Hello? What about the 4 lads? Who even as innocent men cannot move on with their lives.

And as for the WhatsApp. Paddy Jackson barely said a thing on it. Show me exactly what he said. There is one of the offensive quotes which can be attributed to him. Just one.

Laois_Man

Strazdas wrote: »

He might be not guilty of rape but he doesn't exactly come out of this case looking like a hero - those disgusting WhatsApp messages, the fact that that night and the trial was undoubtedly traumatic for the young woman etc.

Suing someone for libel is entirely optional, there is no requirement for him to do this and he could leave it be if he wanted.

A lawsuit against senator senator Aodhan O Riordain will never see a court room I reckon!

They just want to shut everyone up!

Mrs Shuttleworth

Heres Johnny wrote: »

I'll state my viewpoint here.
I'm a recently retired rugby player. Played all my life. Im now quite well off (but by no means wealthy or privileged) male and im white.

Had **** loads of one night stands and messy situations through being drunk, both me and the female. Regretted a fair few and I'm sure many of the women did too. Woke up some mornings didn't know where I was or who was snoring beside me. I'm sure the feeling was reciprocated too. Had a few give out to me for never contacting them again and call me a dick but that's about it.

The thoughts that one of them could then make an allegation against me saying they didn't consent quite frankly scares the ****e out of me. Don't think there was ever any verbal consent either made by me or to me. But we just got one with things. Took 2 to tango.

I don't hate women in any way. Some of my great workmates are women.
I now coach a women's rugby team. When I was self employed in financial services my best custom came from Women, they really had their heads screwed on with financial planning. So I'm fond of the fairer sex in many many ways. I enjoy their company and I enjoy their point of view. I am in no way misogynist.
But some are just absolute nuts. I've seen some cause serious trouble for men with allegations and lies before.

I can't stand women using their perceived vulnerability because of being physically weaker and defenceless against men to go on these crusades. And I really can't stand women who hate men as a gender and constantly bang their drum and rattle out the same boring tune. Hate individual men that have wronged you by all means but go away with the stereotyping. They are evil, vindictive and dangerous. There's a movement going on and its not good. It's a mob. It's a witch hunt and men are in the firing line.

Rape is wrong, one of the vileist most despicable things a man could do to a woman but in my opinion this woman was no more raped than I was when going home drunk with a woman.

#metoo
#ibelieveher

And such other rubbish.

New hashtag

#ihatewomenwhohatemen

I don't hate women.

Of course I don't.

I don't call them back on more than one occasion after banging them, though, and I don't think about consent.

I'm scared, now I think about it.

Actually, I do hate women.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

I saw his tweet and if I'm not mistaken, he didn't name anyone but did refer to them "collectively"- wondering if (a) that is really defamation on the basis of not naming someone and (b) could all the relevant parties also issue a lawsuit?

If I said all Boards.ie Mods are X (derogatory term), besides a permaban, does than mean all or any Boards.ie mods could take a case against me?

(I'm asking because I don't know- not arguing with you). :-)

Fann Linn

I'd say some of those NI soccer players who were in the same club on the same night probably feel they 'dodged a bullet'.

Sofiztikated

GreeBo wrote: »

Has your vagina ever cut someone's penis?
Are you sure? Have you had it checked by a professional?

No, but it's definitely possible that an awkward thrust with my wife can injure. And through thoroughly consentual sex.

Hoboo

Fann Linn wrote: »

I'd say some of those NI soccer players who were in the same club on the same night probably feel they 'dodged a bullet'.

Dodged a nuke morelike.

iamwhoiam

Im Randy Newman wrote: »

This whole thing about their 'offensive' msgs? Get over it, people say these things all time.

Maybe we should examine a few of the puritans on here, see how squeaky clean they really are.

People find different things offensive and are perfectly entitled to think the messages were disgusting . And perfectly entitled to say so without being knocked down with a " get over it "
I found the language in the messages disgusting , so does my husband , my son and my daughter . And so do my friends and my family . Maybe we just have different standards to you how we speak about others but such is life .

AudreyHepburn

Strazdas wrote: »

He might be not guilty of rape but he doesn't exactly come out of this case looking like a hero - those disgusting WhatsApp messages, the fact that that night and the trial was undoubtedly traumatic for the young woman etc.

Suing someone for libel is entirely optional, there is no requirement for him to do this and he could leave it be if he wanted.

You’re showing your true colors now.

He comes out of it looking innocent and that’s all the matters. The texts, while unsavory, are just texts sent after one drunken night. They do not speak to his character as a whole.

Have you never sent a regrettable text?

And I’m sure it was just as traumatic for the four men having their names dragged through the mud for something they didn’t do.

I’ll ask again - give me one rational reason, free of emotion and assumptions that he’s guilty, why he shouldn’t defend himself.