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

jimmycrackcorm

hill16bhoy wrote:

But it is consistent with rape.

That's just made up. Essentially you are saying that a vaginal tear is only possible through violent sex.

That's not consistent with an independent witness stating they observed a threesome.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

Thanks for providing me with the law of Ireland when the trial took place in the U.K.

Actually it took place in NI, which has its own (pathetic) definition of consent.

Sexual Offences Order 2008 wrote:

For the purposes of this Order, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2008/1769/article/3

Unlike Scotland and the Republic, there are no examples of where consent is not/cannot be deemed given.

Faugheen wrote: »

She wasn't on trial for anything but yet people are saying that they were found not guilty and in the same sentence are calling her a liar. How is that accurate and fair? That's my argument here, not the verdict as I have pointed out so many times.

I 100% agree with you here.
Not Guilty is really a ****ty outcome in these cases as its basically lumps the "we dont know who to believe" result with the "we think the accused is/are innocent". Its not clear.


The Scottish "Not Proven" verdict at least allows for the jury to indicate that they believe the accuser, but the burden of proof is lacking.

GreeBo

cantdecide wrote: »

Because if they were drunk and she were sober, they could retrospectively revoke consent and they could all accuse her of rape.

ARGH!
No they could not!:mad:

a) In NI a woman CANNOT rape a man. She may be prosecuted under the rape charge if she is deemed complicit in a man raping another man.
b) You cant retrospectively withdraw consent. Consent can be removed up to the point of intercourse. After that its too late.

Faugheen

GreeBo wrote: »

Actually it took place in NI, which has its own (pathetic) definition of consent.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2008/1769/article/3

Unlike Scotland and the Republic, there are no examples of where consent is not/cannot be deemed given.



I 100% agree with you here.
Not Guilty is really a ****ty outcome in these cases as its basically lumps the "we dont know who to believe" result with the "we think the accused is/are innocent". Its not clear.


The Scottish "Not Proven" verdict at least allows for the jury to indicate that they believe the accuser, but the burden of proof is lacking.

Sorry, you were following on from my post rather than challenging it. Completely misinterpreted that. Apologies.

The 'not proven' verdict is a suggestion I could buy into. It's definitely less definitive than not guilty anyway.

Christy42

RuMan wrote: »

Yes the lads and woman were drunk. Dara Florence however wasnt. A threesome that one party regretted.

You are the person making things up.
The woman should be thankful the rugby lads probably just want to move on. Others might take action against her for making false accusations.The extremely quick decision makes me wonder why the case was brought to trial. The prosecutor has a case to answer in that regard.

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

BBDBB

Louie Moldy Body wrote: »

Why was the poll closed/hidden????

You can't handle the truth!

Faugheen

One thing about rape trials though, they can't be held in private court sessions.

The idea of the court being public is so they don't come under scrutiny and people can see for themselves how the justice system works.

If any case is held behind closed doors then it opens a massive can of worms. People could claim an unfair trial and none of us would be any wiser because if the public and the media aren't allowed in, anything could go on.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

And the woman could have just as easily been raped despite what DF said. She looked in for less than a minute. Nobody can say for sure what was going on in that time.

However, that being said, if I was in her shoes I probably would have come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Stuart Oldings statement summed it up. This case is all about perceptions and recollections, and it sounds like all of them can't remember a whole lot of the night.

Agreed.
Its difficult enough to prove consent existed between the two people involved without getting an uninvolved 3rd party involved.

However, I firmly believe that a third party could come to the conclusion that consent had *not* been given, based on what she saw.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

hill16bhoy

Hoboo wrote: »

By 'use his' you refer to him receiving oral sex and ejaculating? Ejaculation doesn't require the same level of erectness as required to enter a vagina. Ejaculation can occur when someone is quite flacid.

It doesn't require full erectness, and can stimulated by other means, but it usually requires a certain level of such. A penis can be stimulated by other means too before entering a vagina. Again, that requires a certain level of erectness but I would not say that the level required would be classed as "full" (though we're getting into semantics somewhat).

The legal definition of penetration can certainly be achieved with less than full erectness.

Christy42

Faugheen wrote: »

One thing about rape trials though, they can't be held in private court sessions.

The idea of the court being public is so they don't come under scrutiny and people can see for themselves how the justice system works.

If any case is held behind closed doors then it opens a massive can of worms. People could claim an unfair trial and none of us would be any wiser because if the public and the media aren't allowed in, anything could go on.

Why? Coveney has said it would not be allowed here. Media is allowed in but neither the accused nor the accuser could be named. I have not heard anything to suggest that this has caused issue here though I may have missed it.

GreeBo

Faugheen wrote: »

One thing about rape trials though, they can't be held in private court sessions.

The idea of the court being public is so they don't come under scrutiny and people can see for themselves how the justice system works.

If any case is held behind closed doors then it opens a massive can of worms. People could claim an unfair trial and none of us would be any wiser because if the public and the media aren't allowed in, anything could go on.

Rape trials in the Republic are private.
Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

irishman86

C__MC wrote: »

The woman didn’t initially mention Dara Florence to police, really really strange.

Its funny Olding came in and she never thought to scream rape because she knew his intentions. This girl came in and she clearly thought she intended to rape aswell

NAGDEFI

Erect and flaccid penises.. Brings a whole new meaning to Stand Up For The Ulster Men.

Peatys

Is the only time Dara was in the room said to be "less than one minute"?

10 secs is less than a minute, 50 secs is less than a minute.. nothing more specific mentioned?

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

She filed a report because she felt she was raped.

And it got to trial because the PPS thought they had a case to answer.

Don't forget, the complainant was only a witness to this case. She didn't sue anyone.

Based on the reporting in the media and the unanimous and quick verdict the PPS seem to have done a very poor job.

Clearly the innocent men suffered however the woman was also put through a trial which appeared to have zero chance of securing a conviction.
Paddy Jacksons solicitor seemed very unhappy and i cant say i blame him. I cant see how this was allowed to proceed to trial given the evidence we have heard.

AllForIt

GreeBo wrote: »

Rape trials in the Republic are private.
Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

Who decided that? Is it up to the complainant? And if so does that rule apply to any crime or just sex crimes?

hill16bhoy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's just made up. Essentially you are saying that a vaginal tear is only possible through violent sex.

That's not consistent with an independent witness stating they observed a threesome.

I didn't say that a vaginal tear was only possible through violent sex.

But it's a very logical assumption to assume that it is consistent with rape. It doesn't prove rape. But it is consistent with it, or at least consistent with sexual assault.

By the way, the victim in the Mike Tyson rape trial had a similar vaginal tear. That was classed by the medical expert in that trial as being "consistent with rape".

In this case, as well as the vaginal tear, there was also bruising.

I would suggest it is unlikely for both a vaginal tear and bruising to occur if there was not a violent sex act of some sort occurring.

Dara Florence perceived consensual sex. Perception is not fact, she was in no position to judge for sure whether it was consensual or rape. People don't walk into such a situation and automatically assume a rape is taking place, they revert to a default assumption that what is going on is consensual.

She was however in a position to judge whether Jackson was penetrating the complainant, and to judge whether there were any signs of positive consent from the complainant. The answer was yes to the former and no to the latter.

RuMan

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

If you had consensual sex with a woman and she falsely accused you of rape you would be pretty annoyed. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

C__MC

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I didn't say that a vaginal tear was only possible through violent sex.

But it's a very logical assumption to assume that it is consistent with rape. It doesn't prove rape. But it is consistent with it, or at least consistent with sexual assault.

By the way, the victim in the Mike Tyson rape trial had a similar vaginal tear. That was classed by the medical expert in that trial as being "consistent with rape".

In this case, as well as the vaginal tear, there was also bruising.

I would suggest it is unlikely for both a vaginal tear and bruising to occur if there was not a violent sex act of some sort occurring.

Dara Florence perceived consensual sex. Perception is not fact, she was in no position to judge for sure whether it was consensual or rape. People don't walk into such a situation and automatically assume a rape is taking place, they revert to a default assumption that what is going on is consensual.

She was however in a position to judge whether Jackson was penetrating the complainant, and to judge whether there were any signs of positive consent from the complainant. The answer was yes to the former and no to the latter.

Florence was asked did she want to join in, that opens up another angle for me in the consent thing

RabbleRouser2k

GreeBo wrote: »

Rape trials in the Republic are private.
Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

It's pretty brave for someone to reveal their identity in order to name their rapist I know there was a young woman raped in a hotel a few years back (Case was last year, or the year before) who waived her anonymity in order for her rapist to be named and shamed. It wasn't her burden to bear.

Saw a few folks who work for RTE who showed clear bias against the guys. Tweeting things like 'are you surprised?' regarding the verdict. Isn't the national broadcaster supposed to be neutral?

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

She filed a report because she felt she was raped.

And it got to trial because the PPS thought they had a case to answer.

Don't forget, the complainant was only a witness to this case. She didn't sue anyone.

Based on the reporting in the media and the unanimous and quick verdict the PPS seem to have done a very poor job.

Clearly the innocent men suffered however the woman was also put through a trial which appeared to have zero chance of securing a conviction.
Paddy Jacksons solicitor seemed very unhappy and i cant say i blame him. I cant see how this was allowed to proceed to trial given the evidence we have heard.

There was plenty of reasons on the face of it.

Fact is, the defence barristers earned their money and then some, making the prosecution look like amateurs.

It still doesn't mean that she's lying or that she filed a false allegation. She's also entitled to the tag of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

If the PPS were to pursue a case against her, with the same witnesses, the same statements, the same inconsistencies from both sides (the 4 lads stories were all over the place. Blane Mcilroy's in particular. Doesn't mean guilt of course) then there's no way a jury could find her guilty. Then what? Are the lads suddenly liars again?

It was an absolute mess of a case, but I can't have people using this verdict as a reason to spout absolute nonsense about how it proves she was lying when it's far from the case.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

If you had consensual sex with a woman and she falsely accused you of rape you would be pretty annoyed. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Of course you would, but even Stuart Olding's statement doesn't hang her out as someone who made a false accusation. There's every chance that she could not have been consenting but he was none the wiser. That's why he's apologising and saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

GreeBo

AllForIt wrote: »

Who decided that? Is it up to the complainant? And if so does that rule apply to any crime or just sex crimes?

No its the law, not up to either party to decide.
Its specific to rape cases.

The convicted can be named after the fact, but only if it will not expose the victim (or if the victim allows it)

martingriff

GreeBo wrote: »

ARGH!
No they could not!:mad:

a) In NI a woman CANNOT rape a man. She may be prosecuted under the rape charge if she is deemed complicit in a man raping another man.
b) You cant retrospectively withdraw consent. Consent can be removed up to the point of intercourse. After that its too late.

I would strongly disagree with you on point b that once intercourse start she can't say please stop. Maybe some on here don't know stop means stop whenever

Hoboo

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

GreeBo

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It's pretty brave for someone to reveal their identity in order to name their rapist I know there was a young woman raped in a hotel a few years back (Case was last year, or the year before) who waived her anonymity in order for her rapist to be named and shamed. It wasn't her burden to bear.

Saw a few folks who work for RTE who showed clear bias against the guys. Tweeting things like 'are you surprised?' regarding the verdict. Isn't the national broadcaster supposed to be neutral?

I believe the requirement is to be politically neutral, not neutral about everything.

policy75

RuMan wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

If you had consensual sex with a woman and she falsely accused you of rape you would be pretty annoyed. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

It seems a lot of feminists see nothing wrong with that

TheValeyard

martingriff wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with you on point b that once intercourse start she can't say please stop. Maybe some on here don't know stop means stop whenever

Id think he means after the consensual sex has taken place a woman cant simply go "ive changed my mind, this means you've raped me"

May seem flippant, but its an important point. She can definitely say stop or no during sex, and that should be it. No more. But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

Aufbau

Louie Moldy Body wrote: »

It is quite obvious, its not happening!


Linky for definition of sexual assault starting to change in UK

Slow down. The REASON it's not happening should be obvious.

And wolf whistling is not the same thing as sexual assault.

upandcumming

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

Seems black and white to me!