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

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.

tritium

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.

Harrison wasn’t accused of any sexual crime or indeed of being present. The video therefore didn’t have any evidential value in that sense. It could very easily have been taken up wrong by a jury however- another reason why it was dumb to try the 4 of them together

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

Harrison wasn’t accused of any sexual crime or indeed of being present. The video therefore didn’t have any evidential value in that sense. It could very easily have been taken up wrong by a jury however- another reason why it was dumb to try the 4 of them together

Prosecution were trying to make the case they were discussing events when they claimed they didn't. The video was dropped because there was no caption with it.

tretorn

These men wwre having spit roasts regularly, Jackson and McIlroy had one the night after the alleged rape.

That blood could have come from any mensruating women who was in that bed, it may not involve Jackson at all, he shared the house with other people.

Its completely meaning lessbut it could have tied into the narrative of the women leaving the house bleeding profusely.

What was the tweet from the politican.

I presume this means the IRFU can now come to a decision about the players future, they were probably afraid some other evidence would come out that would damage the men further.

There is no reason whatsover now to let the men resume their careers.

tritium

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.

They do- even in the UK the defendants sexual history etc is off limits except in very specific cases that require significant legal discussion and boundaries

kerplun k

Foxtrol wrote: »

You can be of good character and a foul mouth when speaking privately with friends.

What about this... if you spit roast a girl with your mates, bring the distressed and crying girl home in a taxi, then laugh about it the next day, and send porn GIFs about what you did to her, AFTER she told you it wasn’t consensual. Are you still in good character then?

meeeeh

About comment from defense why she didn't scream, because were other middle class girls in the house. The politician was wondering if he thinks that working class girls find rape acceptable or something similar. Nothing major.

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Did it have any evidential value?

jm08

tritium wrote: »

They do- even in the UK the defendants sexual history etc is off limits except in very specific cases that require significant legal discussion and boundaries

That isn't the case anymore. In the Ched Evans case the defence were allowed used testimony from former sexual partners.

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

Did it have any evidential value?

Prosecution argued it proved they were discussing events when they claimed they didn't. I agree with not showing the video so I don't know what are you arguing about now. You think the video should be shown?

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

Did it have any evidential value?

Once the court case was over and they were found not guilty, why were they not ok with letting these bits of info be revealed to the public. I don't understand. No one could touch them legally then.

tritium

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?

Why should he say where it came from? The police had searched the house and carried out forensics. If the blood had been relevant it would have been in evidence. In what way is it relevant?

jm08

Foxtrol wrote: »

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 did. Why didn't they say whose blood it was. The only thing they knew was it wasn't the complainants.

This other blood was “capable of causing real prejudice to the entire trial,” said Mr Kelly, adding: “I have no intention of saying where this blood came from because it is probative of this trial” and it would distract the jury.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

That isn't the case anymore. In the Ched Evans case the defence were allowed used testimony from former sexual partners.

So that was one of those unique instances.

The reason sexual history isn't permitted is because it can be prejudicial. If a person had consensual sex in similar circumstances to a later incident that wasn't consensual, evidence of the first encounter could be produced to sway the jury which would be wrong.

In the Chad Evans case they introduced history not of a sex act, but of the complainants actions during a consensual sex act, and the similarity of this specific element in the latter supposedly non consensual sex act.

It wasn't used as a means to imply the complainant had had sex before or to create a picture of her attitude to sex, it was used to show the complainant repeatedly said the same thing while enjoying sex.

This doesn't mean there has been a massive departure on sexual history evidence, it just added some nuance to it.

ArthurDayne

jm08 wrote: »

I did. Why didn't they say whose blood it was. The only thing they knew was it wasn't the complainants.

This other blood was “capable of causing real prejudice to the entire trial,” said Mr Kelly, adding: “I have no intention of saying where this blood came from because it is probative of this trial” and it would distract the jury.

If the blood was immaterial to the trial then it is immaterial whose blood it was.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Once the court case was over and they were found not guilty, why were they not ok with letting these bits of info be revealed to the public. I don't understand. No one could touch them legally then.

Because it would prejudice the outcome of the trial. As we can see the twitterati mob are in full 'aha, I told you so' mode.

tritium

jm08 wrote: »

That isn't the case anymore. In the Ched Evans case the defence were allowed used testimony from former sexual partners.

Not true. The Ched Evans situation was on the basis of a very specific application to the court as it crucially disproved evidence the complainant had given leading to the conviction

tritium

jm08 wrote: »

I did. Why didn't they say whose blood it was. The only thing they knew was it wasn't the complainants.

