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

Christy42

Mokuba wrote: »

This is funny.

Like there is an actual person typing this stuff.

I hope your eternal victimhood will find the utopia you desire, away from all the bad evil men.

Men bad. Women great. Got it!

Given some stuff of the quotes here I get the viewpoint. Then we had the Laois footballer and Drogheda midfielder with horrible comments. There are many scumbags who say think that and it seems to me to be far worse than the I believe her that so many here get upset over.

RuMan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like iamwhoiam, I also found the comments disturbing.

However, I think expressions such as "sowing your wild oats before settling down" has too much romanticism attached to it. The expression, historically related exclusively to males, conjures up an image of a young man progressing to mature and responsible adulthood through gaining sexual experience as a right of passage.
The reality is probably more like a series of drunken one night stands and as someone mentioned a while back on this thread, who's a retired rugby player, filled with a certain regret and in some cases, hurt.

While I don't like the comments (WhatsApp posts) I also think that romanticising or sterilising a concept that in reality is quite a dangerous practice that often can lead to much negativity- STI's, long term emotional damage, criminal acts etc is not helpful in this modern but complex world.

There are plenty of women who speak this way. I dont take offense. I'm struggling to reconcile the level of prudishness with my own experiences

hill16bhoy

Fann Linn wrote: »

Any links to the jurors comments?

They were removed from Broadsheet. They were posted up as screenshots on this thread this morning but also have been removed.

What was directly quoted from the screenshots is correct however.

_Dara_

I said earlier in the thread that I probably wouldn’t report it if I was raped. I still think that and for SO many reasons. I have another reason to add: I would hate to be at the heart of the media reaction in the event of a not guilty verdict. Has anyone out protesting given thought to the idea that this might be really overwhelming for the woman? I know I would be. It’s dragging the whole thing out further.

irishmoss

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Somehow I doubt the knickers themselves were present at the trial.

Yes they were, and the poor girl went bright red (as reported in the paper)

TOMs WIFE

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I hope it is the start of a move to bring what is being published online at least up to the standards of what we see in newspapers.

Though standards are of varying quality going by this article:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Flipper22

Mokuba wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't even call that an offensive quote. Just a description of what happened.

From those messages, McIlroy and some other guy (not one of the 4) come across badly, Olding to a lesser extent.

Many people seem to be completely overlooking this and acting as though all four are responsible for the entire contents of the Whatsapp group. Bizarre!!

thebaz

ther was a case last year where a repeat violent offender , attacking women both pysically and sexually , was found guilty and then let off with Probabtion here in Dublin, i found it truly shocking yet ther was no outrage but the last 2 days have been like a civil war in Ireland over a jury decision on a case that really was not clear-cut outside the Republic of Ireland where a jury made a unanimous decision - this jury would have sat in court for the duration and heard all evidence in context , and they served up a non guilty decision - no one will know for sure what happened that night except those 5 or 6 at the house - yet Twitter and a new movement of hysteria knows what happened, much better than this jury that heard all the facts in a court of law in Belfast. Ireland really can be a screwed up place.

Mokuba

Christy42 wrote: »

Given some stuff of the quotes here I get the viewpoint. Then we had the Laois footballer and Drogheda midfielder with horrible comments. There are many scumbags who say think that and it seems to me to be far worse than the I believe her that so many here get upset over.

And the likes of the one from 50 pages ago, who said she would have had 4 innocent men locked up?

Bad apples on both sides. Not representative of the majority.

The world and the people in it are never going to be as you want it. Some people will say mean things. Thats life.

Fann Linn

_Dara_ wrote: »

I said earlier in the thread that I probably wouldn’t report it if I was raped. I still think that and for SO many reasons. I have another reason to add: I would hate to be at the heart of the media reaction in the event of a not guilty verdict. Has anyone out protesting given thought to the idea that this might be really overwhelming for the woman? I know I would be. It’s dragging the whole thing out further.

And what about the 4 men who were found not guilty?
Any sympathy for them?

Or the witness Dara who observed the act? How do you think she feels about all those protests?

