Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

KikiLaRue

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And while many on this thread in AH decry the way a certain rugby player's career is hampered by a rape case the same people are quite happy to see the career of a certain entertainer ruined over nothing other than allegations.

Maybe it's because rugby players are supposed to be cool the the certain entertainer is annoying.

I think they’re both scumbags, if that consistency makes you feel better.

dont bother

Faugheen wrote: »

No no Francie, you have this wrong, again.

You cannot definitively say what the jury thought happened that night. All you can say is that they couldn't convict beyond reasonable doubt.

How many times have we had this discussion and you keep making **** up to suit your own narrative.

So how come you can "definitively say" that the "jury didnt come to the conclusion" - they could have, were you in the room?

they were found not guilty, no amount of saying what the jury thought, or otherwise will change the fact that they are not guilty of rape.
they are not guilty.
the jury decided that they were not guilty, there was no way to prove that they were guilty, indicating that they are NOT GUILTY.
whats so hard to grasp - it's as simple as that.
you were not there when it happened, nor in the courtroom, so you are only proving you have an agenda by trying to twist things to YOUR narrative.

NOT GUILTY

is_that_so

Machina wrote: »

Just listen to yourself. The 'values of the sport'. Why does a successfull spokesperson have to embody those so-called values? Maradona was one of the greatest soccer players to ever walk onto a pitch. He wasn't the embodiment of soccer then and he certainly isn't now. He was selfish in a way that team player aren't supposed to be, he didn't have that particular 'value'. Kids looked up to him because he was a brilliant soccer player, not because he was a virtuous human being. It's your job to raise your kids.

Well lookee here, a poster who really does need to be mansplained. Look at yourself, venting your spleen over an explanation. What other things am I doing wrong with my life pray tell? :rolleyes:

Machina

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And while many on this thread in AH decry the way a certain rugby player's career is hampered by a rape case the same people are quite happy to see the career of a certain entertainer ruined over nothing other than allegations.

I was listening to the Filmspotting podcast yesterday and they were having a discussion about Se7en. They referred to all of the actors by name but only referred to 'John Doe' when discussing Kevin Spacey, John Doe of course being that character's name in the film.

There's clearly massive questions hanging over Spacey and he's admitted to seeking help for his 'issues', but I just thought it was interesting to see how he, as an actor, was being written out of history by the presenters of this particular show.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

even if you believe he didnt rape her his behaviour in general towards women is absolutely appalling. that is reason enough to dislike him and want nothing to do with him.

No argument from me. I think he's massively disappointed anyone who's ever been involved with his rearing. That this was going to follow him in his rugby career was obvious. A smarter individual might have reflected on other life options post-trial.

Timberrrrrrrr

dont bother wrote: »

So how come you can "definitively say" that the "jury didnt come to the conclusion" - they could have, were you in the room?

they were found not guilty, no amount of saying what the jury thought, or otherwise will change the fact that they are not guilty of rape.
they are not guilty.
the jury decided that they were not guilty, there was no way to prove that they were guilty, indicating that they are NOT GUILTY.
whats so hard to grasp - it's as simple as that.
you were not there when it happened, nor in the courtroom, so you are only proving you have an agenda by trying to twist things to YOUR narrative.

NOT GUILTY

Me and francie actually agree on something!

I need to have a lie down

upandcumming

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

even if you believe he didnt rape her his behaviour in general towards women is absolutely appalling. that is reason enough to dislike him and want nothing to do with him.

What behaviour was that?
One message in a group chat? Let a girl leave his house CRYING?

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No. I didn’t. If you read more carefully, the thought experiment was that we KNOW for a fact that X is guilty (not that we assume it).

Although we know it, we don’t have the evidence we need to prove it in court.

So X will be found not guilty even though he/she is guilty.

How do you 'know'?
If you seen him do it, then you are a witness. To be used in 'evidence against' him.

