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

Adamocovic

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Don't really get the purpose of this.

A long trial ends with the jury releasing a unanimous verdict of not-guilty.
Is it a case of just keep on marching and marching until a certain group of people get the verdict they want? Seem childish and a waste of time.

There are many things worth rallying for. This court result is not one of them.

touts

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Over 26 THOUSAND tweets already about #ibelieveher. The 4 men were accquitted by the laws of the land yet there is a mob forming on twitter to say they should have been found guilty on nothing more than the basis that men are evil liars and women always tell the truth. This is modern day mob justice with torches replaced by glowing screens and pitchforks replaced by selfie sticks.

Assetbacked

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Convinced twitter is turning people daft. You have clowns just spewing out off the cuff nonsense without even thinking about what they are saying. Then you have other reading it, believing it and retweeting the same garbage to hundreds of other gullible fools who are unable to form their own opinions.

Im all for free speech but twitter seems particularly mobbish and attracts certain many ill informed folk.

The BBC wrote a whole article on how the gun control marches were "too white" based entirely on tweets. People who tweet and instagram a lot somehow think that people actually care what they have to say. It is dangerous.

py2006

SAMTALK wrote: »

So because they are rich and famous they don't need to be respectful?

Opportunity does not equal right. Maybe I picked your post up wrong but jesus wept it didn't make for good reading

I would be having a lot more sex if I was rich and famous (and better looking). Taking them up on their offer doesn't mean they are being disrespectful

Nerdlingr

Nerdlingr wrote: »

...........There was no hard evidence to prove this happened .
It really is that simple.

I know https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106564209&postcount=662

_Dara_

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Is it time for the tables to be turned on this woman now? Slander? Character defamation? Loss of earnings?

They'd need to prove she was lying.

A very dangerous precedent would be set if she could be sued.

tonycascarino

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

I suppose the types who will be out protesting this will be the same individuals doing it when Trump and the Pope arrive here ie. people with nothing to do and all day to do it.

david75

touts wrote: »

Over 26 THOUSAND tweets already about #ibelieveher. The 4 men were accquitted by the laws of the land yet there is a mob forming on twitter to say they should have been found guilty on nothing more than the basis that men are evil liars and women always tell the truth. This is modern day mob justice with torches replaced by glowing screens and pitchforks replaced by selfie sticks.

The only good outcomes I can see from such a rally is to send a message of support to the woman involved and also to let women know they shouldn’t let these things go unreported and suffer in silence. That’s a positive.
But other than that I agree the trial and conviction by social media doesn’t really help. But that’s the age we live in.

Assetbacked

Augeo wrote: »

she was sober iirc according to the poster I was quoting.
She also admitted that she saw no active consent.

That question about positive consent means "did you hear her say something along the lines of 'throw it into me'?". That is not necessarily something she would hear in a short period of time. But the point is that the jury had all of the evidence and a judge who carefully instructed them. The decision as to guilt or not was then made. In the absence of an appeal or evidence of misconduct at play, that is the end of it.

Nerdlingr

Augeo wrote: »

The same witness that was adament the lady was being penetrated by Jackson, though Jackson denies this. The witness is either credible or not IMO, bits of her account can't be deemed credible and other bits not so.

Again...proof. There is no evidence Jackson penetrated the accuser.
She gave 'an account' of what she saw. Its just an account. Its doesn't prove anything. But it can cast doubt or back up other peoples account of what happened.

Samuel T. Cogley

Augeo wrote: »

I know https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106564209&postcount=662

It doesn't work like that. The jury found that it had 'reasonable doubts' over the accusers story. The accused never lost, and have not lost, their status as innocent.

irishrebe

Faugheen wrote: »

Stuart Oldings statement through his solicitor outside court is a lot classier than a lot of comments here.

He apologised to the girl and acknowledged it was her perception. He doesn't agree with her perception, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he essentially admits nobody wins in this trial.

People need to get into their heads that, while the jury said not guilty, they did not return a guilty verdict to the complainant for lying.

I pray the posters here who make it sound so black and white never have a family member go through the same thing as the complainant.

It's shocking how many people don't get this. This kind of trial is rarely black and white. One person's sexual assault could be another person's kinky rough sex. One person's 'giving her a bit of booze to loosen her up' is another person's trying to intoxicate someone to take advantage of them. More than once I've had a female friend come to me the morning after sexual activity feeling totally violated and degraded, sometimes bruised and bitten, but not fully remembering what went on. Maybe their drink was spiked, maybe they just drank too much...does it make the man a monster if he thought she was into rough sex when really she was too drunk to know what was happening? How do we know if he had malicious intent from the beginning or things got out of hand? Does accepting an invitation to go to a man's house really serve as consent for any sexual act, as people are saying here? What about a man going to the woman's house? One of the guy I'd been out with the other night walked me home, asked if he could use my loo and then used it as an excuse to try to kiss me. He was quickly shown the door and left, but what if he hadn't? What if he'd overpowered me? Would I have been blamed for letting him into my house and told I should have known better? I shouldn't have been stupid enough to believe he just needed a wee? 
I can't even imagine going through a traumatic experience and then being accused of lying, being named and shamed on social media, forced to move away from my home, because the people I made a complaint about in good faith were found not guilty. I'd probably kill myself.