This other blood was “capable of causing real prejudice to the entire trial,” said Mr Kelly, adding: “I have no intention of saying where this blood came from because it is probative of this trial” and it would distract the jury.

Why would they say? You presume they even know? Perhaps it was Jackson’s? Perhaps he couldn’t be certain of that? Why open it up as a line of further questioning to a prosecution that hadn’t exactly shown many scruples to that point

BrianBoru00

kerplun k wrote: »

What about this... if you spit roast a girl with your mates, bring the distressed and crying girl home in a taxi, then laugh about it the next day, and send porn GIFs about what you did to her, AFTER she told you it wasn’t consensual. Are you still in good character then?

<br />
<br />

What about this . .you go back to your apartment with four girls and three of your mates and end up having a threesome with one of your mates and one of the girls until mate#2 comes in a ****s it all up cos she decides she doesn't want a foursome. She leaves, another friend accompanies her home and says she got upset. You and your mates text each other about the previous night using spit roast as a euphemism. Another mate send a porn GIF of a spit roast -A typical interaction you think to yourself. Your 25 so your young a carefree.

Then WHAM a few days later the police arrest you and say that the consensual sex you had at the weekend is now rape.
Are you suddenly a rapist?

tretorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

Once the court case was over and they were found not guilty, why were they not ok with letting these bits of info be revealed to the public. I don't understand. No one could touch them legally then.

Because the mob on twitter would use any evidence of blood on sheets to add fuel to the narrative that the woman left the house roaring crying and battered and bruised. The twitter mob will use the evidence of bloodied sheets anyway, there is no reasoning with nutjobs.

The fact that Jackson didnt even throw the sheets in the washing machine means he definitely didnt think the woman had been forced into anything. I wonder did he change the sheets after the threesome in question, he had another spitroast the night afterwards, Wonder was it in the same house.

facehugger99

Really doesn't present Harrison well - or indeed the wider group of people he is pally with.

He knew exactly how hysterically upset the teenager had been the previous night - hadn't she even told him at that stage that she had been raped by his 'mates'?

It really shows the appalling attitude that the whole group had towards women - I can see why the defence wanted it buried.

Horrific stuff.

Foxtrol

jm08 wrote: »

I did. Why didn't they say whose blood it was. The only thing they knew was it wasn't the complainants.

This other blood was “capable of causing real prejudice to the entire trial,” said Mr Kelly, adding: “I have no intention of saying where this blood came from because it is probative of this trial” and it would distract the jury.

Why should they? It had nothing to do with the case so it is none of the court, nor your, business. I'm sorry the information isn't out there so you can get your weird kicks and give keyboard warriors another reason to try to lynch him. You'll just have to make up some conspiracy theory.

Showing a photo of a blood soaked sheets that have nothing to the do with the complainant or case would of course prejudice the entire trial. Even if told not to the jury could easily subconsciously make a connection that they shouldn't.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it would prejudice the outcome of the trial. As we can see the twitterati mob are in full 'aha, I told you so' mode.

To prejudice the jury is one thing. The lawyers wouldn't be worth paying big bucks to if they didn't try prevent that. But to want to prevent prejudicing "the outcome" is strange imo . What ? did they want everyone to love them or something.

If they thought "it would (so) prejudice the outcome of the trial" that they needed to hide it why are you now surprised if it is being commented on negatively.

tretorn

Harrison described the woman as hysterical, the taxi driver didnt, he would have had a duty to intervene if he was worried about a young woman in his taxi.
H edidnt even ask her was she ok and he got out of his taxi to check his seat because he knew her trousers were stained. If his seat was stained presumably he would have asked her to pay the cleaning costs, that was his main concern.

The other women in the house testified they had a good night, they had no concerns about the mens behaviour, one stayed in the house and slept in a bedroom with Olding, he didnt bother her at all. The other women left together at the time they decided to go, no one stopped them leaving.

Not much evidence there of an appalling attitude towards women.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

To prejudice the jury is one thing. The lawyers wouldn't be worth paying big bucks to if they didn't try prevent that. But to want to prevent prejudicing the outcome is strange imo . What ? did they want everyone to love them or something.

If they thought "it would (so) prejudice the outcome of the trial" that they needed to hide it why are you now surprised if it is being commented on negatively.

The small matter of getting their careers and a livelihood back on track?

It wasn't suppressed because it would prejudice the trial, it was not relevant. Like many things in every case.

It does however fuel the twitterati mob as they suspected.

tretorn

It was better to release the evidence or otherwise the twitter mob would say it related to other claims against jackson and Olding.