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

Appledreams15

Assetbacked wrote: »

The same witness who said it didn't look like rape?

Yes she said that in this way:
She didnt see anything that made it look like it was not consensual
AND
she didn't see anything that made it look like it was Consensual
She was asked both. And she said no to blth

twinytwo

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

Thankfully most western legal systems rely on the burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty etc.

Ironically I wonder how many people would have turned up if the case had involved ordinary joe soaps instead of professional rugby players

irishrebe

blanch152 wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why did Paddy jackson say he didn't have sex with her, yet Dara Florence said that she saw him having sex with her?

Dara Florence was sober, Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

What Dara Florence says is therefore reliable - including the fact that she believed it was consensual sex.

I once saw what I thought was a couple having an argument in the street out of my living room window. Got a knock on the door a few days later from a policeman. They didn't know each other, he had actually been following her and got violent when she told him to leave her alone (didn't see him hit her because I went to attend to the stuff I had on the cooker). I felt terrible. I'd genuinely no idea the woman was in trouble. If anyone had asked me that evening what I'd seen, I'd have said I saw a couple arguing in the street and being loud and annoying. Doesn't make it the truth, it makes it my perception.

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Yes she said that in this way:
She didnt see anything that made it look like it was not consensual
AND
she didn't see anything that made it look like it was Consensual
She was asked both. And she said no to blth

Which adds up to more than a reasonable doubt in her mind that it was rape. She couldn't decide either way, and as the only independent sober witness, that makes for a reasonable doubt, hence the men should have been acquitted by any normal jury.

professore

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.

All right, let's have some examples, where men have more rights than women in 2018 Ireland.

Assetbacked

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Yes she said that in this way:
She didnt see anything that made it look like it was not consensual
AND
she didn't see anything that made it look like it was Consensual
She was asked both. And she said no to blth

How would she "see" consent? In contrast to rape where she would see struggle, cries for help etc, "seeing" consent is different. How would she see it?

irishrebe

professore 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.

All right, let's have some examples, where men have more rights than women in 2018 Ireland.

Already gave examples of women's rights when it comes to contraception and abortion and rape crisis services.

blanch152

irishrebe wrote: »

I once saw what I thought was a couple having an argument in the street out of my living room window. Got a knock on the door a few days later from a policeman. They didn't know each other, he had actually been following her and got violent when she told him to leave her alone (didn't see him hit her because I went to attend to the stuff I had on the cooker). I felt terrible. I'd genuinely no idea the woman was in trouble. If anyone had asked me that evening what I'd seen, I'd have said I saw a couple arguing in the street and being loud and annoying. Doesn't make it the truth, it makes it my perception.

Again, that was her claim as reported by the police. You, as a possible material witness, would not be able to verify her claim, hence there would be an element of reasonable doubt.

Appledreams15

blanch152 wrote: »

Dara Florence was sober, Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

What Dara Florence says is therefore reliable - including the fact that she believed it was consensual sex.

She didn't say that! Read the case before you comment.
She was asked did she see any evidence that the girl wasn't consenting. She said no.
She was asked did she see any evidence that the girl WAS consenting. She said no.

She was neutral.

From the case
“Were there any signs of her positively consenting?” he continued.

“No,” the witness replied.

Bredabe

Guffy wrote: »

Drove past the Galway courthouse today to a protest over the not guilty verdict.

Absolutely disgusting.

The lads were found not guilty in a court of law. Where do they get off?

I don't like to see the save the 8th gang protesting, those pics are disgusting and misleading. BUT we all have a right to protest, whether others like it or not.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

So you are agreeing or disagreeing with my posts?
I honestly cant tell anymore.

I'm saying that IMHO not being proved guilty is the same thing as being innocent.

That seems clear enough.

Assetbacked

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She didn't say that! Read the case before you comment.
She was asked did she see any evidence that the girl wasn't consenting. She said no.
She was asked did she see any evidence that the girl WAS consenting. She said no.

She was neutral.

From the case
“Were there any signs of her positively consenting?” he continued.

