Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…5354565859…316

Comments

  • Options
    #1652
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,287 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    I believe these men performed sexual acts on this woman without consent, so yes, I do think they are rapists.

    Well thats that then. No need for due process.


  • Options
    #1653
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    backspin. wrote: »
    Those people may end up on a jury someday.

    They might.

    In a case like this too...

    http://www.radiokerry.ie/killorglin-woman-made-false-rape-allegation-given-suspended-sentence/

    :eek:

    Due process is very important in our legal system.


  • Options
    #1654
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    Uncharted wrote:
    It's the victims responsibility to report the crime..... how else would anyone be brought to justice?

    The fact that so many people are discouraged from reporting the crime is what a lot of people are angry about.


  • Options
    #1655
    iDave
    Registered Users Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭iDave


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    seamus wrote: »
    There's no such thing as "probable cause" in Ireland. That's a US legal term around search warrants.

    The burden of proof for robbery is the same as that for rape.

    The problem is, as this case shows, that rape is an incredibly subjective matter. So one party can feel like they've been raped, but that doesn't mean they actually have been.

    Anyone arguing that the nature of proving rape should not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is off their head.


    Except it’s not. In a robbery trial if the jury thinks there is a high chance the accused committed it, they may acquit. Any doubt here (ie if you thought PJ only used fingers etc) and you’d have to give a not guilty verdict. I don’t think it should not be proof beyond reasonable doubt but I think the burden of proof should be on the accused. If Jackson and co had to prove they had consent, we’d be looking at a different outcome
    mayolady14 wrote: »
    seamus wrote: »
    There's no such thing as "probable cause" in Ireland. That's a US legal term around search warrants.

    The burden of proof for robbery is the same as that for rape.

    The problem is, as this case shows, that rape is an incredibly subjective matter. So one party can feel like they've been raped, but that doesn't mean they actually have been.

    Anyone arguing that the nature of proving rape should not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is off their head.


    Except it’s not. In a robbery trial if the jury thinks there is a high chance the accused committed it, they may acquit. Any doubt here (ie if you thought PJ only used fingers etc) and you’d have to give a not guilty verdict. I don’t think it should not be proof beyond reasonable doubt but I think the burden of proof should be on the accused. If Jackson and co had to prove they had consent, we’d be looking at a different outcome

    Its scary to think people in our enlightened times think the burden of proof is on the accused.
    Genuinely terrifying.


  • Options
    #1656
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1657
    Laneyh
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Laneyh


    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?

    I don't think there was a miscarriage of justice as the law is rigid and the jury had to reach a conclusion based on evidence.
    I do think the law should change in Northern Ireland so that rape cases are not made public. This would put paid to any claims that the case was taken as an act of revenge. It would also afford privacy to the accuser and accused alike.

    Many elements of the trial and conflicting testimony were confusing, angering or just bizarre.
    The online commentary that everyone felt entitled to make was also difficult to stomach.

    Many people seem unable to distinguishing between someone displaying douchebag qualities and implicating themselves in a rape.

    Equally, many seemed to believe accepting an invite to a house party automatically translates to be up for sexual activity and that there is no scope for grey areas or miscommunications.

    If it wasn't for the case the messages referring to brassers etc. wouldn't have come to light but as they have their employers need to consider their reputation and act accordingly.


    There are ample examples of people being suspended from work for both public comments and comments made in private that came to light.


    Much of the online commentary has been horrific whether you believe none of them, just her, just them. I think this is what has incensed a lot of people. They're reacting more to the perceived public opinion than to this specific case.


  • Options
    #1658
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,287 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    irishrebe wrote: »
    I'm not talking about this trial. I'm talking about the attitudes on display here, a forum based in the Republic of Ireland. I've never once said the  men should have been convicted. I'm talking about the masses upon masses of backwards, ignorant opinions. Justifying naming her. Calling her a liar. Calling on her to be prosecuted for lying. People thinking 'real' rapes are always punished. It goes on and on and on. Not a chance I'd report a rape, to have social stigma, malicious gossip, threats made against me, on top of having to deal with the consequences of being raped.

    You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened


  • Options
    #1659
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,742 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    Considering I’m no law student, I don’t know exactly what would be the best way, but don’t you think that any crime with a conviction rate of 1-2% needs to be looked at seriously?

    So with your zero qualifications your happy to call into question our entire legal system based on how you feel?

    Yup that sounds like a great way to decide how justice works, sure why dont we just base all future decisions off twitter polls while we are at it.


  • Options
    #1660
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    Tsipras wrote:
    Ha ha complete bull****. If you felt it really was a crime why didn't you go do a different Garda (a woman maybe?)

    It's hard enough to come forward once, I assume it would be harder the second time if you're basically told to feck off the first time.


