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

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

I said that jurys need training...I'll be honest, before this trial I would not have known about it either...

Sweeping generalisations are always doomed.

You said men dont understand how rape victims behave (which is a subset of men not understanding women fullstop!!). Because I think men see through other men. Are women more, and ill be lambasted for saying it, likey to believe the defendant?

So as its an uncomfortable fact for some, men are more likeky to convict in rape trials, is it women who need compassion training on such trials?

GreeBo

cloudatlas wrote: »

I'm going to quote liberally here from Ivana Bacik's article
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/how-rape-trials-in-republic-differ-from-those-in-north-1.3443644

"It is indisputably difficult to prove rape – a fact which emerged in a different context during the hearings of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment."

"The 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act allows limited legal representation for complainants in rape cases, not extending to advocacy rights. The 2001 Sex Offenders Act provides that the complainant can have access to a legally aided barrister to argue on her behalf in court where the accused seeks permission to bring forward so-called “sexual history” evidence.

The question now is whether we should extend that right of representation further for complainants in rape cases, particularly where there are several defendants. This is certainly one potential reform that should be examined to see if it could be implemented without unduly encroaching on the due process rights of the accused."

Silentcorner wrote: »

I said that jurys need training...I'll be honest, before this trial I would not have known about it either...

So you think jurors news to be trained to see more evidence?
It the evidence is that compelling a judge will instruct the jury.

TerrorFirmer

meeeeh wrote: »

Now you are assuming what jury would or wouldn't do.

Btw you could do with a bit of reading...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/?utm_term=.2068aef2abe8

Btw the same witness also claims PJ had sex with accuser which he denies. So who do you believe there.

The witness believes she saw sex because PJ was behind the complainant in a 'sex' position and thrusting.

That does not mean he had penetrative sex, he could have (and likely was) using his fingers but it was misinterpreted as sex.

The logic here is mind-numbing.

"She thought she saw sex so how can she know it wasn't rape!"

Notwithstanding that establishing a gut feeling on whether or not something is consensual is a lot easier than being able to account for the exact positioning of genitalia.

Next we'll be told she might have been wrong in even seeing a third person in the room!

mloc123

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/WSMIreland/status/980090207012818947

"Men R Trash"... all of us? Not just the dickheads?

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Sweeping generalisations are always doomed.

You said men dont understand how rape victims behave (which is a subset of men not understanding women fullstop!!). Because I think men see through other men. Are women more, and ill be lambasted for saying it, likey to believe the defendant?

So as its an uncomfortable fact for some, men are more likeky to convict in rape trials, is it women who need compassion training on such trials?

Ya, I take your point..

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

I was referring to jurys, not this jury in particular...
Can you please refrain from twisting my words...please

The jury was told what TI was, but you want jury's trained. To what end, other than making sitting on a jury more ardurous.

If a concept is relevant then let it be introduced like it was here.

johnpatrick81

Flipper22 wrote: »

He is not guilty. He is fully entitled to take action against anyone defaming him. I would do the same. Jackson is not even guilty of making nasty comments in a private whatsapp group.

I do agree that some sort of statement similar to olding acknowledging that the complainant was upset about what happened and that he regrets this, it was never his intention etc, would be a good idea. He may yet do this.

Although if it happened as he said it did, ie a consensual act which she subsequently regretted, I imagine he would be absolutely seething with anger and in no mood to be making conciliatory statements.

It’s still idiocy. You’d do the same? I dunno. The Streisand effect alone. Make the empathetic statement and back away from the whole thing. He’s made himself the main focus of this whole sorry circus now. Lunacy.

Roger Hassenforder

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't think any of it is relevant to the case. What doesn't sit right is trying to insist that victims of a crime should behave in a certain way. That writing 'lol' somehow proves anything at all. I was the victim of a physical assault in Dublin years ago. I was shell shocked, angry and in disbelief, moving between trying to joke about it and ranting about my assailants. I'm sure if the guards had examined my phone, they'd have found similar messages with 'lol' in them. Proves absolutely nothing at all. People process shock in different ways. 
And if you're going to say calming music proves nothing, then you can't insinuate that her sending 'lol' meant she wasn't acting traumatised enough for your liking.

Exactly!!
the whatsapp thing is evidence of SWEET FCUK ALL (other than they're tossers), yet is being clung to by some as evidence of their guilt.

