Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

salmocab

Augeo wrote: »

Given you reckon they were all lying (bullsh1t story from all suggests so.... )....do you think Jackson had sex with her?

Well you will have to show me where I said they were all lying first.

Faugheen

The only one who was absolutely lying was Blaine McIlroy. He said she had oral sex with him but even the complainant and Jackson both said that didn't happen.

I never laughed so much when Jackson's barrister cross-examined him and asked him if it was true that McIlroy's friends thought that he chatted sh*te, and McIlroy said 'yes'.

For Jackson and Olding, I think Olding's statement summed it up. He essentially said that someone clearly wasn't happy with what went on but he didn't knowingly believe she wasn't consenting.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest she wasn't consenting, but there's equally a lot of evidence to suggest Jackson and Olding weren't aware of this at the time. I don't think you can convict them based on this.

It's a sorry affair for all involved but Jackson didn't come out of it looking well at all. Public opinion was massively against him as it was, but then having his solicitor send thinly-veiled, self-entitled threats to the IRFU and UR was never going to go down well, as well as handing out lawsuits all over the shop.

It did however raise concerns about their treatment of women. This clearly wasn't the first time they had used a woman like this and clearly they found one who wasn't overly happy about it. Blaine McIlroy's whatsapp messages suggests this.

Before anyone mentions Murray and Zebo, the woman involved clearly was very happy about that.

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

I’m sorry they are well educated men if the best they could come up was the incoherent crap they did then I’d be worried about them. It was a bull **** story from all from day one and had no business in court.

salmocab wrote: »

Well you will have to show me where I said they were all lying first.

" bull **** story from all from day one"
Bull**** from all suggests they were all bull****ting....

salmocab

Augeo wrote: »

" bull **** story from all from day one"
Bull**** from all suggests they were all bull****ting....

It was bull in so far as no two accounts were the same, I think they all told it as they remember but it’s at best hazy and at worst none actually know. I haven’t a clue whether they had sex and frankly I don’t care. They all put themselves in a stupid position including the girl and there were certainly no winners except maybe a few handwringers who are happy that 2 men’s lives were ruined (the other 2 are never mentioned as they arent famous) as they are happy that the court was wrong but now claim it’s the attitude of the men as shown in a WhatsApp group that they really have a problem with.
Them lads were a bunch of dicks but the punishment they’ve received is disproportionate to them being dicks.

ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Think you might want to rethink that statement.......

(Non consensual digital penetration is rape, so not murky at all)

Iirc the lady claimed that he had full penetrative sex with her. Full as in with his mickey. That's what I was referring to as murky. He wasn't up in court for raping her with his finger.

I think you need to read what I said.

Hoboo

Faugheen wrote: »

The only one who was absolutely lying was Blaine McIlroy. He said she had oral sex with him but even the complainant and Jackson both said that didn't happen.

I never laughed so much when Jackson's barrister cross-examined him and asked him if it was true that McIlroy's friends thought that he chatted sh*te, and McIlroy said 'yes'.

For Jackson and Olding, I think Olding's statement summed it up. He essentially said that someone clearly wasn't happy with what went on but he didn't knowingly believe she wasn't consenting.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest she wasn't consenting, but there's equally a lot of evidence to suggest Jackson and Olding weren't aware of this at the time. I don't think you can convict them based on this.

It's a sorry affair for all involved but Jackson didn't come out of it looking well at all. Public opinion was massively against him as it was, but then having his solicitor send thinly-veiled, self-entitled threats to the IRFU and UR was never going to go down well, as well as handing out lawsuits all over the shop.

It did however raise concerns about their treatment of women. This clearly wasn't the first time they had used a woman like this and clearly they found one who wasn't overly happy about it. Blaine McIlroy's whatsapp messages suggests this.

Before anyone mentions Murray and Zebo, the woman involved clearly was very happy about that.

It clearly wasn't the first time she'd "used" guys like this either. Men and women 'use' each other all the time. Up and down to a stranger's bedroom all night, not the actions of an innocent angel........ there's also far more evidence to confirm she was consenting than not. I think people need to accept the courts decision. They were guilty of using degrading language on WhatsApp, as many women also do about men, and that's it.

