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

Ejeca

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Are you a man? I dont believe this. No woman I know, and I know alot, has ever sent me texts or pictures of men that she has been with sexually. We with have more reapect for men and manners.
However I have heard numerous men brag about women they have been with, or taking it to the next level of being the utter macho dickhead, commenting on how '**** in bed' she is. The way some men talk about women, constantly treating them with disrespect, badly needs to change.

Are we a human society or a primitive neanderthal society?
Why are women being treated badly in so many places. Some of what goes on is actually unbelievable.

Yes I am male, not that it matters. Well it happens I am afraid to tell you. I've even got screenshots of pictures of me asleep in a bed next to a girl who thought it would be funny to take an after sex selfie and sent it around. All a bit of a laugh really although I can see why some people might be upset. I have thicker skin though and have no issues with it really. But comments about sex and "how was he" are rampant and women are as open about it as men are, certainly from my experiences from college to work to being abroad on holidays etc etc. It cannot be a coincidence and it is not as women aren't these creatures who don't talk about sex or don't like sex, au contraire they are just like men. Shock, humans like the same things and talk about the same things in the same ways.

dark crystal

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

Because you can't just convict a man on your word. You say someone raped you, well you have to be able to prove it.

And you're forgetting this woman has anonymity under the law while the men had their names ruined.

Unfortunately rape is a crime which, a lot of the time, depends on someone's word against someone else's word. That's the rub.

By the way, I agree that all parties should be anonymous until guilt has been proven.

Tigger

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

What if she had sex willingly and then they talked like that afterwards
Ok they are being clowns but she didn’t know that’s what they were saying
In this scenario what is she for pressing charges

spookwoman

Tigger wrote: »

How ?

By law Victims of a sex offence are entitled to remain anonymous for life under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
10 people that released Ched Evans accusers name went before the courts.

Zonda999

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

Whatever they said in a Whatsapp group was a private conversation. The only reason you know about it is because it was used in evidence in a court of law for a crime they were found not guilty of.

I think its fair to say that the vast majority of people would not want to be judged on the basis of what they say in a private conversation between their friends. I know I wouldn't.

The fact of the matter is what was said in that group was not in the public domain and only is because of this trial. Seeing as they were found not guilty, I can't see how this IRFU "review" can take any action against them. Do you really think many other "celebrities" or sports stars don't use similar language in private conversations ? If you think they don't then, you're quite frankly, deluded, in my opinion.

Furthermore because of the above, I'd say that anyone thinking they should now have their professional contracts terminated, as a result of this trial, only thinks so because the verdict did not confirm with their "world view".

I'm not concurring with what was said by the way, only making the point what was said goes on all the time behind closed doors.

Faugheen

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

And she hasn't been proven guilty of anything either so why don't the last 4 words of your post stand to her?

What you on about? I never said she lied. Hey maybe she believes she was raped, lots of girls do after drunk sex. Doesn't make it so.

What I'm against is the #Ibelivie her ****. The lads got a fair trial and were found innocent. It's the only way the justice system can work. Even the most heinous pedo must have a fair trial.

I'm on about you going on a tangent about fake accusers in response to a post about the complainant.

People are more than entitled to believe her story. And from what I can see, a lot of the #IBelieveHer stuff is in relation to how complainants (potential rape victims) are the ones treated as if they're on trial when it comes to rape cases, and it's absolutely true. Numerous times there was inclinations the defence were saying she was asking for it, which is just not true because men aren't held in the same regard if the shoe was on the other foot.

Is there any wonder that more women (or men for that matter) don't come forward to report a rape?

And there was no 'innocent' ruling in court. It was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt which I should point out again is the call I agree with, but there is absolutely no way you, me or anyone can say that she was lying as a result.

Your posts are going after people defending her, if your beliefs are as you say then why aren't you going after people who are calling her a liar and a slut also? She wasn't proven to be either of those terms.

If you really believe what you're saying, you'd be a lot more balanced than you currently are being because of your vitriol towards the #IBelieveHer movement.

martingriff

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

Your right she does not deserve to be spoken like that no one should BUT that does not make them guilty of a crime. Does it make them been guilty vile and dirty opinions yes but that is not against the law.

Castigate them for that by all means and this may be the reason we see these 2 been pushed sideways out of Ulster and the Irish team

Spanish Eyes

There is nothing more to say here really. The four accused have been acquitted, and there is no appeal possible against the verdict of a jury.

