Protests about rape today in Ireland

bertsmom

I don't think that the answer lies in making everything in the justice system easier or shorter.
Repeated questions are very nessecary in a lot of cases and can reveal inconsistencies. The actual truth is very easy to be consistent in while repeating oneself.
The horrific trauma a person suffers being raped is I doubt going to be exacerbated by having justice served but I dont think the trauma of being falsely accused of rape and the accuser just having to hold on to their story for a limited amount of questioning is in the interest of justice.
The truth is able to stand up to robust questioning and if it takes time it takes time. I think that justice being served is in any true victims best interests but I think it should be justice for all. Not just the alleged victim being made comfortable to make accusations that due to time and sensitivity go unquestioned.

splinter65

Caranica wrote: »

Marches were in support of her, and sexual assault victims down here and a cry for the updating of procedures around sexual assault cases. I saw one placard against one of the four, yet hundreds saying "I/we stand with her".

You keep telling us how you want procedures “updated” but can’t give us an example of what you would ideally like to happen.

splinter65

Fann Linn wrote: »

She was the main witness for the prosecution. Do you think she shouldn't have to give evidence?

I have come to the conclusion that the answer is yes, some people feel that the accuser in a sexual assault trial shouldn’t have to give evidence or be cross examined at all.
I come to this conclusion because posters on this thread have been asked what changes/improvements/updating they would like to the judicial system surrounding sexual assault trials.
One or two vague replies but nothing that wasn’t ridiculous.

splinter65

Stheno wrote: »

That was the big problem with this case it was like four trials in one

Would you have preferred that the main witness have to attend 4 different trials each lasting say 3 weeks and be asked the same questions in front of 4 different juries?

LLMMLL

splinter65 wrote: »

I have come to the conclusion that the answer is yes, some people feel that the accuser in a sexual assault trial shouldn’t have to give evidence or be cross examined at all.
I come to this conclusion because posters on this thread have been asked what changes/improvements/updating they would like to the judicial system surrounding sexual assault trials.
One or two vague replies but nothing that wasn’t ridiculous.

I guess it's easy to claim that if you ignore sensible responses.

LLMMLL

bertsmom wrote: »

I don't think that the answer lies in making everything in the justice system easier or shorter.
Repeated questions are very nessecary in a lot of cases and can reveal inconsistencies. The actual truth is very easy to be consistent in while repeating oneself.
The horrific trauma a person suffers being raped is I doubt going to be exacerbated by having justice served but I dont think the trauma of being falsely accused of rape and the accuser just having to hold on to their story for a limited amount of questioning is in the interest of justice.
The truth is able to stand up to robust questioning and if it takes time it takes time. I think that justice being served is in any true victims best interests but I think it should be justice for all. Not just the alleged victim being made comfortable to make accusations that due to time and sensitivity go unquestioned.

I think that's a bit of a law and order to show type view where the lawyer manages to catch a witness In a slip up and save the day. In reality, Even if a complainant was lying, by the time they come to testify (a year or two later) their version will have solidified and I imagine they're very unlikely to change their answers.

splinter65

LLMMLL wrote: »

I guess it's easy to claim that if you ignore sensible responses.

I haven’t seen any responses that make any sense. I’ve seen the main witness described as a victim and repeated suggestions that main witnesses need a legal advisor in court to protect their “well being”.
I’ve seen a suggestion that once a defense solicitor for one defendant has asked a question of the main witness then another defense solicitor cannot ask the same question on the instructions of his/her client.
Have I missed something?

Stheno

splinter65 wrote: »

Would you have preferred that the main witness have to attend 4 different trials each lasting say 3 weeks and be asked the same questions in front of 4 different juries?

That wasnt my point. My point was that this was a much more complex case than normal which lead to the complainant being cross examined by four barristers each representing an individual, all of whom are entitled to due proces

meeeeh

Stheno wrote: »

That wasnt my point. My point was that this was a much more complex case than normal which lead to the complainant being cross examined by four barristers each representing an individual, all of whom are entitled to due proces

Don't bother, he intentionally miss-represents poster's points and then ridicules them.

