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

Foxtrol

Ireland must be sold out of tinfoil hats at this stage.

I actually thought whatever they were holding back would be a lot worse so this is close to a win for the 2 Ulster lads. I can see how the judge didn't want to release it from how the lunatic twitter mob is reacting, but from an IRFU review perspective all it shows is that Olding received a dirty gif, doesn't have the best aim, and Paddy doesn't clean his sheets very often.

thebaz

I like most people do not know what happened for sure that night - would expect a judge and jury would know more than the Irish public - why 2 weeks later is this still headline news in Ireland , when the world could be on the cusp of nuclear war?
Is the Irish public more interested in 4 rugby players possible guilt over the end of the world ?
Besides ther are many more sinister cases in our own juridstriction , where convicted violent rapists have been released early from custody.

tretorn

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The more it comes out, the more the guys don't look very good-from a moralistic point of view, not from a jury chosen point of view. The behaviour afterwards, and the aspect of the sheets is very concerning.

One could argue the alleged victim felt that more alleged victims might have spoken up-and did not.

This isn't 'boys being boys' or 'men being red blooded men'.



'Good character' is a term used for 'no previous convictions'. It doesn't suppose who is or isn't a good person, just that they don't have a record.

The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

Jackson's twitter has lost 100 followers-so seems his support has taken a hit.

The aspect of the sheets isnt concerning at all, it wasnt the complainants blood so its of no consequence at all.

It just means that the sheets arent washed very often. PJ went off out for breakfast the day after the threesome, himself, wouldnt you think he would have thrown the sheets in the washing machine before he went out.

Imagine sleeping in a bed where your friend had oral sex and you had blood on your fingers and then getting up the next morning and leaving the sheets were they were.

Thats much worse than any of the whatsapp messages the men sent.

Foxtrol

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

Why are the IRFU going to get a headache about a legal consensual paid threesome video that was sent by someone who doesn't work for them? I doubt the sports councils terms cover what videos you watch or people send to you.

meeeeh

tretorn wrote: »

She can throw the bedsheets in with his rugby gear, hopefully he will be back doing what PJ does best shortly.

I think PJ would do well to learn another profession just in case. His supporters are doing very good job of reminding everyone he was accused of rape in threads like this and all over the media (The legend who has bloody sex all the time). The more they cheer less the country forgets. So keep on back slapping and doing good job boys. A bit more support like that and he'll have to leave Europe to do what he does best.

Faugheen

Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

It begins...

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

It begins...

I would wager a bet they will all say that. Due dilligence and keeping the twitterati mob at bay.

Bank would do a lot of business with rugby supporters too, which will be a consideration.

RabbleRouser2k

thebaz wrote: »

I like most people do not know what happened for sure that night - would expect a judge and jury would know more than the Irish public - why 2 weeks later is this still headline news in Ireland , when the world could be on the cusp of nuclear war?
Is the Irish public more interested in 4 rugby players possible guilt over the end of the world ?
Besides ther are many more sinister cases in our own juridstriction , where convicted violent rapists have been released early from custody.

Ah thebaz-you've not read up on your Irish history...

When all the world news media were covering the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, over here in Ireland the major news story was an upper class toff woman who didn't upholster a chair but paid another fella to do it.
Then claimed she did it, and went on the Late Late Show.

Case went to court, the guy proved he did it (all furniture makers/ upholsterers/ restorerers put a mark on their chairs-a signature, if you will-as did he, and showed where it was).
America's villain-Guy who killed 168 people, and injured almost 700 more.
Ireland's Villain-some wagon who didn't upholster a chair.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The more it comes out, the more the guys don't look very good-from a moralistic point of view, not from a jury chosen point of view. The behaviour afterwards, and the aspect of the sheets is very concerning.

One could argue the alleged victim felt that more alleged victims might have spoken up-and did not.

This isn't 'boys being boys' or 'men being red blooded men'.



'Good character' is a term used for 'no previous convictions'. It doesn't suppose who is or isn't a good person, just that they don't have a record.

The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

Jackson's twitter has lost 100 followers-so seems his support has taken a hit.

Where is the 'video, shot without consent' coming from?

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

It begins...

You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

Yeah, it's Ulster Rugby vs IRFU-Ulsters not been doing much, so it's not going to be too much of a loss.

The Irish team will still be sponsored-and the lads are not part of the Irish team-harsh as that is, it's the truth.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would wager a bet they will all say that. Due dilligence and keeping the twitterati mob at bay.

Bank would do a lot of business with rugby supporters too, which will be a consideration.

Yeah-but it's the banks who have people by the cojones, not the other way around. Many employers transferred their business over to BoI and other banks after the Ulster bank debacle where people couldn't get paid because of a computer error.

It's rate of interest and other elements that keep people coming back to their bank-not who they sponsor.
The average joe on the street won't care who doesn't get sponsored, they just want their money

Mrsmum

I think Paddy will have nothing but time on his hands to wash those sheets. And maybe he could give the frat house a good scrub while he's at it. Best to keep busy, idle hands and all that.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

It begins...

You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

The sponsors are looking at public opinion, which is very much divided.

I'm hazarding a guess here, that it's more likely that more people would withdraw their custom if they were kept than if they weren't. As I said, just a guess. I've no basis for it.

Also, we'd be going into a World Cup where everyone knows what happened with Jackson (if he's in the squad) and his behaviour and we're nowhere guaranteed to win the thing. Any sponsor worth their salt wouldn't gamble on something that is far from a sure thing.

What is a sure thing is how Jackson has divided opinion. If I was a sponsor, I would want nothing to do with it regardless of whether I felt the reaction towards him is warranted or not. Me saying 'he was found not guilty' isn't going to mean people will go 'you know what? You're right'. They'll still be angry, and could target your business as a result.

You seem to have your head in the sand when it comes to something like this. Your want for them to return to the rugby pitch is blinding a matter that is now becoming a concern for sponsors and you're suggesting they won't do anything because some rugby supporters might not use their custom.

There's a hell of a lot more for sponsors to think about than just the rugby supporters. This trial has gone far beyond rugby supporters which is something sponsors will think about.

I'm not saying BoI will pull out if Jackson and Olding are reinstated, but the fact they're saying that they're watching proceedings is not a good sign, whatever way you want to spin it.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, it's Ulster Rugby vs IRFU-Ulsters not been doing much, so it's not going to be too much of a loss.

The Irish team will still be sponsored-and the lads are not part of the Irish team-harsh as that is, it's the truth.

You will find it is all interconnected, Ulster Rugby is a constiuent part of the IRFU.
It will be a consideration.

Yeah-but it's the banks who have people by the cojones, not the other way around. Many employers transferred their business over to BoI and other banks after the Ulster bank debacle where people couldn't get paid because of a computer error.

It's rate of interest and other elements that keep people coming back to their bank-not who they sponsor.
The average joe on the street won't care who doesn't get sponsored, they just want their money

So why do they bother 'sponsoring' :rolleyes:

Faugheen

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

Yeah, it's Ulster Rugby vs IRFU-Ulsters not been doing much, so it's not going to be too much of a loss.

The Irish team will still be sponsored-and the lads are not part of the Irish team-harsh as that is, it's the truth.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would wager a bet they will all say that. Due dilligence and keeping the twitterati mob at bay.

Bank would do a lot of business with rugby supporters too, which will be a consideration.

Yeah-but it's the banks who have people by the cojones, not the other way around. Many employers transferred their business over to BoI and other banks after the Ulster bank debacle where people couldn't get paid because of a computer error.

It's rate of interest and other elements that keep people coming back to their bank-not who they sponsor.
The average joe on the street won't care who doesn't get sponsored, they just want their money

BoI and Kingspan signed a deal worth 4 and a half million pounds for 3 years (I think) and that deal is up next year.

It could potentially be worth a lot of money to Ulster if BoI were to say 'drop them' and Ulster said no.

meeeeh

Faugheen wrote: »

There's a hell of a lot more for sponsors to think about than just the rugby supporters. This trial has gone far beyond rugby supporters which is something sponsors will think about.

And because of all the other sex scandals, short of genocide, being accused of sex crime brings just about the worst publicity. I can see the titles, "In the year of #metoo Irish rugby and it's sponsors stand for complete disrespect of women".

I actually find it fascinating how the whole thing will unfold. It's very interesting from the perspective of corporate PR and if they are not kept it will be interesting to see how far the scandal echoes.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

BoI and Kingspan signed a deal worth 4 and a half million pounds for 3 years (I think) and that deal is up next year.

It could potentially be worth a lot of money to Ulster if BoI were to say 'drop them' and Ulster said no.

The point is the bank are not there for no return and they are interlinked throughout Irish rugby.

There will be other considerations along the bottom line here.

Titzon Toast

Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
Some juicy stuff in them.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will find it is all interconnected, Ulster Rugby is a constiuent part of the IRFU.
It will be a consideration.



So why do they bother 'sponsoring' :rolleyes:

Sorry, seems my coffee is wearing off.

Yeah, all interconnected-but Ulster Rugby clubs haven't been having the similar rate of success as those in the Republic. So for them, it's gonna be a major loss-they'll look at two guys and cut their losses-sports is a cruel business, to say the least.

Why do they bother sponsoring? Easy, spend money to make money-businesses go down the tubes every year because they don't spent somewhere in the region of 25 to 33 percent of thie profits annually to promote themselves.

Sponsorship is business-it's them making money, not the irfu.

c.p.w.g.w

Titzon Toast wrote: »

Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
Some juicy stuff in them.

No put a PM would be appreciated

RabbleRouser2k

Titzon Toast wrote: »

Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
Some juicy stuff in them.

PM me with em.

jm08

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, before a guilty verdict there is no "victim" there is only an ALLEGED victim. ALLEGED. As to all that stuff about being "cross examined by a defense team" that's called having a fair trial. The right to face ones accuser and to robustly challenge their claims is a requirement for due process.

So the defence should not be allowed to question the evidence?