And people need to accept the court decision regarding the costs too

Hoboo

Augeo wrote: »

And people need to accept the court decision regarding the costs too

Courts are supposed to uphold the concept of equity. I think it's a bit much to have a case taken against you, to be found innocent, and have to pay your costs. That's not equitable.

Ardent

Judge comes across as biased given her logic and disingenuous comments leading to the decision to not award legal costs. I'd be surprised if they didn't appeal.

Galwayguy35

TBH I think they might be as well off to cut their losses and leave it now, they could end up spending as much money on an appeal and still have the same outcome.

The witch hunt against these men on social media during the trial was shocking, the idea of innocent until proven guilty went out the window on this one.

Faugheen

Hoboo wrote: »

It clearly wasn't the first time she'd "used" guys like this either. Men and women 'use' each other all the time. Up and down to a stranger's bedroom all night, not the actions of an innocent angel........ there's also far more evidence to confirm she was consenting than not. I think people need to accept the courts decision. They were guilty of using degrading language on WhatsApp, as many women also do about men, and that's it.

People say she’d used lads like that before when there’s no evidence to suggest it. People couldn’t wait for her previous ‘false accusations’ to come out when the legal argument was published and accused the judge of delaying it to protect her.

The legal argument came out and there was no mention of previous false accusations, instead it all reflected badly on Jackson and Olding. If there was previous accusations then the red tops would have been all over it as another way to dramatise the story.

‘People need to accept the courts decision.’

Which is what I have done since day 1, so I don’t know why you’re aiming that at me.

On the flip side, people are also up in arms saying she should be named for filing a false accusation, arrested, shamed etc. when no court has found her guilty of anything. People should accept that verdict too.

Hoboo

Faugheen wrote: »

People say she’d used lads like that before when there’s no evidence to suggest it. People couldn’t wait for her previous ‘false accusations’ to come out when the legal argument was published and accused the judge of delaying it to protect her.

The legal argument came out and there was no mention of previous false accusations, instead it all reflected badly on Jackson and Olding. If there was previous accusations then the red tops would have been all over it as another way to dramatise the story.

‘People need to accept the courts decision.’

Which is what I have done since day 1, so I don’t know why you’re aiming that at me.

On the flip side, people are also up in arms saying she should be named for filing a false accusation, arrested, shamed etc. when no court has found her guilty of anything. People should accept that verdict too.

Sorry not aiming that at you.

My point was the phrase 'use', two people, or however many, having casual sex are all using each other for personal gratification. You're making it sound like men are the only ones doing the using. She was using them every bit as much, and her actions throughout the night don't reflect the actions of an inexperienced angel. There's no evidence of course of her past actions, but her actions that night would strongly suggest it wasn't her first time.

I'm also lost as to what evidence there was to say she didn't consent......

Sweet.Science

Most rape cases come down to one persons worrd against the other . Jurys would cry out for an eye witness to confirm one persons version of events

This case had one . It was a girl which is even a better witness in a possible rape trial . She was in the room and said she seen a consensual 3some .

How it made it to trial with an eye witness I’ll never know . This whole sh1tshow for all concerned should have been avoided

Scott Tenorman

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Most rape cases come down to one persons worrd against the other . Jurys would cry out for an eye witness to confirm one persons version of events

This case had one . It was a girl which is even a better witness in a possible rape trial . She was in the room and said she seen a consensual 3some .

How it made it to trial with an eye witness I’ll never know . This whole sh1tshow for all concerned should have been avoided

This is the witness that says she seen Jackson having sex that he denies?

Scott Tenorman

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

This is the witness that says she seen Jackson having sex that he denies?

Indeed....& the other lad in the "spitroast" claimed he didn't know / couldn't see if Jackson was using his penis or his finger.

AudreyHepburn

facehugger99 wrote: »

And you do realise if someone is found not guilty of murder, the victim isn't magically resurrected?

Seriously has to be one of the dumbest post on Boards for months.

What are you talking about?