Depp

irishmoss wrote: »

Yes they were, and the poor girl went bright red (as reported in the paper)

Was she not kept behind a screen for the duration of the trial to protect her anonymity? (as reported in the papers) Would be tough enough to gauge the color of someones face when you can't see it?

This is the one of the worst aspects of the whole thing for me, the quality of some of the so called journalism around the whole case was shocking.

Sidebaro

Vladimir Poontang wrote:

Ha, don't be so sure about that.

Does this mean that demeaning women is so common that it's likely we all have men close to us that do this? And worse, they hide their behaviour and trick us into believing they're sound? Interesting!

AudreyHepburn

irishmoss wrote: »

Yes they were, and the poor girl went bright red (as reported in the paper)

Ok I missed that, sorry, no offense was intended. I genuinely missed it. But how could she have seem them or been seen to go red when she was behind a screen the whole time?

That said I’m sure there was reason for that and you can’t go softly softly in a criminal trial.

RuMan

RuMan wrote: »

There are plenty of women who speak this way. I dont take offense. I'm struggling to reconcile the level of prudishness with my own experiences

I'm not a "prude"- I can be "disgusted" and still appreciate that such comments reflect a certain world of a number of young and not so young people. It doesn't mean that I have to accept them as "normal" or "appropriate" - because for many people, such comments aren't appropriate- but that doesn't make them a prude.

hill16bhoy

Christy42 wrote: »

Given some stuff of the quotes here I get the viewpoint. Then we had the Laois footballer and Drogheda midfielder with horrible comments. There are many scumbags who say think that and it seems to me to be far worse than the I believe her that so many here get upset over.

A lot of this is loosely tied in with the alt-right.

There's a significant element of alt-right thinking which is tied in with pick up artistry which sees women as basically "things" to be controlled and manipulated, not as real people.

The obsession among a significant minority of men with calling women "man haters" or "penis haters" is mainly the result of a deep seated hatred of women.

It's bizarre and neurotic.

Stheno

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok I missed that, sorry, no offense was intended. I genuinely missed it

That said I’m sure there was reason for that and you can’t go softly softly in a criminal trial.

I think the poster you are replying to may be incorrect the complainant was behind a screen during her testimony to protect her annonymity and i doubt she sat in the publuc gallery for the defence so how would people know she went bright red

Mokuba

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A lot of this is loosely tied in with the alt-right.

There's a significant element of alt-right thinking which is tied in with pick up artistry which sees women as basically "things" to be controlled and manipulated, not as real people.

The obsession among a significant minority of men with calling women "man haters" or "penis haters" is mainly the result of a deep seated hatred of women.

It's bizarre and neurotic.

Tripe. Utter tripe.

super_furry

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A lot of this is loosely tied in with the alt-right.

There's a significant element of alt-right thinking which is tied in with pick up artistry which sees women as basically "things" to be controlled and manipulated, not as real people.

The obsession among a significant minority of men with calling women "man haters" or "penis haters" is mainly the result of a deep seated hatred of women.

It's bizarre and neurotic.

Absolutely and you can see it in the language. SJW's, Feminazis, feminism is cancer, it's like they people using it all did some kind of red-pill, alt-right night course.

Flipper22

Deleted User wrote: »

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). :-)

There has to be some sort of reputational damage to the person alleging defamation, due to a factual statement which cannot be shown by to be true by the person making that statement.

You don't have to refer to people by name if it is clear who you are referring to. In your example it would not be clear who the people you are referring to actually are. It's also unlikely to lead to (widespread) reputational damage, compared to a statement made by a public figure or in a newspaper.

hill16bhoy

Mokuba wrote: »

Tripe. Utter tripe.

Yet you didn't counter any of it.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

I think the poster you are replying to may be incorrect the complainant was behind a screen during her testimony to protect her annonymity and i doubt she sat in the publuc gallery for the defence so how would people know she went bright red

She sat in a separate room viewing the trial on a video screen after she gave testimony. Throughout her testimony however, while she was screened from the general public, she was on a video screen displayed to all. Only the judge, the jury and the barristers could see her, but she was displayed on video screen to the public when providing testimony.