LLMMLL

splinter65 wrote: »

I haven’t seen any responses that make any sense. I’ve seen the main witness described as a victim and repeated suggestions that main witnesses need a legal advisor in court to protect their “well being”.
I’ve seen a suggestion that once a defense solicitor for one defendant has asked a question of the main witness then another defense solicitor cannot ask the same question on the instructions of his/her client.
Have I missed something?

Well you may not agree with any of those but they're not particularly vague and they're certainly not ridiculous. You then conclude that what people actually want is for her not to be questioned at all. Now that conclusion actually is ridiculous.

splinter65

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well you may not agree with any of those but they're not particularly vague and they're certainly not ridiculous. You then conclude that what people actually want is for her not to be questioned at all. Now that conclusion actually is ridiculous.

Of course it’s riduculous. Witnesses don’t need legal advice. They are not on trial. They need to answer the questions asked of them as truthfully as they can.
If I’m accused I want my legal representative to ask the witness the questions pertinent to my case.
I don’t give a rats arse if the witness was already asked those question by someone else’s legal team.
Don’t you?

LLMMLL

splinter65 wrote: »

Of course it’s riduculous. Witnesses don’t need legal advice. They are not on trial. They need to answer the questions asked of them as truthfully as they can.
If I’m accused I want my legal representative to ask the witness the questions pertinent to my case.
I don’t give a rats arse if the witness was already asked those question by someone else’s legal team.
Don’t you?

I don't give a rat's arse is your argument that preventing repeated questioning is ridiculous? There's lots of things I don't give a rat's arse about, does that make them ridiculous?

bertsmom

Repeated questioning is often what eventually gets to the truth. I don't think it's a sound idea to go trying to prevent this!

LLMMLL

bertsmom wrote: »

Repeated questioning is often what eventually gets to the truth. I don't think it's a sound idea to go trying to prevent this!

Maybe on TV....

splinter65

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't give a rat's arse is your argument that preventing repeated questioning is ridiculous? There's lots of things I don't give a rat's arse about, does that make them ridiculous?

I said (you know this perfectly well) if I am being accused in the wrong, along with others, and am pleading not guilty, then I want MY solicitor to do the best job he/she can do for ME.
If that involves a witness being asked the same questions they’ve already been asked by someone else’s solicitor then I don’t give a rats arse wether the witness likes being asked the questions or not.
Do you or do you not agree that a defendant is allowed to defend him or herself from false allegations?

bertsmom

LLMMLL wrote:

Maybe on TV....

Well due to a horrible experience for a very close friend I can tell you no it's not just on tv!
Real life

splinter65

LLMMLL wrote: »

Maybe on TV....

I do a job where some mild questioning of customers is essential.
Sometimes people need to be asked the same question in 5 different ways before their memory is jogged into life.
It’s not being deceitful or secretive on their behalf it’s mostly just not remembering or not thinking that that obscure piece of information is relative to the subject in hand.

LLMMLL

splinter65 wrote: »

I said (you know this perfectly well) if I am being accused in the wrong, along with others, and am pleading not guilty, then I want MY solicitor to do the best job he/she can do for ME.
If that involves a witness being asked the same questions they’ve already been asked by someone else’s solicitor then I don’t give a rats arse wether the witness likes being asked the questions or not.
Do you or do you not agree that a defendant is allowed to defend him or herself from false allegations?

Absolutely, but I don't think that means a line of questioning that has been pursued by 1 barrister should be repeated by another, as I it's a competition as to who has the best barrister with the loser being found guilty. Once the jury are aware of a fact they are aware of it. I don't see how it's beneficial to justice to have the same answers be elicited by a different barrister.

Now you're free to disagree, I've no issue with that. But you're claim is that nobody has put forward an idea that isn't vague or ridiculous. Just because you don't "give a rat's arse" if questions are repeated to a complainant, extending their time under questioning doesn't make the idea that it might be prevented ridiculous or vague.

