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

professore

What is clear from the text exchanges is that there are no shortage of young women lining up to have sex with these men.

What do these women think men like this are going to think about them? Exchange romantic messages with each other about them? Personally I am surprised at the reaction to the messages. They are the reality of how most men think about women that follow guys like this home from a party and give it up easily.

VinLieger

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.

It's been highlighted this is mainly due to the failings of the PSNI to ask these questions prior to the trial

Murdoc90

you're all so outraged that people are outraged, it's sad but funny.

professore

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The protest is set up to show solidarity and support for the girl.
I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.
I am protesting because I was raped, and I felt that I had no avenue to report it, the legal system here lets down my human rights.
I am protesting because I have listened to many friends and family members talk about their experience with sexual assault, and I want to make the news, shine an international spotlight on Ireland, so people can see what is going on here. So that less women suffer going forward.
The first step to change is awareness.
I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

What changes would you make to the law? That's the important part.

C__MC

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The protest is set up to show solidarity and support for the girl.
I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.
I am protesting because I was raped, and I felt that I had no avenue to report it, the legal system here lets down my human rights.
I am protesting because I have listened to many friends and family members talk about their experience with sexual assault, and I want to make the news, shine an international spotlight on Ireland, so people can see what is going on here. So that less women suffer going forward.
The first step to change is awareness.
I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

Fair enough. You must realize though, the girls information had to be dissected thoroughly in order for the lads to get a fair trial. It can’t just be a case of her taking the stand and believing everything. Paddy Jackson or the other lads could have spent the same time being cross examined but that was up to her defense team. There was 6 different charges and each defendent has every right to defend themselves

Fann Linn

C__MC wrote: »

Bruising was later discovered and a small tear in which 3 doctors agreed it could have been a penis/finger/something else.

The woman left but came back to get her phone, utterly bizzare.

As you do.

Nesta99

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

A unanimous verdict either way, so yes all 11 jury members did find the four men not guilty after just 3-4 hours of deliberating.

Couldnt that mean the possibility of 10 jurors finding the accused guilty and 1 not guilty therefore resulting in an aquittal? A hypothetical and general question rather than specific to this trial really as it is an emotive dicussion.

As the judge directed that a unanimous verdict was needed from the jury it seems to me that the verdict was highly unlikely to have been a guilty one. So can a judge influence a case so much even if concerned about prosecutions case or their quality of evidence (if thats fair term to use), or have a good idea that it could be a hung jury and force a mistrial to be called and then have to do it all again and wanting to avoid this.

Isolating a jury from social media is impossible especially with the profile of this case so is it likely that 11 jurors all came to the same conclusion - not so much a question as pondering the liklihood of getting the same 11 verdicts especially as impartiality could have been affected by media and social media. They were hardly locked away in a hotel for 8 weeks without contact with the outside world. Taking this thread alone as a sample (accepting limitations that it would be a trial by media type sample) getting 11 people to agree one way or another without handpicking contributers to the thread would be pretty unlikely. To me that chance of a unanimous guilty verdict was very slim unless there had been incontrovertible evidence rather than a good lot of one word against 4 or 5.

So considering the question marks about the strength of the prosecutions evidence, the undoubted media attention, social media issues during the trial, the subsequent need for a unanimous verdict to get a guilty verdict, did the PPS make the right decision going to trial, or even the level of charges being tried at the most serious end of the spectrum rather than associated offences.

Regardless of anyones thinking on all of this there will be an ongoing impact for those involved in this trial to varying degrees rightly or wrongly. But the wider impact imo will be a greater reluctance of victims of sexual assault to report an assault and have to consider the prospect of going to trial, probably citing the experiences in this case as the reason. Thats a sad and worrying possibility.

Defunkd

cloudatlas wrote: »

The rape crisis center may have valid concerns about how the case was conducted. Can ye not wait to get more information?

A member of DRCC was on Primetime last night and she gave the impression that the lads should be punished for bragging about having sex and calling themselves "...legends."

Fann Linn

professore wrote: »

What changes would you make to the law? That's the important part.

I'd say some here would like 'guilty until proven innocent.'

AGC

VinLieger wrote: »

It's been highlighted this is mainly due to the failings of the PSNI to ask these questions prior to the trial

Also she was answering in relation to all the charges, the defendants could only answer in relation to their 1 or 2 so she was always going to have a longer, and more difficult stint.

I really wish I could read the whole Louise O'Neill thing to pull it apart properly but right out of the gates the snippet available can be called BS straight away:

For generations in Ireland, women’s sexuality has been seen as a dangerous force that needed to be controlled, says Louise O’Neill

I thought the whole defence case was that the woman wanted to do an "outrageous" sex act. As in her sexual expression was completely fine.

jr86

SortingYouOut wrote: »

Everyone just hopping on the bandwagon with the protest.