“No,” the witness replied.

How likely would it be that positive consent would be seen anytime two people are having sex? You do realise positive consent would be along the lines of her saying "I am consenting to this" as Dara walked in.

Appledreams15

Assetbacked wrote: »

How would she "see" consent? In contrast to rape where she would see struggle, cries for help etc, "seeing" consent is different. How would she see it?

Why would they ask it then. ?

I presume it would be someone looking happy making positive noises and enjoying it.

She said no.

However, she did catch Paddy Jackson out in a big lie. He said he didnt have vaginal sex with the girl. Dara said that she saw him doing so.

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

She didn't say that! Read the case before you comment.
She was asked did she see any evidence that the girl wasn't consenting. She said no.
She was asked did she see any evidence that the girl WAS consenting. She said no.

She was neutral.

From the case
“Were there any signs of her positively consenting?” he continued.

“No,” the witness replied.

I have answered that already.

blanch152 wrote: »

Which adds up to more than a reasonable doubt in her mind that it was rape. She couldn't decide either way, and as the only independent sober witness, that makes for a reasonable doubt, hence the men should have been acquitted by any normal jury.

Her testimony, as an independent witness, directly introduces an element of reasonable doubt. She left the room, told someone she had witnessed a threesome, didn't mention consent, at best was unsure it was consensual. Not a very savoury picture, but enough for reasonable doubt.

professore

irishrebe wrote: »

Already gave examples of women's rights when it comes to contraception and abortion and rape crisis services.

As it stands, a woman gets pregnant, she can choose to have the baby or get it adopted. The father has no say at all. If he's single he has no rights to even see his own child. The whole area around children is heavily skewed in favour of women. And good luck if you are raped as a man with the rape crisis centres.

cloudatlas

twinytwo wrote: »

Thankfully most western legal systems rely on the burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty etc.

Ironically I wonder how many people would have turned up if the case had involved ordinary joe soaps instead of professional rugby players

Yes and protest is in a sense a civic duty, different people had different reasons for attending, they aren't a homogenous group,you do know that, they can protest the way rape trials are tried if they want, they can cast doubt on parts of the trial which are still unclear if they want, like many are doing on this thread.

Appledreams15

Assetbacked wrote: »

How likely would it be that positive consent would be seen anytime two people are having sex? You do realise positive consent would be along the lines of her saying "I am consenting to this" as Dara walked in.

And so why do you think it was asked at court?.

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote:

From the case “Were there any signs of her positively consenting?†he continued.

Like what? Giving her the two thumbs up sign when she poked her head around the door? Saying "I'm loving this" when she walked in?

Sprinter Sacre

kylith wrote: »

Because people have never lied in court?

That no guilty verdict was returned is all we know for sure.

Why believe them when they say it was consensual and not believe her when she says it was not?

It is entirely possible that this is an issue of perception. From her point of view she was pressured into group sex that she did not want by more and more guys showing up. From their point of view they had a threesome by degrees.

Thankfully we live in a part of the world with a solid justice system and these errors and lies are extremely rare, in fact mentioning or implying lies might happen is an embarrassment and undermines the entire judicial system that governs our lives. There is no reason at all to assume any lies have been mistaken for the truth in this case.

We the public should not believe anything except for the judgement passed down as we have not been disclosed the entire facts. We should only believe these men entered the court as innocent men and left the court yesterday innocent. There is no reason to assume the court, the judge or the jury failed to bring justice to the case and failed to bring all truth to the surface.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

Already gave examples of women's rights when it comes to contraception and abortion and rape crisis services.

But how is that any way compared to men having more rights?

There are specific rape crisis services for women but none for men. There are emergency accom for women suffering from domestic abuse but not men?

irishrebe

blanch152 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I once saw what I thought was a couple having an argument in the street out of my living room window. Got a knock on the door a few days later from a policeman. They didn't know each other, he had actually been following her and got violent when she told him to leave her alone (didn't see him hit her because I went to attend to the stuff I had on the cooker). I felt terrible. I'd genuinely no idea the woman was in trouble. If anyone had asked me that evening what I'd seen, I'd have said I saw a couple arguing in the street and being loud and annoying. Doesn't make it the truth, it makes it my perception.

