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

irishrebe

Basil3 wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'd be shocked and disgusted to see either of them in an Irish jersey. In fact I'd burn my jersey and neither attend or watch any more Ireland matches.

Don't think it will ever come to that though.

Regardless of the verdict (most likely correct form a legal standpoint), their behavior and treatment of a drunk teenager was horrific. No way should they be allowed represent our country.

Personally, I think that someone who has been acquitted of a crime should be allowed to continue with their career.  I wonder how many other Irish rugby players wouldn't be allowed to represent the country again if we knew everything they did in their personal lives, or everything they have said in Whatsapp group chats?

On the other hand, I would hope that many other people have a similar attitude to you, as getting tickets for Irish matches has become a nightmare these last few years

Louis Smith (gymnast) got a ban from British Gymnastics over making some silly comments about Islam during a private wedding ceremony. Not a crime he could even be put on trial for, yet he got the ban.

CruelCoin

irishrebe wrote: »

My black friends when they get pulled over have a genuine fear and panic. For a good reason.

To be fair, it's usually because they approach the police or have guns etc.

I've yet to see a case where a white cop, or any cop, pulled over a black person for a broken taillight and proceeded to kill them in their drivers seat...

It's an unwarranted fear and ignores all the other circumstances.

Ash.J.Williams

suicide_circus wrote: »

hopefully we'll see a few people convicted on not enough evidence so.

nail on head

GreeBo

CruelCoin wrote: »

So, what?

Guilty if it's a guilty verdict
Not proven innocent if its a not guilty verdict. A quasi guilty verdict then.

Guilty or Guilty.....Are you being serious?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

not guilty != proven innocent
not guilty == innocent

Its quite a simple differentiation and has been explained ad nauseum on this thread already.

blanch152

GreeBo wrote: »

Its impossibly difficult to prove innocence, hence why thats not the legal requirement and why a jury returns "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

The difference is that a lack of evidence leading to a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean that the accused did not in fact commit the crime, it simply means there is not evidence to prove that they did.

Al Capone is not guilty of all crimes other than tax evasion. Do you believe he didnt commit any other crimes? Thats the difference.

Before the law though, they are as innocent as I am of the crime.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

On the point of "always believe women", in this case it seems it was the testimony of another woman that was a large factor in what led to a verdict of not guilty, so why believe one woman and not another?

And it seems that more men than women on a jury increases the odds of a conviction. I've been told that's because of internalised misogyny. :rolleyes:

RuMan

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

Also hire a hitman to take out the sober witness who walked in and felt it was consensual ?

seamus

wakka12 wrote: »

A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

People were already wound up about it though.

A solicitor friend had remarked about ten days ago that she was 100% sure the guys were going to "get off", and she was already spitting feathers about it at that stage.

So people didn't suddenly become angry about this yesterday when the verdict came through. They'd already decided the guys' guilt and the weeks of reporting on the trial only served to fuel their anger and certainty. We know that when someone has formed an opinion on something, they tend to ignore any evidence that doesn't support that opinion and embrace the evidence that does.

I wouldn't have been surprised if large marches had popped up out of nowhere last night tbh.

Guy:Incognito

wakka12 wrote: »

My brother went to an Ibelieveher march in dublin city centre today, he said there were several thousand people there, he estimated 3k or so. A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

Where were all these idiots for every other rape trial where men were acquitted? Or are paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding the first ones that were guilty ( not in court obviously but sure that doesn t matter )

I presume they all attended the full trial and studied the evidence? Wouldn't be like the great unwashed of Twitter to go off half cocked and not fully inform themselves befor acting.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

Take the story I posted earlier, about a guy who pressured me to let him into my flat so he could use the loo and he made a move on me, quite aggressively. Would you as a man have anywhere near the same worries and concerns I would, if a woman asked you the same? Would you be worried that she could overpower and rape you, already rehearsing how you could explain to the Guards why you let a stranger into your home? Or would you just let her in to have a p1ss, without thinking about it? 

Why reverse the genders? As a man I wouldn't allow any stranger [male or female] into my home while I was there alone.

While I wouldn't be afraid of being raped by most women (a roseanne barr type person would easily destroy me, and oddly enough that sized person is becoming more common in Ireland these days), I am aware of the range of weaponry easily hidden around someone person. I'm also aware of the range of claims a female can make about a man when there's no witnesses nearby. Boards has plenty of recent examples of false claims made against complete strangers.

