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

tritium

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.

What?!?

How can anyone take issue with counsel requesting an unprejudiced outcome. You realize what that means right?

jm08

tritium wrote: »

Sounds similar to how drunk Jackson was...

However that point while hotly debated wasn’t the key bit of evidence.


Btw I’m pretty sure there was no claim the complainant has been drugged in the Evans case

There was a claim there that her drink was spiked. Anyway, she was seemingly out of it, and could not have given consent under the law.

Afterwards, Evans issued advice to women that they should be careful out there in case they got raped.

tritium

jm08 wrote: »

She was drunk/drugged. Couldn't even remember it. The two men should not have been allowed testify to the jury on previous sexual history.




Evans girlfriend also offered a reward of £50K for information to get him off.

You do realize that these points were explicitly considered by the judge and found not to merit a different course? That the threshold for use of a very narrow legal exemptions was rigorously debates and deemed met?

Vera Baird QC obviously is fond of conspiracies where men endure two and a half years in prison before getting there mates to ride to the rescue...

Calina

I do not understand why you are all so blasé about photographic evidence being altered. Would you be blasé if a police force did it to make their case look good?

Photographic evidence should not be altered such that it does not reflect the scene as it was at the time the photograph was taken as a matter of principle. Otherwise we will no longer be able to trust it ultimately as evidence.

Is that what you want? In principle I am stunned that this was acceptable at all.

tritium

Calina wrote: »

I do not understand why you are all so blasé about photographic evidence being altered. Would you be blasé if a police force did it to make their case look good?

Photographic evidence should not be altered such that it does not reflect the scene as it was at the time the photograph was taken as a matter of principle. Otherwise we will no longer be able to trust it ultimately as evidence.

Is that what you want? In principle I am stunned that this was acceptable at all.

While I see your point I don’t see how the judge had any alternative except to fully exclude that evidence

A touch of the wisdom of Solomon tbh

C__MC

I don’t know why these restrictions have been lifted. If there read with no blinkers on by the feminist mob, they don’t really make a damn odds to the trial. They could well be the final nail in Jackson’s and oldings career for ulster and Ireland

Silentcorner

C__MC wrote: »

I don’t know why these restrictions have been lifted. If there read with no blinkers on by the feminist mob, they don’t really make a damn odds to the trial. They could well be the final nail in Jackson’s and oldings career for ulster and Ireland

All restrictions are normally lifted at the end of the trial, after the verdict...what is odd is that it took action by media organisations to get them lifted today...

It is all kinds of bizzaar...but then this trial has been a circus from beginning to end...

Airbrushing pictures? Different blood on the sheets...

How did the semen stains on the crotch of the jeans not make it into evidence...

How did the whatsapp message not make it into evidence....it was sent after he was made aware by the young lady that what happened was't consensual!!

I mean, we know, from the young ladys messages what emojis she used!!!

FrancieBrady

Calina wrote: »

I do not understand why you are all so blasé about photographic evidence being altered. Would you be blasé if a police force did it to make their case look good?

Photographic evidence should not be altered such that it does not reflect the scene as it was at the time the photograph was taken as a matter of principle. Otherwise we will no longer be able to trust it ultimately as evidence.

Is that what you want? In principle I am stunned that this was acceptable at all.

It seems it was an either or situation.
the bedroom photos were important but the blood was prejudicial.
I am sure it isn't the first time a decision was made on the basis of the greater good.
The prosecution were fine with it, so unless there is evidence that they were tampered with to conceal something relevant I am not seeing a problem.
the judge and prosecution are the safeguards here.

Fann Linn

Calina wrote: »

I do not understand why you are all so blasé about photographic evidence being altered. Would you be blasé if a police force did it to make their case look good?

Photographic evidence should not be altered such that it does not reflect the scene as it was at the time the photograph was taken as a matter of principle. Otherwise we will no longer be able to trust it ultimately as evidence.

Is that what you want? In principle I am stunned that this was acceptable at all.

Chain of evidence aside. Leave the blood in the picture and it creates even further doubt.

facehugger99

C__MC wrote: »

They could well be the final nail in Jackson’s and oldings career for ulster and Ireland

Ah here, the final nail went in a long time ago. The grave's been backfilled and everyone's walking back to their cars shaking their heads and wondering what might have been.

RIP.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah here, the final nail went in a long time ago. The grave's been backfilled and everyone's walking back to their cars shaking their heads and wondering what might have been.

RIP.

Why would the IRFU now get hysterical about points of law that have been rationally explained though?

