Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

Shefwedfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are demanding that you have no understanding of how court cases work or what a not guilty virdict means.

If it was proved in court that she lied then she would have been charged with purgery, wasting police time etc. You probably actually think that not guilty means that the defence didn't lie. The jury had reasonable doubt. No more & no less. The verdict doesn't mean one side lied & one didn't. That is a childish understanding of what happens in court

I am not demanding anything


Plus putting together a little story, none of which I said, and then accusing me of been childish is a bit odd

Portsalon

Given that PJ and SO were found not guilty in a Court of Law, isn't it remarkable that the judge who sat through that trial, heard all of the evidence and watched PJ's highly paid lawyer metaphorically screwing the accuser in the witness box, day after day, decided that they weren't entitled to have their costs paid?

I wonder what could have led her to refuse to award costs to these "completely innocent" men.

Go figure.

El_Duderino 09

Yurt! wrote: »

There is absolutely no way you could know this without having been in the deliberation room. Zero, none, no way.

Thats all the jury are asked to do so their verdict speaks for itself. The just is asked to decide whether there is reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. If so then they find not guilty. You don’t have to be in the deliberation room to know there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. That’s literally all their verdict means.

Shefwedfan

Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....

El_Duderino 09

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....

Just to clarify, are you the poster who said they think the court said he accuser lied?

Scoundrel

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I’ll make a wild assumption here and say it’s probably the first rugby match most of them will have been to.

They're not all bad so

Portsalon

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....

Correct. But bear in mind that Boards.ie is a very broad church - it also accommodates you.

Yurt2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thats all the jury are asked to do so their verdict speaks for itself. The just is asked to decide whether there is reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. If so then they find not guilty. You don’t have to be in the deliberation room to know there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. That’s literally all their verdict means.

We know what reasonable doubt means. But the poster is trying to read the minds of the jury with his post. All 12 or none could have had a twinge of reasonable doubt to 'gtfo of here, she's not a credible witness.' We'll never know. Reasonable doubt is the the legal bar, but it is of course not to say that was the jury's opinion one and all.

Sleeper12

Shefwedfan wrote:

Plus putting together a little story, none of which I said, and then accusing me of been childish is a bit odd

I stated that your understanding of court cases and the meaning of a not guilty virdict was a child like understanding. You should educate yourself about the court system before making further foolish comments.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people can make it through our education system and still don't have a clue how things in Ireland & the rest of the world work. I left school at 14 in 1982 yet this was all covered in civics class. Another poster thinks we changed from being found innocent to found not guilty specially for paddy Jackson!

ELM327

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....

You forget the good old legal riposte ultima, the personal insult.
Case in point:

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you just sound like a brainwashed child and it's belittling your arguments.

Portsalon

Portsalon wrote: »

Given that PJ and SO were found not guilty in a Court of Law, isn't it remarkable that the judge who sat through that trial, heard all of the evidence and watched PJ's highly paid lawyer metaphorically screwing the accuser in the witness box, day after day, decided that they weren't entitled to have their costs paid?

I wonder what could have led her to refuse to award costs to these "completely innocent" men.

Go figure.

I'm not familiar with this. Are the costs usually covered? Is it usually up to the judge?

El_Duderino 09

Yurt! wrote: »

We know what reasonable doubt means. But the poster is trying to read the minds of the jury with his post. All 12 or none could have had a twinge of reasonable doubt to 'gtfo of here, she's not a credible witness.' We'll never know. Reasonable doubt is the the legal bar, but it is of course not to say that was the jury's opinion one and all.

Sure. So all we know is that they had reasonable doubt. Some clown earlier said they court said the accuser lied. Now that’s just guff.

salmocab

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this. Are the costs usually covered? Is it usually up to the judge?

At the time I remember that it’s unusual to award costs in a legal case. He was never likely to get it was how I remember it was talked about at the time.

Sleeper12

Yurt! wrote:

There is absolutely no way you could know this without having been in the deliberation room. Zero, none, no way.

Another poster needing to educate themselves on the court system.

The is asked to decide if there is reasonable doubt or not. No more & no less.

salmocab

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. So all we know is that they had reasonable doubt. Some clown earlier said they court said the accuser lied. Now that’s just guff.