LLMMLL

splinter65 wrote: »

I do a job where some mild questioning of customers is essential.
Sometimes people need to be asked the same question in 5 different ways before their memory is jogged into life.
It’s not being deceitful or secretive on their behalf it’s mostly just not remembering or not thinking that that obscure piece of information is relative to the subject in hand.

And you think that's going to happen in a trial 2 years later where the complainant has had 2 years to think about it and gets to review her witness statement before the trial? A rape trials a bit different than a customer complaint....

splinter65

LLMMLL wrote: »

And you think that's going to happen in a trial 2 years later where the complainant has had 2 years to think about it and gets to review her witness statement before the trial? A rape trials a bit different than a customer complaint....

I don’t work in “customer complaints”.

splinter65

I see a lot of people in social media with passionately held views about how this trial was unfair have become very silent since one of the aquitted has threatened to sue.
I read today that his legal team are monitoring all SM platforms in this regard.
Do you think that this will cause people to be more cautious about what they say?
It’s going to be embarrassing for Senator O’Riordan.

meeeeh

Paddy Jackson has to resurrect his career and needs Twitter to stop branding him as rapist. I would guess he won't sue anyone but his legal team will do enough to turn the noise down. Weather that will be enough to save his career is another question.

splinter65

meeeeh wrote: »

Paddy Jackson has to resurrect his career and needs Twitter to stop branding him as rapist. I would guess he won't sue anyone but his legal team will do enough to turn the noise down. Weather that will be enough to save his career is another question.

Well anyone involved in the the libeling and slander ( still actionable in NI) should go right ahead with expressing their outrage if they have the courage of their convictions but I see an astonishing silence has descended since his law team issued a warning.
Just goes to show how much of the “protest” is rabble rabble rabble bandwagon jumping.
#ibelieveher (but not if I’m going to have to defend myself).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_

bluewolf wrote: »

It's disappointing that a number of people don't understand that people can believe her while also accepting there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
It's disappointing that these protests are being so protested, but not the "jail the lying slut" comments. A lot of people on reddit eg seem to think believing her means we all want people to be automatically locked up

That irish times article is interesting. I know only that we have more anonymity for both parties which i think is important.
Did anyone see the change iceland has just made about active consent?

To be honest, bluewolf, I’m disappointed that intelligent women of my acquaintance don’t understand how these protests are undermining the justice system. People have latched on to the ‘Not guilty does not mean innocent’ mantra. It’s a neat line but, fleshing it out a bit, what are people saying here? That there is a presumption of innocent before the verdict but not after? In practical terms, these men must be allowed to get on with their lives. The justice system is far from perfect but the burden of proof must be high, otherwise we’d see innocent people being convicted a lot more. I saw a tweet from an #IBelieveHer tweeter the other that said that she would rather four innocent men were jailed than one guilty one go free. I remain gobsmacked. It’s terrifying that there exists people who think that way.

And another thought that crossed my mind: is the woman at the centre of the trial comfortable with the media reaction since the verdict was announced? Has anyone asked her? I said in the AH thread that I’d be reluctant to report it if I was raped. One of the reasons would be that I wouldn’t be comfortable with there being protests in my name in the event of a not guilty verdict.

LLMMLL

_Dara_ wrote: »

To be honest, bluewolf, I’m disappointed that intelligent women of my acquaintance don’t understand how these protests are undermining the justice system. People have latched on to the ‘Not guilty does not mean innocent’ mantra. It’s a neat line but, fleshing it out a bit, what are people saying here? That there is a presumption of innocent before the verdict but not after? In practical terms, these men must be allowed to get on with their lives. The justice system is far from perfect but the burden of proof must be high, otherwise we’d see innocent people being convicted a lot more. I saw a tweet from an #IBelieveHer tweeter the other that said that she would rather four innocent men were jailed than one guilty one go free. I remain gobsmacked. It’s terrifying that there exists people who think that way.

And another thought that crossed my mind: is the woman at the centre of the trial comfortable with the media reaction since the verdict was announced? Has anyone asked her? I said in the AH thread that I’d be reluctant to report it if I was raped. One of the reasons would be that I wouldn’t be comfortable with there being protests in my name in the event of a not guilty verdict.