They were found not guilty and with good reason - there is simply no evidence to suggest rape occurred.

At worst this was misunderstanding regarding consent and you can’t call a man a rapist if he genuinely didn’t realize you didn’t want it.

AudreyHepburn

Augeo wrote: »

Regarding the bolder bits..... who said there was no rape?

"albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt"

If you reckon the verdict is a representation of events you yourself are a tad naive.
Guilty folk are found not guilty daily in courts

And why shouldn’t I take the verdict as representative of what occurred?

There’s no evidence that the girl was raped or otherwise assaulted.

Mrsmum

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And why shouldn’t I take the verdict as representative of what occurred?

There’s no evidence that the girl was raped or otherwise assaulted.

Is it not more correct to say there was a reasonable doubt about what happened.

AudreyHepburn

Mrsmum wrote: »

Is it not more correct to say there was a reasonable doubt about what happened.

No - the verdict, whether you and others like it or not, was not guilty.

And if you actually followed the case you would know there was no evidence of rape and a lot of evidence that this was a misunderstanding.

BattleCorp

There's not much justice if you have to spend half a million pounds to prove your innocence.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

Is it not more correct to say there was a reasonable doubt about what happened.

Indeed.....I think last weeks judge summed things up very well.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's not much justice if you have to spend half a million pounds to prove your innocence.

He went to town on his defence obviously. I'm sure he could have spent less but then he might have been found guilty.

Mrsmum

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's not much justice if you have to spend half a million pounds to prove your innocence.

Money well spent to get a not guilty verdict.

Faugheen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No - the verdict, whether you and others like it or not, was not guilty.

And if you actually followed the case you would know there was no evidence of rape and a lot of evidence that this was a misunderstanding.

You really are missing the point.

Not guilty doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. What it does mean is that there was reasonable doubt that it did.

Those are two completely different things, and your logic is bollocks.

Scott Tenorman

Faugheen wrote: »

You really are missing the point.

Not guilty doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. What it does mean is that there was reasonable doubt that it did.

Those are two completely different things, and your logic is bollocks.

Exactly. Just because there is no conviction doesn’t mean that no crime has taken place.

Example: OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but it doesn’t mean his wife wasn’t murdered.

Mrsmum

My understand of 'not guilty' is that it has two possibilities:

1) that you are as innocent of the crime as a newborn
2}that the jury can't say for definite you did the crime ie they have reasonable doubt and so have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Some accused persons with a 'not guilty' verdict are 1) and some are 2)

joe40

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Augeo wrote: »

Regarding the bolder bits..... who said there was no rape?

"albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt"

If you reckon the verdict is a representation of events you yourself are a tad naive.
Guilty folk are found not guilty daily in courts

And why shouldn’t I take the verdict as representative of what occurred?

There’s no evidence that the girl was raped or otherwise assaulted.

I fully accept the juries verdict, but it is wrong to say there was no "evidence" of wrongdoing. The police and DPP (or nothern equivalent) don't take a case to trial unless there is evidence.
In this case the evidence was insufficient to convince a jury, but there was evidence. They don't have court cases for fun

jeffleppard

Muahahaha wrote: »

In fairness there was a strong element of cover up that came out in the trial- the day after the night before all four of the accused met in a Belfast cafe and none of them had their phones on them. If one of them forgot their phone you would say fair enough, all four of them doing so sounds strongly like the purpose of the cafe meeting was to get their stories straight and a misguided hope that the police wouldnt find out about it. Irrespective of the verdict their behaviour in the direct aftermath suggests they were trying to act in tandem before police quesioning.

That's untrue, McIlroy logged into the wifi at Soul Food and sent a WhatsApp message (see below from the messages transcript)


1:45pm JACOME member AA: “Boys, did you pass spit roast brasses” and “why are we all such legends?”

2:06pm McIlroy’s phone logs WiFi at Soul Food Café on Ormeau Road, where Jackson, Olding, McIIroy and Harrison meet for lunch.

2:31pm McIlroy to AA “why are we all such legends” and “I know it’s ridiculous.”