(I think the above was documented in the Irish Times but can't locate the actual article right now)

dark crystal

Fann Linn wrote: »

And what about the 4 men who were found not guilty?
Any sympathy for them?

Or the witness Dara who observed the act? How do you think she feels about all those protests?

Jesus, if anyone on this thread mentions any empathy for the woman involved at all (or rape victims in general), it's all "What about the men?".

EACH one of the people involved in this case have been dragged to hell and back. The men were found not guilty, but are still being doubted by the Twitter mob. The woman is being branded a liar and a slut by the Twitter mob, even though she's not been convicted of lying.

It is possible to feel sympathy for both parties without taking entrenched sides and battling through the inevitable gender war bullsh!t that pervades this forum like an epidemic.

Flipper22

Heres Johnny wrote: »

First name right!

Johnny Holland!!

Fann Linn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A lot of this is loosely tied in with the alt-right.

There's a significant element of alt-right thinking which is tied in with pick up artistry which sees women as basically "things" to be controlled and manipulated, not as real people.

The obsession among a significant minority of men with calling women "man haters" or "penis haters" is mainly the result of a deep seated hatred of women.

It's bizarre and neurotic.

Nothing to do with alt right.
Its about a court case in NI where 4 men were found not guilty unanimously, by a jury of their peers and some people don't like the result.

iamwhoiam

Stheno wrote: »

I think the poster you are replying to may be incorrect the complainant was behind a screen during her testimony to protect her annonymity and i doubt she sat in the publuc gallery for the defence so how would people know she went bright red

I read she was behind a curtain but she was shown on a screen in the courtroom. She could not see the men accused but they could see her on a screen

RacoonQueen

Wow, Paddy Jackson has been very ill advised. He'd had been better crawling under a rock and knuckling down to rugby and hoping that everyone just forgot about the whole thing eventually.

Stheno

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She sat in a separate room viewing the trial on a video screen after she gave testimony. Throughout her testimony however, while she was screened from the general public, she was on a video screen displayed to all. Only the judge, the jury and the barristers could see her, but she was displayed on video screen to the public when providing testimony.

(I think the above was documented in the Irish Times but can't locate the actual article right now)

Thanks for that.

C__MC

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'.

It’s a good thing will grigg wasnt on fire that night

hill16bhoy

super_furry wrote: »

Absolutely and you can see it in the language. SJW's, Feminazis, feminism is cancer, it's like they people using it all did some kind of red-pill, alt-right night course.

It's very similar to the thinking among dominant ethnic groups when their hegemony is challenged.

The same type of nonsense we got when Obama was president and that we so regularly hear from the DUP up north.

Basically, the message to any groups who "get uppity" or "above their station" is to shut up and "know your place".

A significant minority of men treat women's issues and issues around consent as basically a joke.

An awful lot of them have seen this trial as simply another tool to goad women with in the manner that a 10 year old who supports Manchester United might goad a classmate who supports Liverpool after Manchester United win 2-1.

Such posters rarely display any genuine belief in what they say - the primary aim is to annoy as many women or "cucks" as possible.

It's really, really weird.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Thanks for that.

When I read that in the papers, it really brought home to me the difference between ROI and NI trials.

Public (excepting journalists) aren't allowed in ROI rape trials- I never knew that. And I don't see why they needed the video link on her throughout testimony for the public to see in the NI trial- obviously it's their legal system.

I can understand why the jury need to be able to read the body language etc of ANYONE giving testimony- but why the public?

Roger Hassenforder

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The obsession among a significant minority of men with calling women "man haters" or "penis haters" is mainly the result of a deep seated hatred of women.

It's bizarre and neurotic.

"Significant minority"
FFS.

Most men have a mother, sister, daughter, wife, friends that are women. Only those with a mental illness, "hate women". Most men actually love "women" to varying degrees.