Anything to do with the trial only applies to the trial and criminal legal system. There is no obligation on people to think of that person as innocent or treat them as such.

While I don't think some of the protesters know much about the legal system or care to find out more about it, they are free to draw their own conclusions about the innocence/guilt of the accused from what they've read or heard.

Innocent until proven guilty really only applies to "in the eyes of the law".

Fann Linn

LLMMLL wrote: »

Anything to do with the trial only applies to the trial and criminal legal system. There is no obligation on people to think of that person as innocent or treat them as such.

While I don't think some of the protesters know much about the legal system or care to find out more about it, they are free to draw their own conclusions about the innocence/guilt of the accused from what they've read or heard.

Innocent until proven guilty really only applies to "in the eyes of the law".

What else is there if it's only applying 'in the eyes of the law'?
A really peculiar observation to make.
You do know that it is legislation which is at the heart of the foundation of a society

splinter65

Fann Linn wrote: »

What else is there if it's only applying 'in the eyes of the law'?
A really peculiar observation to make.
You do know that it is legislation which is at the heart of the foundation of a society

And the basis of democracy. You can’t only want democracy if the democratic desicions all go your way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LLMMLL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think anything you've said follows from what I've said.

I said that people are free to draw their own conclusions. That does not automatically mean these people will support the complainant. There's an article in the independent today about how some members of the public at the trial were jeering at her and laughing at her answers.

Also I am not against protecting the accused's anonymity during a trial. But even if this were the case, there is no onus on me to agree with a verdict. Say all I knew is that 4 men were facing similar charges that PJ and co were facing but I only heard them referred to as Mr A B C and D. If these men were found not guilty I still would not know who they are. However, I'm perfectly entitled to examine the reported evidence and say "actually, I think mr A was did rape her".

You can actually see this in civil cases. Often people are found not guilty In a criminal case but later sued In a civil case and found to be liable. The not guilty verdict Ina criminal case is not the final word on these matters.

I also never mentioned convicting someone based on the complainants say so. I don't know who you're arguing against here but it's not me.

the_pen_turner

once your name is tarnished there is no going back.
case in point . of these 4 men. 2 were acused of rape, one of exposing himself and the other of covering it up. all found not guilty
so 2 of them were never acused of rape or havig sex with the woman but they are being called rapists by loads of people

meeeeh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And woman who was raped will be forever living with consequences of rape even if rapist is never convicted. That is how crime works, it doesn't end with court.

As for this case I wouldn't be comfortable to send someone to prison with evidence presented but I believe more the woman than four men. They were found innocent, they have the right not to be defamed in media or social media but that is about it. Talking to someone sitting around dinner table I have no problem expressing my opinion of their actions and of their character.

Their rugby career in Irelan is probably over not because of rape charges but because of what's app messages. I think it would be hard to find a woman (and many men) who wouldn't feel absolutely sickened and degraded by stuff written in those messages. Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding have the right to play rugby and rugby fans have the right not to want to see them line up for Ireland (or Ulster). It's up to IRFU to decide but in this they are not innocent victims. They were cleared of rape charges but those messages were written by them.

Fann Linn

meeeeh wrote: »

And woman who was raped will be forever living with consequences of rape even if rapist is never convicted. That is how crime works, it doesn't end with court.

As for this case I wouldn't be comfortable to send someone to prison with evidence presented but I believe more the woman than four men. They were found innocent, they have the right not to be defamed in media or social media but that is about it. Talking to someone sitting around dinner table I have no problem expressing my opinion of their actions and of their character.

Their rugby career in Irelan is probably over not because of rape charges but because of what's app messages. I think it would be hard to find a woman (and many men) who wouldn't feel absolutely sickened and degraded by stuff written in those messages. Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding have the right to play rugby and rugby fans have the right not to want to see them line up for Ireland (or Ulster). It's up to IRFU to decide but in this they are not innocent victims. They were cleared of rape charges but those messages were written by them.