2:40pm: McIlroy calls fonaCAB.

Grayson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No - the verdict, whether you and others like it or not, was not guilty.

And if you actually followed the case you would know there was no evidence of rape and a lot of evidence that this was a misunderstanding.

A misunderstanding? She thought they'd raped her but it was an accident?

Sorry, I can't see how it could be a misunderstanding.

Grayson

jeffleppard wrote: »

That's untrue, McIlroy logged into the wifi at Soul Food and sent a WhatsApp message (see below from the messages transcript)


1:45pm JACOME member AA: “Boys, did you pass spit roast brasses” and “why are we all such legends?”

2:06pm McIlroy’s phone logs WiFi at Soul Food Café on Ormeau Road, where Jackson, Olding, McIIroy and Harrison meet for lunch.

2:31pm McIlroy to AA “why are we all such legends” and “I know it’s ridiculous.”

2:40pm: McIlroy calls fonaCAB.

One of the messages that wasn't deleted?

Deleting whats app messages just stinks of a cover up. It's not something anyone does.

I remember my first phone in 2000. It could hold a max of 30 messages and i used to delete them to make space. I don't think anyone has deleted anything from a message since then. We have loads of space on our phones. So why delete some messages but not others?

AudreyHepburn

Grayson wrote: »

A misunderstanding? She thought they'd raped her but it was an accident?

Sorry, I can't see how it could be a misunderstanding.

They thought she was consenting, she thought they knew she wasn’t but didn’t make it clear.

Grayson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They thought she was consenting, she thought they knew she wasn’t but didn’t make it clear.

So what you're saying is that they had sex with her when she wasn't consenting.

That's rape.

jeffleppard

Grayson wrote: »

One of the messages that wasn't deleted?

Deleting whats app messages just stinks of a cover up. It's not something anyone does.

I remember my first phone in 2000. It could hold a max of 30 messages and i used to delete them to make space. I don't think anyone has deleted anything from a message since then. We have loads of space on our phones. So why delete some messages but not others?

The transcript doesn't state that it was one of the deleted messages; regardless, it's fairly irrelevant to my original point, which was purely to point out that the claim all four of them left their phones behind to go to the cafe the next day is clearly factually incorrect

AudreyHepburn

Grayson wrote: »

So what you're saying is that they had sex with her when she wasn't consenting. I’m

That's rape.

Not if they didn’t know she didn’t want it.

You can’t condemn them because she didn’t make her feelings known clearly. They aren’t mind readers.

Grayson

jeffleppard wrote: »

The transcript doesn't state that it was one of the deleted messages; regardless, it's fairly irrelevant to my original point, which was purely to point out that the claim all four of them left their phones behind to go to the cafe the next day is clearly factually incorrect

True

My point was separate to that and I should have made it clearer.

I just can't see why they would delete a load of messages about the incident unless they were trying to cover up something.

Grayson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not if they didn’t know she didn’t want it.

You can’t condemn them because she didn’t make her feelings known clearly. They aren’t mind readers.

If you penetrate someone without their consent you are raping them.

Your point is that they didn't know that they were raping her. It's not that she wasn't raped.

AudreyHepburn

Grayson wrote: »

If you penetrate someone without their consent you are raping them.

You're point is that they didn't know that they were raping her. It's not that she wasn't raped.

I won’t argue with you on your first point. If you are clear that you don’t give consent, be it verbally or physically, and he still persists then it’s rape no question.

But given that they genuinely didn’t know she didn’t want it you can’t really claim they forced themselves on her.

Like I said - men aren’t mind readers. I believe she thinks she was raped but that the situation wasn’t that clear cut.

Muahahaha

jeffleppard wrote: »

That's untrue, McIlroy logged into the wifi at Soul Food and sent a WhatsApp message (see below from the messages transcript)
.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. But it still doesnt explain why the other three all left their phones behind. When most people leave their home keys, phone and wallet are what you always take with you. It also came out on court that there was a concerted effort to delete text messages which again suggests they were trying to get rid of any incriminating evidence. Also Harrison told McIllory : “Sorry I’m out for dinner and can’t speak. Let me know when you’re done.” and “I’d say leave your phone.” This happened before McIllroy went down to the police station for questioning. The only thing any reasonable person could take from that instruction was they didnt want the police to see the text messages.

