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

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

The rule of law must be respected.

Protests like those planned tomorrow remind me of the Salem Witch trials. No respect for due process.
Innocent until proven guilty? Not in these peoples' eyes.

You could make the same argument towards those who are saying she's lying when there's no proof that she has, but they don't give a **** about it until it fits their narrative.

neonsofa

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But they were found not guilty.

The odds are more she lied.

Or that there wasn't enough evidence to convince them of certainty either way, in which case they must find them not guilty.

Rezident

eviltwin wrote: »

No idea who I believe here and its possible that all parties have interpreted the same situation differently.

One thing I do know the 8 days she was cross examined is going to deter a lot of rape victims taking cases.

Perhaps some good can come from this whole sorry affair and certain people will be less likely to make false claims of RAPE.

markodaly

dark crystal wrote: »

One of the lowest rates of conviction for rape. You seem strangely obsessed with Twitter!

We also have one of the highest rejection of Asylum Seekers in Europe. Perhaps we require a higher threshold of evidence for these things.
So, unless you have actual statistics or anything else?

Eh, Magdalene Laundries or no bodily autonomy ring any bells?

Ah Yes, that ol Chestnut. Clearly todays young men are get their moral guidance from the Magdalene Laundries.

I find the anti feminist movement just as fuelled by those things.

Oh, not at all. They are usually much more open to debate and to listen, rather then the god awful pontificating feminists come out with.

dense

Will the lads be on the Late Late on Friday?

Ryan likes rugby or sport stuff and sad stories.

Faugheen

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

spookwoman wrote: »

The same with they could have actually done what they were charged with. We don't know

But they were found not guilty.

The odds are more she lied.

No they're not, at all.

Only 1% of reported rape cases in Ireland end in conviction for the accused. Are you telling me that 99/100 women who report what happened to them to the police are more likely to be lying?

Don't be that person. It's set out in law that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean a complainants account wasn't believed, just there wasn't enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote:

That is exactly what victim blaming is. You're implying she's a liar because she didn't react the way you wanted her to. And tbh, I don't think the reaction was even that weird.

No I wasn't. I was saying that I thought it was a strange reaction. So do a lot of people. You aren't one of those people. Its an observation.

david75 wrote:

Instead we have a trial by social media where a young woman is being castigated for possibly being raped yet her case wasn’t upheld.

Her case wasn't upheld? It was decided in a court of law that the men weren't guilty of rape. There is no possibly there.

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 shaggersâ€.. 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

People say mean things. That's OK. Not nice but what can you do?

Appledreams15 wrote:

I'm sick to f@#king death of Ireland and N.Ireland at this stage. I'm sick of sitting talking to women about them being sexually assaulted. I'm sick of having been sexually assaulted myself. I am ****ing sick of all of it. And shame on this country, rep and N.I

Don't do it then. I'm sick of people automatically assuming that people are right based on their genitals. (that goes for both sexes BTW.) there was no rape in this case. It was proven in a court of law. You automatically think she was right because she was a woman. That's disgusting

Modern feminism is toxic and is breeding something that will soon become an equally toxic backlash.

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.

No. Most people have an healthy opinion on not letting popular hash tags or anecdotal evidence trump law. And 4 men being found not guilty does not equate to a woman's issue.

markodaly

MissShihTzu wrote: »

Looks as though he's learned nothing from this. He might be innocent, but he should have kept his head down.

That tweet is more likely to be fake.

spookwoman

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But they were found not guilty.

The odds are more she lied.

Let me spell it out Dictionary for Not Guilty
a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
There was not enough proof to say they were guilty. It does not mean they did or did not commit the crimes they were charged with.

Just like you have no proof she lied beyond a reasonable doubt

Wheeliebin30

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure your logic is logical...

They might have reached their verdict because they thought she was lying?

amcalester

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The jury might think shes a liar.

Maybe she should be brought before a jury on this accusation.

It would certainly be interesting.

I wonder if she was, and the jury found her not guilty would people here then decide that she was in fact telling the truth?

A Schroedingers Truth if you will.

keith_sixteen

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I believe its fake

But...

Here we have it. No matter what the truth is, people simply do not care.

The tweet is fake. There is no but.

Sidebaro

Vladimir Poontang wrote:

Given it took them a little over three hours to clear 4 men of all counts I'd say the answer would be equally unanimous and as quick.

Taking 3 hours to come to a decision isn't really 'quick'?

irishrebe

amcalester wrote: »

Deusexmachina wrote: »

If you aren't  bothered to read what ahe said, how can you argue that she didn't lie.
The jury found the men not guilty. The charges were based on her testimony. They found it not truthful. Otherwise they would have found them guilty.

I’m not actually arguing that she didn’t lie. I’m arguing against the false equivalence people are making between the jury finding them not guilty and that making her a liar.

This is the thing. The total lack of logic and rational thought.

Flippyfloppy

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

Absolutely. It was the other two she didn't consent to, and it must have been so scary for her to have them show up one after another!

dark crystal

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The jury might think shes a liar.

Maybe she should be brought before a jury on this accusation.