Well to be fair we know that at the very least they had reasonable doubt but it could and considering how quickly they came back was likely a lot higher.

Portsalon

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this. Are the costs usually covered? Is it usually up to the judge?

Most of the defendants who appear in criminal trials apply for and get free legal aid. PJ and SO were too wealthy to get it, so their only remedy was to apply for their costs afterwards - the judge declined to award them.

You'll find her reasons in the court reports which were published at the time (late 2018).

Shefwedfan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. So all we know is that they had reasonable doubt. Some clown earlier said they court said the accuser lied. Now that’s just guff.

How do you know I am right or wrong?

Shefwedfan

Portsalon wrote: »

Most of the defendants who appear in criminal trials apply for and get free legal aid. PJ and SO were too wealthy to get it, so their only remedy was to apply for their costs afterwards - the judge declined to award them.

You'll find her reasons in the court reports which were published at the time.

SO went bust and had to get legal aid halfway through the case



He was going for legal costs because he had no money left.....he was also sacked from his job with no pay off

Portsalon

Portsalon wrote: »

Most of the defendants who appear in criminal trials apply for and get free legal aid. PJ and SO were too wealthy to get it, so their only remedy was to apply for their costs afterwards - the judge declined to award them.

You'll find her reasons in the court reports which were published at the time (late 2018).

Just to clarify, you are implying that the judge somehow found them "not guilty, but not innocent" by not awarding free legal aid? Or did infer that myself

osarusan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I didn't make a judgement to say she lied, a court and a jury made that judgement.....

This notion that a not guilty verdict means the accuser must have lied comes out every time there is a not guilty verdict in a rape trial. Every time.

The irony of you going on sarcastically about the great legal minds on boards when you don't have a clue what you are on about.

NewbridgeIR

Ralph Ciffereto wrote: »

Remember the weeks and months of protests that Ruth Coppinger organised over the Nigerian Muslim convicted sex offender playing for various LOI clubs?

Oh wait, that never happened.

For reasons only the hard left can explain, a man of upper class stock acquitted of rape by a jury is more worthy of being hung drawn and quartered than an a foreign born African muslim actually convicted of an offence.

Surprised that more people haven't picked up on this.
Accordingly to the hard left, there is a hierarchy of perpetrators.
If you're middle / upper class then they show no mercy.

The underprivileged get a free pass even for violent crimes.

Portsalon

Shefwedfan wrote: »

SO went bust and had to get legal aid halfway through the case



He was going for legal costs because he had no money left.....he was also sacked from his job with no pay off

Thanks. A completely innocent man bankrupted - yet still the judge didn't award him his costs. Quite remarkable.

Wasn't he an outstandingly decent individual to have apologised to his accuser for the hurt that he had caused her, on the steps of the court immediately after the trial ended? Classy bloke.

Portsalon

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to clarify, you are implying that the judge somehow found them "not guilty, but not innocent" by not awarding free legal aid? Or did infer that myself

I'm simply throwing out what happened. It's up to each reader to form their own conclusion. That said, the judge's explanation is worth reading before jumping to any conclusions.

Shefwedfan

osarusan wrote: »

This notion that a not guilty verdict means the accuser must have lied comes out every time there is a not guilty verdict in a rape trial. Every time.

The irony of you going on sarcastically about the great legal minds on boards when you don't have a clue what you are on about.

I never said I was a great legal mind. Not like the rest of the people who on here think they know what they are going on about but majority are quoting stuff that was in press or passed on via twitter.....Two excellent sources of information


Just to show how poor the knowledge is, just look above at the "wealthy" comment which is standard with this case. SO went bust, PJ wasn't far behind him. But the private school, wealthy rugby players was all the press spun.....seems the majority of these legal eagles on here are also of the same opinion

Raconteuse

Completely innocent my hole. "Not guilty" does not mean completely innocent.

Shefwedfan

Portsalon wrote: »

Thanks. A completely innocent man bankrupted - yet still the judge didn't award him his costs. Quite remarkable.

Wasn't he an outstandingly decent individual to have apologised to his accuser for the hurt that he had caused her, on the steps of the court immediately after the trial ended? Classy bloke.

