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

Appledreams15

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

It's the same discussion that they have now. You seem worried that someone might lie in court. That's no difference to now.

I'm not worried that someone might lie in court. I assume people do that all the time.

I am curious about what people would see as acceptable evidence.

What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was given?
What would be acceptable evidence that clear consent was not given?

We've got eyewitness reports. As we saw in this case the eyewitness testimony was a major factor in the "not guilty" verdict.

People are mad about that though. What other evidence would we be looking at then to prove or disprove consent?

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.

Maxpfizer

So a lot of the answers to a direct question of what exactly would or could constitute evidence of consent or evidence of non-consent seem to be based on avoidance.

"Oh, it would just be the same as now". OK. Examples, please.

"Tell it to the people who were raped and the guy was sent to jail". OK. What was the evidence in that case?

We are on page 618 now and consent, consent classes, teach men not to rape etc have been recurring themes.

Yet despite people wanting to appear knowledgeable or "right" nobody can really say what evidence someone could bring to court that would prove that consent was given.

Equally, nobody seems willing to say what evidence could be brought before a court to prove that consent was not given.

In this case we have an eyewitness report that suggests that the acts were consensual.

People are not happy with this.

So then we have to address what evidence would be acceptable. If the eyewitness testimony is not good enough then what exactly would be good enough?

What I'm asking for are examples of the kinds of things that could be evidence that there was no consent or examples of an acceptable "alibi" for the accused that shows that there was consent.

Otherwise it feels like we are admitting that there is no sound way to prove or disprove consent and so a "not guilty" verdict in any case like this is inevitable.

Outrage and emotional overreaction ensues.

The justice system IS failing victims. Regularly. Victims of many different crimes.

The problem is from there we are asking how can we make it such that "not guilty" is not an inevitable outcome.

It follows then that we would be looking into ways to make it difficult for an accused to defend themselves or just outright saying we believe the accuser without question.

Historically, not allowing people to have a proper legal defense does not end well. It's just a different flavor of injustice.

So we have to be reasonable. Would we really want the kind of person who takes a "Men R Trash" sign out in public to be influencing how these cases go?

We need reasonable people with reasonable points of view and since this case, and cases like it, seem to bring a sharp focus to the issue of consent I think it's worth asking what are examples of good evidence that consent was given and what are examples of good evidence that consent was not given?

masculinist

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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

They lawyer up to protect against the weak position false accusations put men into . Their faces all over the media and their being slandered and their jobs and careers in jeopardy despite being innocent . She was the stronger one . She had the power of her majesties government at her beck and call . And she remains anonymous .

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

Gynocentric laws gave her the upper hand at all times

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Especially after reading this thread, (it is the woman's fault, all the old attitudes

False accusations of rape and the problems they cause for real victims are clear evidence of a character fault

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

me ?

I was replying to meeeh, your post was used to illustrate a point they had missed within their post

goz83

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.

That's a little daft to ask. There is always going to be someone stronger. People protect themselves by using some common sense and not taking stupid risks. I will leave it at that, because I will be accused of victim blaming otherwise.

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.

That depends on what you plan to carry and whether or not you can use it. Carrying a weapon can often be more dangerous because if attacked and you don't know how to use it, it will probably be used against you.

Behaviour and lifestyle is at the centre of this too. For example, if someone travels the world and has multiple short term partners, they are at a much higher risk of sexual violence than the person who has a stable, monogamous relationship and resides in the same area. There are exceptions to everything, but by and large, I believe this to be the case.

So, Apples...I know you are not based in Ireland as you said earlier, so this is not directed at you. Unless you're sleeping with men (or women) at every port you visit, then you shouldn't need to become Rambo

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.