Two brothers convicted of rape on *very* dubious evidence

Alopex

Two brothers have been jailed for three years for raping a woman in a hotel, despite a prosecution witness claiming that he was put under pressure by gardai when making his statement.
Eamonn Flanagan (33), of Dunamaise, Stradbally, and Seamie Flanagan (40), of Ashley Gardens, Portlaoise, both Co Laois, had denied three counts of raping the Dublin woman at The Red Cow Inn on the Naas Road on March 3, 2008 -- but were convicted on rape charges at a trial in July.
Yesterday, they continued to deny the offences and have not shown remorse. Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan, at the Central Criminal Court, said he could not impose a non-custodial sentence because of this.
At a sentencing hearing, Detective Garda Keith Marron said Donal Lynch and the brothers met the woman and her friends at a nightclub in the hotel after attending an ABBA tribute concert there.
Some time later, Mr Lynch and the now 31-year-old went to a hotel room together where they had consensual sex.
Det Gda Marron said Mr Lynch then left the room at the same time as Eamonn and Seamie entered it. The woman was still inside and Seamie sat down on the bed beside her, putting his arms around her.
When she rebuffed him, he pushed her back and raped her. She got up afterwards and Eamonn pushed her back on the bed and raped her again.
The detective said "this took a matter of seconds".
The woman left the room and met her friends before they drove "via an off licence" to her friend's house. The gardai were then called. Gardai called to the hotel room the next morning where they found both men asleep.
Denied
They both denied the allegations and said they found the hotel room door open with no one inside.
Gardai later found it was impossible to leave the door open due to its design. The brothers then said they could not remember if they met the woman or Mr Lynch as they entered the room.
During the trial, the woman said that after she was raped, she went to her friend's house and they reported it to gardai, before going to the Rotunda Hospital.
Mr Lynch gave evidence in the trial that he had met them on the way out and the woman was behind him ready to leave.
He told Orla Crowe, prosecuting, when he met his two friends he told them he was going home. Mr Lynch said the woman was right behind him
The man also agreed he only spent 14 minutes with the woman. He agreed he and the woman were like "two ships passing in the night".
At a hearing last Monday, defence counsel for Seamie, Pauline Walley, said Mr Lynch has since claimed he was put under pressure by gardai to say he saw the men at the door of the room where the rape occurred.
No DNA from the brothers was found on the woman and CCTV footage showed the rapes occurred in less than three minutes. DNA from the sexual encounter with Mr Lynch was found on her.
Following the men's convictions, Mr Lynch claimed that during the investigation he was put under pressure by gardai to make a statement saying the brothers were at the hotel room door when he was leaving.
He said this happened in a garda car, parked at the petrol station in Laois.
Ms Walley said when the DPP learned of the allegation, he ordered a report be prepared.
Mr Justice Sheehan imposed three-year terms on each man and ordered they be registered as sex offenders.

So despite no DNA from the two men being found on her, her word is taken over theirs. Scary stuff.

Only thing that sounds dodgy on their part is about the doorlock thing, and it seems the police then pressured the other man into making a big deal about this. More than likely told him he'd be done for rape too if he didn't testify against them

Be very careful lads, a one night stand can sometimes end up more than you bargain for if a woman suddenly regrets her actions, those guys are on the sex offenders register for life now.

Kimia

What did the brother's say in their defense - that they never met her or that she consented with them too? I'm curious as there seems to be lots of information missing.

Kimia

More information here:

TWO Laois brothers have been convicted of raping a woman in a Dublin hotel.
The men, aged 32 and 39 years, with addresses in Stradbally and Portlaoise had pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to raping the woman on 3 March, 2008.
The younger man also pleaded not guilty to anally raping her during the alleged incident.
The jury of six men and six women returned their verdicts of guilty on all counts following three hours and 16 minutes of deliberation.
Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan thanked the jury for their service and excused them from further service for five years. He directed that the men be added to the sex offenders register and that a victim impact statement be prepared.
He set a sentencing date for Monday 27 June.
The now 31-year-old woman told Paul Coffey SC, prosecuting, that she went to the hotel room with a friend of the men. She said she and the men’s friend had consensual sex in the hotel room and there was a knock on the door, which the man answered.
Two men came in and the man with whom she had consensual sex left to get drinks and never returned.
She said there were a double bed and a single bed in the room. She said she was fully clothed at this time and was sitting on the double bed.
The woman said one of the men put his penis in her vagina and then tried to put it in her anus but that it did not fully penetrate her. She said she told him to get off her but his full body weight was on top of her.
She said the other man put his penis in her vagina also and she tried to push him off her.
The woman said it lasted only seconds and she then got a call from her friend’s partner and she left the room.
She said she was going to her friend’s house and they reported it to gardai, before going to the Rotunda Hospital.

