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

Mr.H

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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”

While I agree with absolutely everything you are saying, I find it hard to agree to people using this last line.

The issue is that the trial is over now. They guys are found not guilty and should now be able to go on and live their lives as free innocent men. They should not be subject to ridicule, abuse or questions of guilt. They are for innocent men.

By saying there is a difference between not guilty and innocent, while correct, puts doubt on their innocence and ensures that they remain guilty.

They cant prove their innocence unless they prove she is a liar. It is impossible to prove that, therefore impossible to prove innocence.

People need to leave this alone now. Leave them live their lives and leave her move on also. If they try to press charges then that is their choice but also it will be up to them to prove it. As for Joe Public, we need to stop leaching the life out of this celebrity gossip and leave everyone live their lives.

pitifulgod

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

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

The Republic of Ireland has the lowest conviction rate in Europe, we clearly have major problems in terms of how we handle rape cases. By the logic of many posters in this thread, 8 out of 10 who report rape in Ireland are lying(9/10 for North) and engaging in 'false accusations', that's not remotely plausible.

oneilla

I've seen a few comments here and elsewhere about "lack of evidence" but I've always wondered how come there can be convictions of rape and sexual assault after decades have passed and (seemingly) there's no evidence other than a complaint and testimony.

Eg. This story came out recently of brothers on trial of raping their sister around 30years ago as teenagers. https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/a-brother-shouldnt-do-this-two-men-convicted-of-raping-two-of-their-sisters-36749311.html

Different cases obviously considering the relationship but there was physical evidence in the case that this thread is discussing.

pgj2015

rusty cole wrote: »

Iny 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

i didn't mention my dad, did i? lets hope your dad puts you through some college but its probably the college of hard knocks you go to, and you even failed that:pac:

Mr.H

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

I am glad they didnt because that angle is bulls888

defrule

I think the presumption of innocence point really needs to be emphasised in this thread.

Of course presumption innocence puts the burden of proof on prosecution to prove a person guilty. The idea of having a legal system where one must prove their innocence is folly. Emotions and opinions can be strong but you must keep absolutely clear where burden of proof lies.

Now the court won't always get it right, some people who rightly should be punished may walk free. But it is more important that innocence is protected than the guilt is condemned. If this wasn't the case, what point is there to be a good person?

Mr.H

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 is the conviction rate for false accusations?

Not claiming this is a false accusation but I bet the figures for that are minimal if even existent

Wheeliebin30

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland has the lowest conviction rate in Europe, we clearly have major problems in terms of how we handle rape cases. By the logic of many posters in this thread, 8 out of 10 who report rape in Ireland are lying(9/10 for North) and engaging in 'false accusations', that's not remotely plausible.

Why?

Some county has to have the lowest convictions.

Why not ireland?

Autochange

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

For the hundred time it was not a false accusation.

It was an accusation that a jury decided was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury found them not guilty. So it didn't happen in the eyes of the law.

davidmarsh

davidmarsh wrote: »

Why do so many women hate men?

Because the likes of RTE are ultra liberal loonies with a one sided view to everything, they twist news, they're another branch of the fake news.

for instance, They will only interview someone if it fits any agenda they have at the time.

RTE's topics of great interest,

Anti Trump,

Anti catholic

Anti Men

Pro Abortion

Pro Global warming

To name a few

And they will only interview those with the same twisted one sided views and poison the minds of the public.

RTE is a disgusting organisation.

PhlegmyMoses

Mr.H wrote: »

I am glad they didnt because that angle is bulls888

It all depends right? If a girl is paralytic and 2 guys take her back and have sex with her, that's rape. I get that you are trying to make a point regarding the level of drunkenness and I think it's fair to have concerns about what constitutes too drunk to consent, it's a debate that rages worldwide, but there are pretty obvious scenarios that if presume most can agree on.

Sidebaro

Mr.H wrote:

By saying there is a difference between not guilty and innocent, while correct, puts doubt on their innocence and ensures that they remain guilty.

That's down to ignorance and people loving to gossip without knowing what they're on about. We can't really change the definitions of law unfortunately.

....Also, post #488, still haven't answered my question. I'm starting to think I've stumped you!

ahnowbrowncow

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland has the lowest conviction rate in Europe, we clearly have major problems in terms of how we handle rape cases. By the logic of many posters in this thread, 8 out of 10 who report rape in Ireland are lying(9/10 for North) and engaging in 'false accusations', that's not remotely plausible.

