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

Doctors room ghost

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, to make my opinion clear.
I think on balance there probably was rape.
If I had to say beyond a reasonable doubt based on what I've heard then I'd be right on the fence.
11 people heard all of the evidence for weeks and made a unanimous decision very quickly which implies that for them it wasn't too close to reasonable doubt for those who heard all the evidence.

It wasn’t unanimous by 11 for not guilty.jury were told before deliberations that all 11 had to come to a guilty verdict or else they wouldn’t be convinced.all 11 with the same verdict of guilty is what I heard on the radio.was that right as opposed to majority vote

mariaalice

Strazdas wrote: »

A legal expert was on with Ivan Yates a few minutes ago and he says having listened to all the evidence, the woman probably believes she was raped and the men believed they didn't rape her, that's what it comes down to.

Probably nobody on the stand was lying, they were all giving their version of the 'truth'.

My truth, your truth, and the truth.

ebbsy

Probably lots of stupidity on all sides that night.

kunst nugget

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

It wasn’t unanimous by 11 for not guilty.jury were told before deliberations that all 11 had to come to a guilty verdict or else they wouldn’t be convinced.all 11 with the same verdict of guilty is what I heard on the radio.was that right as opposed to majority vote

Either verdict would have had to been unanimous. If they were deadlocked then the judge might have directed then for a majority verdict but it never got to that.

Cyrus

Strazdas wrote: »

A legal expert was on with Ivan Yates a few minutes ago and he says having listened to all the evidence, the woman probably believes she was raped and the men believed they didn't rape her, that's what it comes down to.

Probably nobody on the stand was lying, they were all giving their version of the 'truth'.

i think thats most sensible peoples understanding of events, the whole ordeal was unfortunate but i think that distills it best.

Mebuntu

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I I only ask because twitter has returned a guilty verdict. So many women on there are certain they are guilty.

What else would you expect from twitterwomen?

Diceicle

Can someone clarify, why are the defendants named but not the complainant? Are closed hearinga not a good idea in these types of cases?

professore

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.

There is a huge difference between being not credible and mistaking two very similar activities. And anyway maybe he DID penetrate her with his penis - still doesn't make it rape.

Odhinn

ebbsy wrote: »

Probably lots of stupidity on all sides that night.

It's yet another example of why both accuser and accused should be given anonimity during such trials.

PHG

Vicxas wrote: »

All people want to hear is how they got away with it, not a logical argument from someone with a penis.

Wow, what a generalisation there. Someone with a penis can't be logical? People can be falsely accused. As with any crime, the accuser is wrong until they can prove the guilt of the defendant.

Neither you or I were there that night. There is no winner here but gender hating does not help anyone. If I criticised a female for their the way they came to a decision just because thay have a vagina I would be criticised and rightly so. Discriminating based on someone's gender is low!

Arghus

Strazdas wrote: »

A legal expert was on with Ivan Yates a few minutes ago and he says having listened to all the evidence, the woman probably believes she was raped and the men believed they didn't rape her, that's what it comes down to.

Probably nobody on the stand was lying, they were all giving their version of the 'truth'.

This is kind of the mind I'd be in too about the case: a large and confusing grey area with no easy answers.

People should think about that rather than the childish demands that she be named.

If you want people who do have legitimate wrongs done onto them to never come forward claiming sexual assault for fear of being named and shamed if they lose the case, then hope for that day that your wishes about that come true.

This thread will be a clusterfck soon enough.

Fann Linn

kunst nugget wrote: »

Either verdict would have had to been unanimous. If they were deadlocked then the judge might have directed then for a majority verdict but it never got to that.

So some people would accept a unanimous Guilty'' verdict however they won't accept a unanimous 'not guilty' verdict.

dark crystal

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Anyone listening to the Matt Cooper show? Four feminists on complaining about the justice system and how it needs to change as a result of this case. He had invited numerous male guests but they all declined. It's hardly surprising when you see what happened to George Hook for speaking common sense.

Who were the four feminists?

BTW, I find it increasingly funny how men complain their voices aren't heard enough and then justify the lack of male commentators on this story (by their own choice) as being someone else's fault.

Plenty of women who agreed with this verdict too....bit sexist to assume all the male guests would be on the side of the aquitted.

professore

manonboard wrote: »

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

This is true of any crime.

I have gone to the Gardai on a few occasions, one in particular where my 16 year old daughter had her jaw broken and her 16 year old boyfriend was repeatedly kicked in the head and was lucky not to die by an older guy off his head on drugs in front of multiple witnesses. Nothing further happened as none of the multiple witnesses would testify. In the end we dropped it as the guy in question is from a notorious drug family.

You need proof and solid independent eyewitness testimony. In this case the independent testimony was heavily in favour of acquittal.

Doctors room ghost

Fann Linn wrote: »

So some people would accept a unanimous Guilty'' verdict however they won't accept a unanimous 'not guilty' verdict.

No we were talking about the actual process of how they came to that judgment in the courtroom. I understood it was to be a unanimous decision by all jury members as apposed to majority ruling.

spookwoman

Her name is protected.
From PSNI Statement "In addition to this, she was named on social media sites during the trial contrary to her legal entitlement. Any breach of this entitlement is and will be investigated."

suicide_circus

I can absolutely understand the logic of not naming the complainant.

What I cannot get my head around is why the same dignity and protection is not afforded to the accused.

professore

professore wrote: »

This is true of any crime.

I have gone to the Gardai on a few occasions, one in particular where my 16 year old daughter had her jaw broken and her 16 year old boyfriend was repeatedly kicked in the head and was lucky not to die by an older guy off his head on drugs in front of multiple witnesses. Nothing further happened as none of the multiple witnesses would testify. In the end we dropped it as the guy in question is from a notorious drug family.

