Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending.
One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?

freshpopcorn wrote: »

In a relationship with another men/seeking men/etc. It's not rocket science.

You've gone though all of their profiles on facebook to establish that?

Heres Johnny

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending.
One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?

The ones in the clip were gay too. Any straight man getting involved in the campaign is definitely looking for the ride.
I've 1 mate in a rugby team WhatsApp group who believes 100% they are innocent. But on social media he's liking and commenting in support of women. Reckons he'll get the end away no bother.

Keyzer

Strazdas wrote: »

In fairness though, you're assuming the protests were about the trial result and nothing else. But it was stated at the protest that one of the things they were concerned with was how female complainants are treated on the stand by defence lawyers and there were other aspects of the trial they were unhappy with.

The trial took place in a different country and judicial system to the Republic of Ireland. That being the case, why aren't these same people out protesting about rape cases all over the world? Just because it was close to home they give a toss?

Strazdas wrote: »

We've seen plenty of people describe the woman as a "liar" for example,when there's not much evidence she didn't believe what she was saying (she left the house in tears and was crying in the taxi all the way home).

You, me and everyone else on boards or whatever internet based platform discussions relating to this case are being held on have no idea what happened that night. We weren't there. She made her case, the four lads defended themselves. For every "fact" (bleeding and upset in the taxi) stated, there is a counter argument. I'm not going to be a callous bastard and start spouting crap because, as I said, I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.

The only true fact is this: they were found not guilty by unanimous decision.

Red_Wake

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending.
One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?

How do you know that all the men attending  are gay?

Maybe they all touch flutes together?

hill16bhoy

torqtorq wrote: »

Its very interesting to see that you have no other interests in life bar this 1 thread.

22 posts and counting and all on this thread.

As you have a clear agenda it does make one wonder if you are in the PR.

It's very interesting how you took the trouble to go back through my posting history because you can't fathom how somebody doesn't have the same opinion as you, or came to the conclusion that I "have no other interests".

But sure it's much easier to argue against a strawman.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "the PR", so you'll have to explain further on that one.

Sidebaro

GreeBo wrote:

So what's the basis for this supposed privilege this white male enjoys?

I'm assuming it was his fame, social status and upbringing.

keith_sixteen

Strazdas wrote: »

He was declared not guilty in the trial, he doesn't need to hammer home this point.

Apparently he does given all of the people who seem to think otherwise.

freshpopcorn

Augeo wrote: »

You've gone though all of their profiles on facebook to establish that?

There wasn't many of them. It took about to clicks.

Faugheen

jimmynokia wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here.

Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable.

What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system.

I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested.

You are proving yourslef to be a lost soul here, the jury is there to give a verdict,regadless of UK /BRITISH law it should be implemented. The problem is once again the foooking media and journalists which are now out in their droves and have been during the trial pushing their personal agenda on the issue and people tend to believe what is read in the papers or online so wake up and see the logic behind my comment.
How hard is that to take in ffs...

Oh my god.

Public prosecution is in place to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial.

How hard is that to understand?

If you have private prosecution. You take that away from the defendant.

You can grant the defendant anonymity while still having a public prosecution. However, whether the defendant is entitled to anonymity is an issue for the law in that jurisdiction.

RebelButtMunch

Heres Johnny wrote: »

The ones in the clip were gay too. Any straight man getting involved in the campaign is definitely looking for the ride.
I've 1 mate in a rugby team WhatsApp group who believes 100% they are innocent. But on social media he's liking and commenting in support of women. Reckons he'll get the end away no bother.

I had to have a double check there to make sure we are in AH

Mrs Shuttleworth

GreeBo wrote: »

So if he believes the woman....he doesn't believe them.

2 + 2 = ?

Why did he take it down?

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

I think the defendants in this case are ugly, brutish and boring. Is that "defamatory", or as the British are so fond of prosecuting, "hate speech"?

Uncharted

hill16bhoy wrote: »

"Feminazis", "lynch mobs".

Cute.

It's very, very easy to get tickets for provincial rugby matches, and anybody can buy them.

Eh........ yeahhhhhh! I know all of the above,but please,surely,even though it's plain for all to see that you just want an argument for arguments sake..... you will surely concede that the majority of rugby attendees do not fit the demographic of 'penis hater' rally attendees.

freshpopcorn

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

I know what gay means, I'm asking how you know that all the men attending the march are gay?

It says who they are in a relationship with or what gender they are attached to.
It just struck me that their wasn't a lot of straight white men attending. IE The type of one's Louise O'Neill finds it hard to be in a relationship with.

Nesta99

Laois_Man wrote: »

I see the foreperson of the jury has been threatened with arrest because of comments she made on broadsheet.ie and advised to get a lawyer.

I also see there are arguments between the judge and the media ongoing whereby the media were forbidden from reporting matters discussed in the absence of the jury for fear of influencing the jury. The media now arguing this is no longer valid and saying they should now be able to report on the exchanges.

This story might have a long way to run yet.

Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?

Strazdas

Keyzer wrote: »

The trial took place in a different country and judicial system to the Republic of Ireland. That being the case, why aren't these same people out protesting about rape cases all over the world? Just because it was close to home they give a toss?