The woman could of course take a civil case where the burden of proof is not as high as in a rape case. Who knows.

Otherwise it is all over really. And I have no interest in the famous four's future earnings or sponsorship. They will survive. Give it a few months.

They will probably just carry on or go to Australia or something with a clean passport/visa, as is their right. They have no convictions now do they?

sightband

dark crystal wrote: »

Please don't be disillusioned. This forum has an unhealthy bias against women's issues - anyone who discusses them is instantly categorised as a feminazi or anti men.

Look after yourself and don't be letting strangers on the internet upset you at all

To call them feminazi or ant men would be kind as it would imply that the poster was somewhat coherent and in a right state of mind...that post seems to indicate an absolute nutcase or someone who has been on the sherry since they finished their coco pops at 8am this mornin

Tigger

spookwoman wrote: »

By law Victims of a sex offence are entitled to remain anonymous for life under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
10 people that released Ched Evans accusers name went before the courts.

She wasn’t a victim tho ?

Chrongen

irishrebe wrote: »

Exactly. This weird assumption so many people on here have that she did this maliciously and wants money and attention...it can only be described as woman hating. How can anyone make such an assumption? The fact they were found not guilty doesn't automatically make her a liar.

It doesn't make her a liar at all...and that's where peoples' simpleton brains kick in. They think the world is black and white. Logic goes out the window. People like choices to be simple and easy to digest.

Consider this. She was drinking and feeling frisky. She had a romp with these guys in a bedroom. And she felt guilty afterwards. Perhaps she thought that she stepped outside of her "personality" and did something raunchy. She felt weird and confused. It happens. I know so many neurotic American prudish girls who have a one night stand and then are all "I need counselling, I could be a slut". A girl from Liverpool who likes to be a bit of a maneater would look at her and say "You f**king sap!"

I've been in a sexual situation where I've attempted to do something with my partner that wasn't consensual just spontaneous (on my part) but something that she didn't want. Example: Groping, pawing each other, getting undressed, floundering around on the bed naked...then I start to kiss her legs and grab her foot and suck her toes. She immediately screams "NO, NO...that's too ticklish, stop it" and we do other things.

Technically I have sexually assaulted her. In reality I have just done something that she can't bear because she's ticklish and prefers a good regular shag instead of belly licking or ear nibbling.

The point I'm making is that it's very possible to take ONE incident within a sexual encounter that they weren't comfortable with and tell oneself that they were violated or that there was a non-consensual episode.

Tigger

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There is nothing more to say here really. The four accused have been acquitted, and there is no appeal possible against the verdict of a jury.

The woman could of course take a civil case where the burden of proof is not as high as in a rape case. Who knows.

Otherwise it is all over really. And I have no interest in the famous four's future earnings or sponsorship. They will survive. Give it a few months.

They will probably just carry on or go to Australia or something with a clean passport/visa, as is their right. They have no convictions now do they?

Ffs they are not guilty
Innscotland there is a not proven verdict but in NI it’s not guilty
So they shouldn’t have to go anywhere
But I think they will go to Exeter

Huntergonzo

blanch152 wrote: »

This can be viewed on very many different levels.

Two men had sex with a groupie and were dismissive of her in texts afterwards. Very hard to be emotionally supportive of them. At the very least they were very stupid and misogynist.

Of course, that doesn't mean they were guilty of rape.

The grey areas of consent are huge. You meet someone, you go to bed consensually with them, but something changes. Do they know you well enough to sense that from your change of mood, your change of tone? If if they do, is their judgment impaired by drink, or yours?

I have no problem with "no means no", it is the area of "yes sometimes means no" or "maybe yes, maybe no" that it becomes a problem.

I understand that it's a grey area, but there are lots of grey areas in life, the best we can do is go with the best available evidence.

In this instance a complainant took a case against 4 people, the jury was present for 9 weeks and heard all the evidence. Ultimately they decided not to find the defendants guilty, that was their decision, that's the system we use, flawed as it may be it's the best currently available.

So why are the media very much taking one side over the other, incredibly even though the other side was found not guilty. It's pretty obvious that there is something very toxic about that.

Faugheen

Tigger wrote: »

spookwoman wrote: »

By law Victims of a sex offence are entitled to remain anonymous for life under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
10 people that released Ched Evans accusers name went before the courts.

She wasn’t a victim tho ?

