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

Pac1Man

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

Boards is right wing?



I think this thread has now jumped the shark.

Rodin

Faugheen wrote: »

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?

And I for one am not saying she IS lying?!
Dear god...i have stated it is a possibility. Which it is.
The reading comprehension of some leaves a lot to be desired.

Flipper22

For Forks Sake wrote: »

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

Empty posturing.

Everyone has actually deleted all the potentially defamatory tweets! And have replaced them with grandiose meaningless nonsense statements. And 'suemepaddy '. Which is obviously not defamatory.

Pathetic

Faugheen

holyhead wrote: »

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???

Jesus Christ.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Complainant = not guilty of anything.

What is it about the above you don't understand?

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They mostly are annoyed that an allegation has not turned out to have any evidence to back it up.

Yes that is rather rum.
Wasnt following all the twists and turns of the trial, but apart from the allegation of 'rape' itself in a rather general sense, was there really anything clearcut in Her's testimony that made the case that she was raped, rather than just found herself to be having sex ?

drillyeye

Walked past a small group of protestors a few days ago, with signs of "I believe her!"

My honest thought was "so?"

People have been riled up in society through identity politics, dividing us all into smaller, agitated groups of pissed off people. It comes from left-ism, liberalism, whatever you want to call it.

I would not be the least surprised if many of these "I believe her!" type of people don't give a flying fook about any information, good or bad. Its just an excuse to get out there and "demonstrate" their rage about their victimhood.

Not picking on women, its every group being sub-divided, being told incessantly that they are victims. The internet is basically one giant training ground to turn normal people into aggressively unlikeable freaks.........to the point I don't believe peoples intentions anymore.

It all a big steaming pile of shyte. Fooking nuke the planet from orbit, its the only way to be sure

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ibkeane wrote: »

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.

Weird logic. If she genuinely believe she was raped - and it's pretty clear from her whatsapp messages that she did - she's not lying.

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

And I for one am not saying she IS lying?!
Dear god...i have stated it is a possibility. Which it is.
The reading comprehension of some leaves a lot to be desired.

But you said the court found a rape didn't take place, didn't you? That's not a true statement to make.

jr86

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.

A lot of the noise on Twitter is also from teenagers who in fairness don't know any better. They're impressionable and will jump on a bandwagon for peer approval and garnering likes

Somewhere like boards doesn't offer the same ego boost.

I think there's much more wind up merchants here and much more unhinged people on Twitter.

But all in all here is much more balanced overall.

It's far easier to be rational here. I think it's been a huge help that it was in lockdown during the actual trial

backspin.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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

This is absolutely ridiculous, how have you reached the age you are and not realise how different men are on an individual level. Men vary from each other in so many ways massively.

bloodless_coup

Faugheen wrote: »

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?

Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty of the accusation of rape = innocent = didn't rape.

foxyladyxx

holyhead wrote: »

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

No it did not. .The 11 jurors found insufficient evidence to convict, ,

Rodin

Faugheen wrote: »

But you said the court found a rape didn't take place, didn't you? That's not a true statement to make.

Not one of those 4 men were convicted of rape
Therefore in the courts opinion, a rape did not take place.

If it did, who's the rapist.

Rape is a criminal offence requiring the two features of mens rea and an actus reus. No person there was convicted. Rape, in its legal sense (the only one) was deemed not to have happened.

Rodin

foxyladyxx wrote: »

No it did not. .The 11 jurors found insufficient evidence to convict, ,

At no time were the lads never NOT innocent.

They walked in as innocent men and walked out as innocent men. Their status never changed.

Faugheen

doylefe wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty of the accusation of rape = innocent = didn't rape.

Nope. Wrong.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

She hasn't been found guilty of anything either, so does innocent until proven guilty not apply to her too?

steddyeddy

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Like I said before SOME lads do talk like this about women amongst their peer group, regardless of background.

I've heard lads in college, educated if you will, come out with some fairly vile things about women.

I've heard what you might call 'rough' lads do the same.

And then I've heard some women on both sides of the spectrum say not particularly pleasant things about men.

The whatsapp messages are vile. But its conversations that are being replicated amongst lads tonight as we speak.

