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

Becks610

Autochange wrote: »

She should be forced to apologise to each one of them. Publicly

They were found not guilty- that doesn’t mean she lied. It may mean there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.

For her to have to apologise she would have to be found guilty in a court( yes a court as she was not on trial) of lying and making false allegations. I believe she would be found not guilty of this as once again there would not be enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she was lying.

The Talking Bread

C__MC wrote: »

It was a unanimous call in the space of a few hours. It never happened

This world!

davidmarsh

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Just wondering about what all these "I still believe" her mob are basing their opinion on? Because it's definitely not on anything factual.

The girl who walked in on them didn't think it was rape. So I'm not sure what the 'still believe her' mob saw that the key witness didn't.

Fr Tod Umptious

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Just wondering about what all these "I still believe" her mob are basing their opinion on? Because it's definitely not on anything factual.

As another poster posted here there are still a lot of unanswered questions, and in reality at this stage they don't need to be answered.

Stories not stacking up, one guy apparently giving a very contradictory story etc.

Bunny Colvin

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Where do you think this anger arises from?

Every woman being f@#*ing raped and sexually assaulted in Ireland!

What are you on about?

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What have other womens experences got to do with it? Are you for real? Everything. Every woman can see that as it stands right now she has no hope of convicting a rapist.

This was a standalone trial. Let's not pretend it will affect the outcomes of future trials on this island. There wasn't enough evidence to convict the men, tough luck - that's the justice system. Go to Irish prisons and guess what, you'll find rapists. If the evidence is there, they'll be convicted.

What other system do you propose? Accuse a man of rape and automatically lock him up? Thankfully that won't be happening.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

As I said, are we any different than any arab countries? No justice for rapists, and women shamed in their community.

Men and women are both saying that Ireland is a f@#king joke on twitter.

Don't be daft. We live in a very civilised country. If you don't believe me, maybe go and live in an 'Arab country' for one year and come back to me.

trixychic

I'm not sure where I stand on the matter but i do know a few things.

1. The way these trials are run is all wrong. In my opinion neither accused or accuser should be named until the verdict is out.

2. Leading on from above, With everything that has transpired during the trial I think it is unlikely that that these lads will ever be able to reach the career heights they could before the trial. Their names have been muddied.

3. I think this trial will only strengthen the resolve of women who have been raped/assaulted/molested to NOT come forward because they'll be afraid to be found "wrong".

The system needs to change.

SEPT 23 1989

Sidebaro wrote: »

I assume it's out of a manner of respect to rape victims who may be put off reporting the crime if they see a big deal being made about the lives of the 3 men being ruined, especially given that it wasn't proven that she lied about it, just that there wasn't enough to be able to say they were guilty. It's not an ideal situation but I think it's the best way to deal with it really. Maybe I'm wrong?

And what about some respect shown to men whose lives have been ruined over false allegations

Are we not striving for equality?

pgj2015

pgj2015 wrote: »

your mate? one of the finest legal minds of his/her generation no doubt.

neither you or your mate know what happened so you would be foolish to go around talking as if you do.

id be foolish to suffer fools like you dishing pearls of your two bit wisdom and presumptions as to know how I talk, "like I do". I musta hit your nerve, the whole one of them!!! Piggy Gets Jiggy 2015, such imagination.

retro:electro

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Where do you think this anger arises from?

Every woman being f@#*ing raped and sexually assaulted in Ireland!

What have other womens experences got to do with it? Are you for real? Everything. Every woman can see that as it stands right now she has no hope of convicting a rapist.

As I said, are we any different than any arab countries? No justice for rapists, and women shamed in their community.

Men and women are both saying that Ireland is a f@#king joke on twitter.

What will make Ireland a fcuking joke is if we start believing people purely on the basis of an allegation. There was simply nothing consistent or conclusive enough to prove she was raped. It’s as simple as that. The courts don’t care about hurt feelings. They rely on evidence. Now that’s not very back slapping to say but it’s the bloody truth.