Sid_Justice

A man and a woman go into a hotel room. The man emerges 14 minutes later and greets his two buddies walking into said hotel room. The woman emerged within 3 minutes and claims to have been raped.

The men go to sleep in the same hotel room (was it actually the woman's hotel room to begin with?) and are arrested there the following morning.

This really is a strange one. I can actually understand why there may not be DNA evidence, neither man was probably in physical contact with her for more than 2 minutes.

Really doesn't seem to be enough evidence to find them guilty other than the woman's reactions and testimony (if she did actually testify).

Galvasean

Anyone else find this bit incredibly strange?

The woman left the room and met her friends before they drove "via an off licence" to her friend's house. The gardai were then called.

Weird case of priorities.

hollypink

Well I suppose if you've been through a traumatic event like rape, you mightnt be thinking straight. But on the face of it, the case does seem a bit thin.

A Primal Nut

Im trying to keep an open mind about this one.

Assume that the guys are telling the truth for a second, that they never met the woman. How would she know they were there, in order to accuse them? Did she return and find them there, ask Lynch who they were and then accuse them? It doesnt really make much sense. It is not a typical false allegation of rape where there is consensual sex which the girl later regrets or decides to use against the man.

Alopex wrote: »

Be very careful lads, a one night stand can sometimes end up more than you bargain for if a woman suddenly regrets her actions, those guys are on the sex offenders register for life now.

But that didnt happen to the convicted men. These guys say they didnt have consensual sex which is what makes this case a little strange.

I dont think the off-license thing is important, it probably would have taken her sometime to get the courage to tell her friends (if the rape actually happened).

If the report is correct then there isnt enough evidence to convict in my opinion. Would have been better if Lynch withdrew his story before saying it in court.

Alopex

A Primal Nut wrote: »

But that didnt happen to the convicted men. These guys say they didnt have consensual sex which is what makes this case a little strange.

Its along the same lines in a way, I think its possible what might have happened here is she regretted it with the first guy, but as the other guys would have been witnesses to her not being distressed, her only option was to make a claim about them.

On the other hand, perhaps they did both rape her in three minutes, sounds unusual and quite impractical, but possible nonetheless.

What also weirded me out about it is the comment from the judge:

"Yesterday, they continued to deny the offences and have not shown remorse. Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan, at the Central Criminal Court, said he could not impose a non-custodial sentence because of this."

That seems odd, surely no matter how much "remorse" is shown, a non-statutory rape conviction should always require a custodial sentence. Remember there was uproar years ago when Paul Carney let a guy off with one.(and rightly so)

Also that was a weird case because the guy claimed he thought he was in his own girlfriend's bed.

amacachi

How rape cases ever result in a conviction barring CCTV and multiple independent witnesses is beyond me.

Maple

amacachi wrote: »

How rape cases ever result in a conviction barring CCTV and multiple independent witnesses is beyond me.

I don't understand what you mean?

Otis Driftwood

amacachi wrote: »

How rape cases ever result in a conviction barring CCTV and multiple independent witnesses is beyond me.

I dont know if thats an attempt at trolling,a lame attempt at a joke or whether its a genuine sentiment.

No matter what it is,its a pretty fúcking off colour comment to make.

SugarHigh

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I dont know if thats an attempt at trolling,a lame attempt at a joke or whether its a genuine sentiment.

No matter what it is,its a pretty fúcking off colour comment to make.

Complete overreaction. He's simply pointing out how difficult it is to prove non-consensual sex happened. Rape kits don't actually tell you someone was raped.
The reason conviction rates are so low is because of how difficult it is to prove, high conviction rates would actually be kind of worrying and would point to be people not getting a fair trial.

ArtSmart

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyone else find this bit incredibly strange?