Evans and his friend gave their account of the night. Among other things, they said - truthfully - that she said stuff to them like "f me harder". The prosecution stated that this was not true because she would not have said that. But it was the prosecutions' statements that were not true, and it was necessary to delve into the so-called "victim"s personal history to refute the FALSE statements by the prosecution in the original trial. I.E. their claim that she made certain statements was found to be much more credible given that history.

Perhaps you should read the testimony of the woman involved. She said she couldn't remember anything, so how could she have made false statements?

Is the BBC up to your standard, or do you only believe what the Daily Mail reports?

Had Ched Evans defense team not been able to introduce that evidence, an innocent man would still be in jail. Why do you want that?

Chen Evans admitted having sex with a teenager who was out of her tree so couldn't have given consent. That is rape under the law now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17689346

brooke 2

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.

I can't see why the video wasn't allowed when the texts were. It was sent the following day, after Harrison had accompanied the girl home while she was in a reportedly distressed state. Also after he had sent a text in which he said 'this is not going to end well'. The video illustrates the frame of mind of the guys, just as the texts do. If one had been allowed, so should the other have been, or, vice versa, nothing should have been allowed.

Musefan

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

PM me with em.

I’d appreciate a pm too!

RabbleRouser2k

jm08 wrote: »

Perhaps you should read the testimony of the woman involved. She said she couldn't remember anything, so how could she have made false statements?

Is the BBC up to your standard, or do you only believe what the Daily Mail reports?



Chen Evans admitted having sex with a teenager who was out of her tree so couldn't have given consent. That is rape under the law now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17689346

She also googled 'was I raped'. (That article is from the first trial, not the 2016 retrial-so it's already out of date and ignoring evidence submitted on the retrial).

He admitted to having sex with her-never denied it. She never called it rape-even after the case, she never said rape.
And, as she admitted, she could not remember what had happened that night. The argument in that case was 'could she prove she had not given consent, and could she also prove the guys knew she was intoxicated and thus could not give consent'. As they had also been drinking, they were also intoxicated.
The retrial, and new evidence, showed that they believed they had been given consent (even via non verbal cues).

The law didn't change-it's always been rape if no consent is given. But what created a problem for the complainant in Evans case was simply 'she couldn't remember'. She wasn't drugged, she wasn't spiked-she'd just drank a lot.
They believed she was sober enough to give consent-she never called it rape, thus acquittal.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sorry, seems my coffee is wearing off.

Yeah, all interconnected-but Ulster Rugby clubs haven't been having the similar rate of success as those in the Republic. So for them, it's gonna be a major loss-they'll look at two guys and cut their losses-sports is a cruel business, to say the least.

Why do they bother sponsoring? Easy, spend money to make money-businesses go down the tubes every year because they don't spent somewhere in the region of 25 to 33 percent of thie profits annually to promote themselves.

Sponsorship is business-it's them making money, not the irfu.

But you said earlier they have people by the cojones anyway. Make your mind up.

You may well be right, I don't know but there will certainly be more considerations for them to take on board and also a precedent will be set. Once the twitterati get their way then any slight against womanhood or arbitrary morals will result in 'de outrage'.

facehugger99

I spoke with a friend of mine yesterday who's a partner in A&L Goodbody one of the sponsors of Ulster Rugby.

He basically said that while officially they were "monitoring developments", unofficially they would be prepared to pull their sponsorship if the two boys aren't cut loose.

I asked him if this message had been passed on to Ulster Rugby - he laughed and said "loud and clear".

I have to say I'm delighted - Absolute scumbag behaviour from the 4 of them and rightly, they'll suffer the full consequences. Hopefully it'll be some comfort for the woman involved.

tritium

It’s kind of disgusting how badly a section of the population want to link the additional information to an implication that the jury got it wrong ibecause somehow key evidence was withheld

Like really really with pathological hatred want to make that link

Quite incredible that the same people who have been on here telling us how the compalinant in this case shouldn’t have any past sexual history alluded to (she didn’t) now think that historical stains on jacksons sheet should have been used to damn him.

If it transpired that the complainant was actually quite fond of treesomes that would be inadmissible on a “So what” basis. A lot of the posters looking to find a new avenue for their outrage would agree fully with that. So why they feel entitled then to try to link elements that everyone agrees are outside the events of that night to the trial is frankly a baffling degree of hypocrisy.

I understand now why there was a question around releasing this stuff. Zero evidential value but plenty for sections of the media and outrage junkies to cast shade with.

Uncharted

facehugger99 wrote: »

I spoke with a friend of mine yesterday who's a partner in A&L Goodbody one of the sponsors of Ulster Rugby.

He basically said that while officially they were "monitoring developments", unofficially they would be prepared to pull their sponsorship if the two boys aren't cut loose.

I asked him if this message had been passed on to Ulster Rugby - he laughed and said "loud and clear".

I have to say I'm delighted - Absolute scumbag behaviour from the 4 of them and rightly, they'll suffer the full consequences. Hopefully it'll be some comfort for the woman involved.

You sound like a red top tabloid hack,with your "sources ". Get a life.

Vinnie222

Titzon Toast wrote: »

Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
Some juicy stuff in them.

Pm please