If you concluded before the case that he is guilty, then you either have evidence to back it up or you have assumed guilt.

Machina

is_that_so wrote: »

Well lookee here, a poster who really does need to be mansplained. Look at yourself, venting your spleen over an explanation. What other things am I doing wrong with my life pray tell? :rolleyes:

Well you could start by expressing yourself like an adult.

Cryptopagan

Machina wrote: »

About 20 years ago a guy in my area was convicted of rape and was sent to prison. His mother wouldn't let it rest and brought it to every tabloid in the country, the Joe Duffy type broadcasters, the works. The guards became involved, the case was looked at again and the complainant eventually broke down and said she lied about crucial evidence to secure a conviction because she wanted someone to pay for what she went through. The lad was released and tried to get on with his life but in my small little hometown everyone thinks he's a rapist. His life has been ruined. It's so unfair.

If it’s been all over the media why don’t you post a link to a story about it?

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Me and francie actually agree on something!

I need to have a lie down

No, you just have to prepare for the possibility that you may be showing signs of approaching normality.

Machina

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If it’s been all over the media why don’t you post a link to a story about it?

And why on earth would I want to do that given the very nature of my post?

If you have trouble believing that there are such things as miscarriages of justice, then that's on you.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

what does not being convicted mean, legally?


jesus christ

Being found not guilty just means they weren't found guilty. That's all.

suicide_circus wrote: »

so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

Kinda. Juries are not tasked with finding someone innocent. they can't do that. They are tasked with finding that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. If there isn't, then the accused are let go.

A good example of this is the OJ case. The jury felt there wasn't enough evidence. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. It just means they couldn't determine that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now there are some people who are completely exonerated in a trial because of the evidence. take for example the guildford four. There's no suggestion that they did what they were accused of. However (and I'm sure there are people who know more than me) there are options, depending on jurisdictions, to have convictions set aside or expunged.
However for someone who wasn't convicted, I don't believe they have that option.

Cryptopagan

Machina wrote: »

And why on earth would I want to do that given the very nature of my post?

If you have trouble believing that there are such things as miscarriages of justice, then that's on you.

You can’t because you are making it up. If such a thing happened in Ireland we’d have all heard about it anyhow.

Grayson

salmocab wrote: »

Everyone is forgetting as soon as the case was over it became about the what’s apps not the case, he was terrible for his input into the what’s app group, despite his input being the tamest. The other lads weren’t as well known so nobody cared about them but the 2 famous lads were hounded out.
The twitter mob only cared about the famous lads never about the girl or the other lads.

Deleting the messages is what got me. They deliberately deleted evidence.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Being found not guilty just means they weren't found guilty. That's all.



Kinda. Juries are not tasked with finding someone innocent. they can't do that. They are tasked with finding that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. If there isn't, then the accused are let go.

A good example of this is the OJ case. The jury felt there wasn't enough evidence. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. It just means they couldn't determine that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now there are some people who are completely exonerated in a trial because of the evidence. take for example the guildford four. There's no suggestion that they did what they were accused of. However (and I'm sure there are people who know more than me) there are options, depending on jurisdictions, to have convictions set aside or expunged.
However for someone who wasn't convicted, I don't believe they have that option.

you are speaking as if there wasnt a trial

there was

verdict not guilty

youre trying to church up "i still think they did it"

but all you are saying is "i still think they did it"

which, yknow, fair play to you on having that opinion

salmocab

Grayson wrote: »

Deleting the messages is what got me. They deliberately deleted evidence.

Yeah there was a suggestion that deleting messages and that they all met up before doing to the police was sinister but if they all met up and came out with completely different stories then they are either idiots or told what they all believed to be the truth.
Honestly I don’t think they are guilty of anything more than being knobs but if everyone I thought was a knob was hounded out of town by social media users I’d be living in a city of about 40 people.

Machina

Cryptopagan wrote: »

You can’t because you are making it up. If such a thing happened in Ireland we’d have all heard about it anyhow.

