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

Pac1Man

Faugheen wrote: »

The reason for the scenario was the poster said a not guilty verdict meant the crime didn't happen.

Is this true, or false?

There is evidence a rape took place. It's called the complainant.

It was just a terrible analogy to use. If an assault happened, you would know it happened. The only question would be who did it.

There was insufficient evidence in this case to price that a rape took place. The complainant is not evidence.

holyhead

Faugheen wrote: »

Not really, because the defence earned their money to cast reasonable doubt. The lads could have been telling the truth, they could have been lying. I genuinely don't know.

However, there's people saying here that the verdict proves that the complainant was lying or no crime took place and there is nothing in the verdict to suggest this.

Imagine the PPS takes out a false allegation claim against the girl. The 4 lads are prosecution witnesses. The girl is the defendant. You have the same witnesses, the same testimonies from either side and the girl gets to introduce character witnesses. You have essentially the same evidence as this one.

Do you think a jury would be able to find her guilty when you consider all of the evidence? No, they couldn't possibly.

Does this mean the 4 lads were lying and she was actually raped? No, it means the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem is that people are not equating a not guilty verdict to innocence. People are seeing the not guilty as "oh well they couldn't prove they did it, as opposed to well no we know it wasn't rape/ they didn't rape her".

irishrebe

Faugheen wrote: »

Pac1Man wrote: »

If you can provide evidence that you didn't assault someone, then you're innocent. However, your analogy is all wrong as there would be evidence that an assault took place. There was no evidence of a rape.

The reason for the scenario was the poster said a not guilty verdict meant the crime didn't happen.

Is this true, or false?

There is evidence a rape took place. It's called the complainant.

If there was evidence a rape had taken place, the defendants would most likely have been convicted. I'm not taking sides here but just stating a fact. There was insufficient evidence to convict the accused. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

bloodless_coup

Fann Linn wrote: »

She reported what she saw. Being sober puts her in a better position than everyone else who had more than the legal drink driving limit.

I missed the drink driving part of the case.

Faugheen

Flipper22 wrote: »

Of course, if you mean belief as in a hunch, that is true. I mean active belief beyond reasonable doubt. They decide based on the evidence, of which her testimony was a key part. If they had believed, without reasonable doubt, that her testimony was accurate, they would have convicted. They didn't.

I don't think we're disagreeing over much here, any of the following is possible:
They thought it likely that it was rape
They had no idea
They thought it unlikely that it was rape
They were convinced it was consensual

I don't think we are disagreeing either. For a start, the not guilty verdict is the correct one.

What is incorrect, though, is the verdict of not guilty proves that she was lying or a crime didn't take place.

As you've alluded, the jury can believe her story but there needs to be enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to match their beliefs. There wasn't enough to convict in this case.

Strazdas

Venom wrote: »

While possible, I doubt the jury would come to such a fast and unanimous verdict as was the case in this trial if they felt as you discribed.

I wasn't talking about this specific case. I was saying that in general a jury might have strong suspicions about a defendant and it's a moot point whether he / she is "innocent" if he / she is found not guilty.

drillyeye

irishrebe wrote: »

OK, let me rephrase it. That is how I feel, how my sister feels and how just about every woman I know feels. That OK for you?

You don't know how your sister feels, you only know what she tells you. I'd imagine if your sister were to tell you that she DOESNT feel like a victim, you might be the type to "instruct" her. Or perhaps she simply copied your toxic beliefs. Bad role models and all that.

People who go around with gigantic chips on their shoulder tend to be agreed with quickly, just to get them off the subject, or away from them, or what have you.

I mean, even here you are facetiously trying to escape the point with your "all women are victims" mantra intact.

Believe what you like, but it doesn't take more than a seconds thought to realise youre your own worst enemy. You, not anyone else, and especially not half of the planet earth.

Blame all the men in the world, go around thinking how much of a victim you are........then hold your breath while waiting for the world flips upside to accommodate you.

Its such a weird psychology to hold! Even now, just me challenging the crazy idea of "all women", you probably feel like youre being victimised. An almost perfect defence mechanism. Perfect, except for the unhappiness it causes you, and the bad example it sets for others. A communicable disease of sorts.

