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

jm08

tritium wrote: »

Lots of human error in the last few years isn’t there?

Funny that, you’d think they’d do something about it

Oh yeah, underfunded and understaffed right?

Not enough people to hand over all the evidence.....

You will get plenty of errors if you don't provide the resources to complete the work diligently.

How do you propose they do it - let the people charged wait 4 or 5 years for justice to be done?

jm08

tritium wrote: »

Yes, they can, and someone slowed it down for exactly that reason

Hint: it wasn’t the defence

So who do you think slowed it down. The Police or the DPP?

I think it could also be argued that there was not a malicious intent as well - just probably inexperience/lack of expertise in video evidence. Note the defence sent it to an expert to get it evaluated.

Heres Johnny

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Why do women demand that all men respect and put them on a pedestal?
Then the same women call men pigs and scum and other such names?

Becoz Men R Trash

Ulysses Gaze

jm08 wrote: »

You will get plenty of errors if you don't provide the resources to complete the work diligently.

How do you propose they do it - let the people charged wait 4 or 5 years for justice to be done?

Perhaps if they moved some of the 900 people who are now assigned to monitor Hate Crimes (in London and online) to actual police work they would be able to complete this work more diligently.

wexie

jm08 wrote: »

So who do you think slowed it down. The Police or the DPP?

I think it could also be argued that there was not a malicious intent as well - just probably inexperience/lack of expertise in video evidence. Note the defence sent it to an expert to get it evaluated.

awful convenient that out of the whole recording it was just that handful of frames effected no?

And yes the defense did send it to an expert because they felt it had been tampered with. The expert agreed that it had indeed been tampered with and showed how.

wexie

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Perhaps if they moved some of the 900 people who are now assigned to monitor Hate Crimes (in London and online) to actual police work they would be able to complete this work more diligently.

thing is, apparently wolf whistling is now considered a 'hate crime' so they're going to need every one of those 900 people.

tritium

tritium wrote: »

Evidence was that Jackson was unaware of the distress which happened after she left

Jackson had a single post on the WhatsApp, he references spit roast briefly in response to someone else and doesn’t reference the girl

Well it was hardly mcilroy that Jackson & olding spitroasted was it?

And of course a spitroast is when you finger a lady while someone else gets a BJ :rolleyes:

sightband

Augeo wrote: »

Well it was hardly mcilroy that Jackson & olding spitroasted was it?

And of course a spitroast is when you finger a lady while someone else gets a BJ :rolleyes:

You wouldn’t know with these rugby lads, fair chance there was another session later on involving all the goys in a daisy chain.

Venom

wexie wrote: »

awful convenient that out of the whole recording it was just that handful of frames effected no?

And yes the defense did send it to an expert because they felt it had been tampered with. The expert agreed that it had indeed been tampered with and showed how.

Sadly this is not an isolated example of the prosecution tampering with evidence recently in the UK.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11961605

The Liam Allen case is another one where the prosecution withheld vital evidence that not only proved his innocence and knowing this they still tried to go ahead with a court case. These fcukers need jail time never mind being sacked.

tritium

Venom wrote: »

Sadly this is not an isolated example of the prosecution tampering with evidence recently in the UK.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11961605

The Liam Allen case is another one where the prosecution withheld vital evidence that not only proved his innocence and knowing this they still tried to go ahead with a court case. These fcukers need jail time never mind being sacked.

No no you’ve got it all wrong. Apparently the met police are just understaffed. Now granted the met have a staff of more than 43 thousand and a budget of 3.24 billion pounds to cover a population of around 8 million people. To break that down that’s 1 staff member (policing staff, excluding volunteers) per 200 people or in budget terms around £400 per person per annum. However we clearly fail to understand what a crime ridden hellhole London is

Christ it must be like Judge Dredd over there

(To put this in context Wikipedia lists the Gardai as having 16 thousand employees and a 1.5billion euro budget for a population of 4.75 million)

RabbleRouser2k

tritium wrote: »

No no you’ve got it all wrong. Apparently the met police are just understaffed. Now granted the met have a staff of more than 43 thousand and a budget of 3.24 billion pounds to cover a population of around 8 million people. To break that down that’s 1 staff member (policing staff, excluding volunteers) per 200 people or in budget terms around £400 per person per annum. However we clearly fail to understand what a crime ridden hellhole London is

Christ it must be like Judge Dredd over there

(To put this in context Wikipedia lists the Gardai as having 16 thousand employees and a 1.5billion euro budget for a population of 4.75 million)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/25/soaring-crime-statistics-government-neglect-cuts-police

London alone has seen a massive rise in crime, leading folks to wonder wth Sadiq Khaan is doing.
Knife and gun crime has risen enormously.

jm08

Venom wrote: »

Sadly this is not an isolated example of the prosecution tampering with evidence recently in the UK.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11961605

The Liam Allen case is another one where the prosecution withheld vital evidence that not only proved his innocence and knowing this they still tried to go ahead with a court case. These fcukers need jail time never mind being sacked.

Maybe you should read the article first before blaming the Prosecution.

The texts held by police should have been made available to both the defence and the prosecution almost two years ago but were not due to "sheer incompetence".

For the record, I have said that the police in the UK got it wrong quite a bit.

bodice ripper

HandsomeBob wrote: »

There's a fair chance a young close male friend or relative of yours is coming out with the same juvenile foolishness on apps like WhatsApp. I won't ask you the question to what I'm getting at in regards to what constitutes a life being ruined.

Well, perhaps if we didn't dismiss behaviour like that with "ah sure, boys will be boys", they might be inclined to act like decent human beings.

Also, unlike you, I don't believe all men are the same.

RuMan

bodice ripper wrote: »

Well, perhaps if we didn't dismiss behaviour like that with "ah sure, boys will be boys", they might be inclined to act like decent human beings.

Also, unlike you, I don't believe all men are the same.

Consensual acts and private messages. Nothing to do with you

Appledreams15

RuMan wrote: »

As has been stated many times the innocent men assumed she was upset because Jacko rejected her.
" all this talk" are u referring to the ONE whatsapp message from Jacko?

Why on earth would she be hysterical crying all the way home because Jacko rejected her.

We all know how it s right now, it is men that hound women to be with them.

From the night in question we know:

Jacko asked Dara to be with him. She said no.
Blane asked Dara to be with him. She said no.

Appledreams15

RuMan wrote: »

Consensual acts and private messages. Nothing to do with you

I wouldnt describe the text

"IT was like a merry go round at a carnival"

As a consensual act.

It is describing one person as an object, no feelings, not human, while everyone else took a ride on them. It is an absusive term.

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I wouldnt describe the text

"IT was like a merry go round at a carnival"

As a consensual act.

It is describing one person as an object, no feelings, not human, while everyone else took a ride on them. It is an absusive term.

Clearly not a view shared by the jury who unlike you or I were in possession of all the evidence

Appledreams15

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was quite clear from how she was sitting on the sofa that she wasn't into Blane. I think she was after Paddy meself and that would explain why she went mooching maybe and pehaps also why she took her time closing the door after discovering the menage a trois.


Indeed, and she's also rather nobly turned down substantial offers to sell her story.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

She was after Paddy, even though she said no to Paddy.

Consent classes needed here.

If a woman talks to you, smiles at you, sits beside you, comes back to your house: it does not mean she wants sex, and you are arrogant to assume so.

Asking a woman and her saying she wants sex and you saying you want sex is when both people want sex.

Consent classes are badly needed.

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why on earth would she be hysterical crying all the way home because Jacko rejected her.

We all know how it s right now, it is men that hound women to be with them.

From the night in question we know:

Jacko asked Dara to be with him. She said no.
Blane asked Dara to be with him. She said no.

Some woman and men find celebrities attractive. Perhaps its their money or fame who knows. Choose to pretend this is not the case if you wish.

Appledreams15

RuMan wrote: »

Clearly not a view shared by the jury who unlike you or I were in possession of all the evidence

How do you know the jury don't think that was a foul text?

What do you think of the IRFU currently conducting a review into C Gilroy because of his texts, and him apologising for them.

Alot of people didn't like them.

Appledreams15

RuMan wrote: »

Some woman and men find celebrities attractive. Perhaps its their money or fame who knows. Choose to pretend this is not the case if you wish.

So both Blane and Jacko asked Dara to be with them.
From Dara - the sole sober person.

All evidence so far of the men approachinh he the women and the women rejecting them.
Rory and Blane exchange a text 'did she go after him, I don't remember'. About the complainant.

Yet in court they suddenly said that she was fixated on him and crying because rejected. Hmmmm

Appledreams15

RuMan wrote: »

Some woman and men find celebrities attractive. Perhaps its their money or fame who knows. Choose to pretend this is not the case if you wish.

So both Blane and Jacko asked Dara to be with them.
From Dara - the sole sober person.

All evidence so far of the men approaching the women and the women rejecting them.
Rory and Blane exchange a text 'did she go after him, I don't remember'. About the complainant.

Yet in court they suddenly said that she was fixated on him and crying because rejected. Hmmmm

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

How do you know the jury don't think that was a foul text?

What do you think of the IRFU currently conducting a review into C Gilroy because of his texts, and him apologising for them.

Alot of people didn't like them.

Other then as evidence of rape or not I doubt they considered it as sending private messages is not a criminal offense to the best of my knowledge.
There's no legal definition of "vile" it is simply your own moral values you are trying to impose.

I dont much like the vile abuse Dara Florence has been subjected to but it is not a criminal offense either.

tritium

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why on earth would she be hysterical crying all the way home because Jacko rejected her.

We all know how it s right now, it is men that hound women to be with them.

From the night in question we know:

Jacko asked Dara to be with him. She said no.
Blane asked Dara to be with him. She said no.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She was after Paddy, even though she said no to Paddy.

Consent classes needed here.

If a woman talks to you, smiles at you, sits beside you, comes back to your house: it does not mean she wants sex, and you are arrogant to assume so.

Asking a woman and her saying she wants sex and you saying you want sex is when both people want sex.

Consent classes are badly needed.

Two of the parties seem to understand the meaning of no and respect it based on your previous post

Why do you think they might need further classes on it?

In the above exchange Dara also clearly demonstrated she knows how to communicate consent or otherwise

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So both Blane and Jacko asked Dara to be with them.
From Dara - the sole sober person.

All evidence so far of the men approaching the women and the women rejecting them.
Rory and Blane exchange a text 'did she go after him, I don't remember'. About the complainant.

Yet in court they suddenly said that she was fixated on him and crying because rejected. Hmmmm

Actually Jacko asked her if she wanted to join the threesome not " to be with HIM"

And the woman did go with Jacko, presumably consensually or he would have been found guilty of rape.

You keep posting bits of evidence while ignoring the fact that that all of it was available to the jury who found the innocent men not guilty of all charges. Ur views and mine really arent that important it is the jury that counts.

wexie

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Jacko asked Dara to be with him. She said no.
Blane asked Dara to be with him. She said no.

Geez, and she wasn't raped. Imagine that

tritium

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So both Blane and Jacko asked Dara to be with them.
From Dara - the sole sober person.

All evidence so far of the men approachinh he the women and the women rejecting them.
Rory and Blane exchange a text 'did she go after him, I don't remember'. About the complainant.

Yet in court they suddenly said that she was fixated on him and crying because rejected. Hmmmm

Strange how the jury, with access to all of the evidence couldn’t see the clearly damning evidence you’ve picked up on

Who knows maybe there were other aspects they considered that outweighed the selective pieces you’d like to hang the 4 young men on

NAGDEFI

The whatsapp/text messages show a lack of character in some of the defendants. It illustrates that they live in a sports group bubble, with exaggerated opinions of their importance and a sense of entitlement. I'm sick listening to this 'lads banter' BS. If this type of thinking, using others, degrading them becomes common place, society will suffer the consequences of men who don't know how to behave in a group, adhere to pack mentality, and in effect are cowards on their own.

Stuart Olding is coming out far better than Jackson out of this and appears to have realised that while the sexual behaviour may have been consensual his attitude to the night's behaviour was totally wrong.

As regards the charge or rape, the accused were found not guilty. Are their problems with the process, yes. To go over old ground again, the excessive amount of time on the stand and questioning of the complainant, the NI system of naming the accused.

To conclude, better education on consent, communication, respect, equality among females and males. Drink Awareness for all. Stay with good friends when out if possible.

If you're a sports person representing, county, province and country you have to be especially aware of your actions. Also online, as like it or not, you are representing a section of population. You spend time coaching kids and are in the role model status. That's the price of fame and achievement, and it's et off by many positive effects on your lifestyle, endorsements, ability to play infront of thousands of people, making your hobby your job, ability to find work after your career ends etc.

wonga77

I can't believe some of ye are still biting

jm08

RuMan wrote: »

Other then as evidence of rape or not I doubt they considered it as sending private messages is not a criminal offense to the best of my knowledge.
There's no legal definition of "vile" it is simply your own moral values you are trying to impose.

I dont much like the vile abuse Dara Florence has been subjected to but it is not a criminal offense either.

What do you think of Blaine McIlroy referring to her as a 'Belfast Slut' in a text message with a photo attachment of her with her 2 friends (photo taken by P Jackson)?