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

languagenerd

The stuff being posted about this case on Twitter at the moment is just disgusting... A lot of awful gender stereotypes (against both genders), nasty personal attacks and a huge misunderstanding of both consent and the legal system.

A not-guilty verdict doesn't prove that the complainant was lying or making a false allegation, it means there wasn't enough evidence. If she was taken to court and accused of false allegations/perverting the course of justice/whatever, she would almost certainly be acquitted too. There just isn't enough empirical evidence in this case. We'll never know or be able to prove whether a rape took place or not; only the girl and the defendants know.

But no good can come from this case - the stuff that has come out about the men's behaviour really doesn't paint them in a good light, the complainant's reputation is also destroyed (at least locally, but she was named online a few times too) and this whole thing will definitely stop rape victims reporting their attack, isolating them and leaving some rapists free.

There's a good reason we don't allow rape trials to be done in public here - I hope NI/UK look at this in the aftermath and make changes. Even the way the trial is carried out - the complainant is a witness, so not entitled to her own lawyer/representation, there were 4 separate defense teams, so the jury heard from the defense 4 times more than the prosecution, 4 v 1 closing statements etc. I would have liked to see the prosecution press the men more on the contradictions between their individual versions of events, but it probably wouldn't have made a difference unless one had cracked and confessed or given the others up. Here we don't name defendants in rape cases unless they're convicted - NI should follow suit.

Eircom_Sucks

Found not guilty ffs move on

kunst nugget

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.

It actually doesn't. There's pretty substantive differences in the treatment of both the complainant and the accused in Irish courts.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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'm sorry that this happened to you but there are avenues to report. The fact you didn't take up these avenues can't be held up as an example of the legal system letting down your human rights.

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.

The were 6 charges against the accused and all had separate legal representation. What would you propose would be fairer - that they not be allowed to defend themselves against these serious charges.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

To what issue, that there was a trial in a different jurisdiction that people are unhappy with the result of? I'm sure he knows…

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I saw this online:

"Regardless of the verdict in the Rugby Trial.

If a girl leaves your company bleeding, in tears & traumatised while you call each other 'top shaggers'

You're an absolute scumbag."

For a start, she wasn't bleeding.

For seconds, being an absolute scumbag isn't a crime.

The men in this case treated her badly, but they didn't rape her.

VinLieger

Unfortunately im scared to ask this on social media due to the band wagon brigade and id probably be labeled some kind of rape apologist but for those on here who think there was a miscarriage of justice what do you think should change?

Honestly the attitude im seeing leads me to believe many who arent happy with the verdict believe the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be done away with in the case of rape? Is that a solution people would be happy with?

Sidebaro

Deusexmachina wrote:

But I also think her attempt to get these men imprisoned for rape was wrong. They did not rape her. She has 'no regrets' - well that speaks for itself.

You kind of bypassed my actual question. Why do you think she lied? As in, what was were her reasoning for doing so? Boredom, a way of getting out of work, the craic? Why do you think she 'attempted to get these men imprisoned for rape'? What was her motive? I can't make my question any clearer than that...

Faugheen

blanch152 wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I saw this online:

"Regardless of the verdict in the Rugby Trial.

If a girl leaves your company bleeding, in tears & traumatised while you call each other 'top shaggers'

You're an absolute scumbag."

For a start, she wasn't bleeding.

For seconds, being an absolute scumbag isn't a crime.

The men in this case treated her badly, but they didn't rape her.

She was bleeding. Jackson admitted as much and she had a laceration in her vagina.

Don't spread fake news, please

Uncharted

soiseztomabel wrote: »

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

Should be shot with a ball of her own sh1te. I'm sick of idiots like that claiming to 'speak' for the masses. Entitled wannabes.
Just fcuk off.

Noveight

Summer In the City wrote: »

What crime has John Connors been convicted of to justify this irony?

The irony here is lost on you.

"(a traveller)" you're a piece of **** for implying being a traveller makes him a criminal.

John is a member of a community who are known to commit a higher level of crime than the rest of society yet seem to get less attention from the Gardaí. For a member of such a community write a tweet that suggests that Jackson et al's status as rugby players got them away with a crime is somewhat ironic.

The whole thing is a bit OT, so I'll park that there.

seamus

VinLieger wrote: »

Unfortunately im scared to ask this on social media due to the band wagon brigade and id probably be labeled some kind of rape apologist but for those on here who think there was a miscarriage of justice what do you think should change?

Honestly the attitude im seeing leads me to believe many who arent happy with the verdict believe the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be done away with in the case of rape? Is that a solution people would be happy with?

The problem is that the most vocal on social media had already decided the outcome of the case based on media reports and gossip.

So anything other than the outcome they wanted was never going to satisfy them.

The two positions of, "If she came forward she must have been raped" and "she should be jailed for lying" are equally irrational positions. And you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

One of the more ridiculous things is the overanalysis of the WhatsApp messages, picking through the words forensically to "prove" something. I saw one idiot claim that because he said he "threw her home", then he's clearly a mysogynist who doesn't respect her. It's an idiom, morons. I say that about dropping my kids home ffs.

Defunkd

irishrebe wrote: »

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

You can add 'people who have been brainwashed to find things offensive' to that list too.

Mokuba

Sidebaro wrote: »

You kind of bypassed my actual question. Why do you think she lied? As in, what was were her reasoning for doing so? Boredom, a way of getting out of work, the craic? Why do you think she 'attempted to get these men imprisoned for rape'? What was her motive? I can't make my question any clearer than that...

Regret and shame af being caught in a threesome? Worried what people would think of her?

Told the lie and it spiralled from there?

To the point where she convinced herself she was raped?

