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

suicide_circus

In my relationship there is implied consent at all times. I don't know how else you carry out a serious longterm intimate relationship.

RabbleRouser2k

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Do men on here fully understand the depth of the impact of sexual assault?

As much as I hate to talk about it.

I was sexually assaulted at a party. I knew I had no recourse through the courts, and would be called a slut.

I attempted suicide afterwards. I Overdosed. My mother drove me into the hospital at night while I was struggling to breathe, she was saying "Please don't leave me".

She said to me afterwards she really thought I was going to die in the car, and had to decide whether to pull over in a layby and spend the last few minutes with me, or continue on to the hospital.

Time for this society to change.

That's very unfortunate that that happened to you-and some of the comments you recieved are somewhat insensitive.

I'd argue men and women don't know the consequences and effects of an assault. I was a teenager, about 12 or 13, when I discovered a friend's sister survived a rape. She took the case to court, he went to prison for over ten years, and still, to this day, you can find people who doubt her case.
But the guy was a scumbag-so no, no doubts in my mind. (She also tried to take her own life, had other problems afterwards). Rape is difficult to prove, for sure-but not impossible.

As for rape-I've spoken to someone who was abused in the industrial schools-when he was a young boy. He was villified for doing so, and his children bullied. What helped him overcome it was realising the blame was not his-but others don't understand or come to that realisation. It's a nightmare.

Off topic, but Mary Lou McDonald was discussing the case in the papers. while she accepts the verdict, she finds the treatment of the complainant to be absolutely abhorrent. (Again, it was more like a cattle mart than a trial, from my readings).

And Dara Florence had people offering her major deals to 'tell her story'...that is just so sinister.
Everything about how this case was carried out is disturbing to me.

Malayalam

Tigger wrote: »

What if you are having sex and the partner falls asleep
Is conscent immediatly removed
(They didn’t passoit and arent on drugs they were just lulled to sleep by the gental rhythm ?)

Surely you mean genital rhythm?

erica74

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Off topic, but Mary Lou McDonald was discussing the case in the papers. while she accepts the verdict, she finds the treatment of the complainant to be absolutely abhorrent. (Again, it was more like a cattle mart than a trial, from my readings).

What do you mean by the last sentence? The amount of people attending every day?

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And Dara Florence had people offering her major deals to 'tell her story'...that is just so sinister.
Everything about how this case was carried out is disturbing to me.

Seriously? She sounds so shady.
I have said already that I agree with the verdict, there wasn't enough evidence to convict. However, the inconsistencies between Dara's evidence and the "accepted" version of the events of the night in question (along with some of the anecdotal stories I've read about Dara) makes it difficult to have full faith in her.

rafatoni

PJ lawyer recieving death threats now. WOW.. Thats unbeliebable TBH only doing his job.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

That's very unfortunate that that happened to you-and some of the comments you recieved are somewhat insensitive.

I'd argue men and women don't know the consequences and effects of an assault. I was a teenager, about 12 or 13, when I discovered a friend's sister survived a rape. She took the case to court, he went to prison for over ten years, and still, to this day, you can find people who doubt her case.
But the guy was a scumbag-so no, no doubts in my mind. (She also tried to take her own life, had other problems afterwards). Rape is difficult to prove, for sure-but not impossible.

As for rape-I've spoken to someone who was abused in the industrial schools-when he was a young boy. He was villified for doing so, and his children bullied. What helped him overcome it was realising the blame was not his-but others don't understand or come to that realisation. It's a nightmare.

Off topic, but Mary Lou McDonald was discussing the case in the papers. while she accepts the verdict, she finds the treatment of the complainant to be absolutely abhorrent. (Again, it was more like a cattle mart than a trial, from my readings).

And Dara Florence had people offering her major deals to 'tell her story'...that is just so sinister.
Everything about how this case was carried out is disturbing to me.

I don't think anyone disagrees that complainants can be treated a lot better all the way through a process.

The problem is that the extremists want into the debate and they will be worse than the church ever was in dictating.

Cyrus

erica74 wrote: »

What do you mean by the last sentence? The amount of people attending every day?



Seriously? She sounds so shady.
I have said already that I agree with the verdict, there wasn't enough evidence to convict. However, the inconsistencies between Dara's evidence and the "accepted" version of the events of the night in question (along with some of the anecdotal stories I've read about Dara) makes it difficult to have full faith in her.

Anecdotal stories you heard ? Wow this is a new development interested to see where this goes ....

Creol1

rafatoni wrote: »

PJ lawyer recieving death threats now. WOW.. Thats unbeliebable TBH only doing his job.

Not surprising. Nowadays you're nobody if you're not receiving death threats unfortunately.

upandcumming

RabbleRouser2k wrote:

Off topic, but Mary Lou McDonald was discussing the case in the papers. while she accepts the verdict, she finds the treatment of the complainant to be absolutely abhorrent. (Again, it was more like a cattle mart than a trial, from my readings).