Roger Hassenforder

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Durex

Username checks out

johnpatrick81

Nermal wrote: »

'Freezing' after giving consent means you're still consenting. If you don't like what's happening, make it obvious. Claiming after the fact that you froze is not good enough.

And the award for the most ridiculous statement goes to.....

SeanW

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence also said that there were no signs that the complainant was positively consenting, either.

You going to ignore that piece of information?

Was the witness supposed to prove "positive consent?" How would she have known? Why was it required? After all, as I understand, the witness brought credible doubt to the accusers story.

It is also important to note that this case occurred in the United Kingdom, where sexual assault cases are taken with a "Salem witch trial" level of seriousness.

Consider the recent case of Mark Pearson, an artist in England, who was falsely accused of sexual assault in a London train station. Not only was there no evidence of his guilt, but the CCTV clearly demonstrated that the assault in question could not possibly have occurred. As in, the whole accusation was totally fake, from beginning to end. Nevertheless, not only was Mark Pearson arrested, charged and brought to trial, enduring a year of hell, his name dragged through the mud, but nobody has been punished in any way for the farce.

The real perpetrator has not been named or charged for what she did to Mr. Pearson, no police or prosecutors have been even fired, let alone prosecuted for what was clearly a malicious prosecution. So far as my knowledge extends, none of the malicious actors in the Pearson case has ever been taken to account.

In this environment, why should we take seriously any claim of that kind against a man anywhere in the UK that is not held to a very high standard of proof? Unless and until there is justice for Mark Pearson, to my mind, reports of that kind from the UK should ALL be treated with suspicion.

Also, to the feministas here - in 2016, were you "with Hillary?" in her bid to be president of the United States. If so, then why should we assume you are not a hypocrite because Hillary Clinton was credibly accused of covering up sex crimes by Bill? Up to and including rape of Juanita Broddrick?

Can you explain why "#IbelieveHer" and "#ImWithHer" are not mutually exclusive?

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did read that btw.

And it doesn't change my pov. That there is simply no evidence that this occurred in this case. So much so, the jury discounted it.
If they accepted that she froze they would have convicted.

Oh good you are a mind reader now.

Nermal

backspin. wrote: »

Indo reporting that Jackson legal bill is 500,000. That is some serious money if he really is not guilty.

Quite disgracefully, he will not be able to make any claim from the CPS for this. They decided to bring him to court when it was obvious there was virtually no chance of success, they ought to be paying his costs. It's manifestly unfair.

Flipper22

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

It’s still idiocy. You’d do the same? I dunno. The Streisand effect alone. Make the empathetic statement and back away from the whole thing. He’s made himself the main focus of this whole sorry circus now. Lunacy.

Disagree. The threat alone caused a mass deletion of defamatory tweets. Now they're tweeting suemepaddy instead without any actual defamatory statements, which they all removed 😂

Talk about having no courage of your convictions.

The people tweeting this stuff are always going to hate them anyway.

GreeBo

SomethingElse wrote: »

Can the woman who brought these false allegations be named here, or is it just in Northern Ireland she is entitled to full anonymity?

Oh FFS, there are no false allegations.

johnpatrick81

Flipper22 wrote: »

Disagree. The threat alone caused a mass deletion of defamatory tweets. Now they're tweeting suemepaddy instead without any actual defamatory statements, which they all removed 😂

Talk about having no courage of your convictions.

The people tweeting this stuff are always going to hate them anyway.

We’ll see how it pans out. I’ve seen defamatory and hate filled tweets specifically about Jackson ten fold since his sue threat.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh good you are a mind reader now.

In your desperate attempt to cling to this you are now suggesting the jury believed she was frozen in fear and still acquitted the men???

It just gets better and better.

hill16bhoy

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The witness believes she saw sex because PJ was behind the complainant in a 'sex' position and thrusting.

That does not mean he had penetrative sex, he could have (and likely was) using his fingers but it was misinterpreted as sex.

The logic here is mind-numbing.

"She thought she saw sex so how can she know it wasn't rape!"

Notwithstanding that establishing a gut feeling on whether or not something is consensual is a lot easier than being able to account for the exact positioning of genitalia.

Next we'll be told she might have been wrong in even seeing a third person in the room!

It's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration is still rape, by the way.

Flipper22

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

We’ll see how it pans out. I’ve seen defamatory and hate filled tweets specifically about Jackson ten fold since his sue threat.