  • Options
    #1661
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    Considering I’m no law student, I don’t know exactly what would be the best way, but don’t you think that any crime with a conviction rate of 1-2% needs to be looked at seriously?

    I keep seeing this 1-2% number fired around

    Could you please explain it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1662
    irishrebe
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    take everything wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why there aren't women protesting about how cases like this trivialise rape cases.

    As mentioned women who have experienced serious sexual violence will be less likely to come forward because of stuff like this, thinking she was raped and didn't get justice.

    That's the real tragedy.
    What do you count as 'serious' sexual violence? This was a rape case like any other rape case. That's why it was brought to trial.


  • Options
    #1663
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    irishrebe wrote: »
    And it doesn't mean they haven't, either. That's the whole issue. That's why in cases like this, there's never going to be the nice, black and white conclusion so many posters on here seem to need or want. The evil rapist or the innocent little girl who was brutally attacked.
    Sure. But that's the purpose of a trial and a legal system.

    This woman wasn't raped. Because the court system says she wasn't. Ultimately that's what it boils down to. Because at some point there has to be an arbiter - a mechanism whereby we declare factual truth for subjective matters. And that mechanism is the justice system.

    So it really matters not what she believes, or what the men believe or what commenters on social media believe.

    The mechanism of arbitration has decided through weighing up the evidence that no rape occurred. Therefore no rape occurred.


  • Options
    #1664
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,742 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    pjohnson wrote: »
    You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened

    Thats something that seriously needs to be addresssed, there would be nothing like the current shenanigans if this hadnt been conducted in the full media spotlight polarisng the entire thing.


  • Options
    #1665
    mayolady14
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭mayolady14


    Deusexmachina wrote: »
    So, the whole trial thing?


    The whole trial thing said it couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt because well, no one can actually say what was said/ not said. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. And we need to look at how we try these Crimes in the future


  • Options
    #1666
    irishrebe
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    pjohnson wrote: »
    irishrebe wrote: »
    I'm not talking about this trial. I'm talking about the attitudes on display here, a forum based in the Republic of Ireland. I've never once said the  men should have been convicted. I'm talking about the masses upon masses of backwards, ignorant opinions. Justifying naming her. Calling her a liar. Calling on her to be prosecuted for lying. People thinking 'real' rapes are always punished. It goes on and on and on. Not a chance I'd report a rape, to have social stigma, malicious gossip, threats made against me, on top of having to deal with the consequences of being raped.

    You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened
    So why did I see her name and photo come up on numerous forms of social media? Why did everyone in Belfast and Derry know exactly who she was? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the naivety on here.


  • Options
    #1667
    Tsipras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 493 ✭✭Tsipras


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    Tsipras wrote:
    Ha ha complete bull****. If you felt it really was a crime why didn't you go do a different Garda (a woman maybe?)

    It's hard enough to come forward once, I assume it would be harder the second time if you're basically told to feck off the first time.
    No Guard would say something like that, it's a made up story that's my point. 
    But for real cases yeah it would be hard, but if you're the victim of any crime it's hard, life is tough sometimes.


  • Options
    #1668
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    What was her bad behaviour?

    Groping and hanging out of a bunch of socialising local "celebrities" regardless of their married status.


  • Options
    #1669
    Ande1975
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭Ande1975


    The text messages passed around between the lads after the fact made the whole sorry case worse for me.
    If there were texts to the nature of 'lads, that girl is very upset when I dropped her home' and either Paddy/Stuart expressed remorse or concern for what happened and admitted things got out of hand but that they didn't intend to upset/embarrass her, then there may be less pitchforks at dawn but the absolute lack of respect and decency its shameful.
    These are professional rugby players who are supposed to be role models for young lads. They shouldn't be allowed to wear an Irish jersey again for that alone.


  • Options
    #1670
    irishrebe
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    VinLieger wrote: »
    pjohnson wrote: »
    You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened

    Thats something that seriously needs to be addresssed, there would be nothing like the current shenanigans if this hadnt been conducted in the full media spotlight polarisng the entire thing.
    I agree with this. I don't think either party should be named, and anyone leaking names or photos on social media or to the press should be severely punished (jail time).


  • Options
    #1671
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    As below


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1672
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,742 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    The whole trial thing said it couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt because well, no one can actually say what was said/ not said. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. And we need to look at how we try these Crimes in the future

    In the eyes of the court she wasnt raped as the burden of proof to prove she was raped wasnt met.

    We cant have a court saying she wasnt raped by these men but then people going around saying she was still raped by them, whats the point of having a justice system then?


  • Options
    #1673
    Tsipras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 493 ✭✭Tsipras


    mayolady14 wrote: »

    And we need to look at how we try these Crimes in the future

    The crime of falsely accusing someone?