A sea of nose piercings, dyed hair and repeal the 8th t-shirts.

It'll all die down in a week

No offence but just take a look at some of the 'Tweeters' many of them clearly look like unhinged lunatics.

Then there are immature naive teenage girls who haven't a breeze about the justice system, and then there are the bandwagon jumpers simply out for likes, who will move on to the next 'issue' when it arises

I'd say about 5 lunatics will actually turn up to that "protest" today

There are serious concerns about the right to a fair trial going forward, given this trial by Social Media. It simply has to stop, and these idiots cannpt be given a voice. Poor Frank Greaney has been doing a job for newstalk and his mentions been inundated with ramblings and incoherent blabber by clueless idiots

To be fair while there's an odd daft post here, it's far more reasoned and balanced than twitter, which is a very dangerous place in general anymore.

Stuff look putting up a poll are absolutely daft though

Tsipras

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The protest is set up to show solidarity and support for the girl.
I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.
I am protesting because I was raped, and I felt that I had no avenue to report it, the legal system here lets down my human rights.
I am protesting because I have listened to many friends and family members talk about their experience with sexual assault, and I want to make the news, shine an international spotlight on Ireland, so people can see what is going on here. So that less women suffer going forward.
The first step to change is awareness.
I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

A load of nonsense, why are people talking about 'rape victims' when discussing a case where there was no rape?
The falsely accused defendants are the victims here.

Gaillimh1976

Did they do it ? Possibly

Was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt ? Absolutely not

A not guilty verdict was the only possible outcome - people might not agree with it or be happy about it, but the law is clear

Does it mean they are nice guys ? Again, absolutely not, but that's not a crime

facehugger99

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

What does 'more fair and just' mean?

Everyone is in favour of fairness and justice, but in practice, how does this manifest itself in the context of a rape trial?

I think the current situation is a horrendous process for someone who has been raped, but I cannot think of any better way to do it.

irishrebe

markodaly wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

The UK is part of NI? If this is your level of education, no wonder you're so confused.

Erm, unless there has been a border poll in the last 5 minutes, eh Yes, Northern Ireland IS part of the UK....



It is not I who is confused.

You are aware that abortion is also illegal in Northern Ireland, yes?

Yes, I am, hence why I said, the UK.

Sigh.
I was making fun of the fact you got it the wrong way around.
You STILL didn't notice your mistake.
Says it all.

jr86

Defunkd wrote: »

A member of DRCC was on Primetime last night and she gave the impression that the lads should be punished for bragging about having sex and calling themselves "...legends."

LOL good luck to them punishing 'JE' so, who made the 'legends' comment and wasn't even on trial

relax carry on

Defunkd wrote: »

The smell of unwashed fanny will be got from the M50.

If that's a genuine comment that you think is funny then you are a horrible human being. If you are a troll then you are a horrible human being. In short you are a horrible human being.

whisky_galore

Defunkd wrote: »

A member of DRCC was on Primetime last night and she gave the impression that the lads should be punished for bragging about having sex and calling themselves "...legends."

Might as well line up the paddywagons outside every sports field, pub and nightclub so.

AudreyHepburn

C__MC wrote: »

Bruising was later discovered and a small tear in which 3 doctors agreed it could have been a penis/finger/something else. The woman left but came back to get her phone, utterly bizzare.

Fair enough - still doesn’t make it rape though.

I agree her behavior afterwards makes rape even more unlikely.

irishrebe

Defunkd wrote: »

SortingYouOut wrote: »

Everyone just hopping on the bandwagon with the protest.

A sea of nose piercings, dyed hair and repeal the 8th t-shirts.

The smell of unwashed fanny will be got from the M50.

More disgusting misogynistic comments people have been brainwashed to find normal/funny.

irishrebe

markodaly wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

The UK is part of NI? If this is your level of education, no wonder you're so confused.

Erm, unless there has been a border poll in the last 5 minutes, eh Yes, Northern Ireland IS part of the UK....



It is not I who is confused.

You are aware that abortion is also illegal in Northern Ireland, yes?

Yes, I am, hence why I said, the UK.

And the funniest thing of all is that you totally left Wales out! Good god. You really proved my point.

kunst nugget

Nesta99 wrote: »

Couldnt that mean the possibility of 10 jurors finding the accused guilty and 1 not guilty therefore resulting in an aquittal? A hypothetical and general question rather than specific to this trial really as it is an emotive dicussion.

In general as far as I can tell (down here anyway), a judge will always ask for a unanimous verdict first - if the jury comes back after substantial deliberation and says they are deadlocked, he will allow a majority verdict along the lines of 11-1 or 10-2. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.

This is actually somewhere Northern Ireland is ahead of the Republic of Ireland on in your view.