Foxtrol

Silentcorner wrote: »

All restrictions are normally lifted at the end of the trial, after the verdict...what is odd is that it took action by media organisations to get them lifted today...

It is all kinds of bizzaar...but then this trial has been a circus from beginning to end...

Airbrushing pictures? Different blood on the sheets...

How did the semen stains on the crotch of the jeans not make it into evidence...

How did the whatsapp message not make it into evidence....it was sent after he was made aware by the young lady that what happened was't consensual!!

I mean, we know, from the young ladys messages what emojis she used!!!

Every decent article on it explains exactly why for each. Like the rest of the court case, all you have to do is read all the facts and it is abundantly clear why it went the way it did.

We know it is much easier to read headlines and be outraged on twitter though.

mfceiling

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The more worrying question is how do the physically weaker people protect themselves from the physically stronger people?
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.
I am definitely going to arm myself more in future.

Congratulations you are the most hysterical person in the world.

You have probably went about your daily business for years without a hint of trouble. However now that a rape trial involving 2 high profile sports people in a different jurisdiction has taken place, you now have to take extra precautions.
Even though a jury acquitted the men of all charges that somehow relates to you now being liable to rapists.

I'm going to be extra careful driving to work in the morning after that Portuguese airline pilot who was found boarding the plane drunk last week.

tretorn

The fact that Harrison sent the video is further evidence that he thought the rape claim was too bizarre to be taken seriously at all.

He was in the house and he saw the woman following PJ upstairs, he is the only person in the house who appeared to have any idea who the woman was, he was in contact with her during the evening at the night club. We have no idea what size the house was but the jury went to it and the request of the defence tram, if its very small then Harrison would have been only feet away from the bedroom.

The only relevance of where semen ended up was whether it was found inside the woman, this would have been proof that olding or jackson ad intercourse with her, the fact that no semen was present meant the mens statements were more credible, the womans statements kept changing so very hard to know which version was the latest one.

The whatsapp message that harrison sent had no evidential value at all, I think even the prosecution agreed that it shouldnt have been produced in evidence, they may have known at this stage that the men most likely would be acquitted anyway and enough damage had already stuck to them.

This trial was not a circus, the judge did a very difficult job and she did it very well. The jury sat through nine long weeks and they carried out their civic duty admirably. Dont destroy the reputation of the judge or jury please.

The case should never have been taken to court, that much was clear as soon as Dara Florence bravely gave her evidence, she did her civic duty too.

zom

Ohhh well. Boys will be boys. We all did stupid things like that when we were young...

um7y1h83ge06nx

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am definitely going to arm myself more in future.

What weapons do you currently carry?

facehugger99

tretorn wrote: »

The fact that Harrison sent the video is further evidence that he thought the rape claim was too bizarre to be taken seriously at all.

Seems to me it's evidence of the desensitising of young people due to constant exposure to hardcore pornography.

By the time he sent the video he was aware how upset the girl was and that she believed she had been raped - even if he didn't believe her claims, it was an extraordinarily callus thing to do.

This whole sorry court case has really exposed some horribly dehumanising language and behaviour from middle-class lads that you would have hoped would have been brought up better.

It's really disturbing stuff tbh.

Fann Linn

Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: »

What weapons do you currently carry?

She might need them in Turkey.

tretorn

I think you should buy a chastity belt appledreams and never leave the house again.

Mrsmum

tretorn wrote: »

The fact that Harrison sent the video is further evidence that he thought the rape claim was too bizarre to be taken seriously at all.

He was in the house and he saw the woman following PJ upstairs, he is the only person in the house who appeared to have any idea who the woman was, he was in contact with her during the evening at the night club. We have no idea what size the house was but the jury went to it and the request of the defence tram, if its very small then Harrison would have been only feet away from the bedroom.

The only relevance of where semen ended up was whether it was found inside the woman, this would have been proof that olding or jackson ad intercourse with her, the fact that no semen was present meant the mens statements were more credible, the womans statements kept changing so very hard to know which version was the latest one.

The whatsapp message that harrison sent had no evidential value at all, I think even the prosecution agreed that it shouldnt have been produced in evidence, they may have known at this stage that the men most likely would be acquitted anyway and enough damage had already stuck to them.

This trial was not a circus, the judge did a very difficult job and she did it very well. The jury sat through nine long weeks and they carried out their civic duty admirably. Dont destroy the reputation of the judge or jury please.

