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

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Not just the time. The interrogation (and with no counsel).



We don't know down here because reporting of cases is restricted.

Nobody has spent that amount of time in the stand.

A complainant has to be interrogated, you cannot have a fair system any other way.

Unless of course you just believe allegations when they are made, which is what the mob did here and no court case will persuade them otherwise.

*p.s. We do know what goes on in trials, we just don't know specifics and names.

Grayson

tretorn wrote: »

Being convicte of rape is absolutely life destroying so no charges should be brought until an evidential case is made, this case didnt reach that standard so clearly the proscecution service have a case to answer. Direct your anger about the length of time the woman had to give evidence against the PPS and not at the men who were cleared of any wrongdoing.

What the fcuk are you talking about? At what point did I say that the accused were to blame for the trial process. I said the process needs to be changed so that rape victims can't be on a stand for 8 days. I never blamed the accused for it. Stop making **** up.

Secondly a case was made. Not all cases result in convictions and you can't predict 100% that a conviction will occur before the trial has even been done. You seem to think that you should only pursue a case if there's a 100% chance of success. The PPS obviously thought they had a good chance of winning but they can't be certain of a win and they will sometimes lose.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

The length of the alleged victims testimony was a product of two things.

• Charging 4 victims at once
• Having made several inconsistent statements at the outset

Having suffered a trauma it's entirely possible to mix things up, leave things out and have a fragmented memory. Everyone understands and accepts that. The defendants similarly had inconsistencies.

However. Putting people in jail for 15 years requires those inconsistencies are examined and tested. There is no alternative to this. Being unclear or hazy about key evidence isn't acceptable when depriving people of freedom for a substantial period of their life.

Again, without getting into guilt or innocence, due process is in everyone's best interest.

The problem here is that people are calling this unfair and saying it will put people off reporting this kind of crime. It certainly might put people off but the unfairness is related to how this prosecution was put forward by those seeking justice, not by those representing the defendants.

It's very misguided.

I think what is very unfair is that even though she was a witness, she was treated like a defendant. She should have had her own legal counsel.

There are reforms that could be made to help the situation for everyone. One of the best things to come out of it is perhaps education around consent and possibly a change in the law such as what Iceland has done. That should make everyone clearing on what their responsibilities are.

Guy:Incognito

cloudatlas wrote: »

what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

How many of the messages that were made public and helped form your opinions were paddy Jackson's?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've never posted anything as vile and dehumanizing as the language used in that WhatsApp group.

If you're trying to suggest it's normal, you're wrong.

If you think it's acceptable, then you really should recalibrate your morals because it's not.

Are you proposing that we eliminate the word Slut out of the vocabulary? If so what other words for a promiscuous woman are PC enough to be used?

Other than young men bragging about a night of drunken sex what was 'vile' about what they said?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

I think what is very unfair is that even though she was a witness, she was treated like a defendant. She should have had her own legal counsel.

There are reforms that could be made to help the situation for everyone. One of the best things to come out of it is perhaps education around consent and possibly a change in the law such as what Iceland has done. That should make everyone clearing on what their responsibilities are.

What will the destruction of those men's careers and lives do for that cause, exactly?

tritium

facehugger99 wrote: »

"Hysterical Folk"

"ill informed mob"

"Femanazis"

"Shower of Idiots"

That's only the last few pages.

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to try and discredit those who've reached a different conclusion to them regarding Jackson and his suitably to represent his country.

Perhaps instead of labeling people in such a negative way, more reflection is called for.

Dehumanizing language was a feature of the texts that came to light in this case, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that those who see nothing wrong with them use the same language in their posts.

Was dehumanizing language one sided so

“MenRTrash”

Women acting “slutty”

Privileged little rich kids

Demeaning comparisons of paddy Jackson’s looks

Posters telling us Stuart Olding gives off a rapists energy

Accusations of supporting rape culture


Is reflection really only necessary for one group around here?

Guy:Incognito

cloudatlas wrote: »

According to this thread this will have no impact and it was only a small group of feminazi's marching so you have nothing to worry about. Also what continues to be ignored is how victims are treated in court and the benefits a change would have for both male and female victims. Of course the trial brought up emotions for victims that can't be helped or curtailed.

Which victims? The ones falsley accused who are afforded no anominity and are now being treated as guilty because people decided they are?

Grayson

tritium wrote: »

Was dehumanizing language one sided so

“MenRTrash”

Women acting “slutty”

Privileged little rich kids

Weren't two of those after she was raped?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Other than young men bragging about a night of drunken sex what was 'vile' about what they said?

Ask Paddy. He's unreservedly apologised for the language used.

tretorn

Grayson wrote: »

Weren't two of those after she was raped?

After who was raped.

Jacksons lawyers are monitoring all social media and they will sue for libel, you have been warned.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've never posted anything as vile and dehumanizing as the language used in that WhatsApp group.

If you're trying to suggest it's normal, you're wrong.

If you think it's acceptable, then you really should recalibrate your morals because it's not.

Can you break down your specific problem with what Paddy Jackson wrote?

Also, and this is just a fictional experiment but if two women had a threesome with a male and afterwards in private messages said they passed him around like a joystick on legs - would you care? Would anyone?

The messages are unpleasant, cringe worthy and juvenile. They will grow up eventually or they will meet someone in life to whom those actions are unacceptable and they will change.

I don't think as a society it's for us to moralise about what is said in private.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ask Paddy. He's unreservedly apologised for the language used.

Yes, it was rude and upset many people.

How was it 'vile' was the question. But you don't wish to answer that like other questions asked of you.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ask Paddy. He's unreservedly apologised for the language used.

He apologised for engaging with a Whatsapp group which was degrading and offensive.

Grayson

tretorn wrote: »

After who was raped.

weren't those two of the phrases that the woman who was raped used to describe the ruby players.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has spent that amount of time in the stand.

A complainant has to be interrogated, you cannot have a fair system any other way.

Unless of course you just believe allegations when they are made, which is what the mob did here and no court case will persuade them otherwise.

*p.s. We do know what goes on in trials, we just don't know specifics and names.

Who are this 'mob' you keep referring to?

I don't recall exactly, but wasn't most the time on PJ and Olding. As far as I can recall, the other 2s questioning was very brief anyway since most the questions were asked by Jackson's counsel.

There are improvements to the process that can be made, such as giving witnesses in rape cases legal counsel.

Jackson's Counsel in particular went for the jugular. If they can dish it out, they should be well able to take it.

*in rape cases, we only get to know about it if there is a conviction.

2smiggy

Grayson wrote: »

weren't those two of the phrases that the woman who was raped used to describe the ruby players.

Did you not see the verdict ?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Who are this 'mob' you keep referring to?

I don't recall exactly, but wasn't most the time on PJ and Olding. As far as I can recall, the other 2s questioning was very brief anyway since most the questions were asked by Jackson's counsel.

There are improvements to the process that can be made, such as giving witnesses in rape cases legal counsel.

Jackson's Counsel in particular went for the jugular. If they can dish it out, they should be well able to take it.

And how will ending the careers of these men help in changing the process?

Simple question.

Lux23

tretorn wrote: »

After who was raped.

Jacksons lawyers are monitoring all social media and they will sue for libel, you have been warned.

Will ya stop!!

MarinersBlues

Grayson wrote: »

weren't those two of the phrases that the woman who was raped used to describe the ruby players.

Have another go at that again...

Grayson

2smiggy wrote: »

Did you not see the verdict ?

Yeah. So? That's not answering my question. Those two phrases are things she said after it happened.

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

So it’s generally agreed that there were massive inconsistencies in the complainants evidence. How else would you propose to both give the defence the opportunity to fully highlight them and the defendant the opportunity to respond?