Weird case of priorities.

who's priority? Sounds like she only told her friends when they got back home.

anyway, too much about this is unclear. I suspect sexual assault more than rape, but impossible to know without full transcript . certainly drink was involved i'd say.

ETA, not that i'm suggesting for a moment that drink is an excuse for anything whatsoever, or that sexual assault is not extremely serious, just that this whole thing sounds muddled

amacachi

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I dont know if thats an attempt at trolling,a lame attempt at a joke or whether its a genuine sentiment.

No matter what it is,its a pretty fúcking off colour comment to make.

OK, here goes, I'll try to make it step by step for you. One is only found guilty under our justice system when it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Now in a case where it's one person's word against another, there's no way that can be beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where sex is known to have happened but one party says it was consensual, that's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as any other crime in that there has to be a thing called evidence. Other than a record of the offence (e.g. CCTV) or independent witnesses (rare in rape cases I'd have thought) the only other evidence other than an alledged victim's word would be proof that sex occurred, which is easy to "innocently" explain away.

Ebbs

amacachi wrote: »

OK, here goes, I'll try to make it step by step for you. One is only found guilty under our justice system when it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Now in a case where it's one person's word against another, there's no way that can be beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where sex is known to have happened but one party says it was consensual, that's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as any other crime in that there has to be a thing called evidence. Other than a record of the offence (e.g. CCTV) or independent witnesses (rare in rape cases I'd have thought) the only other evidence other than an alledged victim's word would be proof that sex occurred, which is easy to "innocently" explain away.

While you didnt put it very nicely in the first part, I do agree. Even DNA evidence is a little sketchy.

Lets say for example her/his back is scratched, the cells are found under the other parties finger nails. That is not unheard of in consensual sex, not by a long shot. Even the use of restraining devices. Unless she/he has black eyes, broken bones its very hard to prove without other evidence.

Otis Driftwood

So if a woman went into a police station with tearing and bruising to the vagina and traces of semen on her and says she was raped,unless she had CCTV footage of it you wouldnt believe it?

:rolleyes:

Im not so naive to think that there have been instances where rape accusations have been false,wasnt a Ban Garda convicted of making those allegations there a few years ago however the overwhelming majority of reported rapes I believe to be true because for someone to fabricate something like that they have something inherently wrong with them from a mental perspective,something which most people dont suffer from.

With attitudes like yours and Sugarhighs is it any wonder rape in women and men goes unreported.

I tell ye lads,I hope nobody close to you ever endures that trauma.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

So if a woman went into a police station with tearing and bruising to the vagina and traces of semen on her and says she was raped,unless she had CCTV footage of it you wouldnt believe it?

:rolleyes:

Im not so naive to think that there have been instances where rape accusations have been false,wasnt a Ban Garda convicted of making those allegations there a few years ago however the overwhelming majority of reported rapes I believe to be true because for someone to fabricate something like that they have something inherently wrong with them from a mental perspective,something which most people dont suffer from.

With attitudes like yours and Sugarhighs is it any wonder rape in women and men goes unreported.

I tell ye lads,I hope nobody close to you ever endures that trauma.

The vast majority of reported rapes are contentious to say the least. And you'd be surprised at the amount of reported rapes that are withdrawn by the accuser shortly afterwards.

amacachi

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

So if a woman went into a police station with tearing and bruising to the vagina and traces of semen on her and says she was raped,unless she had CCTV footage of it you wouldnt believe it?

:rolleyes:

Im not so naive to think that there have been instances where rape accusations have been false,wasnt a Ban Garda convicted of making those allegations there a few years ago however the overwhelming majority of reported rapes I believe to be true because for someone to fabricate something like that they have something inherently wrong with them from a mental perspective,something which most people dont suffer from.

With attitudes like yours and Sugarhighs is it any wonder rape in women and men goes unreported.

Jesus, did you read my post at all? For a start any kind of even slightly rough sex can cause what you described. For an end, the point I was making was that one person's word would never constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Day-to-day life is one thing, but if a case came down to nothing but one person's word against another I just don't see how anyone could say that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Giselle

THFC wrote: »

The vast majority of reported rapes are contentious to say the least. And you'd be surprised at the amount of reported rapes that are withdrawn by the accuser shortly afterwards.

There are loads of reasons why an accuser would withdraw an allegation that actually have nothing to do with it being false.