That was a quick back track, nearly fall over?

Outkast_IRE

Raconteuse wrote: »

Completely innocent my hole. "Not guilty" does not mean completely innocent.

Being an asshole is not a crime, the group messages etc. were bad alright. But it does not entitle people to hound the man for the rest of his life.

WB Yokes

Raconteuse wrote: »

Completely innocent my hole. "Not guilty" does not mean completely innocent.

Not it means the people that heard ALL the evidence decided he wasnt guilty. Innocent until proven guilty.

So hes innocent.

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

Completely innocent my hole. "Not guilty" does not mean completely innocent.

so is she completely innocent?


very dangerous game imo

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

Completely innocent my hole. "Not guilty" does not mean completely innocent.

ha. What does it mean then? It means that he isn't guilty of rape. Do you think he might be a "little bit" guilty of rape? Is it, like most things these days, "on a spectrum" of guilt when it comes to rape?

He was found not guilty. He was found to be as guilty as you were with regards to the rape of that woman.

sydthebeat

Maybe we should just change the status to "innocence maintained"....?

As in, they were innocent before the case and the jury found their innocence to be maintained through the trial?

alastair

WB Yokes wrote: »

Not it means the people that heard ALL the evidence decided he wasnt guilty. Innocent until proven guilty.

So hes innocent.

Again - the presumption of innocence begins and ends with the specific charges in the court. The verdict doesn’t make any finding of innocence. Anyone is entitled to make up their own minds as to his innocence or otherwise.

Raconteuse

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Being an asshole is not a crime, the group messages etc. were bad alright. But it does not entitle people to hound the man for the rest of his life.

No I totally agree - I don't think he should be harassed and I think the verdict has to be accepted and respected.

I just can't stand the way it's pretended he was a poor victim who did nothing wrong and that she was just a vindictive little weapon. You don't have to be a member of the pink haired brigade (or whatever - love the way the same people who keep using that term will then object to equivalent terms like "incel") to see what's wrong with this, only a decent human.

I think she consented initially (and was an eejit for going ahead with it, and should have had more self respect) but that things got out of hand, and their attitude towards her was horrendous. She should have been more responsible for herself but so should they have been more responsible for themselves.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

Maybe we should just change the status to "innocence maintained"....?

As in, they were innocent before the case and the jury found their innocence to be maintained through the trial?

They had no presumption of innocence before the trial. No such presumption exists outside a court trial.

Shefwedfan

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Being an asshole is not a crime, the group messages etc. were bad alright. But it does not entitle people to hound the man for the rest of his life.

I don't see what private group messages brought to the case?



Apart from been crass what exactly did they prove?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Again - the presumption of innocence begins and ends with the specific charges in the court. The verdict doesn’t make any finding of innocence. Anyone is entitled to make up their own minds as to his innocence or otherwise.

The verdict doesn't need to find anyone innocent, because people are innocent until proven guilty.

You are entitled to make up your own mind, but the fact remains that he has been judged to be NOT GUILTY when it comes to what you are accusing him of.

Just makes you look silly.

lalababa

What did PJ do again?? According to the court?
Worst thing people can come up with is he didn't make her a cup of tea, and see her to the door! The ba*tard ha?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

ha. What does it mean then? It means that he isn't guilty of rape. Do you think he might be a "little bit" guilty of rape? Is it, like most things these days, "on a spectrum" of guilt when it comes to rape?

He was found not guilty. He was found to be as guilty as you were with regards to the rape of that woman.

Obviously there’s a spectrum of determination of guilt. The bar in this case was ‘reasonable doubt’, which exists on a spectrum. Other jurisdictions allow for a ‘not proven’ verdict to account for this spectrum.

Shefwedfan

Raconteuse wrote: »

No I totally agree - I don't think he should be harassed and I think the verdict has to be accepted and respected.

I just can't stand the way it's pretended he was a poor victim who did nothing wrong and that she was just a vindictive little weapon. You don't have to be a member of the pink haired brigade (or whatever - love the way the same people who keep using that term will then object to equivalent terms like "incel") to see what's wrong with this, only a decent human.

Sorry but who is pretending that?