I'm not saying that the victims are lying.

In criminal law the burden of proof is very high and that's very hard to reach in rape cases as they're mostly one person's word against an other's.

There's not much that can be done about the low conviction rate without lowering the burden of proof and thus increasing the chance that innocent people will be found guilty. That's unacceptable IMO.

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the likes of RTE are ultra liberal loonies with a one sided view to everything, they twist news, they're another branch of the fake news.

for instance, They will only interview someone if it fits any agenda they have at the time.

RTE's topics of great interest,

Anti Trump,

Anti catholic

Anti Men

Pro Abortion

Pro Global warming

To name a few

And they will only interview those with the same twisted one sided views and poison the minds of the public.

RTE is a disgusting organisation.

I agree with you on all but the global warming bit.

How are liberals "pro global warming"

The Talking Bread

Mr.H wrote: »

While I agree with absolutely everything you are saying, I find it hard to agree to people using this last line.

The issue is that the trial is over now. They guys are found not guilty and should now be able to go on and live their lives as free innocent men. They should not be subject to ridicule, abuse or questions of guilt. They are for innocent men.

By saying there is a difference between not guilty and innocent, while correct, puts doubt on their innocence and ensures that they remain guilty.

They cant prove their innocence unless they prove she is a liar. It is impossible to prove that, therefore impossible to prove innocence.

People need to leave this alone now. Leave them live their lives and leave her move on also. If they try to press charges then that is their choice but also it will be up to them to prove it. As for Joe Public, we need to stop leaching the life out of this celebrity gossip and leave everyone live their lives.

I respect that.

I just think it is very dangerous for the girl to just naturally assume they are innocent, rendering her "guilty" by default of her respective part in this trial. Which is the sounding mantra by many on this thread, sadly.

The standard isn't to find them innocent beyond reasonable doubt, it is to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt

littlevillage

I am glad that justice was done today in Belfast.


A couple of things to think about though ....

Had the girls friend not walked into the room during the "act" and saw nothing untoward and had the courage to go to court and state exactly that ... would the outcome have been different? Not every innocent bloke accused of rape will have the luxury of a witness like that.

What exactly were the motivations of the girl and her handlers (Police, prosecutors or Rape crisis counsellors etc. ) because from the get-go, there was only ever going to be one outcome, a unanimous acquittal ...and sadly the consequence (The 4 defendents reputations and careers ruined forever)

Was it revenge ? were the Police/Prosecutors/Rape Crisis counsellors sending out a message ? was this some kind of feminist power play in action ?

SEPT 23 1989

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because the likes of RTE are ultra liberal loonies with a one sided view to everything, they twist news, they're another branch of the fake news.

for instance, They will only interview someone if it fits any agenda they have at the time.

RTE's topics of great interest,

Anti Trump,

Anti catholic

Anti Men

Pro Abortion

Pro Global warming

To name a few

And they will only interview those with the same twisted one sided views and poison the minds of the public.

RTE is a disgusting organisation.

And if you refuse to pay for it you are sent to a prison cell

spookwoman

Autochange wrote: »

The jury found them not guilty. So it didn't happen in the eyes of the law.

Can still be appealed and even a retrial.

gk5000

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

But if she had claimed being drunk and incapable of consenting, I think they would may been done, and it may have been closer to the mark (right or wrong)... if the law in NI allows that

Anybody know if the law in NI has the "incapable of consent" thing?

Mr.H

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Off the wall theory...

The girls willfully takes part, thinks I'll cry rape. Go through the criminal case and thinking the lads would be get convicted. Then sue them in a civil case for PTSD or something else...Now that's interesting...Very unlikely true but potentially her plan???

I think its more plausible that her friend that walked in on her told the rest of their friends through txt or whatever. She was probably mocked by her friends about it and became embarrassed so she claimed she didnt remember. Then it escalated into rape. She likely didnt mean to go further about it but when saying it as an excuse to stop her friends mocking her, her dad found out and pushed for legal proceedings.