Trauma. Traumatized people often have sketchy memories of the event, as they can 'shut down'.

Intimidation in the case of a known attacker (the majority of rapists are known to their victims).

Shame - often in our warped society the victim feels responsible, or convinces themselves that if they hadn't had that drink, or worn that skirt, it wouldn't have happened.

Fear. We hear a lot about how the victim is examined minutely in the courtroom and I'd imagine that kind of ordeal would be very discouraging.

Social factors. In a situation where the rapist and victim are in the same larger social group of friends, the victim will often keep quiet or withdraw to keep gossip to a minimum. When you hear how few rape cases get to court, its easy to worry that the rapist will be gloating about how it was all made up by a bitter lying bit*ch and mud sticks both ways.

Otis Driftwood

amacachi wrote: »

Jesus, did you read my post at all? For a start any kind of even slightly rough sex can cause what you described. For an end, the point I was making was that one person's word would never constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Day-to-day life is one thing, but if a case came down to nothing but one person's word against another I just don't see how anyone could say that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Firstly,for tearing or bruising of the vagina to occur,it takes a hell of alot more than "even slightly rough sex".The vagina is a remarkably pliable organ when aroused so to use rough sex as a way of explaining it away is very naive.

In your OP you made no mention of evidence of any kind other than cctv or independent witnesses.

The point you make in the latter piece of the above post makes sense so why didnt you just say it in your OP instead of making a grossly offensive statement such as you did?

Of course when there is no evidence whatsoever and it comes down to purely one persons word against anothers it is in very dangerous territory however as I said already,people with the mind set that they would accuse someone of a crime as vile as rape falsely are in the overwhelming minority.

D'Agger

TBH I'm not quite sure how these two fellows were found guilty

I know I'm only reading a newspaper article but she was fully clothed when the men entered so in 3 minutes they got her clothes off and both raped her.

She mentions that she couldn't stop them as one of them had their full body weight on her but then she left (Did she fight them off or something - it all sounds a bit odd to me tbh

Rape is a very touchy subject so I'm not trying to sound ignorant but there's way too many holes in that story for a guilty charge to be handed out imo - that said I'm aware that I don't have all the facts so who knows

Morag

It is possible to be raped while you are still fully clothed, all it takes is the pulling up of a skirt/dress and the pulling aside of underwear and that takes no time at all.

Cavehill Red

I wasn't in court, but when I heard this story the reports stretched my credulity that this was a safe conviction. One cannot but have reasonable doubt based on the information put into the public domain thus far.
These men have now been named publicly as rapists, no matter if they were to appeal and be found innocent at a later date. That's a sentence that cannot be overturned no matter what future evidence is brought before a court of appeal.

amacachi

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Firstly,for tearing or bruising of the vagina to occur,it takes a hell of alot more than "even slightly rough sex".The vagina is a remarkably pliable organ when aroused so to use rough sex as a way of explaining it away is very naive.

Small cuts and the like can go unnoticed until they're put under extra stress. I should have said "slightly" but a simple "she likes it rough" explains it away.

In your OP you made no mention of evidence of any kind other than cctv or independent witnesses.

Yes, because I said that just about any other evidence doesn't get near proving something beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the bloody point.

The point you make in the latter piece of the above post makes sense so why didnt you just say it in your OP instead of making a grossly offensive statement such as you did?

What was grossly offensive about it? I found the "fcuking off colour remark to make" a little offensive and still massively confusing. The "I hope it never happens to someone close to you was some high-quality posting.

Of course when there is no evidence whatsoever and it comes down to purely one persons word against anothers it is in very dangerous territory however as I said already,people with the mind set that they would accuse someone of a crime as vile as rape falsely are in the overwhelming minority.

I'm not talking about whether or not I'd believe someone who said they were raped. I was talking about someone getting convicted in a court of law. How are you not getting this? If someone was the most convincing witness in the world but that was pretty much the only evidence in the case it would be ridiculous for anyone to say that that was beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otis Driftwood

amacachi wrote: »

Small cuts and the like can go unnoticed until they're put under extra stress. I should have said "slightly" but a simple "she likes it rough" explains it away.

BS,absolute BS.Ive been with more than one woman that enjoyed coarser/rougher sex and not once were any of them cut or had any tears from it.You clearly have no experience of it other than what you have read.

amacachi wrote: »

Yes, because I said that just about any other evidence doesn't get near proving something beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the bloody point.