I certainly wouldn't place much stock in what she says, but how was the complainant treated so poorly?

kylith

upandcumming wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't place much stock in what she says, but how was the complainant treated so poorly?

Complainants in rape trials are often treated poorly, with their sexual histories raked over and their choice of clothing discussed at length; as though not being a virgin and wearing a low cut dress means you’re responsible for being raped.

upandcumming

kylith wrote:

Complainants in rape trials are often treated poorly, with their sexual histories raked over and their choice of clothing discussed at length; as though not being a virgin and wearing a low cut dress means you’re responsible for being raped.

Okay, but in this case?

BoJack Horseman

kylith wrote: »

Complainants in rape trials are often treated poorly, with their sexual histories raked over and their choice of clothing discussed at length; as though not being a virgin and wearing a low cut dress means you’re responsible for being raped.

That is the adversarial nature of a trial.

If the plaintiff is thing harangued the judge steps in & corrects the attorney.

Defence attorneys defend.
And the best form of that is attack.

FrancieBrady

upandcumming wrote: »

Okay, but in this case?

It's a difficult balancing act between serving the rights of the complainant and the rights of those wanting to mount a defence.

There were issues here that need addressing, the anonymity of all involved and the sensitive treatment of somebody who believes themselves to have been raped.

kylith

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That is the adversarial nature of a trial.

If the plaintiff is thing harangued the judge steps in & corrects the attorney.

Defence attorneys defend.
And the best form of that is attack.

There is the adversarial nature if a trial, and then there is the plaintiff being put in trial. The nature of rape trials is one of the reasons so few rapes are reported; no woman wants to have her sexual history brought up for discussion, and there is the fact that previously having sex, or ones attire, is not a reason to be raped.

Jayesdiem

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Complainants in rape trials are often treated poorly, with their sexual histories raked over and their choice of clothing discussed at length; as though not being a virgin and wearing a low cut dress means you’re responsible for being raped.

That is the adversarial nature of a trial.

If the plaintiff is thing harangued the judge steps in & corrects the attorney.

Defence attorneys defend.
And the best form of that is attack.

I agree with this. If you are being accused of rape and you deny that accusation, your legal representative rightly throws the kitchen sink in your defence. This is just how it works. A false accusation of rape is much harder for a defendant to cope with than an accusation of promiscuity aimed at a complainant. There needs to be some perspective on this: ultimately it was the defendants who were treated poorly because it was quite clearly shown that they were not guilty of committing the crimes.

CFlat

upandcumming wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't place much stock in what she says

Considering the opportunity she had to support Mairia Cahill when Mairia back in 2014 told how she was raped by members of the IRA. What did Mary Lou McDonald say then? Nothing. Typical Sinn Fein MO, find a bandwagon and jump on it.

It seems that there are clubs outside of Ireland who want PJs services. It's nice to see other countries accept due process and not guilty actually does mean you're innocent.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/284859/limerick-student-s-five-year-wait-for-justice-after-sexual-assault-while-sleeping.html

I'm sure you'll find a way out of this one.

Simple way out. That's a totally different scenario!

kylith

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I agree with this. If you are being accused of rape and you deny that accusation, your legal representative rightly throws the kitchen sink in your defence. This is just how it works. A false accusation of rape is much harder for a defendant to cope with than an accusation of promiscuity aimed at a complainant. There needs to be some perspective on this: ultimately it was the defendants who were treated poorly because it was quite clearly shown that they were not guilty of committing the crimes.

It’s not an accusation of promiscuity, it’s the accusation that the dirty slut can’t have been raped because she’s such a whore who loves the cock, and what did she think would happen if she went out dressed like a streetwalker and had a few beers?

I don't think any other crimes are prosecuted the same way, like if someone is mugged the fact that they’re wearing an expensive shirt doesn’t come into it. ‘Are you sure you were robbed sir? Haven’t you landed people money in the past? Maybe you decided to loan him some money and now you regret it. Are you sure he threatened you? There’s not a mark on you. ‘

Creol1

It's worth bearing in mind that defence lawyers in a case like this will be aware of the risks involved in being too aggressive in questioning the complainant, as too harsh an approach can backfire from their perspective in generating more sympathy to the complainant's case.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

It’s not an accusation of promiscuity, it’s the accusation that the dirty slut can’t have been raped because she’s such a whore who loves the cock, and what did she think would happen if she went out dressed like a streetwalker and had a few beers?

What on Earth are you on about? Is this some other trial or something?

AudreyHepburn

kylith wrote: »

There is the adversarial nature if a trial, and then there is the plaintiff being put in trial. The nature of rape trials is one of the reasons so few rapes are reported; no woman wants to have her sexual history brought up for discussion, and there is the fact that previously having sex, or ones attire, is not a reason to be raped.

Rape is a very serious charge and you cannot expect to be believed without question or to not have your story tested.

I don’t understand what people want in such trials. Are we really so anti men that we would like to see a man accused of rape be locked away no questions asked just to avoid upsetting the accuser?

