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

jm08

Reporting restrictions lifted.

Additional blood on Jackson's sheets, a pornographic video and 'middle class' tweet - Reporting restrictions on Belfast rape trial lifted

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/additional-blood-on-jacksons-sheets-a-pornographic-video-and-middle-class-tweet-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-lifted-36797424.html

Maxpfizer

Appledreams15 wrote: »

If men are not going to take culpability

What does this even mean?

If you think I am going to take culpability for the actions of some Rugby a$$h0les then you are sadly mistaken.

Who is raising these rapey lads? I say blame their mothers before you come looking to blame me.

We live in a Patriarchal society where women are expected to stay at home and raise children, right?

Maybe we should ask women to stop raising rapists?

Faugheen

jm08 wrote: »

Reporting restrictions lifted.

Additional blood on Jackson's sheets, a pornographic video and 'middle class' tweet - Reporting restrictions on Belfast rape trial lifted

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/additional-blood-on-jacksons-sheets-a-pornographic-video-and-middle-class-tweet-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-lifted-36797424.html

Why was Harrison's video to Olding not allowed?

Considering they tried to say there was no penetrative sex involved in this 'spitroast', that video (even though it's not of the three people involved) is just as relevant as to what happened?

The airbrushed blood on Jackson's sheets won't go down well either (even if it wasn't hers).

Can see why the defence were eager to have all this kept quiet.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Why was Harrison's video to Olding not allowed?

Considering they tried to say there was no penetrative sex involved in this 'spitroast', that video (even though it's not of the three people involved) is just as relevant as to what happened?

The airbrushed blood on Jackson's sheets won't go down well either (even if it wasn't hers).

Can see why the defence were eager to have all this kept quiet.

If anyone has an issue with any of these things being left out, they should remember to direct their anger at the person who made the decision to include or exclude this information. The female judge.

Not surprising that a professional rugby player might have historical blood stains on bed sheets, it's not tiddlywinks.

Foxtrol

Faugheen wrote: »

The airbrushed blood on Jackson's sheets won't go down well either (even if it wasn't hers).

With people who read the headline and none of the actual details (though that seems consistent with the majority of the hordes on twitter).

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Why was Harrison's video to Olding not allowed?

Considering they tried to say there was no penetrative sex involved in this 'spitroast', that video (even though it's not of the three people involved) is just as relevant as to what happened?

The airbrushed blood on Jackson's sheets won't go down well either (even if it wasn't hers).

Can see why the defence were eager to have all this kept quiet.

If anyone has an issue with any of these things being left out, they should remember to direct their anger at the person who made the decision to include or exclude this information. The female judge.

Not surprising that a professional rugby player might have historical blood stains on bed sheets, it's not tiddlywinks.

I'm not directing anger at anybody, because I've always maintained that both sides believe they're telling the truth.

I genuinely don't understand what the issue with the video was. Surely it speaks for their character, no?

And I understand why the blood was airbrushed if it wasn't hers, but it's not going to sit well with people, that's all I'm saying.

Why are you jumping out on the defensive?

Foxtrol

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not directing anger at anybody, because I've always maintained that both sides believe they're telling the truth.

I genuinely don't understand what the issue with the video was. Surely it speaks for their character, no?

And I understand why the blood was airbrushed if it wasn't hers, but it's not going to sit well with people, that's all I'm saying.

Why are you jumping out on the defensive?

AFAIK that is exactly the issue. You can't bring in things as evidence that may prejudice the defendants character unless it is shown to be clearly relevant to the case.

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Dara Florence said she saw Paddy Jacksson having penetrative sex. Penis into vagina. That was her evidence.

I am prepared to accept her evidence in full as she was sober and all of the others, both the woman and the men, were drunk at the time.

If you accept her evidence in full, then you have to conclude that there was reasonable doubt and that the case should never have gone to court.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The more worrying question is how do the physically weaker people protect themselves from the physically stronger people?

In a normally functioning world, the physically stronger would protect and look after the physically weaker.

In the world as it is, many of the stronger are hurting and abusing the weaker.