So if a woman is battered and bruised and said she was raped you would question her integrity right off the bat?

How about the hundreds/nay thousands of kids that were sexually abused by priests and others while in the care of the state?Do you think that the priests or whoever shouldnt have been convicted because there was a reasonable doubt?

There was no evidence other than victim statements.By your logic the vilest of the vile human beings wouldnt have been convicted because there was no evidence whatsoever other than victim statements.

amacachi wrote: »

What was grossly offensive about it? I found the "fcuking off colour remark to make" a little offensive and still massively confusing. The "I hope it never happens to someone close to you was some high-quality posting.

I find it grossly offensive and off colour that people would automatically assume that a rape victim should be looked upon as being a liar as your OP implied.As Ive stated twice already,the number of people that would make these kinds of accusations are in the overwhelming minority,probably similar in the number of people that would commit rape.A tiny percentage should not cast doubt on everyone.

Have you ever known a rape victim,because I do.I doubt it because if you did then Id hazard a guess that your train of thought would be very different.

amacachi wrote: »

I'm not talking about whether or not I'd believe someone who said they were raped. I was talking about someone getting convicted in a court of law. How are you not getting this? If someone was the most convincing witness in the world but that was pretty much the only evidence in the case it would be ridiculous for anyone to say that that was beyond a reasonable doubt.

This goes back to what Ive already said.Im not talking about only someone saying they were raped however when there are DNA traces,physical signs of rape as well as the victims testimony then yes,that goes beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion.That is my opinion and Im entitled to it,same as you are entitled to your own.

Logical Fallacy

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I find it grossly offensive and off colour that people would automatically assume that a rape victim should be looked upon as being a liar as your OP implied.As Ive stated twice already,the number of people that would make these kinds of accusations are in the overwhelming minority,probably similar in the number of people that would commit rape.A tiny percentage should not cast doubt on everyone.

So what you are saying is it's 50/50? I know it's not what you mean...just pointing out that this is an emotive topic so people need to pull back a little bit maybe.

Have you ever known a rape victim,because I do.I doubt it because if you did then Id hazard a guess that your train of thought would be very different.

I know one rape victim (that i am aware of) and 2 people who were falsely accused of rape...this doesn't colour my opinion in anyway...I, and most people, look at the facts of something and go from there.

amacachi

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

BS,absolute BS.Ive been with more than one woman that enjoyed coarser/rougher sex and not once were any of them cut or had any tears from it.You clearly have no experience of it other than what you have read.

Do you think the rape kits just have a look at the outside of the vagina? There can be micro-tears etc. inside that will only be picked up by forensic tests and it doesn't take great force to cause them.

So if a woman is battered and bruised and said she was raped you would question her integrity right off the bat?

How about the hundreds/nay thousands of kids that were sexually abused by priests and others while in the care of the state?Do you think that the priests or whoever shouldnt have been convicted because there was a reasonable doubt?

There was no evidence other than victim statements.By your logic the vilest of the vile human beings wouldnt have been convicted because there was no evidence whatsoever other than victim statements.

No, I'd instantly say the person being accused should locked up for life. For God's sake I'm talking about convictions and someone seeming to have integrity isn't a good enough reason to lock someone else up.

I find it grossly offensive and off colour that people would automatically assume that a rape victim should be looked upon as being a liar as your OP implied.As Ive stated twice already,the number of people that would make these kinds of accusations are in the overwhelming minority,probably similar in the number of people that would commit rape.A tiny percentage should not cast doubt on everyone.

Again, where in the name of Christ are you getting this from? You know how criminal trials work right? If there were two people on the stand I'm sure everyone would believe one person more than another. However finding one person more believable isn't the burden of proof that we have in our justice system.

Have you ever known a rape victim,because I do.I doubt it because if you did then Id hazard a guess that your train of thought would be very different.

No, it would be much the same in legal terms. In personal terms I wouldn't be waiting for a legal process.

This goes back to what Ive already said.Im not talking about only someone saying they were raped however when there are DNA traces,physical signs of rape as well as the victims testimony then yes,that goes beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion.That is my opinion and Im entitled to it,same as you are entitled to your own.