I'm not going to give you his name or spend my morning thrawlimg through internet archives looking for tabloid articles from circa 97-99, assuming they even exist in digital format. You say I'm lying. I say I'm not. It wouldn't be the first time that happened on a forum.

take everything

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I think it’s more the case that as I mentioned above jurors may think “possibly guilty but this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Like imagine if someone robbed a bank but there was no CCTV, DNA evidence or witnesses. There’s only one guy in town who could have pulled it off and it WAS him. The cops can’t get a conviction because they don’t have sufficient evidence but the guy still did it. He’ll be found not guilty in court, which is the correct outcome in the absence of the required evidence, but he is still guilty of doing it.

I don't really want to get into this but in that analogy would you also include a woman who testified that what she saw wasn't a robbery.
And maybe ask why a woman would say that.

Laois_Man

Grayson wrote: »

Kinda. Juries are not tasked with finding someone innocent. they can't do that. They are tasked with finding that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. If there isn't, then the accused are let go.

So a person is not innocent until proven guilty?

crossman47

Cryptopagan wrote: »

You can’t because you are making it up. If such a thing happened in Ireland we’d have all heard about it anyhow.

We did hear about such a case in the last few years. I don't recall the detail but think it was in the west of Ireland.

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

if everyone I thought was a knob was hounded out of town by social media users I’d be living in a city of about 40 people.

jesus sign me up to this tbf

Cryptopagan

Machina wrote: »

I'm not going to give you his name or spend my morning thrawlimg through internet archives looking for tabloid articles from circa 97-99, assuming they even exist in digital format. You say I'm lying. I say I'm not. It wouldn't be the first time that happened on a forum.

Ok, so it’s a major miscarriage of justice in which a man was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, which was only opened up again after his mother campaigned in tabloids and “Joe Duffy” type broadcasts, but despite this, it’s not something we all heard about already, you can’t give out his name, and it’s not possible to easily find articles about it from the era online, because only tabloids reported on it.

Dude, it’s obviously made up.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

you are speaking as if there wasnt a trial

there was

verdict not guilty

youre trying to church up "i still think they did it"

but all you are saying is "i still think they did it"

which, yknow, fair play to you on having that opinion

I was explaining exactly what a verdict of "not guilty" meant.

It's a fact that it means what it means. It's not a narrative. It's not a story. It's what it means. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It also doesn't mean guilty. It just means that the jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict.

Cryptopagan

crossman47 wrote: »

We did hear about such a case in the last few years. I don't recall the detail but think it was in the west of Ireland.

Oh well, it can’t be this one, cause this happened way back circa “97-99”, that notorious media blackhole for which no records exist.

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you are speaking as if there wasnt a trial

there was

verdict not guilty

youre trying to church up "i still think they did it"

but all you are saying is "i still think they did it"

which, yknow, fair play to you on having that opinion

Sometimes guilty people get away with it.

I won’t try and dress it up: I think they did it.

I think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually realise what they were doing: that having rough sex with girls was a regular occurrence and that with a few drinks on them it didn’t even occur to them to check if she was enjoying it or even consented.

All just my opinion obviously.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Sometimes guilty people get away with it.

I won’t try and dress it up: I think they did it.

I think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually realise what they were doing: that having rough sex with girls was a regular occurrence and that with a few drinks on them it didn’t even occur to them to check if she was enjoying it or even consented.

All just my opinion obviously.

im fully with that, no problem. we'll never know.

the difference being that grayson, despite protest to the contrary since, is spinning a "not guilty" as "guilty but couldnt prove it"

thats nonsense.

Machina

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Oh well, it can’t be this one, cause this happened way back circa “97-99”, that notorious media blackhole for which no records exist.

Show me how to search through the Sun or Star archives from the late 90's and I'll PM you the article.