Fact is... No stranger gets into my home, while I'm there alone. If I have some friends or family with me, sure. Any other response is irresponsible.

I don't get this belief that some women have that they should be safe regardless of what they do. The world is not a nice place. Get over it and look to your own protection. Be responsible for your own choices, and stop passing the buck.

GreeBo

blanch152 wrote: »

Before the law though, they are as innocent as I am of the crime.

Christ on a bike!
Yes we all know that.

What is in dispute is that they have been PROVEN innocent.

Thats it.

blanch152

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

not guilty != proven innocent
not guilty == innocent

Its quite a simple differentiation and has been explained ad nauseum on this thread already.

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

RuMan

seamus wrote: »

People were already wound up about it though.

A solicitor friend had remarked about ten days ago that she was 100% sure the guys were going to "get off", and she was already spitting feathers about it at that stage.

So people didn't suddenly become angry about this yesterday when the verdict came through. They'd already decided the guys' guilt and the weeks of reporting on the trial only served to fuel their anger and certainty.

I wouldn't have been surprised if large marches had popped up out of nowhere last night tbh.

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

awec

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

That’s not the moral of the story at all.

People keep waffling this, and conveniently ignoring that the key witness, the only person in the room who wasn’t the alleged victim or in the dock, did NOT corroborate the prosecutions version of events.

You are going to find it hard to win any case of your side of the story is inconsistent and does not tally with witness accounts.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Aufbau wrote: »

When did the definition of sexual assault change? Link?

And the reason that the courts aren't flooded with cases should be quite obvious.

It is quite obvious, its not happening!


Linky for definition of sexual assault starting to change in UK

Uninvited sexual advances and unwanted verbal contact with a woman, including catcalling or wolf-whistling in the street, are to be recorded as a hate crimes in a new effort to tackle sexist abuse

skallywag

Wibbs wrote: »

On the point of "always believe women", in this case it seems it was the testimony of another woman that was a large factor in what led to a verdict of not guilty, so why believe one woman and not another?

Salient point. If I had been on the jury Dara Florence's evidence would certainly have swayed me towards an acquittal.

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why reverse the genders? As a man I wouldn't allow any stranger [male or female] into my home while I was there alone.

While I wouldn't be afraid of being raped by most women (a roseanne barr type person would easily destroy me, and oddly enough that sized person is becoming more common in Ireland these days), I am aware of the range of weaponry easily hidden around someone person. I'm also aware of the range of claims a female can make about a man when there's no witnesses nearby. Boards has plenty of recent examples of false claims made against complete strangers.

Fact is... No stranger gets into my home, while I'm there alone. If I have some friends or family with me, sure. Any other response is irresponsible.

I don't get this belief that some women have that they should be safe regardless of what they do. The world is not a nice place. Get over it and look to your own protection. Be responsible for your own choices, and stop passing the buck.

Letting a stranger wander into your house is daft. Be it male/woman/trans letting a male/trans/woman in. In now way is that ever a good idea.

RuMan

RuMan wrote:

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

Oh they will. You can be sure of that

Guy:Incognito

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

So what do you think should happen? Woman goes to the police and says she raped. The police take the names and go lock the lads up on her word? Presumably for whatever length of times she seems appropriate.

But of course any crime you are accused of, the burden of proof should lie with the state, yeah?

RuMan

pjohnson wrote: »

Letting a stranger wander into your house is daft. Be it male/woman/trans letting a male/trans/woman in. In now way is that ever a good idea.

Just ask Paddy Jackson

irishrebe

RuMan wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

People were already wound up about it though.

A solicitor friend had remarked about ten days ago that she was 100% sure the guys were going to "get off", and she was already spitting feathers about it at that stage.

So people didn't suddenly become angry about this yesterday when the verdict came through. They'd already decided the guys' guilt and the weeks of reporting on the trial only served to fuel their anger and certainty.

I wouldn't have been surprised if large marches had popped up out of nowhere last night tbh.

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

Just a question. Do threads about anti abortion protesters and anti gay marriage protesters attract as much venom when posted about on Boards?

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

I have said since the very beginning of the thread that the lads have been found not guilty and the protest is wrong. Absolutely do not agree with them being labelled rapists. Never said otherwise. But daring to suggest that both the ROI and NI have a lot of work to do when it comes to women's rights is enough to send some people into a tizzy.