You need proof and solid independent eyewitness testimony. In this case the independent testimony was heavily in favour of acquittal.

No no, patriarchy.

Fann Linn

spookwoman wrote: »

Her name is protected.
From PSNI Statement "In addition to this, she was named on social media sites during the trial contrary to her legal entitlement. Any breach of this entitlement is and will be investigated."

Applicable to NI no doubt, but what about down here. My daughter was able to show me her pics etc on FB or Instagram 2 or 3 days into the trial.

nice_guy80

I'm sure anyone who wants to know who she is would be able to find out pretty quick

professore

dark crystal wrote: »

That's quite probable, I don't know for sure what happened either.

The problem I have is how she's immediately branded a liar (no rape took place) by people on the internet who weren't there that night. This is a large part of the reason many victims don't bother to seek prosecution. Unless you're one of the 1% who manage to prove your case and secure a conviction, there's a good chance a case like this would put you off completely.

I still think if when that other woman entered the room, she had said "help, I'm being raped" -
or had screamed - or even looked afraid - instead of quite deliberately turning her head away from her so as not to be photographed, we would be looking at 4 convictions instead of 4 acquittals.

I know the arguments about people freezing etc but the sexual moaning coming from the room FROM A FEMALE according to the only independent witness it just doesn't make sense that she was frozen with fear being raped .... that coupled with her having the presence of mind to turn her head away ...

I along with I hope the vast majority of men are disgusted by rape and would happily put them away for 10 years each, rugby internationals or not. But I am not at all convinced that it was actually rape.

Spencer Winterbotham

Justice has been served.

Faugheen

professore wrote: »

I still think if when that other woman entered the room, she had said "help, I'm being raped" -
or had screamed - instead of quite deliberately turning her head away from her so as not to be photographed, we would be looking at 4 convictions instead of 4 acquittals.

I know the arguments about people freezing etc but the sexual moaning coming from the room FROM A FEMALE according to the only independent witness it just doesn't make sense that she was frozen with fear being raped .... that coupled with her having the presence of mind to turn her head away ...

Expert medical witness for the defence admitted that most people just tend to let it happen.

It's very easy to say she should have screamed, but in her mind that woman entering the room was a friend of theirs.

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote:

BTW, I find it increasingly funny how men complain their voices aren't heard enough and then justify the lack of male commentators on this story (by their own choice) as being someone else's fault.

Men complain that when they express their opinion, unless it is in complete agreement with modern feminists, they are vilified and, especially people in the public eye, are at risk of losing their career.

AudreyHepburn

suicide_circus wrote: »

I can absolutely understand the logic of not naming the complainant.

What I cannot get my head around is why the same dignity and protection is not afforded to the accused.

I have yet to hear a good credible reason why the accused aren’t afforded privacy in these cases.

It’s archaic quite frankly.

I’d imagine it harks back to the days when women were locked away and treated as fragile dolls and sex was something men did to them consensual or otherwise.

Either you name both parties or you protect both parties - it’s as simple as that.

professore

Faugheen wrote: »

Expert medical witness for the defence admitted that most people just tend to let it happen.

It's very easy to say she should have screamed, but in her mind that woman entering the room was a friend of theirs.

Do they also turn their head away from someone who could help? Do they also make moaning sexual noises and don't appear to be in any distress?

I wasn't aware Dara Florence was a friend of anyone. She went looking for her friend Emily who was asleep in another room upstairs. No mention anywhere that she was a friend of the defendants.

Roadtoad

Diceicle wrote: »

Can someone clarify, why are the defendants named but not the complainant? Are closed hearinga not a good idea in these types of cases?

Justice should be visible, in general. And blind of course!
When minors are involved in sex cases it should be in camera, to protect the minor.
Apparently in the republic if one side is unnamed, so is the other, at least until the judgement is decided.
The state, not the girl, brought the charge, it's not a person A v person B conflict.
Why the GB /Irl difference, wiser voices please!

david75

freshpopcorn wrote: »

We did the same course at college. I got to know her. I left the course after two years. She went abroad and is back home and I haven't seen her since 2013. I don't we know much about her now in her late twenties apart from where she works/lives but I knew loads about her during her college years.

Yet you’re still on about her) You know more about this girl than I do members of my own family. Id say start a blog or write a book or something. Got it out of your system though. Doesn’t reflect well on you going on about her at length like this.

AudreyHepburn

Faugheen wrote: »

Expert medical witness for the defence admitted that most people just tend to let it happen.

It's very easy to say she should have screamed, but in her mind that woman entering the room was a friend of theirs.

Letting it happen is one thing but being heard to enjoy it and to turn away from a potential rescuer is another.

spookwoman

Fann Linn wrote: »

Applicable to NI no doubt, but what about down here. My daughter was able to show me her pics etc on FB or Instagram 2 or 3 days into the trial.

If the images on fb and instagram do not belong to the poster and were taken of someones page without permission a take down can be issued for copyright infringement
As the CPS has demonstrated already, should this image appear on a social media website such as Twitter or Facebook, the situation is straightforward. UK and EU internet safety organisations work closely with social media partners so that distressing, illegal or problematic information can be removed as soon as possible. The value of personal relationships between social media companies, law enforcement agencies, and intermediaries cannot be underestimated.
taken from https://inforrm.org/2015/02/20/the-cloak-of-anonymity-the-naming-of-rape-victims-on-social-media-clare-brown/

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Letting it happen is one thing but being heard to enjoy it and to turn away from a potential rescuer is another.

You do realise rape victims can experience an orgasm during rape and also remember a gang of men who were a lot stronger than were in that room, what was it 3 against 1. Not everyone is going to cry out for help, everyone reacts differently. Moan could also have come from the pain of the vaginal laceration