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

im fully with that, no problem. we'll never know.

the difference being that grayson, despite protest to the contrary since, is spinning a "not guilty" as "guilty but couldnt prove it"

thats nonsense.

There definitely have been jurors in famous cases (the MJ trial was one of them I believe) who said “My opinion is that he did it but the prosecution didn’t prove it”.

In other words, he was likely guilty but the standard of proof was high and it wasn’t met.

That’s why you hear defense lawyers place so much emphasis on creating tiny holes in the prosecution’s argument: because to get their client off all they have to prove is “reasonable doubt”.

As such any small inconsistency, any minor mistake in how the evidence was handled could be enough (with the right legal team) to convince a jury to let a man they think is guilty go free based on reasonable doubt.

Those lads didn’t spend half a million pounds sterling on legal fees for nothing.

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Sometimes guilty people get away with it.

I won’t try and dress it up: I think they did it.

I think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually realise what they were doing: that having rough sex with girls was a regular occurrence and that with a few drinks on them it didn’t even occur to them to check if she was enjoying it or even consented.

All just my opinion obviously.

Should your 'opinion' or anyone else's be allowed to discriminate against them?

Cryptopagan

Machina wrote: »

Show me how to search through the Sun or Star archives from the late 90's and I'll PM you the article.

If something like that happened the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE would all have reported it, and it would be possible to link to some sort of evidence, unless you think someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a regular thing not considered newsworthy by Irish court reporters (and after his mam rang up Joe Duffy and everything...sorry, rang up Joe Duffy “types”).

Anyhow, I won’t drag things off topic any further.

suicide_circus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt

Machina

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If something like that happened the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE would all have reported it, and it would be possible to link to some sort of evidence, unless you think someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a regular thing not considered newsworthy by Irish court reporters (and after his mam rang up Joe Duffy and everything...sorry, rang up Joe Duffy “types”).

Anyhow, I won’t drag things off topic any further.

You think I'm a liar. That's your prerogative.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There definitely have been jurors in famous cases (the MJ trial was one of them I believe) who said “My opinion is that he did it but the prosecution didn’t prove it”.

In other words, he was likely guilty but the standard of proof was high and it wasn’t met.

That’s why you hear defense lawyers place so much emphasis on creating tiny holes in the prosecution’s argument: because to get their client off all they have to prove is “reasonable doubt”.

As such any small inconsistency, any minor mistake in how the evidence was handled could be enough (with the right legal team) to convince a jury to let a man they think is guilty go free based on reasonable doubt.

Those lads didn’t spend half a million pounds sterling on legal fees for nothing.

i dont think theres any problem with anyone who wants to say "i think they did 'it'". i know that a juror can have reasonable doubt while still believing in someone's guilt, i dont think any of that is up for debate really

there are people who think that the "not guilty" verdict means that sponsors and clubs shouldnt be able to take a negative view of associating with these players. i think thats impossible to argue for or enforce and that's what the current revive is about, and hey theres a discussion there.

but there is no room imo for anyone to baldly state "the guys werent cleared" or any such sentiment.

you don't have to agree or like it

the guys were cleared

to try to add 'legally' to any opinion to the contrary is nonsense

FrancieBrady

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If something like that happened the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE would all have reported it, and it would be possible to link to some sort of evidence, unless you think someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a regular thing not considered newsworthy by Irish court reporters (and after his mam rang up Joe Duffy and everything...sorry, rang up Joe Duffy “types”).

Anyhow, I won’t drag things off topic any further.

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There definitely have been jurors in famous cases (the MJ trial was one of them I believe) who said “My opinion is that he did it but the prosecution didn’t prove it”.

In other words, he was likely guilty but the standard of proof was high and it wasn’t met.

The majority of them in that case stated publicly they thought he was innocent, 2 dissented after they were offered money and book deals.

In this part of the world, we are not allowed hear from Jurors.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Those lads didn’t spend half a million pounds sterling on legal fees for nothing.