Says who, you?

Vladimir Poontang

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

Strazdas

Muahahaha wrote: »

What a strange case.

For me the evidence of Dara Florance was what got them off the charges. She walked into the room and testified that the Jackson and Olding asked her did she want to join in. Hardly what anyone would expect to happen if a rape was underway.

However Dara Florances evidence also conflicts with Paddy Jacksons. She said she was 100% certain that Jackson was penetrating the girl whereas Jackson says he did no such thing and only ever fingered her. So who is telling the truth here because their accounts of what happened in the bedroom do not tally. Then you also have Blaine McIllory who says that he got a brief blow job whereas the girl says that she didnt engage him sexually at all and actually ran out of the room when he arrived in naked.

Then you have the girl being upset in the taxi, I dont think anyone can dispute this as Harrisons texts said she was hysterical and "that it wasnt going to end well". The taxi driver also testified that Harrison appeared to be talking in code so it certainly appears that something fishy was going on.

Finally the four lads meeting up the next day in a cafe. What is suss here is that of the four NONE of them brought their phones with them. That in itself does not mean they are guilty but I think most people would say in this day and age people dont tend to leave the house without their phone. If one of them did it fair enough but all four? I think the prosecution was correct when they said that the cafe meeting the next day was to get their stories straight.

Overall I think how it all went down was that Jackson, Olding & McIllory had this thing of bringing back 3 or 4 girls to the house after a night on the razz. They all knew that this was in the hope of group sex (McIllorys text "any chance of a threesome" to Jackson upstairs would strongly suggest this). I think all 3 men were down for group sex but their technique (for want of a better word) on how to make it happen was totally messed up. Instead of propositioning the girl into group sex their strategy seems to have been along the lines of just springing it on the her when she was already in bed naked. Man no.2 walks in the door "oh whats going on here, heh, heh, Ill join in". It is like like something you see in porn. Then next comes man no.3 and the same happens.

Given the above I think that what actually happened that night was the sex with Jackson was consensual. What the girl wasnt consenting to was a threesome then into a foursome. This escalation in the bedroom was just sprung on her without anyone really asking her if she was cool with it. That is when things rapidly went downhill and I think the texts show that the lads knew it too.

Anyway despite all the above I think the correct verdict was reached. There was too many doubts for them to get convicted of this. However I dont believe they are completely innocent here and their actions would suggest that they at least knew something was up. There has to be a lesson here for any bunch of lads that if you want to have group sex at least make sure it is okay with the girl before any clothes come off. Dont just think that she is a slut and of course she wants it. Thats what really got them into trouble here, they made a huge assumption and it back fired in a way that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

That's an interesting point. It's very possible she fancied Paddy Jackson and perhaps wanted to have sex with him and we do know the encounter started out with just the two alone in the bedroom. Where things got messy and murky was the arrival of the other two in the bedroom (something she certainly wouldn't have been planning for or expected). Perhaps if those other two eejits had stayed away from the bedroom, we would never have seen this trial.

Incidentally it was never a 'foursome', there were only ever three people in the room at one time.

anthonyjmaher

As soon as she admitted her memory was hazy, the case was over. They should have just stopped the trial there and then and saved a few million pounds. The DPP has a lot of questions to answer.

Faugheen

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

Sue her for what, exactly?

She wasn't proven to be lying.

Tigger

Faugheen wrote: »

Says who, you?

Evans was convicted of rape in April 2012 and spent two and a half years in prison. His conviction was quashed on 21 April 2016 by the Court of Appeal, and a retrial was ordered. On 14 October 2016, he was found not guilty. Prior to the retrial, he joined Chesterfield.[3]

Wiki for one

Yer Da sells Avon

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

The only victims here are the lads. They should sue the **** out of her if at all possible

One of them has already expressed regret for his conduct on that night, apologised for the hurt that was caused to her, while maintaining that he doesn't agree with her perception of events. In that context, I somehow doubt that they will be suing her. Apart from the odd blatant misogynist on the internet, there has been no suggestion that she was lying.

retro:electro

martingriff wrote: »

Your right she does not deserve to be spoken like that no one should BUT that does not make them guilty of a crime. Does it make them been guilty vile and dirty opinions yes but that is not against the law.