Have you?

I've seen the exact opposite tbh, regarding defamatory stuff

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Are you ignoring the facts that she was hysterical and bleeding?

You’re bleeding hysterical yourself with a lot of the guff you come out with. Ireland is akin to India as a rape culture? Would you ever get the boat, then a taxi, then another boat and finally.... a spaceship because what ever planet you’re living on, it’s not this on if you think we’re in anyway on equal footing with India in that department.

johnpatrick81

Flipper22 wrote: »

Have you?

I've seen the exact opposite tbh, regarding defamatory stuff

Yup, thousands posting up their poverty and screenshots even of tiny bank balances laughing in the face of the threat. He’s gone back onto the front pages for wrong reasons and has even given thousands a chant they used up and down the country.

If you still think that was a wise move, we’ll just have to agree to disagree vehemently. Absolutely stupid.

Nermal

GreeBo wrote: »

So you think jurors news to be trained to see more evidence?
It the evidence is that compelling a judge will instruct the jury.

When he says training, he means feminist indoctrination.

kylith

Nermal wrote: »

'Freezing' after giving consent means you're still consenting. If you don't like what's happening, make it obvious. Claiming after the fact that you froze is not good enough.

Consenting to sex with one person is not consenting to sex with his mates too, and freezing up after said mates show up and decide to join in is still not consenting.

Silentcorner

Nermal wrote: »

When he says training, he means feminist indoctrination.

More twisting of my words...I've lost count how many times that has happened to me on this thread...

I, an open minded man, would have benefitted from some induction as to how women react in a rape/sexual assault case situation...I never heard of tonic immobility before this trial...and I suspect I am not on my own...

Flipper22

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration is still rape, by the way.

She gave evidence as she saw fit.

The fact that her evidence corroborates some elements of both versions and that she was sober speaks to her credibility.

She was there on the night. Her evidence shows that she personally believed the incident was consensual, both at the time and subsequently.

Had she beleived the complainant she could very easily have said that she had no idea whether the act was consensual, or even a statement directly in favour of the complainants story.

That she actively chose to say it looked consensual, for me, is the most relevant corroborative evidence which has been reported.

Her belief that the act was consensual may have been informed not only by the few seconds she saw it, but also her direct experience of the night in question and the people involved.

kylith

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The witness believes she saw sex because PJ was behind the complainant in a 'sex' position and thrusting.

That does not mean he had penetrative sex, he could have (and likely was) using his fingers but it was misinterpreted as sex.

He could have been using his fingers, but why would he be thrusting with his pelvis while fingering someone?

The Talking Bread

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't think any of it is relevant to the case. What doesn't sit right is trying to insist that victims of a crime should behave in a certain way. That writing 'lol' somehow proves anything at all. I was the victim of a physical assault in Dublin years ago. I was shell shocked, angry and in disbelief, moving between trying to joke about it and ranting about my assailants. I'm sure if the guards had examined my phone, they'd have found similar messages with 'lol' in them. Proves absolutely nothing at all. People process shock in different ways. 
And if you're going to say calming music proves nothing, then you can't insinuate that her sending 'lol' meant she wasn't acting traumatised enough for your liking.

Another tick on the box for you. Again you seem to fabricate a new story everytime to help counter a point because you seemingly can't discuss a subject without entailing it with another supposed experience you went through.

Anyway, I retire from your posts. You aren't helping the discussion at all

Nermal

kylith wrote: »

Consenting to sex with one person is not consenting to sex with his mates too, and freezing up after said mates show up and decide to join in is still not consenting.

Men aren't mind readers. If you don't like what's happening, say so. An account of your mental state after the fact is not evidence.

Buford T. Justice XIX

SomethingElse wrote: »

Can the woman who brought these false allegations be named here, or is it just in Northern Ireland she is entitled to full anonymity?

Mod note: There is no evidence, none at all, to say the woman lodged a false claim of rape. This is a reminder to posters to stop this allegation!

Likewise, naming people whose identity is protected under the applicable laws is not allowed.

SomethingElse, please do not post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

Faugheen

Nermal wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Consenting to sex with one person is not consenting to sex with his mates too, and freezing up after said mates show up and decide to join in is still not consenting.

Men aren't mind readers. If you don't like what's happening, say so. An account of your mental state after the fact is not evidence.

Or.. you know.. you can ask instead of thinking it's a free for all unless stated otherwise..