You, me and everyone else on boards or whatever internet based platform discussions relating to this case are being held on have no idea what happened that night. We weren't there. She made her case, the four lads defended themselves. For every "fact" (bleeding and upset in the taxi) stated, there is a counter argument. I'm not going to be a callous bastard and start spouting crap because, as I said, I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.

The only true fact is this: they were found not guilty by unanimous decision.

My point is the protests weren't necessarily about the verdict only, but all aspects of the nine week trial, particularly with how the woman was treated on the stand.

The different jurisdiction thing doesn't really hold up in this particular case. Both Jackson and Olding play for the Ireland rugby team, a team which represents the entire island. Of course people in the ROI are going to be interested in the case and the verdict.

Outlaw Pete

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

AudreyHepburn

Canterelle wrote: »

Ah what’s the point. To be clear, I agree with the verdict. There was not enough to convict, so that was the only reasonable verdict. No point debating anything else with this mindset, I think it’s going over your head.

It really isn’t and I’d appreciate a little less snottiness in your replys.

These protests can’t have anything to do with how rape victims are treated because the girl involved wasn’t a rape victim and she wasn’t treated in any way negatively.

She had to take the stand and she had to be questioned. Her story could not be simply taken as gospel nor could the four lads be expected not that defend themselves.

Therefore I can only assume they are simply about people not liking the outcome of the case.

Stheno

Nesta99 wrote: »

Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?

She made comments about the complainant

Mrs Shuttleworth

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

hill16bhoy

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but she was not on trial, hence the verdict from the jury implies zero about her.

People really need to learn how a trial works before spouting nonsense

You don't have to have been on trial to be defamed.

The jury did not find that the allegations were false.

Therefore anybody who knowingly publishes a statement that complainant made knowingly false allegations is making a knowingly false statement in order to damage her reputation.

dxhound2005

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.

I think the defendants in this case are ugly, brutish and boring. Is that "defamatory", or as the British are so fond of prosecuting, "hate speech"?

In what way are they boring?

Mokuba

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

And the people who think that are stupid.

The case was likely only brought to court BECAUSE of their status. No chance they were ever going to be convicted based on the prosecutions evidence and testimonies.

And, Jackson is the only one of the four who did not require legal aid.

Laois_Man

Nesta99 wrote: »

Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?

haven't seen them but somebody said the juror passed comments about the background of the accuser.

The juror has since though made further comments that she said nothing outside the parameters set down by the judge and then had a right moan that they are now changing those parameters retrospectively

She needs to just shut up

Strazdas

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected.

Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.

I completely disagreed with AOR's tweet and thought it was wrong and a stupid thing for a public representative to say. However, I'm not sure at all that it is a good idea for Jackson to get into a legal battle with him.

Laois_Man

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.

I can "privately" think you shot JFK if I want

I can't announce it in public though

AudreyHepburn

Strazdas wrote: »

I completely disagreed with AOR's tweet and thought it was wrong and a stupid thing for a public representative to say. However, I'm not sure at all that it is a good idea for Jackson to get into a legal battle with him.

Should he not be allowed to defend his name and reputation?

He’s innocent - he should not have to stay silent and let people defame him.

Canterelle

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It really isn’t and I’d appreciate a little less snottiness in your replys.

These protests can’t have anything to do with how rape victims are treated because the girl involved wasn’t a rape victim and she wasn’t treated in any way negatively.

She had to take the stand and she had to be questioned. Her story could not be simply taken as gospel nor could the four lads be expected not that defend themselves.

Therefore I can only assume they are simply about people not liking the outcome of the case.

You don’t like “snotty” replies yet assume everyone is protesting the verdict. Assume the protests can’t be about how rape victims are treated. Assume anybody is stupid enough to think a person who brings a rape case should automatically be believed. As I said, what’s the point.

Laois_Man

Laois_Man wrote: »

haven't seen them but somebody said the juror passed comments about the background of the accuser.

The juror has since though made further comments that she said nothing outside the parameters set down by the judge and then had a right moan that they are now changing those parameters retrospectively

She needs to just shut up

Grim enough to hear jury members thinking about the ladies background.

hill16bhoy

Uncharted wrote: »

Eh........ yeahhhhhh! I know all of the above,but please,surely,even though it's plain for all to see that you just want an argument for arguments sake..... you will surely concede that the majority of rugby attendees do not fit the demographic of 'penis hater' rally attendees.

I'm very well acquainted with the demographics of rugby crowds, thanks.

Indeed, the majority of rugby attendees are not "penis haters".

Neither are the majority of people who class themselves as feminists or those who have expressed solidarity with the complainant.

I would venture there are very few people in general who class themselves as "penis haters".

But, sure again, it's far easier to argue against a strawman.

I'm merely pointing out that as long as Jackson pursues spurious legal actions he won't be doing himself any favours. Women, even those who don't regularly attend rugby matches, are allowed buy tickets to them.

And those who class anybody who uses the #ibelieveher hashtag as "penis haters" on his behalf are not doing him any favours either.

AudreyHepburn

Canterelle wrote: »

You don’t like “snotty” replies yet assume everyone is protesting the verdict. Assume the protests can’t be about how rape victims are treated. Assume anybody is stupid enough to think a person who brings a rape case should automatically be believed. As I said, what’s the point.

Then explain it to me instead of getting of getting stroppy. Because if it’s not about the case or how rape victims are treated then I can’t see what it’s about.