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

Theboinkmaster

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

um...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OddPn5P1es

Ulysses Gaze

RuMan wrote: »

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

They will.

They have learned nothing from the Trump election nor Brexit.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

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

I was 21, the normal age to finish a degree. I got a full grant to do it, so no, I didn't spend much 'cash' and nor did I think I was too old to take a different path, at 21. I realised I didn't want to be a barrister (original plan) and that I missed using my languages and went on to train as a legal translator and work in a different field. I love how you find this so unbelievable. I know people who did medical degrees and realised they didn't want to be doctors. Strange, isn't it, that you don't know exactly what you want to do with your life at the age of 17?

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

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

If the verdict was guilty and men started protesting all over the country I would be just as disgusted.

I also have a feeling you would be posting venom

Guy:Incognito

Blud wrote: »

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.

10 weeks ago they were innocent.

Nothing has changed.

They still are.

Appledreams15

irishrebe wrote: »

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?

I have heard from a few men today 'who cares'.

When you look at how viciously women are treated in many parts of the world, you'd wonder where this viciousness towards women originated?

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Men know that women are suffering, right?

I know it is conceptually hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone suffering racism, I think that is why men turn a blind eye to all the abuse women receive.

Please try and think of what your fellow human beings are suffering. I spoke to another girl crying about being raped at the rally today.

kylith

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.

Let me put it this way.

You come home and see one of your neighbours leaving your house with your cashbox. You make a complaint to the Gardaí and it goes to trial. At the trial your neighbour is found not guilty because they couldn't find your cashbox and so there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury 100% that he did it.

Your neighbour is not innocent of stealing from you, but has been found not guilty because the theft could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

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

You do realise, BTW, that a law degree is a standard requirement for a legal translator? Not sure why you seem to think I wasted my degree. I'm using it. I don't get the thinking around here, at all.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

I was 21, the normal age to finish a degree. I got a full grant to do it, so no, I didn't spend much 'cash' and nor did I think I was too old to take a different path, at 21. I realised I didn't want to be a barrister (original plan) and that I missed using my languages and went on to train as a legal translator and work in a different field. I love how you find this so unbelievable. I know people who did medical degrees and realised they didn't want to be doctors. Strange, isn't it, that you don't know exactly what you want to do with your life at the age of 17?

So you finished your degree and never done the exams to become a solicitor or baristar? So you spent 4 years studying your ass off and when it was done you just walked away? SO you have a degree but your not qualified in Law?

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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

If the verdict was guilty and men started protesting all over the country I would be just as disgusted.

I also have a feeling you would be posting venom

Are you really telling me that if the verdict was guilty that no men would be posting venom online? With choice words for the accuser? Are you telling me they weren't doing it long before any conclusion was reached in this case?

irishrebe

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?

Definitely. If I was alone with her. Or Him.

If there's a group of people with some I know personally, then sure. If it's a group of strangers, I wouldn't be there.

iamwhoiam

Mr.H wrote: »

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

Its none of your business why anyone does not choose to use a degree or work in the field of their degree . It also had nothing whatsoever ever to do with this thread why a poster chooses a certain path in life

GreeBo

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

Exactly, which is why I and others are correcting a number of posters who keep insisting that they were proven innocent, implying that its not possible that this woman was indeed raped by these men.

We are not bringing it up.

Blud

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

10 weeks ago they were innocent.

Nothing has changed.

They still are.

Banging head off a wall here.

Yes, they are innocent. I can't say that enough.

No, nobody has proven them to be innocent. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but nobody has tried to prove their innocence as yet.

Someone tried to prove their guilt and failed. It is not the same as probing innocence.

Honestly, the state of some of the posts grappling with this. Happy to be going home soon.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I was 21, the normal age to finish a degree. I got a full grant to do it, so no, I didn't spend much 'cash' and nor did I think I was too old to take a different path, at 21. I realised I didn't want to be a barrister (original plan) and that I missed using my languages and went on to train as a legal translator and work in a different field. I love how you find this so unbelievable. I know people who did medical degrees and realised they didn't want to be doctors. Strange, isn't it, that you don't know exactly what you want to do with your life at the age of 17?

So you finished your degree and never done the exams to become a solicitor or baristar? So you spent 4 years studying your ass off and when it was done you just walked away? SO you have a degree but your not qualified in Law?

Loads of people do a law degree (or, like me law plus a language) as a basis for another career. I didn't just 'walk away', I did some more training and became a legal translator! Sorry you seem to think this is on a par with being a binman. You are aware that being a legal translator is a well regarded and well paid profession? Do you honestly think the vast majority of law undergraduates become solicitors and barristers? Many of them don't even have that intention when they start the course. You're very ill informed.

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote:

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Of course you do.

Appledreams15 wrote:

Men know that women are suffering, right?

Women know that men are too?

It's almost as if PEOPLE are suffering. Its just that you think you deserve special attention because you are a woman.

I tend to look at in on a case by case basis, not as a gender thing.

But that's me being sexist

erudec

spurious wrote: »

Well there you go. Two hours not long to discuss I would have thought.

Well, it's long enough to come to the only conclusion that matters: has the defence established reasonable doubt.