There might be individuals within the set of women, that are disliked, even hated, by individuals from the set of men. They're a very very small unrepresentative minority.

tritium

Canterelle wrote: »

You said it was just about the outcome of the case, originally. All I’m saying is that’s it’s more than that I.e. the treatment of the accuser in court, 8 days of questioning as opposed to much less questioning of the accused, the suggestions that her answers were rehearsed, the suggestions that because she put her hand on someone’s knee briefly - that this was in some way relevant to the alleged rape. The WhatsApp messages that were dismissed by the defence as silly banter. Her underwear being scrutinised in court. This sort of treatment.

If the prosecution felt they could advance the case by questioning the accused for longer you can be damn sure they would

The way it’s presented you’d swear that the 4 accused were sipping champagne in the witness box rather than having their own lives pulled apart. People seem to object to their defense robustly questioning the accuser while they have no issue with how the accused is treated

Heres Johnny

Flipper22 wrote: »

Heres Johnny wrote: »

First name right!

Johnny Holland!!

Glad everyone thinks I'm an ex pro rugby player but no, just a big standard average amateur!

Sofiztikated

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Wow, Paddy Jackson has been very ill advised. He'd had been better crawling under a rock and knuckling down to rugby and hoping that everyone just forgot about the whole thing eventually.

He's had to listen people talking all kinds of **** about him, and having been found not guilty, people are still talking **** about him.

A bit of a "**** you, shut your mouth!" isn't unexpected.

Fann Linn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's very similar to the thinking among dominant ethnic groups when their hegemony is challenged.

The same type of nonsense we got when Obama was president and that we so regularly hear from the DUP up north.

Basically, the message to any groups who "get uppity" or "above their station" is to shut up and "know your place".

A significant minority of men treat women's issues and issues around consent as basically a joke.

An awful lot of them have seen this trial as simply another tool to goad women with in the manner that a 10 year old who supports Manchester United might goad a classmate who supports Liverpool after Manchester United win 2-1.

Such posters rarely display any genuine belief in what they say - the primary aim is to annoy as many women or "cucks" as possible.

It's really, really weird.

Mad Ted.

Nermal

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There's a significant element of alt-right thinking which is tied in with pick up artistry which sees women as basically "things" to be controlled and manipulated, not as real people.

Yes, I hear famous professional sportsmen are absolutely queuing up to attend pick-up artistry courses :rolleyes:

Flipper22

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I read the screenshots of those comments.

GUBU stuff.

Why she would feel the need to be online within hours writing about the complainant's social class raises serious questions.

It's been interesting to note the cognitive dissonance at play from many posters regarding Aodhan O'Riordain's comments and the juror's.

Lots of outrage at O'Riordain mentioning their social class, yet absolutely nothing from these same posters regarding the juror bringing up the complainant's social class, in a very sarcastic, almost disparaging way.

Mr. O'Riordain was not on the jury, as far as I'm aware.

I don't think it's cognitive dissonance, unlike AORs outrageous tweet this hasn't really been publicised.

Bizarre behaviour from the juror. What was the context? You could say it gives some insight into how the complainant came across in court which obviously none of us were privy to.

hill16bhoy

Fann Linn wrote: »

Nothing to do with alt right.
Its about a court case in NI where 4 men were found not guilty unanimously, by a jury of their peers and some people don't like the result.

A lot of the neurotic, women-hating goading post-trial is certainly tied into alt-right thinking.

I can accept a verdict and I think most people can. I can accept that the defendants have the right to resume their careers.

It seems others can't accept entirely legitimate democratic protests they disagree with, or that some people still believe the complainant.

brendanwalsh

Anyone able to send a copy of the comments posted by the juror ? Thanks

Uncharted

This thread is proving to be a microcosm of the 'new woke female' attitude.

Full of vitriol and bile. Offended for the sake of being offended. Spinning lies and falsehoods to bolster any case,even ones that have been resolved in a court of law.

Imagine some of these will go on to be parents to young kids. Imagine the endless gender neutral,entitled sjw,perma-offended,hateful brainwashing that will take place. It's truly grim. It's gonna be a very scary world to be a man.

pjohnson

Plenty, argubaly most men are for repeal, despise rapists, want women to get equal opportunities be it job opportunities or pay etc.

People men (AND women) have said the marches and hashtags and the likes are a crock of shíte. But then a certain type of feminist start rabbiting on about "red pill" and how men hate women (despite I guess women hating women if they agree???).