LLMMLL

....... wrote: »

Her name and photos of her have been getting passed around on social media since the start of it.

Wouldn't believe what you see on social media. I was shown pictures of Dara Florence the witness claiming she was the victim.

_Dara_

pjohnson wrote: »

Thats the rubbish that could stop the repeal happening.

True, though anyone who lets that cloud their stance on the 8th is not the brightest penny. I accept that there are plenty of dull pennies around though, sadly.

Gael23

There are no winners here. This woman’s reputation has been ruined, as had Paddy Jackson’s career,

Nerdlingr

Augeo wrote: »

I know https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106564209&postcount=662

But you think it was 100% rape, yet you agree there was no evidence to support this????
I hope to God you never get called for jury service.

sightband

david75 wrote: »

This’ll freak all you fragile Menimists out but there’s rallies tomorrow

Solidarity rallies to say #IBelieveHer tomorrow at half 12:

Belfast Courthouse
Dublin, the Spire
Limerick, Bedford Row

Please RT.

Solidarity rallies to the spitroasters #IBelieveSheHadAGoodTime tomorrow at half 12:

Kielys
Donnybrook
Dublin 4

Heino’s all round for the goys, G&T and Rohypnol infused cocktails for the birds

Please RT

pjohnson

Gael23 wrote: »

There are no winners here. This woman’s reputation has been ruined, as had Paddy Jackson’s career,

Nope

manonboard

Deleted User wrote: »

Right from the start this case taught me that if a female friend came to be saying she was raped I'd find it hard to encourage her to go to the Gardai/Police. I've said it to a few people and one who was in a similar situation said she certainly wouldn't encourage it and depending on the circumstances may actively discourage it.

Me too actually. A fair number of my friends have been raped. I don't encourage reporting it in most of the situations because it's likely to me that it will go no where, and further add more suffering to them already. There needs to be evidence, and not just he said/she said.

Its sad, but true in my opinion

upandcumming

meeeeh wrote: »

In fairness when people walk in on sex they usually don't stare but quickly look away. It's completely possible she thought she saw more than she did. Especially with a bit of alcohol involved.

You don't know how anyone would or should react.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

True, though anyone who lets that cloud their stance on the 8th is not the brightest penny. I accept that there are plenty of dull pennies around though, sadly.

The whole 8th thing is gonna be very messy and I hope despite the best efforts of the lunatic fringe they don't manage to put off enough people. They don't seem to get that everyone's vote counts equally and that they need to make sure not to alienate the sizable middle. Everything, everything is the patriarchy to some very loud people and if there's any sense they'll not be sent out to tell men that the "patriarchy" is to blame for all of society's ills.

suicide_circus

Which is worse?

a. That some rapists can walk free

b. That innocent people are imprisoned

RollieFingers

Innocent in a court of law, the lads are innocent and justice has been done, people can’t cherry pick which judicial verdict they accept or don’t accept based on characteristics of a case, 100% innocent, hopefully the can resume their careers now.

garbo speaks

touts wrote: »

Over 26 THOUSAND tweets already about #ibelieveher. The 4 men were accquitted by the laws of the land yet there is a mob forming on twitter to say they should have been found guilty on nothing more than the basis that men are evil liars and women always tell the truth..

Who the hell cares about Twitter? Twitter is not representative of normal society; it is a leftist, snowflake echo chamber, filled with people complaining who cannot achieve anything in the real world.

manonboard

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/stanford-rape-case-female-dominated-juries-less-likely-to-convict-in-rape-cases-404525.html

This link has info on the book that suggests that male dominated juries tend to give guilty verdicts more than gender balanced juries.

It's an interesting counterpoint to the bias jury by gender argument appearing.

Seriously people, have some consideration.

I'm at Tayto Park with the kids and the the thread is growing faster than I can (sporadically) read it...

Mr.H

Gael23 wrote: »

There are no winners here. This woman’s reputation has been ruined, as had Paddy Jackson’s career,

She made an accusation and it was proven to be a wrong one

They did not bring her to court

Samuel T. Cogley

suicide_circus wrote: »

Which is worse?

a. That some rapists can walk free

b. That innocent people are imprisoned

Blackstone's formulation

Assetbacked

sightband wrote: »

Solidarity rallies to the spitroasters #IBelieveSheHadAGoodTime tomorrow at half 12:

Kielys
Donnybrook
Dublin 4

Heino’s all round for the goys, G&T and Rohypnol infused cocktails for the birds

Please RT

I'd point out that the type of girls that follow rugby players around don't need rohypnol.

Faugheen

pjohnson wrote: »

Nope

Yes, it has.

People calling her a liar, a slut, this that and everything else when there is just as much proof she is lying than there is that the four lads were guilty.

Olding wouldn't have apologised to the complainant for the hurt caused by him if she was a liar.