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

Ulysses Gaze

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't think we understand how damaging a crime rape actually is...it destroys a person, women in particular....it is one of the most serious crimes on the statute books...

Imagine the outrage if 90% of murders in this country went unsolved...it would suggest a primitive society unable to erect proper moral standards in both justice and investigation of the taking of a persons life....luckily, in this country we have a fairly robust record in convicting murders...not too many false convictions that I am aware of...

Rape is probably the next most serious charge a person can face...it can destroy a life to either be a victim of a rape, or be a victim of a false accusation of rape...

The likelihood that a woman will be raped is much much higher than the likelihood of a man facing a false accusation of a rape...

The vast majority of rapes are not violent in nature...they are perpetrated by people known to/or familiar with the victim...there is never any evidence to these crimes...it normally boils down to one persons word against another's....which means the victim's character is on trial....

The conviction rape of rape is abysmal....which can only suggest that our justice system when it comes to successfully convicting rapists is primitive....by extension we as a people, when it comes to convicting rapists...are primitive...

Cases like this, come along every now and again, and they challenge society...people don't like to be challenged, they invariably and reject any notion that there is anything wrong....

I say that as an individual, who has had to challenge myself more times than I'd like...I've had to accept that what I thought was right, was actually completely wrong (I won't bore with those details)....

I have no doubt I will be ridiculed for what I am about to say...but I've been ridiculed before on threads like this and it doesn't bother me...I see my old self in some people that ridiculed me...

That legal system, when it comes to the pursuit of justice when it comes to rape, is a product of the male group think (not just restricted to men)....who in their right mind would think that allowing an already traumatised victim endure a vicious adversarial legal process without legal representation is ok?

When it comes to non violent rape cases, most of us take a starting point that the woman is lying...as does the legal process...

Who in their right mind think that it is perfectly acceptable to parade a woman's underwear around a courtroom?

Who in their right mind, think that it is perfectly acceptable to assassinate (unchallenged because of an absence of her own legal team) a woman's character in pursuit of doubt is ok?

Like I said, every so often, a case will come along that will challenge people....I can see that, sadly, we haven't really learned a thing...

So what is the solution?

Rodin

Faugheen wrote: »

The courts didn't decide she wasn't raped ffs.

The jury can find the defendants not guilty but still believe the complainants story.

However, it's not enough to believe the story, there needs to be enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which there wasn't.

People need to stop spreading this absolute nonsense, bull**** and completely untrue statement that the courts system said she lied and that no crime took place.

I never said she lied.
But it is a possibility - to deny that is ludicrous.

HappyAsLarE

holyhead wrote: »

As the men have been found innocent of rape do they have a counter case against the accused for defamation/assassination of character given the seriousness of a rape allegation in societal terms.

Rape is when the man knows he doesn’t have consent. In this case they thought they had. Doesn’t mean she is lying.

Faugheen

holyhead wrote: »

As the men have been found innocent of rape do they have a counter case against the accused for defamation/assassination of character given the seriousness of a rape allegation in societal terms.

You mean the same complainant who wasn't found guilty of anything?

How come the lads are innocent and she isn't?

Zonda999

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Why is sentiment here so different to twitter?

I don't know but it really defines the reason I like reading Boards on stories like this and am appalled by Twitter.

Boards seems to allow for considered thought provoking posts and seemingly intelligent discussion. Twitter is a shouting match of angry people looking to further usually fairly extreme opinions based on sweeping statements bundled with the going hashtag of the day.

There's obviously different age groups on here discussing this as opposed to those tweeting about it under the popular hashtags, To be honest, I suspect the general IQ is a lot higher here.

Fann Linn

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Rape is when the man knows he doesn’t have consent. In this case they thought they had. Doesn’t mean she is lying.

In this case there was also a sober witness who didn't see a rape.

holyhead

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Rape is when the man knows he doesn’t have consent. In this case they thought they had. Doesn’t mean she is lying.

Surely the fact that they were not found guilty means they had consent? If they hadn't consent it's rape.

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

I never said she lied.
But it is a possibility - to deny that is ludicrous.

That comes down to opinion.

However, to say the court found that no rape took place is a lie.

Silentcorner

Zonda999 wrote: »

I don't know but it really defines the reason I like reading Boards on stories like this and am appalled by Twitter.

Boards seems to allow for considered thought provoking posts and seemingly intelligent discussion. Twitter is a shouting match of angry people looking to further usually fairly extreme opinions based on sweeping statements bundled with the going hashtag of the day.

There's obviously different age groups on here discussing this as opposed to those tweeting about it under the popular hashtags, To be honest, I suspect the general IQ is a lot higher here.

You do realise, or have enough self awareness to recognise, that they probably think the same over in twitterland...

It reminds me of religious nutters who all believe their god is better than yours...

foxyladyxx

Rodin wrote: »

I never said she lied.
But it is a possibility - to deny that is ludicrous.

I have not heard anyone claim that the victim was lying. . All appear to agree that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

holyhead

Faugheen wrote: »

You mean the same complainant who wasn't found guilty of anything?

How come the lads are innocent and she isn't?

Because a court of law has told us the lads are innocent.

Ronaldinho

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

RuMan wrote: »

Sounds like a cop out.

I fail to see the relevance of this case to your personal situation. There was a car crash story in the news, it reminded me of why i dont drive ?

Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult.

That generalisation is staggeringly sexist and offensive.

I think you'll find there's hundreds of thousands of ladies up and down the country in loving relationships that would disagree with you.

RuMan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult. The What's App texts were hardly the stuff of Noel Coward.