Castigate them for that by all means and this may be the reason we see these 2 been pushed sideways out of Ulster and the Irish team

Yep and I never said it made them guilty of a crime, and all things considered I agree with the verdict handed out today- I don’t see how it could have been any other way really. But they are inconsiderate pigs and it does no harm to serve some people a reminder of that every now and again. But like you say, it’s not against the law to be an inconsiderate pig.

Muahahaha

spurious wrote: »

This. Can't believe highly paid barristers didn't go after that.
If you believe she is a credible witness, then the lads are lying.

Still can't believe they discussed it for so little time.

Yeah had thought the same myself. On one hand Dara Florances evidence that (in her opinion) what she saw was consensual sex and that sex was Jackson penetrating the girl. Then on the other hand Jackson is saying he only ever fingered her. Either Jackson is lying here or Dara Florance is.

Personally I think Jackson is lying through his teeth here. And he is doing it because there are separate charges for both offences. In Northern Ireland penetration by penis is charged as rape. Digital penetration is charged as sexual assault. The prison sentences for each are very different with sexual assault being deemed to be less serious.

What I think happened was Jackson was indeed having full sex with her and I believe Florances witness account of this. But Jackson got talking to his lawyer and by the time the police interview came around he would admit only to fingering her in an attempt to avoid a rape charge. He would have known his DNA was inside her vagina so his explanation as to how it got there was that he fingered her and not penetrated her. The police did not believe his account of events and so went with the rape charge.

facehugger99

Muahahaha wrote: »

Given the above I think that what actually happened that night was the sex with Jackson was consensual. What the girl wasnt consenting to was a threesome then into a foursome. This escalation in the bedroom was just sprung on her without anyone really asking her if she was cool with it. That is when things rapidly went downhill and I think the texts show that the lads knew it too.

I think this is by far the most likely explanation of what went on that night.

spookwoman

Zonda999 wrote: »

Whatever they said in a Whatsapp group was a private conversation. The only reason you know about it is because it was used in evidence in a court of law for a crime they were found not guilty of.

I think its fair to say that the vast majority of people would not want to be judged on the basis of what they say in a private conversation between their friends. I know I wouldn't.

The fact of the matter is what was said in that group was not in the public domain and only is because of this trial. Seeing as they were found not guilty, I can't see how this IRFU "review" can take any action against them. Do you really think many other "celebrities" or sports stars don't use similar language in private conversations ? If you think they don't then, you're quite frankly, deluded, in my opinion.

Furthermore because of the above, I'd say that anyone thinking they should now have their professional contracts terminated, as a result of this trial, only thinks so because the verdict did not confirm with their "world view".

I'm not concurring with what was said by the way, only making the point what was said goes on all the time behind closed doors.

There are many faces people put on and the whatsapps side doesnt look too good for him.
I don't know why they have these character witnesses in trials and then get the accused to tell people about their charity work etc.
You get the nice guy which doesn't mean they are nice. FFS Jeffrey Dahmers neighbours said he was a nice guy and Ted Bundy worked on a suicide helpline.

I don't know some of the stories about their behavior on other occasions might be their downfall. Stories of shouting obscenities and insults at women from the open windows of taxis.

Spanish Eyes

Beanybabog wrote: »

I am astonished at the amount of people who think because the men were found not guilty in court automatically means the woman was lying and should be punished for making false allegations.
The jury has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt. They do not have to be totally sure that they are innocent or that the complainant is lying.

So what is the redress available here if you might tell us. Beyond reasonable doubt is what the jury decided upon.

facehugger99

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I think it's very obvious one of them sexually assaulted the girl and she didn't see him or name him as a perpetrator... He practically confessed to the cops in the absence of a solicitor but wasn't mentioned in the victims statement... The cops made a mess of this case.

Who?

Luxxis

Appledreams15 wrote: »

#ibelieveher no.1 trend on Twitter in Ireland.

I think everyone is just a bit fed up of the legal systems in rep.of Ireland and Northern Ireland that nearly always lets the rape accused off.

I am not talking about the lads in particular, the overall system needs to be changed!!!!

Replaced with what?

Guilty until proven innocent. Any ideas? Anything?

Ash.J.Williams

facehugger99 wrote: »

Who?

The one that I described extremely obviously

Spanish Eyes

It is a not guilty verdict, the famous four are absolved. Has to be respected surely.

What next?

stateofflux

what bothered me is during the trial there were plenty of supposedly 'impartial' journalistic pieces written with an obvious agenda below the surface --- before any verdict was given. that is wrong