When did anyone call her a vindictive little weapon?



From what I have seen it is the opposite. No matter what the guys said or done after the case they where wealthy, rugby playing scum and she was a poor angel who just went out for a drink and they jumped her....

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

They had no presumption of innocence before the trial. No such presumption exists outside a court trial.

You keep saying this but you're clearly wrong.

Just beside you keep repeating it doesn't actually make it happen.

We have laws to protect against slander and libel which happen "outside of a court room".....

Of course, your free to think what you want, you however do not have the freedom to broadcast slanderous material.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

The verdict doesn't need to find anyone innocent, because people are innocent until proven guilty.

You are entitled to make up your own mind, but the fact remains that he has been judged to be NOT GUILTY when it comes to what you are accusing him of.

Just makes you look silly.

Nobody has any presumption of innocence except for the duration of a trial, and then it’s limited to the charges leveled against them. The verdict only tells us if the legal bar of reasonable doubt regarding those charges has been met or not. There is no determination of innocence.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

You keep saying this but you're clearly wrong.

Just beside you keep repeating it doesn't actually make it happen.

We have laws to protect against slander and libel which happen "outside of a court room".....

Of course, your free to think what you want, you however do not have the freedom to broadcast slanderous material.

I’m not wrong. If such a thing were the case, you’d have no difficulty in pointing to the appropriate legislation. You can’t because there is none. There is no presumption of innocence outside a courtroom. Libel and slander are determined in a courtroom.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

They had no presumption of innocence before the trial. No such presumption exists outside a court trial.

So I can just presume that you are a paedophile and you'd be ok with me spreading that rumour about?

I mean, you have no right to have any presumption of innocence.

(For the record, I am not accusing you, just making a point)

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Obviously there’s a spectrum of determination of guilt. The bar in this case was ‘reasonable doubt’, which exists on a spectrum. Other jurisdictions allow for a ‘not proven’ verdict to account for this spectrum.

So is he a little bit guilty of the rape, guilty of the rape or not guilty of the rape?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

So I can just presume that you are a paedophile and you'd be ok with me spreading that rumour about?

I mean, you have no right to have any presumption of innocence.

(For the record, I am not accusing you, just making a point)

You can presume whatever you like. If I’m concerned enough about whatever you’re saying about me, based on those presumptions, I have a right to defend myself in court, but I’d need to prove that your claims were damaging and untruthful.

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

I’m not wrong. If such a thing were the case, you’d have no difficulty in pointing to the appropriate legislation. You can’t because there is none. There is no presumption of innocence outside a courtroom. Libel and slander are determined in a courtroom.

Read the Irish constitution for a start.

Breaches of law are determined within a court room. Acts that breach the law generally happen outside the courtroom. If what you purport actually existed there would be no slander or libel laws and people works be free to say whatever they wanted about other people.
They aren't, therefore you're wrong.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

So is he a little bit guilty of the rape, guilty of the rape or not guilty of the rape?

Personally I believe the woman, despite the evidence, as with so many rape cases, not meeting the bar of beyond reasonable doubt. But let’s not pretend that any legal determination is not on a spectrum.

El_Duderino 09

salmocab wrote: »

Well to be fair we know that at the very least they had reasonable doubt but it could and considering how quickly they came back was likely a lot higher.

So all we know is they definitely had reasonable doubt. I’m genuinely struggling to understand the urge to exaggerate what the court said. The court wasn’t designed to answer all your questions. It was designed to determine whether there is reasonable doubt of guilt or not.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

Read the Irish constitution for a start.

Breaches of law are determined within a court room. Acts that breach the law generally happen outside the courtroom. If what you purport actually existed there would be no slander or libel laws and people works be free to say whatever they wanted about other people.
They aren't, therefore you're wrong.

Let’s see where the constitution provides for a presumption of innocence outside the context of a prosecution. I’ll wait.

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

Let’s see where the constitution provides for a presumption of innocence outside the context of a prosecution. I’ll wait.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-right-to-one-s-good-name-is-as-important-as-freedom-of-expression-1.387960

Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution says “the State shall, in particular, by its laws, protect as best it may from unjust attack (and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate) the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen.”

There you go. You're welcome.