My next door neighbour steals my bike. I see her steal the bike, but she gets rid of all the evidence by the time I report it. It's my word against hers. She's found not guilty as there's insufficient evidence.

Am I automatically a liar?

Wheeliebin30

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Absolutely. It was the other two she didn't consent to, and it must have been so scary for her to have them show up one after another!

And you know this for sure how??

NAGDEFI

I haven't read through many posts here but just have a few points to make on Stuart Olding and Paddy Jackson returning to rugby.

Firstly they have missed a year of top class rugby at a crucial time in their careers.

If they play with Ulster or another club does a coach want the attention they are going to bring to a team. A lot of stuff which can take away from a team's sporting focus. Opposition teams may engage in a lot of sledging etc. In Ulster would you be better off developing Johnny McPhillips as an outhalf?

What about a team's ethos? Promoting the game to youngsters. These fellas are no role models. A large percentage of people found their whatsapp messages totally crude and not acceptable for high profile sports stars.

Joe Schmidt.. He's blessed with centres, why bother with Stuart Olding. Joey Carberry has jumped the cue to number 2 Irish outhalf. Does he need Paddy Jackson. I'd say from a rugby point of view we need more backup at outhalf. Joe strikes me as a moral man of values. Would he bring the duo back? How would they be received by team mates? How would they be received coming on against the All Blacks in the Aviva in November?? A circus that you can't control. It will be very difficult for these two men, though given a non guilty verdict of rape, to play with an irish team, province or country. Abroad perhaps.

A sorry, sorry mess for all concerned.

Wheeliebin30

dark crystal wrote: »

My next door neighbour steals my bike. I see her steal the bike, but she gets rid of all the evidence by the time I report it. It's my word against hers. She's found not guilty as there's insufficient evidence.

Am I automatically a liar?

Others might think you are a liar yes.

You don't.

That's what the courts are for.

TheValeyard

One thing to take from all this, judging by the comments on twitter, fb, reddit, boards, etc, there is an awful lot of people who should never be allowed to sit on a jury.

martingriff

david75 wrote: »

You’re again supporting women being attacked and raped while denying them bodily autonomy


You are actually a woman hater or have mammy issues.

Where the hell is the poster saying this.

The Talking Bread

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They might have reached their verdict because they thought she was lying?

Is anyone disputing they did.

Thinking is human nature but they would be well instructed to apply more logic than assumption when making their decision.

Thinking is not knowing. I am sure the jury are well informed on this point after circa 2 months

thebaz

The court have found them innocent but twitter has found them guilty - boards seams pretty calm to the emotive outburts on twitter - who is right the courts or twitter ?

We probaly will never know , as we weren't ther or know the concerned parties - if really innocent they should be allowed play again, but can you imagine the outbursts if that did happen - ask Rory Best who was demonised for just attending court . Rape is a horrid crime , and rightly should be severlly punished, but citizens should be protected too from being falsely accused , anway bad night to be on twitter, and bad day for all concened. Calm thining over these troubled waters.

Wheeliebin30

Noone is saying she definitely lied.

But noone can say for certain she hasn't.

The jury finding them not guilty puts the odds that she was.

But we dont know.

wexie

dark crystal wrote: »

My next door neighbour steals my bike. I see her steal the bike, but she gets rid of all the evidence by the time I report it. It's my word against hers. She's found not guilty as there's insufficient evidence.

Am I automatically a liar?

Yes!!! You never had a bike and you were just falsely accusing your neighbour cause they have a nicer bike than the one you never had to start with.

Or....summmit, I dunno really, but you're still a liar cause I've made up my mind and it can't now accept new facts on this issue.

Seems to be the average level of reasoning I'm seeing here.

dark crystal

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Others might think you are a liar yes.

Fine. But should all plaintiffs who lose their case for lack of sufficient evidence then be sued for lying?

Mokuba

Some truly awful guff being spouted on twitter today, on both sides.

But these protests, they take the biscuit. A mass protest because a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial doesn't support peoples own biases?

Or people sharing that stupid biased checklist of "evidence". Did they get that when they sat in the trial every day for 9 weeks?

So, so worrying. Dangerous road that people are going down there. People being automatically believed because of gender is what people are clamoring for.

At least it makes it easier to know who to steer well clear of. Although that list is growing massively almost every time something like this appears.

TheChizler

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They might have reached their verdict because they thought she was lying?

The circular reasoning that the opinion of the jury can change a fact.

'The jury thought she was lying ergo she may have been lying' is an illogical statement.

'She may have been lying ergo the jury thought she was lying' is a logical statement.

She may have been lying. She may have been telling the truth. She may have a false memory and thinks she was telling the truth. The opinion a jury has later on does not impact the odds of which ever one of those was true.

sporina

how is the jury selected? like 8 men and 3 women - surely it should have been equal gender wise?

The Talking Bread

keith_sixteen wrote: »

Here we have it. No matter what the truth is, people simply do not care.

The tweet is fake. There is no but.

that is not what I said. Nice edit.

This is what I said

"But honestly it genuinely would not surprise me if he came out with that going by hard written evidence put before the trial of what goes through his head. "

There is cold hard evidence that that is the sort of juvenile deviancy that goes through his head if you read the multiple messages proffered before us