I do agree with another poster however that trying the four together was ludicrous. For the fourth defendant in particular everything hinges on the other three and had he been considered post trial 1 less defence barrister would have been involved. The pps has many questions to answer around this case however I suspect they’ll just motor on like nothing happened

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I think what is very unfair is that even though she was a witness, she was treated like a defendant. She should have had her own legal counsel.

There are reforms that could be made to help the situation for everyone. One of the best things to come out of it is perhaps education around consent and possibly a change in the law such as what Iceland has done. That should make everyone clearing on what their responsibilities are.

Had she had her own legal counsel, her experience in court would not have changed one little bit. The judge decides what is and isn't acceptable questioning.

She is also entitled at any time to retain a lawyer to provide advice.

She wasn't treated like a defendant. If she misspoke or failed to recall something, it wouldn't result in her being sent to prison. She wasn't named publicly.

The prosecution chose to take a case relying 95% on the statements of one witness, the complainant. They chose to take a case against 4 people at once.

They chose to take a case despite the one sober, independent witness saying they didn't believe they saw a rape.

If anyone is angry at anyone, it should be the people who chose to bring this case to court in the manner that they did.

Instead we get 70,000 people demanding that Paddy Jackson never play rugby in Ireland again.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

*in rape cases, we only get to know about it if there is a conviction.

We know how trials are conducted here and nobody spends that long in the stand.
The average is a couple of hours.

meeeeh

tretorn wrote: »

After who was raped.

Jacksons lawyers are monitoring all social media and they will sue for libel, you have been warned.

That's it , be very afraid. They are spending all their days reading Boards and Twitter to sue people. Charged at 300 Euro per hour.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

Isn't the reason that the underwear was on display, is that the prosecution had submitted it as evidence? What's the defence supposed to do, ignore it because it's mortifying for the alleged victim?

Really, really simple.. anonymity on both sides.

2smiggy

Grayson wrote: »

Yeah. So? That's not answering my question. Those two phrases are things she said after it happened.

after what happened ? Feel free to leave your real name/address with your comment if so comfortable saying it.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Had she had her own legal counsel, her experience in court would not have changed one little bit. The judge decides what is and isn't acceptable questioning.

She is also entitled at any time to retain a lawyer to provide advice.

She wasn't treated like a defendant. If she misspoke or failed to recall something, it wouldn't result in her being sent to prison. She wasn't named publicly.

The prosecution chose to take a case relying 95% on the statements of one witness, the complainant. They chose to take a case against 4 people at once.

They chose to take a case despite the one sober, independent witness saying they didn't believe they saw a rape.

If anyone is angry at anyone, it should be the people who chose to bring this case to court in the manner that they did.

Instead we get 70,000 people demanding that Paddy Jackson never play rugby in Ireland again.

I listened to a barrister talk in depth about the system here and one of things she said was that the complainant having their own defence would lead to was 'longer trials/ordeals' and would make the procedure 'much more argumentative' with little resulting benefit to the complainant.

Guy:Incognito

jm08 wrote: »

Not too sure there wouldn't have been protests about how the court system works, such as open court in NI, adversorial system. People were very shocked at how it plays out as you don't see what happens in the system in the south. Most people also realise that sex education needs to be brought up to date in particular around the area of consent.

Rape Crisis Centre and other advocacy groups has been at the forefront of advocating these, not the politicians.

What would have made this case any different to all the other rape trials that they'd suddenly have decided to protest?

Grayson

2smiggy wrote: »

after what happened ? Feel free to leave your real name/address with your comment if so comfortable saying it.

what? Are you stoned? You're making literally no sense.

I've said before in this thread that I believe that the girl was raped. I have no idea why I need to leave my name and address. Do you have to prove your a real person now before you can have an opinion? Do you think I'm a russian bot and this is all a conspiracy to jail a rugby player and get trump elected?