Physical signs of rape are, from what I've come across, quite hit and miss in many cases, and in both directions. Personally I would try to leave emotion aside and follow the guidelines if I were on a jury and in most cases would have no choice but to acquit. That's why so few rapes do get near court, the prosecution know it won't be a strong enough case because there's rarely enough evidence.

Ophiopogon

I don't know of I'm reading it wrong but I can't see anything offensive in Amachaei posts. I think they are looking at it from a practical level, how can you convict purely on "he said she said" without any doubt what so ever. This works both ways for all involved.

A Primal Nut

I think the argument that is taking place in this thread about proving non-consent is irrelevant in this case. All the prosecution have to do is prove that sex took place and that would completely destroy the defence's story that they didn't have sex with her - maybe it would not prove rape occurred but go a long way towards it, and certainly the fact that they lied would remove a lot of sympathy for them; if it was proven that sex did take place.

Alopex wrote: »

Its along the same lines in a way, I think its possible what might have happened here is she regretted it with the first guy, but as the other guys would have been witnesses to her not being distressed, her only option was to make a claim about them.

It's an interesting assessment but if that's the case why didn't the police prosecute the first guy? Because they couldn't prove it? But there is more evidence against him in the sense that at least they know there was sexual activity of some kind. It seems she has admitted having consensual sex with him. If you are right that the police offered him a deal to testify against the other two, then it seem strange the girl went along with this: prosecuting the two guys who had nothing to do with it.

What would be interesting would be to read the girl's very first statement immediately after the crime for three reasons:

1) If she immediately accused the two guys and not the first guy and admitted having consensual sex with him from the very beginning, that would back up her story. If she accused all three of rape at the start but the police really did make a deal with him to withdraw the allegations against him at a later stage, then that would back up Alopex's theory.

2) If she immediately accused all 3 and gave a reasonably accurate description of them, maybe even naming them; despite the fact they claimed they never met her; would definitely make it look like she is telling the truth, more than the two guys.

3) I wonder in her original statement how long she said the rapes lasted. Not that I would expect her to remember exactly but if she said it was a lot longer than three minutes, and then CCTV proved her wrong, then it would make her look suspicious. If she initially said it was very quick and CCTV later backed her up then that would go some way towards proving she is telling the truth. This point assumes she didn't know about the CCTV evidence at the beginning.

A Primal Nut

Alopex wrote: »

That seems odd, surely no matter how much "remorse" is shown, a non-statutory rape conviction should always require a custodial sentence. Remember there was uproar years ago when Paul Carney let a guy off with one.(and rightly so)

I agree with this. The judge said that Irish prisons conditions are overcrowded and “in some cases an affront to human dignity.”

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/laois-brothers-jailed-for-raping-woman-in-hotel-523528.html#ixzz1aKFu81U0

Seems this is the judges excuse for not always sending people to prison. I wonder if he says this every time he convicts someone? Jails are supposed to be an affront to human dignity. This seems to be one explanation why judges are reluctant to sentence people to prison; seems they feel sorry for people who are convicted of crimes.

This is a general comment, not related to the crime in the OP.

In relation to the crime in hand, looks like the brothers have a good chance of succeeding with an appeal.

Mr Walley said there are “too many troubling aspects to the case” to allow sentencing continue. She said the defence have not been given the DPP’s report as the prosecution claim privilege over it.

“That must be the most fundamental denial of fair procedure”, she told Mr Justice Sheehan.

She also pointed to the facts of the case, saying that the most “startling aspect is that whole incident is supposed to have taken place in two minutes with no DNA left behind.”

Prosecution counsel, Mr Paul Coffey SC, replied that Ms Walley’s points are for the Court of Criminal Appeal and that there is no reason to adjourn sentencing. Mr Justice Sheehan agreed and said the defence issues may be for the CCA but not for the sentencing judge.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/laois-brothers-jailed-for-raping-woman-in-hotel-523528.html#ixzz1aKGxgoBq

Otis Driftwood

Ok,my posts clearly arent reading on here as they are in my head so for that I apologise and Im stepping away from this thread.

Ophiopogon

I don't like to make judgement on case I read in the paper as I find they are never completly unbiased in the use of wording. We don't know what has actually happened here as we do not have all the facts. If it is true than I am glad there was a conviction as there are so few and I hope the woman can have some peace through that.

