Woman found guilty of rape in hotel toilet

meglome

Einhard wrote: »

So, forgive me, in the light of the character of rapists and abusers, if I scoff at the notion that personal acquaintance should trump impartial analysis of the facts by a jury. And forgive me if I think that your kind of thinking os one of the reasons why Ireland is such a cold house for victims of rape and abuse.

While I agree with you does the information available in the press not seem odd. The attacker is a woman, while this doesn't rule anything out added to the released info it doesn't ring true. We may not be seeing all the facts though.

An ex of mine was molested by an uncle and some of the family rallied round and covered for the guy. I think this is disgusting. If one of my family did this I'll hang them out to dry. So I'm not excusing anything here I'm just very curious about the details.

Quazzie

Einhard wrote: »

So, forgive me, in the light of the character of rapists and abusers, if I scoff at the notion that personal acquaintance should trump impartial analysis of the facts by a jury. And forgive me if I think that your kind of thinking os one of the reasons why Ireland is such a cold house for victims of rape and abuse.

How is one persons word against another persons considered to be fact?

wexford96c

False accusations are a huge injustice. They are mostly made by women against men - this cause is unusual in that it is girl /girl. However, I agree with all the posters who say that she would never have called the law - but when hubby did she was like a cornered rat and had to stick to her story. By far the worst injustice of all, is when one spouse accuses the other of child abuse - not because they believe any abuse took place - but because they believe the spouse was screwing around and - there being no legal punishment for infedility - this is the only way to get them in trouble. This would all stop if the fale reporter was sent to prison for the same amount of time as the accused would have done if the report had been correct. One thing for certain, rape accusations should never be let stand without hard evidence. DNA under the Irish girl's fingernails prove nothing other than they were making out - very likely on a consensual basis.

Einhard

meglome wrote: »

While I agree with you does the information available in the press not seem odd. The attacker is a woman, while this doesn't rule anything out added to the released info it doesn't ring true. We may not be seeing all the facts though.

An ex of mine was molested by an uncle and some of the family rallied round and covered for the guy. I think this is disgusting. If one of my family did this I'll hang them out to dry. So I'm not excusing anything here I'm just very curious about the details.

Yes, the case is an unusual one, and the details seem a bit odd. But the most pertinent fact is that they were presented to an impartial jury, who analysed all the information, and ade up their minds accordingly. That's good enough for me. It's generally good enough in murder cases and the like; why should it be different for rape cases? But instead of just accepting it, we have people here, who know next to nothing of the case, stating that a convicted rapist should go free, that they know her and it's not in her character, that it's a rapist plot on the part of the Aussies even! I mean, seriously?! As you know with your ex, it happens way too much in Ireland, this ah shur she was asking for it, there's more to it than meets the eye, disbelieving attitude, and it leaves me cold.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

How is one persons word against another persons considered to be fact?

Do you believe in jury systems or do you not? Do you agree that the jury who sat through the case might have a better appreciation of the situation, than you with your personal knowledge of the assailant? Juries constantly have to adjudicate in cases where it is merely one persons' word against another. paedophile priests have been locked up in this country on precisely such evidence. Rapists have likewise been brought to justice on the word of the victim. Do you propose to cast doubt on all such cases? Or just those in which you can personally vouvh for the character of the accused? How about, from now on, when it is one persons' word against anothers, we leave it to the family, friends, and acquantances of the alleged assailant to determine his guilt or otherwise? Because that's precisely what you are seeking to do here.

meglome

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, the case is an unusual one, and the details seem a bit odd. But the most pertinent fact is that they were presented to an impartial jury, who analysed all the information, and ade up their minds accordingly. That's good enough for me. It's generally good enough in murder cases and the like; why should it be different for rape cases? But instead of just accepting it, we have people here, who know next to nothing of the case, stating that a convicted rapist should go free, that they know her and it's not in her character, that it's a rapist plot on the part of the Aussies even! I mean, seriously?! As you know with your ex, it happens way too much in Ireland, this ah shur she was asking for it, there's more to it than meets the eye, disbelieving attitude, and it leaves me cold.

Again I don't disagree with you. However in this specific case I'm not surprised that people who know the attacker are speaking up. People get away with rape day in and day out in this country and that is disgraceful. Sure sometimes there are false allegations but they are a minority. I'd still like to see more details about this case to see if we're missing something.

Quazzie

Einhard wrote: »

Do you believe in jury systems or do you not? Do you agree that the jury who sat through the case might have a better appreciation of the situation, than you with your personal knowledge of the assailant? Juries constantly have to adjudicate in cases where it is merely one persons' word against another. paedophile priests have been locked up in this country on precisely such evidence. Rapists have likewise been brought to justice on the word of the victim. Do you propose to cast doubt on all such cases? Or just those in which you can personally vouvh for the character of the accused? How about, from now on, when it is one persons' word against anothers, we leave it to the family, friends, and acquantances of the alleged assailant to determine his guilt or otherwise? Because that's precisely what you are seeking to do here.

No, what I am doing here is stating that I know the person involved and as such believe her version of event over the other persons. There is no such thing as one person's word against the other when one of them persons is a potential rape victim. Truth doesn't come into then as the victim will get the benefit of the doubt from any jury. I am of the belief that what happened was consensual until the 'victim's' partner found out then the situation changed.

Einhard

meglome wrote: »

However in this specific case I'm not surprised that people who know the attacker are speaking up.

Either am I, and that's the truly appaling thing. It's not a surprise in this country when those convicted of rape get the support of the community, to the detriment of the actual victim. It's a crazy mentality. Just look at the case in kerry last year. the men who shook the rapists hand in fron of his traumatised victim weren't "bad" people as such; they were merely of the opinion that their friend was incapable of such an act. Jury (and victim) be damned. And worringly, it's not a Kerry phenomonen.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

No, what I am doing here is stating that I know the person involved and as such believe her version of event over the other persons. There is no such thing as one person's word against the other when one of them persons is a potential rape victim. Truth doesn't come into then as the victim will get the benefit of the doubt from any jury. I am of the belief that what happened was consensual until the 'victim's' partner found out then the situation changed.

So what you're doing is the the same as the family of meglome's ex-girlfriend, who rallied around her abuser when she went public about the abuse she had suffered at his hands? Or the good folk of whatever town it was in Kerry who commiserated with the rapist after his conviction because, sure, they knew him? or even the parishoners right across this island who knew of allegations against their local priest, but said nothing or took no action, because it was the word of a child against a priest, and sure isn't he a great fella! Seriously, this isn't personal, but to base a determination of guilt or innocence on the previous character of an accuded person is pretty appalling. For some reason, too, it only ever seems to happen in rape cases. Wonder why?

Quazzie

Do you think that is impossible that she could be innocent? Could the jury be wrong?

If you do consider it a possibility, then how serious do you think it is for her to spend potentially years in a foreign prison for a crime she didn't commit?

Every case of rape or rape accusation is different so lumping this together with the case in Kerry is doing your argument no favours.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

Do you think that is impossible that she could be innocent? Could the jury be wrong?

If you do consider it a possibility, then how serious do you think it is for her to spend potentially years in a foreign prison for a crime she didn't commit?

Every case of rape or rape accusation is different so lumping this together with the case in Kerry is doing your argument no favours.

Of course I think it's a possibility that she's innocent. Every single conviction ever arrived at has that possibility. It's possible that Catherine Nevin was innocent; that John Gilligan was; that Fr. Brandan Smith was falsely charged and imprisoned for crimes he didn't commit. But we have a system in place to minimise the chances of miscarriages of justice happening. It's not perfect, but it's the best thing that we're likely to get. And to have people come along and question that system in rape cases, when they wouldn't do so for murder cases and the like, and especially because they happen to know the rapist is not right.

And of course every case is different,, but the reaction to the conviction by a jury of a rapist is strikingly similar in both cases.

Quazzie

The difference between rape and murder is simple. In murder there is a body, there is no denying that someone died. In a rape case we have someone saying that a sexual act occurred against their consent. In this case I think what happened was consensual but after the event one person changed their story when questioned about it by their partner. Rape is a very fine line based on two peoples perceptions of an event. Murder isn't.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

The difference between rape and murder is simple. In murder there is a body, there is no denying that someone died. In a rape case we have someone saying that a sexual act occurred against their consent. In this case I think what happened was consensual but after the event one person changed their story when questioned about it by their partner. Rape is a very fine line based on two peoples perceptions of an event. Murder isn't.

Yes, and it's up to a jury decide. On the evidence presented to them. Do you really not understand the signal it sends to women when, generally men, dispute the findings of an impartial jury and pronounce that, not only is the convicted party innocent, but the victim is, necessarily, a lying conniving bitch?

Anyway, you asked me whether I thought there's a chance she's innocent. And I answered that yes I do. And that there's a similar chance in every single criminal case, whether decided by a jury or not. I wasn't comparing rape to murder.