With that attitude, you don't need to listen to anything that could change your perspective, or absorb new information.

Its a less complicated position as it sheds personal responsibility, but no adult can be truly happy if every breath they take is as a victim. Easy way is usually the worst way.

That's what I referred to earlier. If you strip yourself of agency, you become both helpless and hopeless, positioning yourself into a position with no responsibility other than to point a finger a blame "others".

Well, good luck with that!

irishrebe

irishman86 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yeah let's all just make assumptions based on fresh air. Let's assume I somehow associate with people who are just like me when in fact my job working with women in developing countries meant I was placed in accommodation with women from all sorts of backgrounds and religions and cultural beliefs. Give yourself a pat on the back there for being so very clever and perceptive.

You are making assumptions left right and centre. You dont have a monopoly on assumptions
Thats funny as ive lived in developing countries and among people of different religions and cultural beliefs alas you are the only one of the two of us spouting nonsense
I dont need to give myself a pat on the back, another thing you have gotten wrong
Its funny you say you have lived in other places but consider Ireland to have a problem when developing countries have it a thousand times worse
So yeah i call bull****

Calm down there, petal.

Prospectors

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this. You're saying that "innocent" is the exact same thing as being "not guilty". A jury might have strong suspicions you did in fact commit the crime but haven't got enough evidence to convict you with. Could such a person be said to have been declared "innocent" of all charges?

That is absolutely a possibility (that the jury had suspicions). But from a legal standpoint, those 4 guys still maintain their presumption of innocence. It does not 100% guarantee their actual innocence but it's presumed nonetheless. It's as good as we can have it as far as I can see.
The alternative is a lot worse.

irishrebe

drillyeye wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

OK, let me rephrase it. That is how I feel, how my sister feels and how just about every woman I know feels. That OK for you?

You don't know how your sister feels, you only know what she tells you. I'd imagine if your sister were to tell you that she DOESNT feel like a victim, you might be the type to "instruct" her. Or perhaps she simply copied your toxic beliefs. Bad role models and all that.

People who go around with gigantic chips on their shoulder tend to be agreed with quickly, just to get them off the subject, or away from them, or what have you.

I mean, even here you are facetiously trying to escape the point with your "all women are victims" mantra intact.

Believe what you like, but it doesn't take more than a seconds thought to realise youre your own worst enemy. You, not anyone else, and especially not half of the planet earth.

Blame all the men in the world, go around thinking how much of a victim you are........then hold your breath while waiting for the world flips upside to accommodate you.

Its such a weird psychology to hold! Even now, just me challenging the crazy idea of "all women", you probably feel like youre being victimised. An almost perfect defence mechanism. Perfect, except for the unhappiness it causes you, and the bad example it sets for others. A communicable disease of sorts.

With that attitude, you don't need to listen to anything that could change your perspective, or absorb new information.

Its a less complicated position as it sheds personal responsibility, but no adult can be truly happy if every breath they take is as a victim. Easy way is usually the worst way.

That's what I referred to earlier. If you strip yourself of agency, you become both helpless and hopeless, positioning yourself into a position with no responsibility other than to point a finger a blame "others".

Well, good luck with that!

Wow...truly incredible that you invented all these assumptions and explanations rather than accept that the women in my life feel that way. Truly incredible. Well done to you.

Hallowed

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.

Wtf. Are you on medication of some kind. If not you should be

Venom

Strazdas wrote: »

I wasn't talking about this specific case. I was saying that in general a jury might have strong suspicions about a defendant and it's a moot point whether he / she is "innocent" if he / she is found not guilty.

The same point applies to any case.

Pelvis

Silentcorner wrote: »

You might as well be speaking in Latin.....

She probably studied it in trinity.

Faugheen

irishrebe wrote: »

If there was evidence a rape had taken place, the defendants would most likely have been convicted. I'm not taking sides here but just stating a fact. There was insufficient evidence to convict the accused. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I never said it was sufficient evidence to convict though. Evidence that a rape took place was supplied by the complainant.