Mrsmum

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I won’t argue with you on your first point. If you are clear that you don’t give consent, be it verbally or physically, and he still persists then it’s rape no question.

But given that they genuinely didn’t know she didn’t want it you can’t really claim they forced themselves on her.

Like I said - men aren’t mind readers. I believe she thinks she was raped but that the situation wasn’t that clear cut.

So now you have changed from saying there was "no evidence of rape" to saying "the situation wasn’t that clear cut" and that in her mind "she was raped", That's progress.

AudreyHepburn

Mrsmum wrote: »

So now you have changed from saying there was "no evidence of rape" to saying "the situation wasn’t that clear cut" and that in her mind "she was raped", That's progress.

I’ve changed nothing - I’ve felt from the beginning that there was no evidence that they knowingly forced themselves on her.

I’ve always believed there was a misunderstanding.

flatty

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’ve changed nothing - I’ve felt from the beginning that there was no evidence that they knowingly forced themselves on her.

I’ve always believed there was a misunderstanding.

That'd be my take on it too. If she were my lass I'd be livid. If he were my son,I'd be equally livid I suspect.
Anyhow, beliefs are absolutely entrenched here, so there's little point in arguing with anyone.

salmocab

flatty wrote: »

That'd be my take on it too. If she were my lass I'd be livid. If he were my son,I'd be equally livid I suspect.
Anyhow, beliefs are absolutely entrenched here, so there's little point in arguing with anyone.

This is the best comment that’s been made here.

facehugger99

Never has so much ****e been posted by one person

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There was no rape, no sexual assault, no victim.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

as regards the woman involved - tears and blood do not equal rape and to suggest otherwise is at best naive.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And if you actually followed the case you would know there was no evidence of rape and a lot of evidence that this was a misunderstanding.

But wait........

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They thought she was consenting, she thought they knew she wasn’t but didn’t make it clear.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not if they didn’t know she didn’t want it.

You can’t condemn them because she didn’t make her feelings known clearly. They aren’t mind readers.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I believe she thinks she was raped but that the situation wasn’t that clear cut.

and best of all..

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’ve changed nothing -

:rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

facehugger99 wrote: »

Never has so much ****e been posted by one person











But wait........










and best of all..



:rolleyes:

Am I not allowed to believe them innocent? Am I not allowed to believe there was a misunderstanding?

facehugger99

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Am I not allowed to believe them innocent? Am I not allowed to believe there was a misunderstanding?

You're allowed to get off the internet and stop embarrassing yourself.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're allowed to get off the internet and stop embarrassing yourself.

The difference between you and the poster you are flaming is that you cannot say they raped her and put your real name to the statement. Because there is no proof that they did. That is what the court found. The men's status as 'innocent' which they had before the case started remains fully intact.

So the laugh is on you here.

Muahahaha

I was reading that Paddy Jackons time at new club Perpignan hasnt gone too well, they have suffered 11 straight defeats in the Top 14 and three in Europe and it is almost certain that they wil be relegated. He is being linked to London Irish if they get relegated.

AudreyHepburn

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're allowed to get off the internet and stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh get off your pedestal. The only one embarrassing themselves here is you with your pathetic attempts to flame me by acting superior.

There is no evidence of rape and they have been found not guilty and the most likely scenario is that a misunderstanding occurred - it is a simple as that whether you like it or not.

mfceiling

Muahahaha wrote: »

I was reading that Paddy Jackons time at new club Perpignan hasnt gone too well, they have suffered 11 straight defeats in the Top 14 and three in Europe and it is almost certain that they wil be relegated. He is being linked to London Irish if they get relegated.

He actually has been one of their better players. He always was a talent and that won't change.

jm08

mfceiling wrote: »

He actually has been one of their better players. He always was a talent and that won't change.

I read that he was booed off the pitch by the home fans last weekend.