And if you’re going demand respect and sensitivity for the complainant then so must you demand it for the accused. He is innocent unless and until proven guilty and should not have to spend the trial being treated like a criminal by those watching on in the media and the public gallery.

Nor should he be treated so once the trial is over if he’s found not guilty.

Believe it or not sometimes smoke does occur without fire.

FrancieBrady

CFlat wrote: »

Considering the opportunity she had to support Mairia Cahill when Mairia back in 2014 told how she was raped by members of the IRA. What did Mary Lou McDonald say then? Nothing. Typical Sinn Fein MO, find a bandwagon and jump on it.

It seems that there are clubs outside of Ireland who want PJs services. It's nice to see other countries accept due process and not guilty actually does mean you're innocent.

Mairia Cahill made allegations, there was a defendant fully prepared to go into a court to defend himself and never got the chance.

Unless you are one of the extremists who wish to have a society where making an allegation is enough, then Mairia's case has to stay in 'alleged' territory.

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? Is this some other trial or something?

It’s just that old victim mentality that a lot of women seem to relish. I actually fell such a mentality does no one any favors in these trials and it would be well worth looking at ways to combat it.

kylith

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? Is this some other trial or something?

Rape trials in general

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Rape is a very serious charge and you cannot expect to be believed without question or to not have your story tested.

I don’t understand what people want in such trials. Are we really so anti men that we would like to see a man accused of rape be locked away no questions asked just to avoid upsetting the accuser?

And if you’re going demand respect and sensitivity for the complainant then so must you demand it for the accused. He is innocent unless and until proven guilty and should not have to spend the trial being treated like a criminal by those watching on in the media and the public gallery.

And are we so anti-woman that someone who may have been subjected to the most heinous crime can’t be dealt with with some sensitivity.

I do think that defendants should be anonymous, which they are in this country, I believe.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? Is this some other trial or something?

I've already skipped through 20 odd pages of consent while sleeping, which doesn't relate to this case.

AudreyHepburn

kylith wrote: »

Rape trials in general



And are we so anti-woman that someone who may have been subjected to the most heinous crime can’t be dealt with with some sensitivity.

I do think that defendants should be anonymous, which they are in this country, I believe.

Sensitivity is one thing but you and others seem to be asking for is kid gloves and that just cannot happen when such a serious accusation is made. All aspects of the complainant’s story must be tested.

I’m not anti woman in the slightest - I am a woman. I just think a bit of common sense and a little less emotion is needed in this debate.

Jayesdiem

kylith wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I agree with this. If you are being accused of rape and you deny that accusation, your legal representative rightly throws the kitchen sink in your defence. This is just how it works. A false accusation of rape is much harder for a defendant to cope with than an accusation of promiscuity aimed at a complainant. There needs to be some perspective on this: ultimately it was the defendants who were treated poorly because it was quite clearly shown that they were not guilty of committing the crimes.

It’s not an accusation of promiscuity, it’s the accusation that the dirty slut can’t have been raped because she’s such a whore who loves the cock, and what did she think would happen if she went out dressed like a streetwalker and had a few beers?

I don't think any other crimes are prosecuted the same way, like if someone is mugged the fact that they’re wearing an expensive shirt doesn’t come into it. ‘Are you sure you were robbed sir? Haven’t you landed people money in the past? Maybe you decided to loan him some money and now you regret it. Are you sure he threatened you? There’s not a mark on you. ‘

Rubbish comparison. Nobody actively looks to be robbed. People do actively seek sexual contact. That's an absolutely cr@p example you've given.

Mrsmum

Seeing as people are fine with "the kitchen sink being thrown at her", can I ask if people here honestly would advise their daughters in a he said she said situation to go to the guards and set a rape case in motion presuming you knew your daughter well enough to know she was certain she had been raped but she had been drunk and took foolish risks that night & evidence that he raped her was pretty much non-existent as in lots of these cases ? Also bearing in mind that when she loses the case because of course there is reasonable doubt. people will tell her it never happened & vilify her for trying to take a good man down. I'm just wondering how many people genuinely think it's worth taking a case in those circumstances??

Colser

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Sensitivity is one thing but you and others seem to be asking for is kid gloves and that just cannot happen when such a serious accusation is made. All aspects of the complainant’s story must be tested.

I’m not anti woman in the slightest - I am a woman. I just think a bit of common sense and a little less emotion is needed in this debate.

I'd agree with you in the main but surely if her underwear was needed for evidence a photograph would suffice and not to have them handed to the jury which is what I believe happened,why would that be necessary ?

FrancieBrady

Colser wrote: »

I'd agree with you in the main but surely if her underwear was needed for evidence a photograph would suffice and not to have them handed to the jury which is what I believe happened,why would that be necessary ?

I am not seeing a huge difference between a photo or the actual article.

Evidence is evidence if the defence decides it aids the case.

Where would it stop if you inhibited that right I wonder.