I've been saying all along that not guilty was the correct verdict on the evidence we had. It was one word against another.

What the verdict doesn't mean is that a rape didn't take place though. That's a fact, until it's proven that she lied about it which it hasn't.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod noteApologies to all, folks, but I'm closing this up for the night. You can lambast me in the morning but there's a hell of a lot of thread to go through and there may be some post in breach of charter in this. Hopefully it can be reopened in the morning.

Thanks in advance

Buford T. Justice

Fann Linn

irishrebe wrote: »

Who are you to decide that? I was sober as a judge, in the middle of cooking my dinner on a weeknight when I saw the "argument". I still got the context totally wrong. The extremely drunk accuser had it right. Fortunately, she had CCTV on her side. Otherwise, I may have inadvertently helped to free a man who went on to physically assault a stranger.

Courts deal in facts: What was seen, smelt, heard, felt,tasted.

Dara Florence told the court what she saw. She was cross examined, she was sober, she was a far more credible witness than any of the rest in that house and yet there is no #Ibelieveher for her.

I just find it slightly amusing that 1000s will march and protest for the plaintiff and yet disregard the evidence of another.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Okie dokie. I'm getting tired of this splitting hairs about the case.

How do you prove that you are innocent? Since showing that you're not guilty isn't enough.

Not every case comes down to a jury locked away in a room for days. In many cases, it might become patently obvious to everyone that the charges are ridiculous and the defendant didn't do it (or the trial might be halted for this reason). Those people would have no difficulty asserting their innocence and everyone believing them.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod noteApologies to all, folks, but I'm closing this up for the night. You can lambast me in the morning but there's a hell of a lot of thread to go through and there may be some post in breach of charter in this. Hopefully it can be reopened in the morning.

Thanks in advance

Buford T. Justice

Right folks, it's open again.

Firstly

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html

Rugby player Paddy Jackson is planning to sue more people who he believes have defamed him on social media and at protest marches.

Posts claiming the 4 acquitted men are guilty will be harshly dealt with as will posts claiming the woman in question lied.

While you are posting anonymously, you, in real life, remain responsible for what you post. We try to deal all the questionable posts but we cannot get them all in time so be aware where accountability resides in this. For everyones sake, think about what you intend to post before you submit your post. It will make life easier for everyone here. Please delete or report any questionable posts that were made or will be made, we as members don't need the grief that could follow on from that.

Thanks for your patience,

Buford T. Justice

Rodin

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Right folks, it's open again.

Firstly

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html

Posts claiming the 4 acquitted men are guilty will be harshly dealt with as will posts claiming the woman in question lied.

While you are posting anonymously, you, in real life, remain responsible for what you post. We try to deal all the questionable posts but we cannot get them all in time so be aware where accountability resides in this. For everyones sake, think about what you intend to post before you submit your post. It will make life easier for everyone here. Please delete or report any questionable posts that were made or will be made, we as members don't need the grief that could follow on from that.

Thanks for your patience,

Buford T. Justice

It IS a possibility she lied about the non-consensual aspect of the act.
That isn't a claim that she did in fact do so.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Hopefully he sues a certain person from Cork!

RabbleRouser2k

Sure when we have sensationalist bullpiddle like this going around, it's only making things worse.

Doesn't even realise the courts of Ireland and NI are different. They don't have same sex marriage for one.

https://www.facebook.com/CorkFeministCollective/photos/a.157818860928863.31465.129123503798399/1825045334206199/?type=3&theater

irishrebe

Fann Linn wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Who are you to decide that? I was sober as a judge, in the middle of cooking my dinner on a weeknight when I saw the "argument". I still got the context totally wrong. The extremely drunk accuser had it right. Fortunately, she had CCTV on her side. Otherwise, I may have inadvertently helped to free a man who went on to physically assault a stranger.

Courts deal in facts: What was seen, smelt, heard, felt,tasted.

Dara Florence told the court what she saw. She was cross examined, she was sober, she was a far more credible witness than any of the rest in that house and yet there is no #Ibelieveher for her.