Especially after reading this thread, (it is the woman's fault, all the old attitudes: it is where she goes etc) I am thinking:how do I protect myself? If men are not going to take culpability, do we as women need to start protecting ourselves more. Do I need to carry something? I read one story where a woman said wearing spanx pants, (going from nearly knee to waist) body shaper pants, saved her from getting raped as he couldnt get them off her.
I am definitely going to arm myself more in future.

The men were found not guilty. What do men have to take culpability for?

I am male and I take precautions to protect myself in certain situations. If I am carrying a large amount of cash, I don't make it obvious, I don't walk on my own and I avoid dangerous places. When you ask should women start to protect themselves more, what do you mean? We are not living in Syria where people are in daily fear of being killed, raped and brutalised.

zedhead

Foxtrol wrote: »

AFAIK that is exactly the issue. You can't bring in things as evidence that may prejudice the defendants character unless it is shown to be clearly relevant to the case.

So why can you have positive character witnesses? Or have the judge declare to the jury that they were shown to be men of good character? Surely if you can't show things that can negatively demonstrate the character of the defendents you should not be allowed to try and show good character either?

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not directing anger at anybody, because I've always maintained that both sides believe they're telling the truth.

I genuinely don't understand what the issue with the video was. Surely it speaks for their character, no?

And I understand why the blood was airbrushed if it wasn't hers, but it's not going to sit well with people, that's all I'm saying.

Why are you jumping out on the defensive?

What would it say about their character?

kylith

"Mr O’Donoghue argued that if the jury was told where the semen had been found on the woman’s jeans, it might create an “unfair suspicion” in the minds of jurors."

:mad:

Translation "We don't want this evidence admitted because it might make our clients look guilty".

Faugheen

Foxtrol wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not directing anger at anybody, because I've always maintained that both sides believe they're telling the truth.

I genuinely don't understand what the issue with the video was. Surely it speaks for their character, no?

And I understand why the blood was airbrushed if it wasn't hers, but it's not going to sit well with people, that's all I'm saying.

Why are you jumping out on the defensive?

AFAIK that is exactly the issue. You can't bring in things as evidence that may prejudice the defendants character unless it is shown to be clearly relevant to the case.

Fair enough, but then Judge Patricia Smyth said that the 4 accused were of 'good character' in her charge to the jury. I just think with all the talk of top shaggers and spitroasting and the timing of the video being sent (the next day) would have been somewhat evidential.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be outraged or anything like that. The video really doesn't make a difference to the verdict in my opinion but it's now a big talking point I think.

blanch152

Faugheen wrote: »

Why was Harrison's video to Olding not allowed?

Considering they tried to say there was no penetrative sex involved in this 'spitroast', that video (even though it's not of the three people involved) is just as relevant as to what happened?

The airbrushed blood on Jackson's sheets won't go down well either (even if it wasn't hers).

Can see why the defence were eager to have all this kept quiet.

Equally, why wasn't the jury discharged following the prejudicial tweet by the politician?

More importantly, given the evidence of the independent witness, we still haven't had a reasonable answer as to why this case ended up in court at all?

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not directing anger at anybody, because I've always maintained that both sides believe they're telling the truth.

I genuinely don't understand what the issue with the video was. Surely it speaks for their character, no?

And I understand why the blood was airbrushed if it wasn't hers, but it's not going to sit well with people, that's all I'm saying.

Why are you jumping out on the defensive?

What would it say about their character?

They downplayed it in court, but yet it emerges Harrison sent Olding a video of a spitroasting when he wasn't a member of that WhatsApp group and after being told it was 'non-consensual'.

I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight with anyone here. I'm just struggling to see how the video was ruled inadmissible. I'm not a legal expert nor do I pretend to be. I'm just giving my point of view.

I'm sure there is an answer to it. I can't imagine a judge would leave evidence out just because.

Foxtrol

Faugheen wrote: »

Fair enough, but then Judge Patricia Smyth said that the 4 accused were of 'good character' in her charge to the jury. I just think with all the talk of top shaggers and spitroasting and the timing of the video being sent (the next day) would have been somewhat evidential.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be outraged or anything like that. The video really doesn't make a difference to the verdict in my opinion but it's now a big talking point I think.

You can be of good character and a foul mouth when speaking privately with friends. The video was of a consensual interaction which is what they claimed from the start and the prosecution could not prove otherwise.