Just interested what you mean by woman's rights?
What rights to do refer too?

GreeBo

blanch152 wrote: »

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

The differentiation is factual and legal though.

No one was asked to prove their innocence at the trial, hence there is no verdict that proves innocence or indeed an innocent verdict.

The verdict is that there is a lack of evidence of guilt, i.e. not guilty and since the default status of any accused is innocent, the men are deemed innocent due to lack of evidence to the contrary.


Lets look at your argument if we switch the default.
Lets say that you are guilty until you prove innocence.

If you are accused of a crime that you did not commit but have no way of proving that you didnt, Im sure you wouldnt agree that you have been proven guilty.

Yet thats *exactly* the logic you are using to say they are proven innocent. Its a logical failure akin to:
My dog is black.
My wife is black.
My wife is a dog.

irishrebe

pjohnson wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Why reverse the genders? As a man I wouldn't allow any stranger [male or female] into my home while I was there alone.

While I wouldn't be afraid of being raped by most women (a roseanne barr type person would easily destroy me, and oddly enough that sized person is becoming more common in Ireland these days), I am aware of the range of weaponry easily hidden around someone person. I'm also aware of the range of claims a female can make about a man when there's no witnesses nearby. Boards has plenty of recent examples of false claims made against complete strangers.

Fact is... No stranger gets into my home, while I'm there alone. If I have some friends or family with me, sure. Any other response is irresponsible.

I don't get this belief that some women have that they should be safe regardless of what they do. The world is not a nice place. Get over it and look to your own protection.  Be responsible for your own choices, and stop passing the buck.

Letting a stranger wander into your house is daft. Be it male/woman/trans letting a male/trans/woman in. In now way is that ever  a good idea.

Eh, maybe we have our wires crossed here. I'm not talking about a total stranger. This fella was someone who was a friend of a friend, had been on our night out, was walking with me in the same direction and seemed grand. Are you really saying you wouldn't let a woman in to have a wee, in the same circumstances?

CruelCoin

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

not guilty != proven innocent
not guilty == innocent

Its quite a simple differentiation and has been explained ad nauseum on this thread already.

There is never a case where the accused are declared "proven innocent".

So why do you bring it up at all? What is the point in making the distinction in the first place.
Either you treat the person as innocent in the event of a not-guilty verdict, or you may as well just kangaroo court everything.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't want to take the bar. I finished my law degree over a decade ago. I've spent most of the last few years working in a specific field, which I can hopefully continue in over there, if I go.

So you were about 20 when you finished your law degree?? I dont know many people who spend all that time and cash to study law and give it up to be a freelance translator with "no skills". Seems like an expensive hobby

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have said since the very beginning of the thread that the lads have been found not guilty and the protest is wrong. Absolutely do not agree with them being labelled rapists. Never said otherwise. But daring to suggest that both the ROI and NI have a lot of work to do when it comes to women's rights is enough to send some people into a tizzy.

Just interested what you mean by woman's rights?
What rights to do refer too?

Let's see. The right for rape victims to be taken seriously when they report a rape (rape kit done, psychologists, etc.) and the right for women to have an abortion, to start with. Are those things not important?

Blud

blanch152 wrote: »

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

I agree with the sentiment, dont get me wrong hete. But the only proper response is that the lads should be referred to as innocent or not guilty, with the word "proven" left out.

The trial didn't prove they were innocent, it equally didn't prove that they were not innocent. It's just not the objective of a criminal trial.

That said, it leaves them in a position where they are not guilty. And that should be good enough.

CruelCoin

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Is it up to the government to house people?

If the answer is yes then why should anyone be paying a mortgage or renting in this world?

Who's responsibility is it for people to have a house?

Wrong thread dude

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

Eh, maybe we have our wires crossed here. I'm not talking about a total stranger. This fella was someone who was a friend of a friend, had been on our night out, was walking with me in the same direction and seemed grand. Are you really saying you wouldn't let a woman in to have a wee, in the same circumstances?

Its scenarios like this that have men afraid to have women alone in their company in case they subsequently accuse them of abuse/rape.

Do you, as a Single Female Lawyer ever fear that if you are alone with a man he may go on to accuse you of sexual abuse? I'm going to go ahead and assume not, since you are apparently constantly worried that he is going to overpower and rape you.

Yet thats the reality for many men in the world, especially those who are famous or in positions of power.

Hows that for some female privilege?