One message by Jackson.

meeeeh

Fann Linn wrote: »

One message by Jackson.

And it wasn't: show more respect to the woman (women).

Fann Linn

meeeeh wrote: »

And it wasn't: show more respect to the woman (women).

Ill get the link later. I'm watching a rugby match at the moment.

goose2005

Addle wrote: »

Why does anyone need representation if they're telling the truth, as they claim?

The issue is, is that she is not the plaintiff, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is.

bilbot79

It may be a bitter pill to swallow but those boys have rights. Remember there were 4 individuals on trial. Individuals are tried in courts, not prevailing opinions. Time to move on folks

LLMMLL

bilbot79 wrote: »

It may be a bitter pill to swallow but those boys have rights. Remember there were 4 individuals on trial. Individuals are tried in courts, not prevailing opinions. Time to move on folks

What rights are being violated?

eviltwin

bilbot79 wrote: »

It may be a bitter pill to swallow but those boys have rights. Remember there were 4 individuals on trial. Individuals are tried in courts, not prevailing opinions. Time to move on folks

They are men.

the_pen_turner

LLMMLL wrote: »

What rights are being violated?

the right not to be defamed
the right to a fair trial
the rigth to walk down the street as a free man.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the right not to be defamed
the right to a fair trial
the rigth to walk down the street as a free man.

They have those second two unless you think they got an unfair trial?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty really only applies to "in the eyes of the law".

Ah thats grand so.
Proclaimed innocent in front of the courts and by a jury of our peers who sat through day upon day of evidence, while in the eyes of everyone else who was not in the court room and who get their information in 140 characters they are guilty of rape.

Thats great!

Seriously people, are we losing our minds here? Where are the sensible women to take back debate from this lunacy?

markodaly

LLMMLL wrote: »

You can actually see this in civil cases. Often people are found not guilty In a criminal case but later sued In a civil case and found to be liable. The not guilty verdict Ina criminal case is not the final word on these matters.

Actually, on this basis has this ever happened in a rape case in Ireland? I keep hearing about civil cases as if this would be a given that the four lads would be found guilty, yet have never heard about such a case in Ireland.

NIMAN

Why is Coppinger front and centre of these protests?

Has she ever said she was the victim of a serial assault?

Or is she just clever and raising her profile?

And why is it the likes of Solidarity, PBP, AAA leading these? I'm wondering would a FG women TD be welcomed front and centre?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Seriously people, are we losing our minds here? Where are the sensible women to take back debate from this lunacy?

You called? :pac:

The four men have been found not guilty. Now I may have my own view as to how that came about, whether or not they were lying or was it a case of that night being perceived one way by the accuser and another by the accused. We are where we are. I respect the integrity of the law. I respect a person's right to bring a charge and to stand up for themselves. I respect the right of everyone involved to be left to get on with their lives.

markodaly

meeeeh wrote: »

They were cleared of rape charges but those messages were written by them.

On the messages, only one of those messages was written by Paddy Jackson. I am not sure which one but if could be innocuous. Ending a career for one message is a little too tyrannical for my liking.

markodaly

NIMAN wrote: »

Why is Coppinger front and centre of these protests?

Has she ever said she was the victim of a serial assault?

Or is she just clever and raising her profile?

And why is it the likes of Solidarity, PBP, AAA leading these? I'm wondering would a FG women TD be welcomed front and centre?

For Ruth, its any port in a storm. They will hitch their wagon to anything or any protest that will give them some media.

I sincerely hope she loses her seat in the next election.

NIMAN

markodaly wrote: »

For Ruth, its any port in a storm. They will hitch their wagon to anything or any protest that will give them some media.

I sincerely hope she loses her seat in the next election.

So do I, but this carry on will get her a lot of votes with the crazies.

Seth Brundle

Braydon Plain Rust wrote: »

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the right not to be defamed
the right to a fair trial
the rigth to walk down the street as a free man.

They have those second two unless you think they got an unfair trial?

So you believe that they dont have the right not to be defamed?