No one with a quarter of a braincell should generalise people based on a cóck or vagína. Males can be stupid, females can be stupid. One stupid male does not represent all males one stupid woman does not represent all women.

Certain people want to turn everything into a gender issue.

pjohnson

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Glad everyone thinks I'm an ex pro rugby player but no, just a big standard average amateur!

Johnny Wilkinson then :P

Depp

Deleted User wrote: »

When I read that in the papers, it really brought home to me the difference between ROI and NI trials.

Public (excepting journalists) aren't allowed in ROI rape trials- I never knew that. And I don't see why they needed the video link on her throughout testimony for the public to see in the NI trial- obviously it's their legal system.

I can understand why the jury need to be able to read the body language etc of ANYONE giving testimony- but why the public?

Yeah it seems very unfair that the public would have access at all, definitely not the right way to go about it. Just seems perverse to have a gallery of gawkers in for such a sensitive issue. Anonymity for both parties like here is a much better way of doing it aswel the way the case was dragged through social/conventional media has been disgusting at times.

pjohnson

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A lot of the neurotic, women-hating goading post-trial is certainly tied into alt-right thinking.

I can accept a verdict and I think most people can. I can accept that the defendants have the right to resume their careers.

It seems others can't accept entirely legitimate democratic protests they disagree with, or that some people still believe the complainant.

I cant remember if I'm PC or alt-right anymore. I have been called both so many times. Its almost like I can think independently and reach different answers on different topics.

Dyr

Any chance that Aoidhan O'Riordain will wind up spending some time in Mountjoy? Silver lining and all that?

LynnGrace

Deleted User wrote: »

She sat in a separate room viewing the trial on a video screen after she gave testimony. Throughout her testimony however, while she was screened from the general public, she was on a video screen displayed to all. Only the judge, the jury and the barristers could see her, but she was displayed on video screen to the public when providing testimony.

(I think the above was documented in the Irish Times but can't locate the actual article right now)

That was my understanding also from the Times article. It was linked on here yesterday. It is worth reading, I will see if I can find it again.

Church on Tuesday

It's a murky and lurid mess.

None of us here will ever truly know what went on that night.

And yeah lads, not all lads, tend to be pretty cavalier about their sexual exploits and general attitude toward women in general.

At the end of the day it really is a question of respect. But, and lets be honest here, once you add copious amounts of alcohol into a situation like this, common sense, respect etc tends to go out the window a bit. It can lead to a lot of confusion.

That goes for both genders BTW.

hill16bhoy

Uncharted wrote: »

This thread is proving to be a microcosm of the 'new woke female' attitude.

Full of vitriol and bile. Offended for the sake of being offended. Spinning lies and falsehoods to bolster any case,even ones that have been resolved in a court of law.

Imagine some of these will go on to be parents to young kids. Imagine the endless gender neutral,entitled sjw,perma-offended,hateful brainwashing that will take place. It's truly grim. It's gonna be a very scary world to be a man.

Yeah, as a man myself, I'm desperately, desperately scared.

Sure I can't even walk down to the shop for a newspaper and 20 cigarettes and the "libtard patrol" want to put me in jail because I'm not transgender.

"Offended for the sake of being offended" is a real good one.

Depp

Depp wrote: »

Yeah it seems very unfair that the public would have access at all, definitely not the right way to go about it. Just seems perverse to have a gallery of gawkers in for such a sensitive issue. Anonymity for both parties like here is a much better way of doing it aswel the way the case was dragged through social/conventional media has been disgusting at times.

Justice can still be "seen" to be done in public- i.e. the Jury has full view/access to everything, and of course, the journalists. Maybe they'll reconsider after this trial and amend their laws relating to such trials.

There were reports in the papers of people fighting over seats- a true "circus" for such a serious and grave case- pure public voyeurism.

LynnGrace

LynnGrace wrote: »

That was my understanding also from the Times article. It was linked on here yesterday. It is worth reading, I will see if I can find it again.

If it's the same article, it was actually very good- it outlined all of the key facts of the case throughout- a good piece of journalism