That being said...just to say that they are guilty because the guy lied about having sex with here is wrong. It is possible he lied as he has a girlfriend and was not smart enough to realise the seriousness of the situation. There are so many ways of pulling apart someone story on both sides. So again I don't know how you convict on pure word alone.

Eph1958

Methinks we're not getting the whole story here. A conviction without any supporting corroborative evidence seems strange. Anyone know if the jury verdict was unaminous or majority? Either way some clarification is needed.
It is my understanding that;
a)no matter what has transpired, no matter what stage proceedings are at, no matter what has been said, promised, or suggested, the moment the woman says stop the man must stop and if he does not he is guilty of rape, and
b)ejaculation does not have to happen for rape to occur.

I was a juror in a not dissilmilar case a few years ago. Scary stuff and an absolute minefield where men are concerned.

A Primal Nut

Ophiopogon wrote: »

I don't like to make judgement on case I read in the paper as I find they are never completly unbiased in the use of wording. We don't know what has actually happened here as we do not have all the facts. If it is true than I am glad there was a conviction as there are so few and I hope the woman can have some peace through that.

That being said...just to say that they are guilty because the guy lied about having sex with here is wrong. It is possible he lied as he has a girlfriend and was not smart enough to realise the seriousness of the situation. There are so many ways of pulling apart someone story on both sides. So again I don't know how you convict on pure word alone.

I agree with that; but I still think it would be evidence against them - not enough to convict but something more substantial. As long as they cant prove any sex took place then it looks more dubious.

kyocera

Guilty as charged IMO. Obviously sufficent evidence existed to charge those brothers. 3 years was too little a sentence. What an insult to their victim.

PK2008

kyocera wrote: »

Obviously sufficent evidence existed to charge those brothers.

Care to elaborate?

MagicMarker

Ophiopogon wrote: »

I don't know of I'm reading it wrong but I can't see anything offensive in Amachaei posts. I think they are looking at it from a practical level, how can you convict purely on "he said she said" without any doubt what so ever. This works both ways for all involved.

Agreed, I don't know why people are going off on one against him/her.

I thought amacachi's point was pretty clear and find it bizarre people are taking offense tbh.

Otis Driftwood

For claritys sake,it was his initial post I took umbrage with however seeing as he elaborated on what he ment then its a non issue so lets leave it at that.

a148pro

conviction quashed today fwiw, and DPP has indicated there will be no re-trial

bit unfair on the accused who have lost all benefit of the anonymity provisions and will forever have a question mark over their names in the eyes of some

paddy1990

a148pro wrote: »

conviction quashed today fwiw, and DPP has indicated there will be no re-trial

bit unfair on the accused who have lost all benefit of the anonymity provisions and will forever have a question mark over their names in the eyes of some

Indeed. Victims of the current landscape. Sad to see really. Mens lives and reputations easily ruined with no repercussions.

Nib

On what basis was it quashed? Link?

Jet Black

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-quashes-rape-conviction-of-laois-brothers-1.1949931

enda1

Did they then serve the 3 year sentence the poor lads!?

a148pro

Looks like they got bail pending their appeal so probably served a couple of weeks

banquo

I don't know much about this.

Is there a way (assumedly different for men and women) to medically collect evidence of a rape / even just sexual intercourse? If so, what's the time frame like? An hour? A day?

Because if there's a way to collect evidence then ... then we should just do that.

padser

banquo wrote: »

I don't know much about this.

Is there a way (assumedly different for men and women) to medically collect evidence of a rape / even just sexual intercourse? If so, what's the time frame like? An hour? A day?

Because if there's a way to collect evidence then ... then we should just do that.

It's been debated at length in this thread.

FWIW I don't see how forensic evidence can prove anything more than rough sex (which might go a good deal towards getting a conviction if having consensual sex was denied by the accused).

To be honest I just don't understand how most rape convictions occur. If the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" and that the accused "knew there was no consent or was reckless as to whether or not there was consent" which is my memory of the test I just don't see how there can be many convictions.

In the vast vast majority of cases (as in this one) it must ultimately come down to "he said / she said". How can that be proof "beyond reasonable doubt".

banquo

I'm purely speculating, but surely many cases would show signs of a struggle (wrists, neck), or in the case of a drug rape blood tests could be taken?