I just find it slightly amusing that 1000s will march and protest for the plaintiff and yet disregard the evidence of another.

Eh....I'd imagine people don't feel there is a need for an #Ibelieveher march for Dara Florence, since her testimony was most likely a key part of the accused being acquitted. I'd say the jury DID believe her. But if you feel hard done by by the lack of such a march, feel free to organise one. Who is stopping you?

Tell me how

Rodin wrote:

It IS a possibility she lied about the non-consensual aspect of the act. That isn't a claim that she did in fact do so.

EVERYTHING is pretty much possible but hypothesizing leads to arguments, accusations and most likely, falsehoods which is obviously what the mods are trying to avoid.

For me, now, the most interesting thing is very much the conversation around the hash tags.

Social media impact on society is huge. Revolutionary.

Cyrus

Anyone wondering about these protests need only look at the politicians involved get some insight on the mindset

Happy4all

Fann Linn wrote: »

Courts deal in facts: What was seen, smelt, heard, felt,tasted.

Dara Florence told the court what she saw. She was cross examined, she was sober, she was a far more credible witness than any of the rest in that house and yet there is no #Ibelieveher for her.

I just find it slightly amusing that 1000s will march and protest for the plaintiff and yet disregard the evidence of another.

Agree on the #IB point.

However, what's is also relevant to what Dara Florence told the Court she saw, is it contradicts PJ's version of events. And you have to remember that what she saw can only have been a few seconds of the incident.

wexie

In the wake of the not guilty verdicts in the Ulster rugby rape trial, legal representatives for the player say they are "monitoring everything" including "social media commentary, WhatsApp, Google searches". This also includes protest marches held around the country.

I'm still somewhat on the fence over whether or not this is a sensible move on his part insofar perhaps he should try and let things die down a bit. On the other hand of course he's perfectly entitled to try and protect what's left of his reputation.

Having said that....I'd love to know quite how they're going to go about monitoring Whatsapp :eek:....and last I heard searching for information is hardly illegal or defamatory?

Is this just really awkwardly phrased or am I missing something?

hill16bhoy

Fann Linn wrote: »

Courts deal in facts: What was seen, smelt, heard, felt,tasted.

Dara Florence told the court what she saw. She was cross examined, she was sober, she was a far more credible witness than any of the rest in that house and yet there is no #Ibelieveher for her.

I just find it slightly amusing that 1000s will march and protest for the plaintiff and yet disregard the evidence of another.

Here's the thing.

If you believe Dara Florence, you by definition believe that Paddy Jackson lied when he said he did not have vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a real double bind to be in.

The type of person who would attend that protest and throw up that hashtag is the same type of person who you could, almost definitely and confidently , predict will vote in a given way on other issues. Now I don’t mean just vote, everyone should do that and is entitled to vote for or against whatever the issue is but what I mean is the type of person at these things will be the same as those who will ram these issues down your throat (apologies for the saying, it’s just unfortunate) and campaign and have their fb decked out in all slogans and will wear apparel supporting same and let it almost define them. Just fringe lunatics with, quite often, sh*t fringes.

TerrorFirmer

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Here's the thing.

If you believe Dara Florence, you by definition believe that Paddy Jackson lied when he said he did not have vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a real double bind to be in.

It's hardly that black or white.

You can believe that Dara Florence was convinced it was a 100% consensual act from what she saw, yet believe that she could possibly have misunderstood the actual mechanics of the situation.

And before people try and turn that on its head by suggesting that if she's not sure of one fact, how could she be sure of the other.

It's not unreasonable to expect that someone could assert that something is consensual faster than they could establish precisely the nature of the act itself.

Why are people trying to put 1 + 1 together to reach 3 on everything surrounding this case?

No more than the jury finding the 4 men not guilty is not suggesting she lied, let alone establishing she did - yet some people cannot seem to grasp that simple fact either.

There are no black/whites in this case other than a jury of peers found the men not guilty following a public trial.

Everything else is speculation and in large part, total utter nonsense (on both sides).

c.p.w.g.w

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Hopefully he sues a certain person from Cork!

Intials of LON?