Zulu

Seems to me the rapist was found guilty.
While I understand a chance exists that it could be a miscarriage of justice (and the rapist could appeal), it tends to be very very difficult to convict in rape cases, so I'm glad justice was done.

The poor girl, to be attacked like that when people are around, must be horrible.

Quazzie

If events went like I described them do you concede that a jury would arrive at the same outcome that it did?

Einhard

wexford96c wrote: »

One thing for certain, rape accusations should never be let stand without hard evidence. DNA under the Irish girl's fingernails prove nothing other than they were making out - very likely on a consensual basis.

So in order for cases of rape to stand, the attacker should give the victim a good beating while they're violating him/her? Because that's the only way DNA evidence could be conclusive. Jesus Christ, are you posting from the Stone Age?

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

If events went like I described them do you concede that a jury would arrive at the same outcome that it did?

I don't know what you're referring to.

Zulu

...neither do I

Quazzie

Lets just imagine that the following circumstances happened.

Two women out drinking at a bar enter toilet cubicle together and start making out with both women consenting. (this part is true, as both women agree to it in their court statements)

It progressses on with both women enjoying it and consenting.

Women leave cubicle after some heavy petting and are confronted with an angry partner questioning what was going on.

'Victim' breaks down and cries rape claiming she is innocent.

In this situation the exact same facts would be put to the jury as was in this case except the victim's story has changed, and one of them is suddenly a rapist.

Millicent

Quazzie wrote: »

Lets just imagine that the following circumstances happened.

Two women out drinking at a bar enter toilet cubicle together and start making out with both women consenting. (this part is true, as both women agree to it in their court statements)

It progressses on with both women enjoying it and consenting.

Women leave cubicle after some heavy petting and are confronted with an angry partner questioning what was going on.

'Victim' breaks down and cries rape claiming she is innocent.

In this situation the exact same facts would be put to the jury as was in this case except the victim's story has changed, and one of them is suddenly a rapist.

If she was so afraid of her boyfriend's reaction, why would she admit to the kissing in the first place?

Zulu

Except they wouldn't. In the hypothetical situation above there was no rape.

In the real situation a rapist, raped a woman, and was found guilty.


There's one thing you should consider: you say it was a case of "her word against her's". Fair enough - perhaps it was, but you hold the rapsits word in such high regard simply & only because you know her; because you don't believe she's the type to do it. You are prepared to take the word of a convicted rapist over a woman, a jury, a police agency & a judge. You weren't there.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

Lets just imagine that the following circumstances happened.

Two women out drinking at a bar enter toilet cubicle together and start making out with both women consenting. (this part is true, as both women agree to it in their court statements)

It progressses on with both women enjoying it and consenting.

Women leave cubicle after some heavy petting and are confronted with an angry partner questioning what was going on.

'Victim' breaks down and cries rape claiming she is innocent.

In this situation the exact same facts would be put to the jury as was in this case except the victim's story has changed, and one of them is suddenly a rapist.

You start of with "Let's just imagine" and then expect me to comment on it in a constructive manner?! Seriously? This case went to trial, the evidence was presented to an impartial jury, and they convited her of the crime. I believe in the jury system, and so I accept their judgement. You, on the other hand, seem to be somewhat selective when accepting the determination of the courts. It's alright when the accused is someone you don't know, but there's something awry when he/she is know to you, and you can vouch for their character.

Let's do some more imagining while we're at it...

A child is abused by an adult over a number of years.

The adult is a respected member of the community. Perhaps a priest, perhaps not. But someone who is held in very high esteem.

The child eventually accuses the adult of said abuse. The adult denies it, and claims the child is lying.

It goes to trial. The evidence is presented to an impartial jury. It is really a case of the child's word against the adult. After sifting through the evidence, going over all the nuances and details of the case; having examined and analysed the conflicting positions, the jury finds that the adult is indeed guilty of the crime of child abuse. He is imprisoned.

People, on the internet, and in the loicality, scorn and despise the victim of chuild abuse because they know they accused, and he's not capable of what he has been accused. For their own subjective reasons, they dismiss and rubbish the jury system, a cornerstone of our juducual apparatus for centuries. They claim that the abused is the assailant and the abuser the victim.

How would you react to such an incident? Would you be outraged on behalf of the abused? Would you dismiss and ridicule the impartial observations of a jury as you do in this case?

If we were to determine guilt by your rationale alone, very few abusers of either children or adults would have anything to fear from the justice system in this country.

Quazzie

Zulu wrote: »

Except they wouldn't. In the hypothetical situation above there was no rape.