They did, with bells on. A conviction with so much reasonable doubt would have been an outrage of injustice.

irishrebe

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Mr.H wrote: »

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

Its none of your business why anyone does not choose to use a degree or work in the field of their degree . It also had nothing whatsoever ever to do with this thread  why a poster chooses a certain path in life

Oh but it does when they're trying to accuse me of being a liar because they think no law graduate would ever stoop to being a lowly translator! LOL!

Blud

Blud wrote: »

Honestly, the state of some of the posts grappling with this. Happy to be going home soon.

Because it's splitting hairs. :rolleyes:

GreeBo

kylith wrote: »

Let me put it this way.

You come home and see one of your neighbours leaving your house with your cashbox. You make a complaint to the Gardaí and it goes to trial. At the trial your neighbour is found not guilty because they couldn't find your cashbox and so there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury 100% that he did it.

Your neighbour is not innocent of stealing from you, but has been found not guilty because the theft could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

Are you explaining that to me?

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

You do realise, BTW, that a law degree is a standard requirement for a legal translator? Not sure why you seem to think I wasted my degree. I'm using it. I don't get the thinking around here, at all.

Because you hid the law degree from your original post but now all of a sudden remembered you had one because you got caught lying. Then apparently its not expensive to study law............ it is I assure you very very very expensive. Books and equipment as well as living expenses while you study 24/7 and not able to work at the same time to pay rent and food. I lived with a law student it takes a long time.

Then of course you would have had to go to college when you were 17 which is common so thats ok. But then before you can sit actual exams and stuff you must do a three year apprenticeship. Then there are countless exams before being anywhere near remotely qualified. Now of course you could have just got your degree or even diploma and left to pursue your adventure as a translator but then again you could have done a humanitarian degree which would have been far less time consuming and would have allowed you to brush up on languages.

SO you can see why people dont believe you law story?

Sprinter Sacre

kylith wrote: »

Let me put it this way.

You come home and see one of your neighbours leaving your house with your cashbox. You make a complaint to the Gardand it goes to trial. At the trial your neighbour is found not guilty because they couldn't find your cashbox and so there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury 100% that he did it.

Your neighbour is not innocent of stealing from you, but has been found not guilty because the theft could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

Why are people comparing the likes of the story above with a rape. To make such a comparison you'd have to assume she was raped which isn't the case.

What might a be more appropriate is seeing your neighbour leave your house. Later on you find a belonging is missing. It might be likely that your neighbour is responsible but in reality only the neighbour knows.

Is it possible this woman was attacked and humiliated? Yes it is. Was it possible she was raped? From the evidence and the case presented and the verdict given, no. These lads entered the court innocent, and left the court innocent. For that to change a verdict of guilty has to be given.

kylith

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you explaining that to me?

The post I quoted said that 'not guilty == innocent', which I took to mean you were equating being not guilty with being innocent. If I was incorrect I apologise.

erudec

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I have heard from a few men today 'who cares'.

When you look at how viciously women are treated in many parts of the world, you'd wonder where this viciousness towards women originated?

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Men know that women are suffering, right?

I know it is conceptually hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone suffering racism, I think that is why men turn a blind eye to all the abuse women receive.

Please try and think of what your fellow human beings are suffering. I spoke to another girl crying about being raped at the rally today.

We're talking about one woman here, not all the women in the world, or all the rape victims.

The woman in that trial probably was not raped. Even if this was a civil standard of proof, the accused should get off.

They had consensual sex, then the girl panicked when she thought someone had filmed it, so she seems to have made a false claim of rape.

CFlat

blanch152 wrote: »

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

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

It's all the 'guilty until proven guilty' brigade have to cling to. Let them off, the legal system won't be influenced by them anyway.

Absolutely correct decision IMO and all those lads should be reinstated back into their rugby careers without delay. That lady has done them enough damage.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's splitting hairs. :rolleyes:

And thats the problem.
Its not splitting hairs, its a major, vitally important lack of understanding of how the legal system works and what you, as a juror are expected to do.

If you equate "not-guilty" with "proven innocent" then there is the danger that you will convict someone simply because they cannot prove their innocence.

Mr.H

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Its none of your business why anyone does not choose to use a degree or work in the field of their degree . It also had nothing whatsoever ever to do with this thread why a poster chooses a certain path in life

You know they are lying yea?;)

_Dara_

kylith wrote: »

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

But what are we do with this information?

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Okay, and? In practical terms, what are we to take from that? Should the men who were found not guilty have this forever hanging over them? If so, why bother to find a verdict?

I don't get it.

GreeBo

kylith wrote: »

The post I quoted said that 'not guilty == innocent', which I took to mean you were equating being not guilty with being innocent. If I was incorrect I apologise.

Not guilty is equivalent to being innocent!

My post was trying to explain that it is NOT equivalent to being "proven innocent".

Ulysses Gaze

Mr.H wrote: »

So you finished your degree and never done the exams to become a solicitor or baristar? So you spent 4 years studying your ass off and when it was done you just walked away? SO you have a degree but your not qualified in Law?

I did the same. Have a Law degree; did some of the FE1S and some legal internships and decided it was not for me.

What's the point you are trying to make?