At the moment a defendent in Republic of Ireland can refuse to take the stand. Juries are instructed not to drawn inference from the refusal.

In Northern Ireland a defendent can refuse to take the stand. Juries are instructed that they may infer reasons as to why the defendent chose not to take the trial.

Regarding the eight days it's because she accused four people of crimes so those four's representatives all had the opportunity to question her and cross examine her evidence. Also during her time on the stand the pps requested a day trip to the scene of the crime.

The other thing is that her lawyers strategy was to make her cry on the stand because there was a shortage of actual evidence to support their case they wanted a visceral emotional response from the jury. This didn't work.

jr86

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Regarding the eight days it's because she accused four people of crimes so those four's representatives all had the opportunity to question her and cross examine her evidence. Also during her time on the stand the pps requested a day trip to the scene of the crime.

I think this may have been pushed by the defence? But I'm not positive

The idea was to determine how noise travels across the house and put some perspective on the journey to the bedroom etc.

It was hard to tell at times. I mean the prosecution's main witness ended up serving the defence more

C__MC

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Fair enough - still doesn’t make it rape though.

I agree her behavior afterwards makes rape even more unlikely.

Believe me, I don’t think it should have went to trial and no rape occurred.

irishrebe

Adamocovic wrote: »

Seen quite a few posts on social media by people I know by now. Getting into a debate with them is pointless so I'll vent here.

Firstly, I'm sure were all sick of people from the Republic saying the Irish Government has let down Irish women, we had no say in this to my knowledge, bring that complaint up with Northern Irish Law.

Secondly, seems most online are more worried about what affect this may have on rape victims decisions to come forward rather than whether the jury made the right call with the evidence, testimonies and witnesses they were presented.

I agree that people coming forward should be safe to do so, and their anonymity should be kept unless is undoubtedly clear the story was fabricated. Also think the accused should remain anonymous unless given a guilty verdict. But I can't get on board with the idea of the #IBelieveHer movement. It's one thing people saying they believe she thought she was raped, but to disregard the findings of a court of law as false based solely on the fact you believe her, and calling the accused rapists seems ridiculously wrong in my opinion.

Now this isn't all the people, but a lot of people on social media are going with this angle. Again I understand the main idea behind it all about protecting the people coming forward making the accusation, but in this instance I actually believe the accused, although found not-guilty in court, are facing worse treatment on social media. It really is an interesting one.

I find it absolutely incredible how many people are missing the point. By saying 'I believe her', I'm not saying the accused are guilty and should be thrown into jail. I'm saying I believe that she honestly thinks she was raped, whether or not the men involved had the same perception. I don't believe, like many people on here, that she's a malicious liar who should be shamed and punished. Cases like this are never black and white.

Greysquirel09

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

This is actually somewhere Northern Ireland is ahead of the Republic of Ireland on in your view.

At the moment a defendent in Republic of Ireland can refuse to take the stand. Juries are instructed not to drawn inference from the refusal.

In Northern Ireland a defendent can refuse to take the stand. Juries are instructed that they may infer reasons as to why the defendent chose not to take the trial.

Regarding the eight days it's because she accused four people of crimes so those four's representatives all had the opportunity to question her and cross examine her evidence. Also during her time on the stand the pps requested a day trip to the scene of the crime.

The other thing is that her lawyers strategy was to make her cry on the stand because there was a shortage of actual evidence to support their case they wanted a visceral emotional response from the jury. This didn't work.

I am protesting because she was interrogated for 8 days. Seriously what do women want? Instant rape conviction for any accused man?

soiseztomabel

Rosemary MacContent is at it full on since yday...

" I had a conversation with my dad about this when he was giving it the “she went up to the room with him...” and I said to him, “dad, I go ‘up to the room’ with my boyfriend every single night. Sometimes I take off all my clothes and I lie next to him and we kiss, but if I say, ‘no, I’m not in the mood’ and he ignores me and has sex with me anyway THAT IS RAPE” and there was a long uncomfortable silence but I sure told him"

This was related to a picture of carrots, hilarious hashtags aswell

#Ibelieveher #castratethecarrots #carrotsordicks #whoknows #symbolic #iamsodeep #nightmarket #dublin #belfast #rapeculture #toxicmasculinity #feminism #metoo #youtoo #allofustoo #notallmen #enoughmen #tired

CIARAN_BOYLE

jr86 wrote: »

I think this may have been pushed by the defence? But I'm not positive

The idea was to determine how noise travels across the house and put some perspective on the journey to the bedroom etc.

It was hard to tell at times. I mean the prosecution's main witness ended up serving the defence more

I had the impression that the visit was pushed by the prosecution who wanted to fill in back round to make emotional response more visceral.

Eitherway my main point is that the site visit was part of the eight days the alleged victim was on the stand so it wasn't a full 8 day interrogation like some are portraying it.