It's a big talking point only among people who already refuse to accept the quick unanimous verdict of the jury.

Faugheen

Foxtrol wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Fair enough, but then Judge Patricia Smyth said that the 4 accused were of 'good character' in her charge to the jury. I just think with all the talk of top shaggers and spitroasting and the timing of the video being sent (the next day) would have been somewhat evidential.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be outraged or anything like that. The video really doesn't make a difference to the verdict in my opinion but it's now a big talking point I think.

You can be of good character and a foul mouth when speaking privately with friends. The video was of a consensual interaction which is what they claimed from the start and the prosecution could not prove otherwise.

It's a big talking point only among people who already refuse to accept the quick unanimous verdict of the jury.

Again, I accept the verdict, what is with everyone getting so defensive here??

Foxtrol

Faugheen wrote: »

They downplayed it in court, but yet it emerges Harrison sent Olding a video of a spitroasting when he wasn't a member of that WhatsApp group and after being told it was 'non-consensual'.

I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight with anyone here. I'm just struggling to see how the video was ruled inadmissible. I'm not a legal expert nor do I pretend to be. I'm just giving my point of view.

I'm sure there is an answer to it. I can't imagine a judge would leave evidence out just because.

She says it in the article:

Judge Smyth said the defence had argued that sending and receipt of this evidence would have an adverse effect and was inadmissible because it was irrelevant or prejudicial and could “indicate bad character” on the part of the accused.

She said that to some extent, the resolution of this required a “moral judgement” and conceded it was pornographic and depicted consensual sex between three people. The issue of whether legal adult pornography is evidence of bad character “may attract a wide divergence of public opinion, depending on age bracket or gender,” she said.

Lux23

Foxtrol wrote: »

AFAIK that is exactly the issue. You can't bring in things as evidence that may prejudice the defendants character unless it is shown to be clearly relevant to the case.

But yet you can bring to the court's attention any old rubbish to denigrate the complainant's character. If the defendants get that kind of protection so should the complainant.

meeeeh

Unless there was something else with the video I actually don't think it was relevant enough to risk prejudice towards accused.

It doesn't really matter but it is fairly clear now why defence wasn't enthusiastic for media reporting to be lifted.

Foxtrol

Faugheen wrote: »

Again, I accept the verdict, what is with everyone getting so defensive here??

It is the correct reaction to anyone who tries to turn any of this into 'a big talking point'

Foxtrol

Lux23 wrote: »

But yet you can bring to the court's attention any old rubbish to denigrate the complainant's character. If the defendants get that kind of protection so should the complainant.

Any old rubbish? Can you point to any of her messages that were read into evidence that weren't clearly related to the night in question? The defense were as limited as the prosecution.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

If anyone has an issue with any of these things being left out, they should remember to direct their anger at the person who made the decision to include or exclude this information. The female judge.

Not surprising that a professional rugby player might have historical blood stains on bed sheets, it's not tiddlywinks.

If it was his blood, he need not worry. Anyway, wasn't he just back from a tour of SA and wouldn't have had any fresh war wounds from rugby.

BrianBoru00

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not directing anger at anybody, because I've always maintained that both sides believe they're telling the truth.

I genuinely don't understand what the issue with the video was. Surely it speaks for their character, no?

And I understand why the blood was airbrushed if it wasn't hers, but it's not going to sit well with people, that's all I'm saying.

Why are you jumping out on the defensive?

This. No.

I think I'm a reasonable and mature individual. As I grow older I do less stupid things than I used to.

I've never had a serious accident despite driving in a downright wreckless manner as a late teen/early 20s. I wouldn't drive in the same manner now because (a) its wreckless and dangerous to myself (b) its dangerous and wreckless and therefore selfish towards other road users. I don't want to cause death or injury to anyone else. i.e. I have matured.

I've in the past uttered the phrase "arse to the wall lads" when referencing certain people. I am not proud of that statement, I am ashamed I made it. But it doesn't mean I am homophobic. (Truth be told I don't think I was homophobic when I made it but it was common enough language to use back then which is 20 years ago and its actual purpose was to illicit a laugh from whoever was in my company at the time). I would hate to think that there was a gay person in my company who was hurt or offended at that remark and its one that I wouldn't use now even with close friends. I have matured and I don't think that a stupid remark from a stupid teenager should result in my future being harmed.

I have received texts / whatsapp messages which are pornographic in nature including FOR EXAMPLE ONLY a photograph of two naked females with a Nokia branded dildo inserted into both of them captioned "Nokia - connecting people"> I laughed.
I don't think that makes me a scumbag or any less of a human being.

I have very occasionally forwarded messages to friends but I would be careful who I was sending it to. Whether people like to admit it or not - this type of message is far more common than some people claim and you can bet your bottom dollar that 99% of the population under 40 has received or witnessed some of this type of message

I have coached young men and women at all ages and I'm pretty familiar with how they behave. In my experience they have more liberal attitudes to sex, but have more empathy towards their peers in general but I do think that they have been mollycoddled way more than previous generations and that is preventing more and more of them from standing on their own two feet.

I despair about the future sometimes but to judge someones character and claim as a great many social media and other contributors have done on the basis of tweets is at best equally as desperate and downright wreckless.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.

Foxtrol

kylith wrote: »

"Mr O’Donoghue argued that if the jury was told where the semen had been found on the woman’s jeans, it might create an “unfair suspicion” in the minds of jurors."

:mad:

Translation "We don't want this evidence admitted because it might make our clients look guilty".

Well if they hadn't falsely charged Olding for a crime for which they had no evidence and the complainant later changed her story on so much that they had to change the charge then this might not have been an issue.

Foxtrol

jm08 wrote: »

If it was his blood, he need not worry. Anyway, wasn't he just back from a tour of SA and wouldn't have had any fresh war wounds from rugby.

Did you even read the article you posted?

The blood wasn't the complainants so showing a photo of his room with blood on the sheets that had nothing to do with her or the case would definitely be misleading and therefore clearly a reason for him to worry.

Faugheen

Foxtrol wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

If it was his blood, he need not worry. Anyway, wasn't he just back from a tour of SA and wouldn't have had any fresh war wounds from rugby.

Did you even read the article you posted?

The blood wasn't the complainants so showing a photo of his room with blood on the sheets that had nothing to do with her or the case would definitely be misleading and therefore clearly a reason for him to worry.

I think it's more the tone that Brendan Kelly has taken to be honest.

'There's no evidence that is the blood of the complainant' is not the same as saying 'that's not her blood'.

Also, he refused to say where it came from.

That's why people will question it. Surely you can understand this?

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

They downplayed it in court, but yet it emerges Harrison sent Olding a video of a spitroasting when he wasn't a member of that WhatsApp group and after being told it was 'non-consensual'.

I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight with anyone here. I'm just struggling to see how the video was ruled inadmissible. I'm not a legal expert nor do I pretend to be. I'm just giving my point of view.

I'm sure there is an answer to it. I can't imagine a judge would leave evidence out just because.

It isn't evidence of anything, that is why it was left out?

Foxtrol

Faugheen wrote: »

I think it's more the tone that Brendan Kelly has taken to be honest.

'There's no evidence that is the blood of the complainant' is not the same as saying 'that's not her blood'.

Also, he refused to say where it came from.

That's why people will question it. Surely you can understand this?

This is even more ridiculous semantics than the innocent v not guilty.

The police took the photo of the room. If they had any suspicion that it was the woman's blood they would have tested it and for all we know they did test it.

No one involved in the prosecution has even implied that it is her blood so it simply is not her blood unless you can prove otherwise.

People will question it because they have repeatedly shown that they will try to twist any part of the case in any way possible in order to cling to that their 'belief' is right about it rather than the jury who sat through weeks of evidence. Surely you can understand this?

tritium

kylith wrote: »

"Mr O’Donoghue argued that if the jury was told where the semen had been found on the woman’s jeans, it might create an “unfair suspicion” in the minds of jurors."

:mad:

Translation "We don't want this evidence admitted because it might make our clients look guilty".

Apart from the obvious bit that that’s his job and the judges role is to ensure that’s done in a fair way...


Can you really no see why it might be prejudicial to allow that when the jury are likely aware that a charge of vaginal rape was dropped?

meeeeh

Newstalk report said it was not blood belonging to anyone involved.