Ace2007

davidmarsh wrote: »

The girl who walked in on them didn't think it was rape. So I'm not sure what the 'still believe her' mob saw that the key witness didn't.

and the 2 guys in the room and the girl said the 3rd lad didn't get oral sex, but he claimed under oath that he did - you see - inconsistencies in stories there...Please explain that

tretorn

Primetime were discussing the case as if the men had been found guilty.

There wasnt a single reference to the damage that has been done to their reputations and the costs incurred in engaging senior counsel to defend them against a false accusation.

When did the world become so topsy turvy.

Potatoeman

Mrsmum wrote: »

To my mind both sides could be right in their beliefs. So maybe it was all fine until the other lady opened the door. The young girl may have been in a situation she didn't know how to get herself out of (a lot of women will understand that situation) but up to then was acting in agreement with it so happy days for the lads. Then when the other lady looked in, it brought the girl to her senses and she wanted it to stop. The other lady was gone then so how can she say what happened after that. Perhaps at that stage the lads were, in their minds, pass the point of no return so didn't even see or hear her anymore. They will lost in their fantasy - group sex, spit roasting etc. Is that scenario not possible ? If that was the case I think she was raped but would imagine a lot of people, especially men would see that extra bit as them just finishing up the job ??????? I think a lot of men think that rape has to be rape from the start.

That’s plausible but that is not what she claimed. I think it’s important to remember it was the friend that went to the police.

spurious

davidmarsh wrote: »

The girl who walked in on them didn't think it was rape. So I'm not sure what the 'still believe her' mob saw that the key witness didn't.

She also said Paddy Jackson was having sex with the woman, which he says didn't happen.
Seems that witness is believable when she says one thing but not when she says another.

The Talking Bread

I am shocked as to how ignorant people are as to what this verdict means. FFS.

Not that I expect the ignorant, some of whom think that she should be sued, to read this! But here is a short simple to understand (for anyone with half a braincell) excerpt

Burden of Proof-the Probative Burden

In a criminal trial the prosecutor has a probative burden-that is, the burden of proof. The standard in a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

So, the prosecutor must prove the facts of the case, and the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the prosecutor fails to discharge this burden of proof, then the finding of the Court or jury will be “not guilty”.

This, as you may now (well if you have any brain cell) recognise, does not mean the accused person was innocent.

It does mean, however, that guilt has not been proven and the accused person can then enjoy the presumption of innocence, just like everybody else, including persons who have not been accused of any crime.

You can draw two conclusions from a finding of not guilty:

The accused person was innocent as a spring lamb, or
The accused person “did the deed” but the prosecutor, for whatever reason, was unable to discharge the probative burden-to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Blackstone’s Formulation
Sir William Blackstone, in his 18th century book of commentaires on the common law, came to the following conclusion:

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

This is also called Blackstone’s ratio. What he actually wrote in his “Commentaries on the laws of England” in 1760 was, “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”

In any event, it is essential that all accused persons enjoy the presumption of innocence when faced with a criminal charge. It is a fundamental constitutional right in Ireland, and also a human right in most, not all, parts of the world.

It’s probably also useful to recognise the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”

FrancieBrady

tretorn wrote: »

Primetime were discussing the case as if the men had been found guilty.

There wasnt a single reference to the damage that has been done to their reputations and the costs incurred in engaging senior counsel to defend them against a false accusation.

When did the world become so topsy turvy.

What happens here with costs btw.

um7y1h83ge06nx

retro:electro wrote: »

[/B]

What will make Ireland a fcuking joke is if we start believing people purely on the basis of an allegation. There was simply nothing consistent or conclusive enough to prove she was raped. It’s as simple as that. The courts don’t care about hurt feelings. They rely on evidence. Now that’s not very back slapping to say but it’s the bloody truth.

Stop being sensible.

Being serious, it is disappointing that people are so much against the courts system these days. It's not perfect but it's better than the alternatives.

Sidebaro

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

And what about some respect shown to men whose lives have been ruined over false allegations

Like I said, it's not ideal, but I assume that the amount of women that have been raped is a lot higher than the amount of men who have been accused and subsequently had their lives ruined. Therefore, if they had to pick a side to show more respect to, it would make more sense to lean on the side of the ones with more victims. Merely an assumption though.

pitifulgod

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No they don't in 2016 of the 404 cases brought before the courts 69% resulted in convictions.