Again, that was her claim as reported by the police. You, as a possible material witness, would not be able to verify her claim, hence there would be an element of reasonable doubt.

It was caught on CCTV. He'd been stalking her for ages. I turned out to be an unreliable witness, certainly not out of any malice on my part. I totally got the wrong end of the stick.

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why would they ask it then. ?

I presume it would be someone looking happy making positive noises and enjoying it.

She said no.

However, she did catch Paddy Jackson out in a big lie. He said he didnt have vaginal sex with the girl. Dara said that she saw him doing so.

I don't know how many times you have to have this explained to you.

Whatever she saw, she didn't believe she saw a rape. This makes the accusation fall clearly into an area of reasonable doubt. If she, who witnessed it, couldn't be sure it was a rape, how could the jury?

Appledreams15

professore wrote: »

All right, let's have some examples, where men have more rights than women in 2018 Ireland.

The first thing I think of is : not being raped.

God , I'd love to have not been raped. I'd actually give anything.

professore

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why would they ask it then. ?

I presume it would be someone looking happy making positive noises and enjoying it.

She said no.

However, she did catch Paddy Jackson out in a big lie. He said he didnt have vaginal sex with the girl. Dara said that she saw him doing so.

And yet there was zero forensic evidence of him having had sex with her. And plenty of forensic evidence from Stuart Olding.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Already gave examples of women's rights when it comes to contraception and abortion and rape crisis services.

But how is that any way compared to men having more rights?

There are specific rape crisis services for women but none for men. There are emergency accom for women suffering from domestic abuse but not men?

Why is it always a competition? You are aware that working on women's rights doesn't mean taking away men's rights? Campaigning for rape kits and access to abortion for women doesn't mean men shouldn't have them. It's largely a women's issue because more women are raped than men, and if you hadn't noticed, men can't get pregnant. A large part of an initial report of rape is taking care of emergency contraception and so on.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

It was caught on CCTV. He'd been stalking her for ages. I turned out to be an unreliable witness, certainly not out of any malice on my part. I totally got the wrong end of the stick.

The police told you what actually happened? Is that not tampering with witness testimony?

Appledreams15

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know how many times you have to have this explained to you.

Whatever she saw, she didn't believe she saw a rape. This makes the accusation fall clearly into an area of reasonable doubt. If she, who witnessed it, couldn't be sure it was a rape, how could the jury?

As you love Dara's evidence. What do you think about her saying she 100% saw Paddy Jackson having sex with the defendant, when he said to police that he didn't?

professore

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know how many times you have to have this explained to you.

Whatever she saw, she didn't believe she saw a rape. This makes the accusation fall clearly into an area of reasonable doubt. If she, who witnessed it, couldn't be sure it was a rape, how could the jury?

You think there are no boys raped in Ireland?

SleetAndSnow

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The first thing I think of is : not being raped.

God , I'd love to have not been raped. I'd actually give anything.

well thats a lie, men can be raped aswell and it has happened, theres just not as much said about it, and yes a women can rape a man and a man can rape a man. Both have been reported numerous times. Same goes for mens mental health along with men being sexually abused and asaulted by their female partner. You are seen as weak if you admit to it which is another part of our culture we need to change and focus on. Also sorry to hear about your previous experience.

Assetbacked

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why would they ask it then. ?

I presume it would be someone looking happy making positive noises and enjoying it.

She said no.

However, she did catch Paddy Jackson out in a big lie. He said he didnt have vaginal sex with the girl. Dara said that she saw him doing so.

The question was supposed to imply in the minds of jurors that "she did not see positive consent therefore rape". However, one person's positive noises could be another's pain. Or she could have been silent and not smiling but still enjoying it. The bigger point is that she did not look like she was being raped and this is crucial.