Keep digging, I'm really enjoying the confirmation.

All men ? Some men are some arent, some women are some arent.

You appear to have isolated yourself in a cloak of superiority for some reason. Good luck with that, sounds like a pretty miserable existence to be honest.

Faugheen

holyhead wrote: »

Surely the fact that they were not found guilty means they had consent? If they hadn't consent it's rape.

Nope, they were found not guilty because the prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Nowhere in court or in the verdict does it say she was guilty of lying. The jury could still believe her story and hand out a not guilty verdict.

Why do people just completely decide to ignore this and make up their own rules as to what the verdict actually means?

ibkeane

I happened to be at the check out in Dunnes Stores a little after the verdict was anounced . As i was being "served" by a multi tasking check out girl who was much more interested in her conversation with her adjacent colleges .
Abruptly a female manager type appeared in a state of animation adressing all and sundry with the words " Did yes herre de nws , dey ****ing gor awy wir it "

This unfortunatly sums up the attitude of the militant womens libbers , cranks, professional protesters that are coming out of the woodwork .
Lets be clear this was a case where four young men were accused of serious crimes including rape , it was not a trial of morals .
The jury who sat for ten weeks and heard all the facts found the accused not guilty on all charges , ie. INNOCENT .
Logic would suggest given the verdict that the complainent was lying and therefore guilty of an offence punishable by law . Whats good for the goose etc ,. Best wishes to those who endured these false allegations and I hope to seen you back playing rugby for province and country .

Faugheen

holyhead wrote: »

Because a court of law has told us the lads are innocent.

And she hasn't been found guilty of anything either. So why should she be sued?

Rodin

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I have not heard anyone claim that the victim was lying. . All appear to agree that there was sufficient evidence to convict.

All?
11 jurors disagree. If they thought there was sufficient evidence they'd have convicted !?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

holyhead wrote: »

As the men have been found innocent of rape do they have a counter case against the accused for defamation/assassination of character given the seriousness of a rape allegation in societal terms.

Only if they can prove she deliberately made the claims up.

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

All?
11 jurors disagree. If they thought there was sufficient evidence they'd have convicted !?

Are you just going to ignore the fact that you're spreading lies about what the court said or what?

Silentcorner

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

So what is the solution?

For a start, the alleged victim should have access to her own legal team...that would be a huge shift believe it or not...

The woman in any rape case is seen as a witness to the crime, and not the victim of the crime...that need to change...

If you are victim of an assault....you are not asked how you reacted, to explain how you reacted, what were you wearing, how many drinks did you have, what type of underwear you were wearing...if you are the victim of a sexual assault...you are fair game...

Strazdas

Faugheen wrote: »

And she hasn't been found guilty of anything either. So why should she be sued?

A false allegation would entail Dara Florence claiming she had been raped by the three men. There was nothing false about what the complainant was alleging, it just came down to the issue of consent.

Rodin

Faugheen wrote: »

That comes down to opinion.

However, to say the court found that no rape took place is a lie.

It does not come down to opinion. It is a fact that she may have lied.

Whether she did or not is another matter but it is a fact that it is a possibility.

jr86

Dots1982 wrote: »

Once all the evidence was heard there couldn’t be a conviction on the main charges. You had a witness who claimed she saw a threesome not a rape. What was left of the prosecution after that testimony?

Their goose was cooked then in terms of convicting Jackson. Hedworth's cross examination of him was half hearted at best.

Instead he tried to play a trump card and went after olding and mcilroy to make them trip up. It appears he pretty much based his closing statement on whatsapp texts.

Their only real hope of a conviction was Harrison. However a real human element to him was presented in the court and given that character witnesses were to be taken into account in the jury's deliberation he was always likely to get off.

holyhead

Faugheen wrote: »

And she hasn't been found guilty of anything either. So why should she be sued?

If the court has decided the men were innocent, which as it stands they are, then they have had their "good name" unfairly smeared, based on the current judgment. I say current, because maybe the girl can pursue an appeal???

wexie

Faugheen wrote: »

Are you just going to ignore the fact that you're spreading lies about what the court said or what?

Rodin wrote: »

All?
11 jurors disagree. If they thought there was sufficient evidence they'd have convicted !?

Lads....cool down....lets wait and see if Foxylady comes back to change her typo from sufficient to insufficient?

JP Liz V1

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Also I notice #suemePaddy trending on twitter...... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

He getting consent

bloodless_coup

Hope Paddy is back to playing rugby soon and works his way back into the Irish squad. Would be good to have options for the world cup.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Zonda999 wrote: »

I don't know but it really defines the reason I like reading Boards on stories like this and am appalled by Twitter.

Boards seems to allow for considered thought provoking posts and seemingly intelligent discussion. Twitter is a shouting match of angry people looking to further usually fairly extreme opinions based on sweeping statements bundled with the going hashtag of the day.

There's obviously different age groups on here discussing this as opposed to those tweeting about it under the popular hashtags, To be honest, I suspect the general IQ is a lot higher here.

Hmm. You would say that though.

I think both platforms have different extremes. Boards seems to be more right wing although I don’t think it was always that way.

ibkeane

Logic suggests she was lying to a court of law , its called perjury which is used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice.

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

It does not come down to opinion. It is a fact that she may have lied.

Whether she did or not is another matter but it is a fact that it is a possibility.

Nobody can categorically say she is lying though, can they? So it does come down to opinion as to whether you think she lied or not.

However, I'll say it again, you said that the court found she wasn't raped. Are you going to acknowledge that this is an untrue statement or are you going to keep ignoring it?