I don't see how cost should have any bearing on their right to liberty TBH.

It was a very long trial with multiple defendants, given the costs associated with the legal profession, that sounds about right, if not cheap TBH.

Remember defendants are up against the state which in reality means "unlimited" funds, so they are all ready at a disadvantage.

What was their costs?

Boggles

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Just means he is not guilty, doesn't mean he is innocent.

Machina

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

If it's not reported by the Irish Times it didn't happen.

KikiLaRue

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Can you back up the first statement above?

Cryptopagan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

That’s just an example of a false allegation, not of a wrongful conviction. I know one case in Ireland where there was a wrongful conviction on foot of a false allegation, but it was against a woman (and is notable enough to have a fairly detailed Wikipedia article).

FrancieBrady

Boggles wrote: »

The majority of them in that case stated publicly they thought he was innocent, 2 dissented after they were offered money and book deals.

In this part of the world, we are not allowed hear from Jurors.



I don't see how cost should have any bearing on their right to liberty TBH.

It was a very long trial with multiple defendants, given the costs associated with the legal profession, that sounds about right, if not cheap TBH.

Remember defendants are up against the state which in reality means "unlimited" funds, so they are all ready at a disadvantage.

What was their costs?

It should also be remembered as significant that the jury threw out lesser charges as well.

That they were entirely unconvinced by the prosecution and the available evidence is abundantly clear.

KikiLaRue

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It should also be remembered as significant that the jury threw out lesser charges as well.

That they were entirely unconvinced by the prosecution and the available evidence is abundantly clear.

It’s great that you’re able to speak for those jurors better than they were able to speak for themselves, that’s some talent you have.

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Can you back up the first statement above?

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

Shemale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Says it all really, woman charged for false accusation and it's reported nowhere nationally and no outcry.

Whereas nationally all men are guilty even if found not guilty

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s great that you’re able to speak for those jurors better than they were able to speak for themselves, that’s some talent you have.

The jury have not and are barred from speaking for themselves outside a court.

In the court they threw out the rape charge and the lesser crime of sexual assault. Fact.

ive to be honest i dont like to go down the avenue of discussing false rape allegations and all that.

i think you have to accept that the majority- the vast majority- of sexual assaults dont lead to convictions and i think you have to keep that in mind when discussing these things

the difficulty in determining consent, intent, gathering evidence, the publicity or otherwise around allegations, the high bar we have as a society for legal proof- these are all far more relevant items to consider and defend/discuss before we focus on what i would think are a very low number of false allegations.

suicide_circus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

unlikley that that study from TCD would get funding let alone be published today

Shemale

Deleted User wrote: »

ive to be honest i dont like to go down the avenue of discussing false rape allegations and all that.

i think you have to accept that the majority- the vast majority- of sexual assaults dont lead to convictions and i think you have to keep that in mind when discussing these things

the difficulty in determining consent, intent, gathering evidence, the publicity or otherwise around allegations, the high bar we have as a society for legal proof- these are all far more relevant items to consider and defend/discuss before we focus on what i would think are a very low number of false allegations.

What a one sided outlook. A man who is falsely accused is still treated as guilty no matter what, his life is ruined why is that different to a victim whose life is also ruined? I know of a guy who had a false rape allegation made which the woman later admitted was false and people refer to him as "the rapist".

FrancieBrady

suicide_circus wrote: »

unlikley that that study from TCD would get funding let alone be published today

The #metoo #IBelieveHer mobs would have you believe an allegation is enough. To question it is 'victim blaming' etc.

A very dangerous road to go down not withstanding the difficulties surrounding these issues.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It should also be remembered as significant that the jury threw out lesser charges as well.

That they were entirely unconvinced by the prosecution and the available evidence is abundantly clear.

What do you mean throw out? I don't think a jury can throw out or dismiss a charge. They can judge guilty or not guilty(Please correct me if I'm wrong).