1 in ten for Northern Ireland in 2016

http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2017-02-08/huge-rise-in-number-of-rapes-in-northern-ireland/

A 2013 report for the republic has us at 17%. Higher in the UK but in Ireland, convictions are incredibly low.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html

SEPT 23 1989

tretorn wrote: »

Primetime were discussing the case as if the men had been found guilty.

There wasnt a single reference to the damage that has been done to their reputations and the costs incurred in engaging senior counsel to defend them against a false accusation.

When did the world become so topsy turvy.

It's a very odd narrative

Who is pulling the strings?

Fr Tod Umptious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What happens here with costs btw.

It's not a civil case.

Costs are not a part of it.

PhlegmyMoses

I think we are on really dangerous ground when we are filling in the gaps in the story to make it credible, and for this trial it has always been on behalf of the complainant.

The girl has been given the benefit of the doubt quite a bit in some quarters and some inconsistencies have been handwaved away as the actions of somebody who was consumed by fear, jolted by the events that night that her memory might not have been right. No such benefit of the doubt has been given to those accused by the same people. For those concerned about Jackson claiming they didn't have sex, the complainant herself changed her story multiple times up to the trial and it even changed a bit during the trial as well, relative to police interviews.

That being said, anybody outright calling her a liar is as bad as those outright calling these guys rapists. There is a lot of nuance to thus case and I feel bad for everybody involved.

Fr Tod Umptious

tretorn wrote: »

Primetime were discussing the case as if the men had been found guilty.

There wasnt a single reference to the damage that has been done to their reputations and the costs incurred in engaging senior counsel to defend them against a false accusation.

When did the world become so topsy turvy.

For the hundred and first time.

There is no false accusation.

Nerdlingr

spurious wrote: »

She also said Paddy Jackson was having sex with the woman, which he says didn't happen.
Seems that witness is believable when she says one thing but not when she says another.

The witness only gives an "account" of what she saw. Her statement "proves" nothing.

gk5000

Curious:
Anybody know how come the CPS didn't push the "incapable of consent" angle? Seems like everybody was jarred.

pgj2015

pgj2015 wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac: at least i have studied law in college, bet you haven't.

going around talking like that, my mate said, ridiculous stuff. unless your mate was in the room that night he hasn't a clue what happened, hope you never end up on a jury.

any donkey can study and recant what they read in a book, the fact that you had to tell us all daddy put you through college gives me pause for thought, you sound like the brendan drum of your class... at least i've been to college oooh check out the big brains on brad.... pour us a brandy from the press over by the gun cabinet would you old bean

ahnowbrowncow

pitifulgod wrote: »

1 in ten for Northern Ireland in 2016

http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2017-02-08/huge-rise-in-number-of-rapes-in-northern-ireland/

A 2013 report for the republic has us at 17%. Higher in the UK but in Ireland, convictions are incredibly low.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html

What do you expect when it's generally one person's word against an other's.

AllForIt

trixychic wrote: »

I'm not sure where I stand on the matter but i do know a few things.

1. The way these trials are run is all wrong. In my opinion neither accused or accuser should be named until the verdict is out.

I completely agree. I totally disagree that the text messages should be made available for public consumption. They were included as circumstantial evidence i.e .well if they talk like this then it's more likely than not they are the raping type. As it turns out, no, they weren't the raping type despite all the bravado.

Those messages with impact on them quite badly for a long time and I don't think it's warranted or fair.

PhlegmyMoses

gk5000 wrote: »

Curious:
Anybody know how come the CPS didn't push the "incapable of consent" angle? Seems like everybody was jarred.

Because she was less intoxicated than the players. She said she had 3 double vodkas and a wine. Olding had consumed half of the alcohol in Belfast.

Shefwedfan

You learn something new every day

Seemingly every person in Ireland has a legal degree all of a sudden.....

Nettle Soup

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You learn something new every day

Seemingly every person in Ireland has a legal degree all of a sudden.....

I was thinking the same. There were 1000s on that jury too.