Of course I could be way off because that is speculation but I hope its more innocent than setting them up for a rape

pgj2015

pgj2015 wrote: »

i didn't mention my dad, did i? lets hope your dad puts you through some college but its probably the college of hard knocks you go to, and you even failed that:pac:

what a waste of money that degree was anyway, moreover lets hope your dad gets you a bed-sit so you can come out of the basement and stop playing dragon quest with the other 16yr olds FFS, you couldn't offer a good comeback if your second name was balboa, personal issues forum is where you need to go..hard knocks is obviously something you'd know feck all about.

now out of respect, I'll know longer hijack what is a very informative thread.

Sidebaro

c.p.w.g.w wrote:

Off the wall theory...

The girls willfully takes part, thinks I'll cry rape. Go through the criminal case and thinking the lads would be get convicted. Then sue them in a civil case for PTSD or something else...Now that's interesting...Very unlikely true but potentially her plan???

Interesting. Here's another theory, she was a ghost all along! They were having sex with her sixth sense.

pitifulgod

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland has the lowest conviction rate in Europe, we clearly have major problems in terms of how we handle rape cases. By the logic of many posters in this thread, 8 out of 10 who report rape in Ireland are lying(9/10 for North) and engaging in 'false accusations', that's not remotely plausible.

So what, just not bother to have court cases at all and throw every man in prison for being accused of Rape ?

Or should we have quotas where they have to convict a certain % of Men ?

That might bring the numbers up to bring us in line with the rest of Europe !

PhlegmyMoses

gk5000 wrote: »

But if she had claimed being drunk and incapable of consenting, I think they would may been done, and it may have been closer to the mark (right or wrong)... if the law in NI allows that

Anybody know if the law in NI has the "incapable of consent" thing?

She didn't claim she was too drunk to consent though. She claimed that she did not consent full stop and said as much during the act, unless I am misremembering. Why would they talk about her level of drunkenness when she is clear in what she feels took place?

pearcider

Mr.H wrote: »

I think its more plausible that her friend that walked in on her told the rest of their friends through txt or whatever. She was probably mocked by her friends about it and became embarrassed so she claimed she didnt remember. Then it escalated into rape. She likely didnt mean to go further about it but when saying it as an excuse to stop her friends mocking her, her dad found out and pushed for legal proceedings.

Of course I could be way off because that is speculation but I hope its more innocent than setting them up for a rape

Nail on head. I'd say this happens a lot too and probably some lads are sent down for it as well. The men in this case had good legal representation which can make all the difference.

Autochange

spookwoman wrote: »

Can still be appealed and even a retrial.

Like Brexit or the Lisbon treaty. I don't like the result I want to go again.

givyjoe

Faugheen wrote: »

To those people saying she should be hauled before a jury accused of reporting a false rape.

What evidence have the prosecution got in this? Nothing. All they have are the inconsistent accounts of the complainants (in this case would be the three lads) and in return an inconsistent account of the defendant, with the same witnesses and what have you that led to a not guilty verdict in the first place.

The result is the same. Not guilty. Does this mean, by the logic of a few, that all the lads would be lying and they actually did rape her?

No. It wouldn't. Would the preachers of the law here accept that verdict? Would they bollocks.

Sooooooo much irony...

zl1whqvjs75cdy

spookwoman wrote: »

Can still be appealed and even a retrial.

Can't be appealed unless there is new evidence found.

strandroad

Mr.H wrote: »

I think its more plausible that her friend that walked in on her told the rest of their friends through txt or whatever. She was probably mocked by her friends about it and became embarrassed so she claimed she didnt remember. Then it escalated into rape. She likely didnt mean to go further about it but when saying it as an excuse to stop her friends mocking her, her dad found out and pushed for legal proceedings.

Of course I could be way off because that is speculation but I hope its more innocent than setting them up for a rape

The girl who walked in was not her friend, she didn't know her at all.

spookwoman

gk5000 wrote: »

But if she had claimed being drunk and incapable of consenting, I think they would may been done, and it may have been closer to the mark (right or wrong)... if the law in NI allows that

Anybody know if the law in NI has the "incapable of consent" thing?

from psni https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/advice--information/the-law-on-sex-in-northern-ireland/the-law-on-sex-in-ni-english-version.pdf

Consent to Sex
Consent is where a person 'agrees by
choice and has the freedom and capacity
to make that choice'. This would not
include occasions where a person has
been subjected to threats of violence;
are asleep; are intoxicated through
alcohol or drugs; are exploited or
coerced in any way.