The case should never have been taken to court, that much was clear as soon as Dara Florence bravely gave her evidence, she did her civic duty too.

Was he not also the one who said it wasn't going to end well. He got that right anyway. No one's laughing now, certainly now the boys being boys.

tretorn

He really did draw the most negative attention on his friends.

He is very loose tongued.

He probably sent the porn video without even thinking, next we will have to find out who sent the porn video to Rory Harrison, he or she should be shamed by twitter too.

Appledreams15

Scumbags of the highest order.

The complainant originally said that Olding vaginally raped her. There was Olding's semen on the crotch of her jeans

There was unexplained blood on Jackson's bed, which could suggest they had done it before.

Harrison sent a video of a threesome to Jackson the morning after calming down a hysterical woman. What a scumbag

They are worse than I thought. Absolute scumbags.

Happy4all

" ......Mr Olding’s semen on the crotch of the woman’s jeans. Instead, the jury was simply told the semen was found on the jeans, without being informed specifically where. The evidence was kept from the jury as it was ruled to be overly prejudicial. "


Yet, the woman's underwear was past around in court....that's ok?


Airbrushing a photo that was part of the evidence ? Dangerous practice to allow. I think the jury could have understood if it was stated the other blood stain was not the victims.

meeeeh

tretorn wrote: »

He probably sent the porn video without even thinking, next we will have to find out who sent the porn video to Rory Harrison, he or she should be shamed by twitter too.

Did you ever hear about this magic thing called internet.

Appledreams15

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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

No she didnt

Yes she did.

tretorn

Is it possible to rape someone if they have jeans on, you would want to have a very forceful penis to penetrate jeans.

Wasnt the woman in bed with Jackson before Olding came into the room, she was hardly in bed with her jeans on.

Most sensible people would think the semen was transferred from her hand to the jeans when she picked them up and put them on.

Only people who want the men hung, drawn and quarted would link the semen on the jeans to vaginal rape.

I wonder is the semen on the crotch of the jeans the evidence that the PPS used to charge olding with rape. Why did the PPS change their mind twenty months later and drop the charge of vaginal rape.

Appledreams15

mfceiling wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The more worrying question is how do the physically weaker people protect themselves from the physically stronger people?
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.
I am definitely going to arm myself more in future.

Congratulations you are the most hysterical person in the world.

You have probably went about your daily business for years without a hint of trouble. However now that a rape trial involving 2 high profile sports people in a different jurisdiction has taken place, you now have to take extra precautions.
Even though a jury acquitted the men of all charges that somehow relates to you now being liable to rapists.

I'm going to be extra careful driving to work in the morning after that Portuguese airline pilot who was found boarding the plane drunk last week.

Do you know me? No you don't, congratulations.
I haven't gone about my daily business for years without trouble.
I was raped. In Ireland. And I had two year's of therapy from the rape crisis centre in Dublin.
So congratulations, you don't know me at all.

Appledreams15

tretorn wrote: »

Is it possible to rape someone if they have jeans on, you would want to have a very forceful penis to penetrate jeans.

Wasnt the woman in bed with Jackson before Olding came into the room, she was hardly in bed with her jeans on.

Most sensible people would think the semen was transferred from her hand to the jeans when she picked them up and put them on.

Only people who want the men hung, drawn and quarted would link the semen on the jeans to vaginal rape.

I wonder is the semen on the crotch of the jeans the evidence that the PPS used to charge olding with rape. Why did the PPS change their mind twenty months later and drop the charge of vaginal rape.

If he had vaginal sex with her without a condom that's a possible reason why it could be transferred to her jeans when she put them back on.

tretorn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Yes she did.

No, she didnt, she saw a thrusting movement and assumed it was sex. she didnt see PJS penis so couldnt say for certain where it was.

None of PJS semen was foound anywhere in the room so no way of proving penile penetration took place.

Jackson is probably telling the truth, even if he did have sex he could have claimed it was consensual. He said he didnt have intercourse and the Jury believed him.

FrancieBrady

Happy4all wrote: »

" ......Mr Olding’s semen on the crotch of the woman’s jeans. Instead, the jury was simply told the semen was found on the jeans, without being informed specifically where. The evidence was kept from the jury as it was ruled to be overly prejudicial. "


Yet, the woman's underwear was past around in court....that's ok?


Airbrushing a photo that was part of the evidence ? Dangerous practice to allow. I think the jury could have understood if it was stated the other blood stain was not the victims.

It is ONLY dangerous if the prosecution and the judge are not aware of it. :rolleyes: