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

BBDBB

spookwoman wrote: »

Thing that stands out for me is she was in there less than a minute so how the hell could someone know 100% if someone was being raped or not. The other thing was if she heard moaning why did she open the door unless she was bloody nosey looking for gossip or was concerned with the noise. This thing of looking for her friend doesnt sound right.

consider this then

If she walked in (for whatever reason) and she believed a rape was taking place, how long do you think she'd take to determine that? Longer or less than a minute?

endacl

cloudatlas wrote: »

Wow even in this thread you need to mention Lon.

Sorry. Just noticed this response...

As I haven't, to the best of my knowledge, previously referred to the esteemed lady, might I suggest you may be thinking of somebody else? Although I stand firmly over the comedic potential inherent in the mental image of an exploding Louise.

She'd probably hop up and down a bit first, too!

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

You're a clown.

BLUEYK

Quite simply I am sick of the media coverage of this trial. Why were all parties identities not kept private? Should be eff all coverage given unless proven guilty. Can we not trust the justice system? That by the way is Joe Bloggs, me and you, having to make a life changing decisions no matter the outcome if on the jury. Do people not understand basic law? Judged by your peers! These groups protesting sicken the life out of me. I think social media does more damage that good. Before instant access, opinion forming and groups protesting how did we survive? Lock me up to be effed as we are doomed as a race.

Parklife1988

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're a clown.

Try Hatder. Even a little bit.

RuMan

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

Did you follow the case?
It was astonishing it even made it to court given the complete lack of evidence. What exactly do you think they are guilty of and what evidence do you have?

It was a consensual threesome, happens frequently enough. Just because you dont approve doesnt given you the right to question men deemed innocent in a court of law.

Ipso

So the people who think they were guilty, what are you basing it on?
Did the whole "event" start of as rape or did it descend into something where the girls lack of consent was ignored?

To those who think the verdict was correct; why do you think so?

Fr Tod Umptious

lawred2 wrote: »

most terrorist activities went unpunished really

That is sadly true too.

munsterlegend

BLUEYK wrote: »

Quite simply I am sick of the media coverage of this trial. Why were all parties identities not kept private? Should be eff all coverage given unless proven guilty. Can we not trust the justice system? That by the way is Joe Bloggs, me and you, having to make a life changing decisions no matter the outcome if on the jury. Do people not understand basic law? Judged by your peers! These groups protesting sicken the life out of me. I think social media does more damage that good. Before instant access, opinion forming and groups protesting how did we survive? Lock me up to be effed as we are doomed as a race.

Well up north unlike here they identify the defendants and let the public into trials of this nature which is crazy really. However it would have been impossible to keep the identity of the two rugby players private as everyone would have been asking why are they not playing? The only way that could be avoided is to let them still play but that would cause more problems given the nature of the alleged offence.

almostover

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Honest question

Michael Jackson was also proven innocent of all charges.

So by your lights, you’re all agreeing he was completely innocent then?

Yes, I am not privy to any proof that he was guilty.

almostover

Ipso wrote: »

So the people who think they were guilty, what are you basing it on?
Did the whole "event" start of as rape or did it descend into something where the girls lack of consent was ignored?

To those who think the verdict was correct; why do you think so?

The verdict was correct because the jury could not find the men guilty of the alleged crimes beyond reasonable doubt. They judged that there was reasonable doubt that these 4 men were guilty of the alleged crimes.

Do you think the verdict was correct? And if not, why do you think so?

spookwoman

BBDBB wrote: »

consider this then

If she walked in (for whatever reason) and she believed a rape was taking place, how long do you think she'd take to determine that? Longer or less than a minute?

Position of where she was and what she could see would be 1 factor and the other is over a minute because not all rapes are violent where the victim is being held down, beaten etc.
The victim turned her face away so how could dora see her face. The victim was bleeding and it looks like dora didnt see that either.
It was after she went that jackson it seems tried to force his hand fully inside her and at that stage she was bleeding heavy.
I don't know about anyone else but I think any self respecting person would be worried with seeing blood during a fisting

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Did you follow the case?
It was astonishing it even made it to court given the complete lack of evidence. What exactly do you think they are guilty of and what evidence do you have?

It was a consensual threesome, happens frequently enough. Just because you dont approve doesnt given you the right to question men deemed innocent in a court of law.

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

Parklife1988

almostover wrote: »

Yes, I am not privy to any proof that he was guilty.

He was totally innocent. Stupid for getting himself in that situation as these lads were too. They all should have known better. And found to be innocent in court
Like he was.
But the culture and social bible around the Irish team is it’s own fishbow soccial group and groupies l and they definitely fvcked up. The woman involved should have known better too. But she was part of that bubble. They knew that and did it anyway.

Strazdas

Hoboo wrote: »

He didn't walk out because the girl beckoned him over, unzipped his trousers, and began to perform oral sex on him. What is so hard to get? Nothing abnormal about his actions whatsoever.

Why isn't there more focus on the dangers of going to strangers houses and following drunk strange men into their bedrooms?

No independent verification that's how it unfolded bar Olding himself claiming that's how it happened (and this was a guy who had 23 alcoholic drinks in the hours before the encounter).

BLUEYK

munsterlegend wrote: »

Well up north unlike here they identify the defendants and let the public into trials of this nature which is crazy really. However it would have been impossible to keep the identity of the two rugby players private as everyone would have been asking why are they not playing? The only way that could be avoided is to let them still play but that would cause more problems given the nature of the alleged offence.

It's a load of horse manure then the justice system. All parties should be protected until guilty. IMO

Ipso

almostover wrote: »

The verdict was correct because the jury could not find the men guilty of the alleged crimes beyond reasonable doubt. They judged that there was reasonable doubt that these 4 men were guilty of the alleged crimes.

Do you think the verdict was correct? And if not, why do you think so?

To be honest I haven't followed the details, I'm just finding the mob reactions interesting/worrying.

I'm just interested if there are particular pieces of evidence that have swayed people one way or the other, as in this day and age people can get caught up in the herd mentality and the decline into everything being about identity politics and social media driven is very worrying.

almostover

Parklife1988 wrote: »

He was totally innocent. Stupid for getting himself in that situation as these lads were too. They all should have known better. And found to be innocent in court
Like he was.
But the culture and social bible around the Irish team is it’s own fishbow soccial group and groupies l and they definitely fvcked up. The woman involved should have known better too. But she was part of that bubble. They knew that and did it anyway.

Do you know of some evidence proving his guilt. If I'm being honest I have little or no knowledge of the Michael Jackson case so I choose not to accuse him of anything. We've gone off topic. Can you answer my other question please? Do you feel the jury delivered the correct verdict in the Jackson/Olding/McIlroy/Harrison case? If not, why so?

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

It is so rare that there is a witness in a non violent rape case like this....there is never any evidence...normally it is one persons word against another....

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

All the men and Dara Florence claimed it was consensual and clearly they were more credible given the verdict.

Bit of consensual fun which one party regretted after.
No guilty of rape was the verdict

khaldrogo

Silentcorner wrote:

Ya...as was I...which was a bit foolish on our part really...I mean, what chance did she have?

She had the chance to not willingly take part in a threesome then regret it after and accuse people of rape.

blanch152

Faugheen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that this was a consensual threesome?

You have none. You can believe it was one if you want, but there's no evidence or ruling to suggest it was consensual.

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

People need to stop telling others what happened that night when nobody was even there.

Dara Florence was sober.

Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

At the very least Dara Florence was unsure whether it was consensual or not. That the only eyewitness said that is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt. I am actually surprised that the judge didn't order an acquittal following her testimony.

Hoboo

Faugheen wrote: »

Before you bring up Dara Florence, you should also remember that her evidence contradicts what Paddy Jackson has been saying, that he didn't have sex with her.

Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

All the men and Dara Florence claimed it was consensual and clearly they were more credible given the verdict.

Bit of consensual fun which one party regretted after.
No guilty of rape was the verdict

Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given.

And the complainant said that it wasn't consensual.

The lads couldn't be found guilty based on the evidence. There's holes in all of the stories. That doesn't mean her account is false.

Not guilty of rape was the verdict, but she wasn't found guilty of anything either. Why are you throwing guilt of her lying when it hasn't been proven?

Again, you weren't there. Stop telling people what happened as if it's factual.

OwlsZat

spookwoman wrote: »

Position of where she was and what she could see would be 1 factor and the other is over a minute because not all rapes are violent where the victim is being held down, beaten etc.
The victim turned her face away so how could dora see her face. The victim was bleeding and it looks like dora didnt see that either.
It was after she went that jackson it seems tried to force his hand fully inside her and at that stage she was bleeding heavy.
I don't know about anyone else but I think any self respecting person would be worried with seeing blood during a fisting

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

The fisting was mentioned as an explanation for the vaginal bleed. My initial suspicion was vigorous fingering with a long fingernail. As your article states it was agreed the injury couldn't have been inflicted by a penis. However, the length of time it was bleeding some 8 hours, was argued makes it less likely to have been inflicted and more likely to have been period related.

Infini

Ill be honest when I look at this I was suprised at the ridiculous amount of coverage coming out of the trial. It felt more of a trial by media more so because if it. Still I had a feeling that it was going to be a non guilty verdict because it seemed to me that people were intoxicated or not of sound mind rather than predatory and it might be the reason why it came down to a non guilty verdict.

As for the protest I can understand that there's those out there that feel that rape isn't getting the seriousness some might feel it deserves but lets look at it this way: These things should never be public before a judge / jury makes a verdict on them. Simple reason is that its easy for the percetion to perpetuate to see women as victims and men as predators etc but the problem is that it gets to the case where an accused is being judged as AUTOMATICALLY guilty instead of being considered innocent until proven otherwise. That's also a problem in its own right because even though this went to trial and they were found innocent of rape the accuastion alone means people will just consider them guilty regardless of the fact that they were fairly trialled and found NOT guilty.

It's a dodgy issue but I honestly think those going #Ibelieveher need to step back and realise that noone is winning here. They were taken to trial and found innocent in a court of law not the kangaroo court of cancer media. Its not right that an accusation alone can be SEVERELY damaging to an accused man even when a fair trial deems them innocent.

hill16bhoy

Hoboo wrote: »

Dara Florence saw PJ behind the girl, but it was impossible for Dara Florence to see if he was kneeling behind her using his digits, or using his penis. He openly admitted to using his digits. After 24 drinks he would be the legend of all legends if he could use his penis.

Stuart Olding managed to use his and he was well into the 20s drinks wise.

Faugheen

blanch152 wrote: »

Dara Florence was sober.

Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

At the very least Dara Florence was unsure whether it was consensual or not. That the only eyewitness said that is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt. I am actually surprised that the judge didn't order an acquittal following her testimony.

I'm not arguing about the verdict.

I'm arguing that people are presenting their own facts about the case when they weren't even there.

blanch152

Faugheen wrote: »

Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that there was positive consent given.

And she said that it wasn't consensual.

You are contradicting yourself there. She couldn't say there was positive consent, she couldn't say it wasn't consensual. Therefore there is a reasonable doubt, hence they had to be found not guilty.

GreeBo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Balderdash

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

No, its fact.

There is a clue to why you are incorrect in your link, "ScientificAmerican".

https://www.psni.police.uk/crime/sexual-violence-and-abuse/ wrote:

Rape is when a male intentionally penetrates the vagina, mouth or anus of another person, male or female (including wife or civil partner), with his penis, without that persons consent or understanding. This offence can only be committed by a male. However, while a female cannot commit the offence of 'Rape', a female can commit other serious sexual offences.