In the real situation a rapist, raped a woman, and was found guilty.


There's one thing you should consider: you say it was a case of "her word against her's". Fair enough - perhaps it was, but you hold the rapsits word in such high regard simply & only because you know her; because you don't believe she's the type to do it. You are prepared to take the word of a convicted rapist over a woman, a jury, a police agency & a judge. You weren't there.

So you're saying its impossible that it happened just as I described it?

orourkeda

giggidy

Quazzie

Einhard wrote: »

You start of with "Let's just imagine" and then expect me to comment on it in a constructove manner?! Seriously?

I said Le's just imagine because it seems to be the only possible way to open your mind to other possibilities other than the jury being right.

Einhard wrote: »

This case went to trial, the evidence was presented to an impartial jury, and they convited her of the crime. I believe in the jury system, and so I accept their judgement. You, on the other hand, seem to be somewhat selective when accepting the determination of the courts. It's alright when the accused is someone you don't know, but there's something awry when he/she is know to you, and you can vouch for their character.

I put forward a scenario where the exact same evidence could be gathered from an innocent event but you've dismissed it.

Einhard wrote: »

Let's do some more imagining while we're at it...

A child is abused by an adult over a number of years.

The adult is a respected member of the community. Perhaps a priest, perhaps not. But someone who is held in very high esteem.

The child eventually accuses the adult of said abuse. The adult denies it, and claims the child is lying.

It goes to trial. The evidence is presented to an impartial jury. It is really a case of the child's word against the adult. After sifting through the evidence, going over all the nuances and details of the case; having examined and analysed the conflicting positions, the jury finds that the adult is indeed guilty of the crime of child abuse. He is imprisoned.

People, on the internet, and in the loicality, scorn and despise the victim of chuild abuse because they know they accused, and he's not capable of what he has been accused. For their own subjective reasons, they dismiss and rubbish the jury system, a cornerstone of our juducual apparatus for centuries. They claim that the abused is the assailant and the abuser the victim.

How would you react to such an incident? Would you be outraged on behalf of the abused? Would you dismiss and ridicule the impartial observations of a jury as you do in this case?

What has this got to do with the case?

sipstrassi

The girl was convicted of rape. Presumably the jury had more to go on than what the victim and accused each said happened? I think it mentioned witnesses who said the victim was upset leaving the toilets i.e. before the husband came into it.
Also, the accused said she didn't remember so it's not even two versions of what happened. It's the victim's version and the accused saying 'I don't think so'.
On the other hand, maybe the victim is a good actress and acted upset leaving the toilets in case the husband she was cheating on was waiting outside. The fact that she was doing it while he was in the same building doesn't say much for her character (and No - I am not saying 'she deserved it, serve her right', before anyone jumps in with that - I'm saying she may not be truthful).

Hope I'm never picked for jury duty.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

So you're saying its impossible that it happened just as I described it?

Of course it's not impossible. Just as it's not impossible that JFK was shot by the mafia or the Cubans. But a jury found her guilty. It wasn't some kangaroo courtt. It was an impartial jury of her peers. And you seek to disregard that. You are doing exactly as those idiots in Kerry did, and even what meglome's ex's family did when she finally built up the courage to make public the abuse she suffered at the hand of her uncle. Can you really not see the signal you're sending?

Zulu

Quazzie wrote: »

So you're saying its impossible that it happened just as I described it?

No. I've already stated that there's an appeal process the rapist can apply for in the unlikely event that it occurred like that.

Are you saying it's impossible for the rapist, who was admittedly uncontrollably drunk, to have forced her fingers into the victims vagina & anus, after the victim push her away?


What I'm saying is that you are simply taking a convicted rapists word over that of a rape victim, a police force, a jury & a judge. You weren't there.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

I said Le's just imagine because it seems to be the only possible way to open your mind to other possibilities other than the jury being right.

I have admitted that the jury might be wrong. That possibility exists in every single case brought before a judge. But the jury system is the best one we have, and if we're to go pulling it down like you are doing what do you propose we replace it with?

I put forward a scenario where the exact same evidence could be gathered from an innocent event but you've dismissed it.

No, the jury dismissed it. And you're dismissing the jury. Purely, it seems, because you know the rapist. A dangerous precedent.

What has this got to do with the case?

The reaction to the hypothetical events in my scenario is exactly the same as yours to this case. Rapist is supported by the community and friends, jury disregarded and scorned, victim victimised further.

Sleepy

11 pages and not one "Pics or GTFO!" post?

AH, you're growing up so fast... I'm almost proud of you!