As we saw recently with the Aziz Ansari allegation, regret can be warped in someone's mind.

I'm not saying that's what happened. But the "why would x person lie" as a defense against anything is utter crap.

Defunkd

irishrebe wrote: »

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

You can add 'people who have been brainwashed to find things offensive' to that list too.

kunst nugget

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

I'm just wondering about this because a lot of people are saying - if she believes she was raped, do you think she was raped - if so, then surely you believe the men should have been convicted. There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on with the result of this trial - from myself included.

I feel sympathy for the complainant but I don't think the men, no matter how much they looked like arseholes, should have been convicted on the evidence brought forward.

freshpopcorn

seamus wrote: »

The problem is that the most vocal on social media had already decided the outcome of the case based on media reports and gossip.

So anything other than the outcome they wanted was never going to satisfy them.

The two positions of, "If she came forward she must have been raped" and "she should be jailed for lying" are equally irrational positions. And you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I actually think this is the one time I've really being turned of reading stuff on Twitter.

soiseztomabel

irishrebe wrote: »

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

U OK HUN ?

yourdeadwright

pjohnson wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

You know this how?

I'm assuming you weren't in the room at the time?

Neither were the jurors who said unanimously no rape occured.

Again that not what happened, The Jurors agreed there was a least reasonable doubt that rape didn't occur ,
Do people not know how courts works ,
This is my point no one can say 100% what did or did not happen unless they where in the room so stupid # make you look like a moron ,

OwlsZat

Could the woman technically be tried for sexual assault. From memory I believe the video evidence from Ollie's night club showed her with her hands on Kyle Lafferty's arm but more inappropriately on Wigg Grigg's thigh? 
Or does it take more than simply unwelcome interference, what dictates unlawful infringement here?

Deusexmachina

gargargar wrote: »

This is absolutely incorrect. What was found that they are not guilty, not that the sex was consensual. They had to prove rape beyond all reasonable doubt. This high standard was not met so they were acquitted.

This explains the reason for the #IBelieveHer her movement.



I think people are saying that on the balance of the evidence they believe her even if there are some doubts.

Whats the point of a trial then? If you believe her, then she was raped. Then the men are guilty.

irishrebe

Defunkd wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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

You can add 'people who have been brainwashed to find things offensive' to that list too.

You think you need to be brainwashed to find such a crass, disgusting, misogynistic comment funny in any way? It would be pathetic for even a primary school aged child to come out with.

Sidebaro

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."

I'm pretty sure she didn't? I think if you got that impression you misinterpreted her. She said it was bad behaviour, she didn't say they should have been punished, no?

irishrebe

Deusexmachina wrote: »

gargargar wrote: »

This is absolutely incorrect. What was found that they are not guilty, not that the sex was consensual. They had to prove rape beyond all reasonable doubt. This high standard was not met so they were acquitted.

This explains the reason for the #IBelieveHer her movement.



I think people are saying that on the balance of the evidence they believe her even if there are some doubts.

Whats the point of a trial then? If you believe her, then she was raped. Then the men are guilty.

You're a bit slow, aren't you? How many different ways does it need to be explained to you? The most likely explanation of all is that she honestly believes she was raped, and they honestly believe she was up for it. But that doesn't fit into your black and white mind?

mayolady14

Mokuba wrote: »

He would be entitled to a trial, where both sides can make their case.

A verdict would then be reached which we should accept.

That isn’t what I asked.

Sidebaro

everlast75 wrote:

Wtf has one got to do with the other?

Both are about women's rights. Fairly easy connection to make if you try hard enough?

Deise Vu

blanch152 wrote: »

For a start, she wasn't bleeding.

For seconds, being an absolute scumbag isn't a crime.

The men in this case treated her badly, but they didn't rape her.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/belfast-trial-hears-details-of-woman-s-injuries-after-alleged-rape-1.3399100

For a start, if you are not familiar with major details in the case, you should not be commenting.

irishrebe

soiseztomabel wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yeah, I'm fine. Just ashamed to be Irish, reading this ****. What a nasty little country. So glad my children won't be growing up in a place where you can't have an abortion if you're raped, and where you're dragged over the coals and called a liar for daring to report a sexual assault which doesn't end in a conviction.

Safe travels

Thank you. Looking forward to living in a place where I can avail of basic human rights.

take everything

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

But isn't this what's dangerous.
Subjective feeling/delusional thinking trumping reality.
Feeling/delusion should never trump reality surely.

Luxxis

Sidebaro wrote: »

Both are about women's rights. Fairly easy connection to make if you try hard enough?

Her rights were not infringed with the rape trial. How is that about her rights?

Deusexmachina

professore wrote: »

They only proved they weren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They aren't innocent beyond reasonable doubt either.

This argument is being repeated on here constantly. I want to challenge this muddy thinking.

Are you saying they are guilty or not? The whole point of a trial and a jury of your peers and the legal system is that a person is accused, defends himself and the jury detemines if he is guilty or not guilty.
The jury stand for us as a proxy. They represent the common man (or woman). If they determine the the accused is guilty, he is punished accordingly.
If they find him not guilty, then he is not guilty in the eyes of the law and society as a whole (as represented by the jury).

Not 'maybe guilty but not proven' - not 'partly guilty but not enough to imprison' - but NOT GUILTY.

This was the unanimous verdict of a jury based on a fair trial with an impartial and highly impressive judge. You may not like the outcome - but at least accept that this was the verdict delivered.

mayolady14

take everything wrote: »

But isn't this what's dangerous.
Subjective feeling/delusional thinking trumping reality.
Feeling/delusion should never trump reality surely.

Why are you assuming that the feeling/delusion is on her side?

PJ admitted her only assumed he had consent. Is that not a bit of delusion?