It's really nothing new. I always found it cringy to read/hear myself but it's a fact of life.

Yes some lads do but we all know that. That doesn't lesson the severity of the messages though.

irishman86

foxyladyxx wrote: »

No it did not. .The 11 jurors found insufficient evidence to convict, ,

Wow, how many times has this been pointed out
Not guilty = innocent

Mrsmum

Silentcorner wrote: »

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...

In years to come I believe this will no longer happen and then we will be ashamed we (collectively) ever thought it was ok.

foxyladyxx

wexie wrote: »

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

Sorry . .Typo ..Insufficient evidence to convict.

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

Not one of those 4 men were convicted of rape
Therefore in the courts opinion, a rape did not take place.

If it did, who's the rapist.

Rape is a criminal offence requiring the two features of mens rea and an actus reus. No person there was convicted. Rape, in its legal sense (the only one) was deemed not to have happened.

Right.

I stab you on a night out. I'm brought to court and found not guilty.

You know I did, the police know I did it, I know I did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove it.

Does this man you weren't stabbed or a stabbing didn't take place?

You have absolutely no idea what the verdict means, so you should step away and go back to your colouring book.

RuMan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes some lads do but we all know that. That doesn't lesson the severity of the messages though.

In fairness it was a private conversation, not like they were talking about her in front of her or other people. The worst messages were from people outside the 4 charged in fact.

I dont really understand the OTT outrage over messages to be honest. You have a possible rape on one end and a possible false accusation at the other and people are fixating on whatsapp messages.

bloodless_coup

Faugheen wrote: »

Nope. Wrong.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

She hasn't been found guilty of anything either, so does innocent until proven guilty not apply to her too?

Nope. Wrong.

jr86

Have blane and Harrison been stripped of their international careers yet?

Depp

foxyladyxx wrote: »

No it did not. .The 11 jurors found insufficient evidence to convict, ,

In non-tyrannical legal systems you are innocent until proven guilty, the court returned a not guilty verdict, ipso facto, the court case does indeed tell us the defendants are innocent.

Checkmate19

They where found not guilty. Case closed. Simple. Only system we have. The girl is some mothers daughters etc but so are the lads or sons. I know a guy who spent two years in jail accused of rape and the girl he was fighting with withdraw and basically said she was lying. three months later he was killed in a car crash. justice. whatever. chad evans another case etc etc. is all bollix. who cares we move on you social media warrior clowns. go to bed. also the people on the march you need a look at yourselfs.

Mokuba

jr86 wrote: »

Have blane and Harrison been stripped of their international careers yet?

That is a funny one alright.

The IRFU should investigate me too. Sure why not, if people want them to investigate two people who have literally nothing to do with them.

Pac1Man

Faugheen wrote: »

Right.

I stab you on a night out. I'm brought to court and found not guilty.

You know I did, the police know I did it, I know I did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove it.

Does this man you weren't stabbed or a stabbing didn't take place?

You have absolutely no idea what the verdict means, so you should step away and go back to your colouring book.

In that case there would be evidence of a stabbing. No need for an analogy though, the case is fairly clear.

Insufficient evidence. Innocent.

jr86

Mokuba wrote: »

That is a funny one alright.

The IRFU should investigate me too. Sure why not, if people want them to investigate two people who have literally nothing to do with them.

Ah but they were charged with rape weren't they?

Happy4all

irishman86 wrote: »

Wow, how many times has this been pointed out
Not guilty = innocent

O J Simpson not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown = innocent

drillyeye

Faugheen wrote: »

Right.

I stab you on a night out. I'm brought to court and found not guilty.

You know I did, the police know I did it, I know I did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove it.

Does this man you weren't stabbed or a stabbing didn't take place?

You have absolutely no idea what the verdict means, so you should step away and go back to your colouring book.

What are yous all talking about?!

It seems to be a case of "well, I wasn't there but she could have been raped....." versus "well, I wasn't there but she might not have been raped...."

You'll never know. It cant be categorically proven by either side. Whats the point in stating the obvious over and over?

Sure at the rate we're going everyone's gonna have a live video camera with them at all times anyway, recording every second of their lives. Until then.......don't get into a situation where you could be raped where possible, and if you are raped/accused of rape.....good luck!