  • Options
    #1674
    Deise Vu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭Deise Vu


    pjohnson wrote: »
    You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened

    In the North, rape trials are held in public. The lady was behind a curtain only in order that she didn't have to have eye contact with the defendants. She was shown on CCTV in the court and any member of the public could come and go as they pleased. Also her full name was used throughout the proceedings.


  • Options
    #1675
    Luxxis
    Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭Luxxis


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    I didn't say this woman's rights. I said women's rights in general. Rape and abortion are both things included in the discussion about women's rights.

    Ok how are women's rights in any way affected in a rape trial?


  • Options
    #1676
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users Posts: 20,616 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    Well for one , the case didn't happen in Ireland, it happened in Northern Ireland a different country,
    Two I don't get what people expect ,If you accuse someone of something it must go to trail , the guys have been named and publicly shame , the girl identity has been hidden (rightly so) ,The law has found them not guilty .
    These guys where found not guilty as there was not enough evidence to convict them , Do people really want to go down the road of convicting people of crimes without enough evidence  ?
    Why do people #ibelieveher but what about the women who said what she saw was not rape do you not #believe her ?
    None of us here have ever meet ,spoke or saw the girl in the case, So why would u believe her ? be rational about it you've no idea what she is like ,
    Now I'm not saying she is lying and I'm not saying she is not guilty, I'm saying we the public have no idea as we where not present, The right routes where taken and the guys where found not guilty why the outrage case closed,
    It may not be the outcome people wanted, but its the outcome that was reached after the evidence was presented,
    No one here knows the girl ,

    Except I don’t believe that the way we go about trying people for rape is the right way. When only 1-2% of people are getting convicted of a crime, a crime that effects one in 4 women, something needs to change.
    What way would you like it to happen ?


  • Options
    #1677
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    Tsipras wrote:
    No Guard would say something like that, it's a made up story that's my point. But for real cases yeah it would be hard, but if you're the victim of any crime it's hard, life is tough sometimes.

    No guard would say that? Really? That's a little naive.


  • Options
    #1678
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    mayolady14 wrote: »
    Except it’s not. In a robbery trial if the jury thinks there is a high chance the accused committed it, they may acquit.
    You're getting your terminology mixed up here. "Acquit" means to set free. I assume you meant "convict". And you'd be wrong. A jury cannot convict a person for burglary because there's a "high chance" he did it. If there's a reasonable doubt, they must find him not guilty.

    This is really basic stuff.
    Any doubt here (ie if you thought PJ only used fingers etc) and you’d have to give a not guilty verdict.
    Any reasonable doubt. Very important. Cases don't have to be proven beyond all doubt, just beyond reasonable doubt - i.e. is there a plausible scenario in which the accused is innocent? If so, you must acquit.
    I don’t think it should not be proof beyond reasonable doubt but I think the burden of proof should be on the accused. If Jackson and co had to prove they had consent, we’d be looking at a different outcome
    How do you prove consent? I can't prove consent existed the last time I had sex. Can you?

    That's like stopping someone in the street and saying that if they can't prove they paid for their shoes, they're guilty of theft. It's completely unreasonable and unworkable.


  • Options
    #1679
    mayolady14
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭mayolady14


    VinLieger wrote: »
    So with your zero qualifications your happy to call into question our entire legal system based on how you feel?

    Yup that sounds like a great way to decide how justice works, sure why dont we just base all future decisions off twitter polls while we are at it.


    Not about how I feel? 98% of rapists walk free in this country is that ok?


  • Options
    #1680
    Tsipras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 493 ✭✭Tsipras


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    Tsipras wrote:
    No Guard would say something like that, it's a made up story that's my point. But for real cases yeah it would be hard, but if you're the victim of any crime it's hard, life is tough sometimes.

    No guard would say that? Really? That's a little naive.
    Why would they say it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1681
    irishrebe
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    seamus wrote: »
    irishrebe wrote: »
    And it doesn't mean they haven't, either. That's the whole issue. That's why in cases like this, there's never going to be the nice, black and white conclusion so many posters on here seem to need or want. The evil rapist or the innocent little girl who was brutally attacked.
    Sure. But that's the purpose of a trial and a legal system.

    This woman wasn't raped. Because the court system says she wasn't. Ultimately that's what it boils down to. Because at some point there has to be an arbiter - a mechanism whereby we declare factual truth for subjective matters. And that mechanism is the justice system.

    So it really matters not what she believes, or what the men believe or what commenters on social media believe.

    The mechanism of arbitration has decided through weighing up the evidence that no rape occurred. Therefore no rape occurred.
    No, they decided that they cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. A very different situation. If we have a fight and I punch you in the face and break your nose, but you can't prove it in court that I did it intentionally and that we weren't just messing, does that mean you weren't attacked?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement