Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Unusually, no one (and I mean no one ) "knows" what went on that night.
It is (possible but) highly unlikely that a 19 year old girl would agree to be treated like a blow up doll, and to be injured to boot.
The "gentlemen" involved were later caught bragging about what they contributed to her injuries.

There is no evidence of rape ( I don't know what evidence there ever is), therefore they could not be convicted of rape.
They were not found innocent/acquitted of the crime, but the charges.

They were free to leave the court and to go about their business.
However, others may have a view on the circumstances that would not necessarily need proof for them to hold those views. They may feel they do not want to engage or deal with the said gentlemen, based on what information they have received.

Those people may be "sponsors" and their decision may be commercially based. They may be of the opinion that their morals would not let them associate with certain people.

Whatever ruination these "gentlemen" feel has been visited on them, was entirely self inflicted.

I stopped reading after the lie that they 'bragged' about injuring her.

Please stop lying. It shows the manic desperation.

Billgirlylegs

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Unusually, no one (and I mean no one ) "knows" what went on that night.
It is (possible but) highly unlikely that a 19 year old girl would agree to be treated like a blow up doll, and to be injured to boot.
The "gentlemen" involved were later caught bragging about what they contributed to her injuries.

There is no evidence of rape ( I don't know what evidence there ever is), therefore they could not be convicted of rape.
They were not found innocent/acquitted of the crime, but the charges.

They were free to leave the court and to go about their business.
However, others may have a view on the circumstances that would not necessarily need proof for them to hold those views. They may feel they do not want to engage or deal with the said gentlemen, based on what information they have received.

Those people may be "sponsors" and their decision may be commercially based. They may be of the opinion that their morals would not let them associate with certain people.

Whatever ruination these "gentlemen" feel has been visited on them, was entirely self inflicted.

That's one way of putting it...

If anything these tasteless brags make them appear innocent imo. I seriously doubt they'd be bragging if they believed they raped the girl.

I presume you've never bragged to your friends that you hooked up with a hot guy/girl after a night out?

DEFTLEFTHAND

jm08 wrote: »

Lets not leave out the part about the mob behaviour that identified the woman involved and who has had to go into hiding with a new identity.

Excuse me?

She sent an innocent man to be prison for 4 years.

She can count herself lucky that she wasn't prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury and wasting police time. It was considered at one point.

Any sign of her to pay Evans back his money?

flatty

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

Lets not leave out the part about the mob behaviour that identified the woman involved and who has had to go into hiding with a new identity.

Excuse me?

She sent an innocent man to be prison for 4 years.

She can count herself lucky that she wasn't prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury and wasting police time. It was considered at one point.

Any sign of her to pay Evans back his money?

Well this is wrong.

jm08

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Excuse me?

She sent an innocent man to be prison for 4 years.

She can count herself lucky that she wasn't prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury and wasting police time. It was considered at one point.

Any sign of her to pay Evans back his money?

I think you need to read up on the court case and the appeal. Very questionable that his girlfriend offered a reward of 50,000 where they used the woman's previous sexual history.

DEFTLEFTHAND

jm08 wrote: »

I think you need to read up on the court case and the appeal. Very questionable that his girlfriend offered a reward of 50,000 where they used the woman's previous sexual history.

She had previously cried wolf on another case in Wales.

The Defence were not permitted to bring this up at the Evans trial.


Do you know the circumstanes around what exhonerated Evans? This was known at the time of his trial, the defence tried and failed to have her laptop seized.


It was the most dishonurable and disgusting scam I've ever seen in my life. That boy could have topped himseld when inside.


The crazy bitch should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

py2006

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

She had previously cried wolf on another case in Wales.

The Defence were not permitted to bring this up at the Evans trial.


Do you know the circumstanes around what exhonerated Evans? This was known at the time of his trial, the defence tried and failed to have her laptop seized.


It was the most dishonurable and disgusting scam I've ever seen in my life. That boy could have topped himseld when inside.


The crazy bitch should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I've noticed that the daily mail (I know) seem to get away with constantly referring to him as a paedophile. Outrageous stuff.

Wrongway1985

upandcumming wrote: »

A well placed no vote this month would be a godsend for Paddy and Stuart.

Hope ta f you're being sarcastic :eek:

RabbleRouser2k

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Hope ta f you're being sarcastic :eek:

I think they were referring to 'distraction' rather than it being helpful to them.

More like one of those 'I hope this takes attention off of me'.

SeanW

jm08 wrote: »

I think you need to read up on the court case and the appeal. Very questionable that his girlfriend offered a reward of 50,000 where they used the woman's previous sexual history.

Yes. Her sexual history was relevant because it proved that she had said to them (Evans and his friend) exactly the same sorts of things she had said to others in similar situations in the past. IIRC The prosecution claimed that Evans lied during his testimony, going to the woman's sexual history proved that he was telling the truth during his original trial.

Thus, Ched Evans is innocent and the investigation by his girlfriend was necessary to effect justice. There was nothing "questionable" about it - unless you want innocent people to locked up.

Like the Mark Pearson case, the Ched Evans case was a travesty against the concept of justice.

Ulysses Gaze

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Her sexual history was relevant because it proved that she had said to them (Evans and his friend) exactly the same sorts of things she had said to others in similar situations in the past. IIRC The prosecution claimed that Evans lied during his testimony, going to the woman's sexual history proved that he was telling the truth during his original trial.

Thus, Ched Evans is innocent and the investigation by his girlfriend was necessary to effect justice. There was nothing "questionable" about it - unless you want innocent people to locked up.

Like the Mark Pearson case, the Ched Evans case was a travesty against the concept of justice.

And of course no sign of the CPS prosecuting the Actress in the Pearson case for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time.....

Although, she has been doxxed...

jm08

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Her sexual history was relevant because it proved that she had said to them (Evans and his friend) exactly the same sorts of things she had said to others in similar situations in the past. IIRC The prosecution claimed that Evans lied during his testimony, going to the woman's sexual history proved that he was telling the truth during his original trial.

Thus, Ched Evans is innocent and the investigation by his girlfriend was necessary to effect justice. There was nothing "questionable" about it - unless you want innocent people to locked up.

Like the Mark Pearson case, the Ched Evans case was a travesty against the concept of justice.

1. The woman was drunk (caught on video falling all over the place).
2. She went back with Evans' friend to his hotel room (which Evans was paying for).
3. The friend sent a text to Evans to tell him 'He had a bird'.
4. Evans went to the hotel, told lies at reception and went up to the room. He joined in with a couple more of their friends looking on.
5. The prosecution's case was that the woman was too drunk to give consent (and she didn't remember having sex with Evans the next day).
6. Evans left the hotel by the fire escape after claiming to develop a conscience for cheating on his girlfriend.
7. The woman didn't remember anything. She woke up in a hotel and didn't know how she got there.
8. Evans was found guilty of rape and went to prison.
9. Evans' friends exposed the identity of the woman on the internet who was threatned by Evans' defenders.
10. She had to leave home and assume a new identity. She was only a witness. She did not accuse Evans of rape, the Prosecution did.
11. Evans' girlfriend's family put up a reward of £50K for people to come forward who could help with evidence for the appeal.
12. Two previous consensual sexual partners said she said certain things when having sex with them which Evans claims she also made when he was having sex with her.
13. Thats how he won his appeal. These 'witnesses' didn't come forward for the original trial, only when there was an offer of a reward.
14. The woman was still drunk even if she did make certain noises as if she was enjoying sex.

What a toerag - he went to the hotel to use the 'bird' for sex even though she was pissed drunk.

Evans then had the temerity to advise women not to drink so much because they could meet real rapists!

Roger Hassenforder

jm08 wrote: »

1. The woman was drunk (caught on video falling all over the place)

i got as far as that.

SeanW

jm08 wrote: »

1. The woman was drunk (caught on video falling all over the place).
2. She went back with Evans' friend to his hotel room (which Evans was paying for).
3. The friend sent a text to Evans to tell him 'He had a bird'.
4. Evans went to the hotel, told lies at reception and went up to the room. He joined in with a couple more of their friends looking on.
5. The prosecution's case was that the woman was too drunk to give consent (and she didn't remember having sex with Evans the next day).
6. Evans left the hotel by the fire escape after claiming to develop a conscience for cheating on his girlfriend.
7. The woman didn't remember anything. She woke up in a hotel and didn't know how she got there.
8. Evans was found guilty of rape and went to prison.
9. Evans' friends exposed the identity of the woman on the internet who was threatned by Evans' defenders.
10. She had to leave home and assume a new identity. She was only a witness. She did not accuse Evans of rape, the Prosecution did.
11. Evans' girlfriend's family put up a reward of £50K for people to come forward who could help with evidence for the appeal.
12. Two previous consensual sexual partners said she said certain things when having sex with them which Evans claims she also made when he was having sex with her.
13. Thats how he won his appeal. These 'witnesses' didn't come forward for the original trial, only when there was an offer of a reward.
14. The woman was still drunk even if she did make certain noises as if she was enjoying sex.

What a toerag - he went to the hotel to use the 'bird' for sex even though she was pissed drunk.

Evans then had the temerity to advise women not to drink so much because they could meet real rapists!

I note that you said nothing about the Mark Pearson case, which was a logical consequence of "listen and believe". Quelle surprise.

As for your screed about Ched Evans, Points 1 and 5 are lies.
1) The law does permit consent while drunk. The standard is too drunk to consent. The so called "victim" was seen and photographed walking unaided in 5 inch heels, holding a pizza box with one had by the base, and rejecting the advances of men she was not interested in. Drunk? Maybe, too drunk? That's more difficult to determine - and Evans' friend was found not guilty during the original trial because he had observed a lot of this while Evans did not.
5) IANAL but as far I understand the case, the bit you bolded is not enough. Rape is a mens rhea offence as opposed to strict liability. Mens rhea = guilty intent. In this case, the prosecution could not just claim that the so-called "victim" was too drunk, but also that by her behaviour, a person could not reasonably believe that she was capable of giving consent. Evans' friend was acquitted in the original trial because it was found that the case against him failed the mens rhea test, i.e. that the so-called victim's behaviour could reasonably have led to him believing she was not too drunk.
The retrial showed that Ched had also seen enough of her behaviour to reasonably come to the same conclusion, ergo he was not guilty of rape.

This is crucial because it is often impossible to gauge a person's level of drunkenness and this applies in all parts of life. One famous example (not a rape case, but illustrates the point) occurred in 1997, when Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed entered a car driven by Henri Paul outside a hotel in Paris, France. A short time later, all 3 would be killed in a car accident. Although Mr. Paul was seen on CCTV acting normally, i.e. not stumbling around or acting drunk, the post accident investigation showed that he was well over the legal limit, perhaps by multiples. Additional inquiry found that he was basically an alcoholic.

However, it's clear on reflection that he was what we would think of as a functional alcoholic, who appears to be fully cogent while actually being hammered. Because of this, it was not possible for Princess Diana nor Mr. Fayed to be aware that getting into a car with him would be a fatal mistake, because unless they had smelled his breath or something, it would be unreasonable for them to know that he not fit to drive.

Because humans do not have on screen displays in our vision like in video games, only that tell each of us exactly what B.A.C. everyone we see has in real time, we have to use our experience, history and on-the-spot judgment to approximate. And legitimate mistakes will be made.

jm08

SeanW wrote: »

I note that you said nothing about the Mark Pearson case, which was a logical consequence of "listen and believe". Quelle surprise.

What is there to say about it. It was obviously a mistake and should never have got to court. Just because some people abuse the legal system, doesn't actually mean that everyone does.

As for your screed about Ched Evans, Points 1 and 5 are lies.

1) The law does permit consent while drunk. The standard is too drunk to consent. The so called "victim" was seen and photographed walking unaided in 5 inch heels, holding a pizza box with one had by the base, and rejecting the advances of men she was not interested in. Drunk? Maybe, too drunk? That's more difficult to determine - and Evans' friend was found not guilty during the original trial because he had observed a lot of this while Evans did not.

OK, you caught me on that one, I should have written too drunk to consent.
This is from the court report:

CCTV images show the alleged victim falling over inside the kebab shop, with Mr Evans, who was 22 at the time of the incident, pointing and walking past her.


Later, Mr McDonald and the unnamed woman took a taxi to a Premier Inn, which had been booked by Mr Evans, and Mr McDonald sent a message to Mr Evans during the journey to say he had “got a bird”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ched-evans-what-happened-latest-really-did-trial-admitted-court-footballer-not-guilty-rape-a7361966.html

Evans saw her falling over in the kebab shop (not pizza shop!) according to that report.

5) IANAL but as far I understand the case, the bit you bolded is not enough. Rape is a mens rhea offence as opposed to strict liability. Mens rhea = guilty intent. In this case, the prosecution could not just claim that the so-called "victim" was too drunk, but also that by her behaviour, a person could not reasonably believe that she was capable of giving consent. Evans' friend was acquitted in the original trial because it was found that the case against him failed the mens rhea test, i.e. that the so-called victim's behaviour could reasonably have led to him believing she was not too drunk.
The retrial showed that Ched had also seen enough of her behaviour to reasonably come to the same conclusion, ergo he was not guilty of rape.

We all know its not clearcut and it is impossible to figure out if someone is too drunk to give consent.

This is crucial because it is often impossible to gauge a person's level of drunkenness and this applies in all parts of life. One famous example (not a rape case, but illustrates the point) occurred in 1997, when Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed entered a car driven by Henri Paul outside a hotel in Paris, France. A short time later, all 3 would be killed in a car accident. Although Mr. Paul was seen on CCTV acting normally, i.e. not stumbling around or acting drunk, the post accident investigation showed that he was well over the legal limit, perhaps by multiples. Additional inquiry found that he was basically an alcoholic.

However, it's clear on reflection that he was what we would think of as a functional alcoholic, who appears to be fully cogent while actually being hammered. Because of this, it was not possible for Princess Diana nor Mr. Fayed to be aware that getting into a car with him would be a fatal mistake, because unless they had smelled his breath or something, it would be unreasonable for them to know that he not fit to drive.

Because humans do not have on screen displays in our vision like in video games, only that tell each of us exactly what B.A.C. everyone we see has in real time, we have to use our experience, history and on-the-spot judgment to approximate. And legitimate mistakes will be made.

Ched Evans gives great advice - tell women to not drink so much in case they get raped. Maybe he should think of his own behaviour - how much did he have to drink? How did he know he was capable to recognising whether there was consent or not? His behaviour is questionable - cheating on his girlfriend with a drunk woman picked up by his friend in a kebab shop, with no idea of her sexual history and then having unprotected sex with her, risking her getting pregant and god knows picking up (and bearing in mind his lifestyle) spreading STDs.

For that alone, he should be held responsible. Its not clever to do what he and his mates did (ignoring the intent of using abusing a woman who might or might not have been able to consent).

Faugheen

If you're privileged enough to be earning a fortune to play professional sport then you deserve to be held accountable when you bring your position into disrepute.

This applies to anyone in a position in the public eye. People can say Jackson and Olding were found not guilty, and that is true, but it's a fact that a woman left their company bleeding and in hysterics and they bragged about their spitroasting and precious secrets the next day. They treated her like absolute **** and they're rightly paying for it.

Nobody has been found guilty in the case of Vicky Phelan, but if you believe the logic of some people here, that alone means Tony O'Brien shouldn't have to resign as the head of the HSE. I don't think you will find anyone who thinks he should keep his job because the entire Health Service has been brought into disrepute and the buck stops with him.

For Jackson and Olding, the buck of their actions stops with them.

upandcumming

jm08 wrote: »

His behaviour is questionable - cheating on his girlfriend with a drunk woman picked up by his friend in a kebab shop, with no idea of her sexual history and then having unprotected sex with her, risking her getting pregant and god knows picking up (and bearing in mind his lifestyle) spreading STDs.

Completely irrelevant. You wouldn't be saying similar if Ched was a woman.

jm08 wrote: »

For that alone, he should be held responsible. Its not clever to do what he and his mates did (ignoring the intent of using abusing a woman who might or might not have been able to consent).

Responsible for what? No crime committed? Life ruined though.

jm08

upandcumming wrote: »

Completely irrelevant. You wouldn't be saying similar if Ched was a woman.

I certainly would if a women behaved as badly towards a 19 year old Ched Evans. Male rapes happen as well.

Responsible for what? No crime committed? Life ruined though.

You are setting the bar a bit low (criminal conviction required) for being a responsible human being.
Evans is responsible for his own ruin (and the woman as well - lets not forget she has had to leave her home town and assume a new identity).

flatty

Ched Evans seems do be doing just fine these days. It would be more comparable if, after he was found not guilty, he was harassed out of a contract at every club he tried to join. Let us not forget that the clubs which pulled out of signing him after his release did so at a time when he was still actually a convicted rapist in the eyes of the law. He has been left to resume his career as best possible since his retrial.

Muahahaha

Stuart Olding has found a contract

Former Ulster and Ireland centre Stuart Olding will be playing for Brive in the PRO D2 next season.
Olding has not been able to find a new club since his Ulster and IRFU contract was revoked last month following a joint internal review between the province and the union in the wake of his acquittal of rape charges at Belfast Crown Court in March.

Olding was previously linked with moves to Sale Sharks and the Exeter Chiefs but both clubs publicly distanced themselves from Olding and former Ulster teammate Paddy Jackson after initial reports linked both players to the respective clubs.

Olding will join former Ulster second-row Jeremy Davidson at Brive next season after the former Ireland and Lions lock took over from head coach Nicolas Godignon earlier this month.

Seems to be a bit of a step down for him, Brive have just been relegated from the first division. From their perspective it is a great signing, I wonder did they want to sign Paddy Jackson too but didnt have the cash?

RabbleRouser2k

Muahahaha wrote: »

Stuart Olding has found a contract



Seems to be a bit of a step down for him, Brive have just been relegated from the first division. From their perspective it is a great signing, I wonder did they want to sign Paddy Jackson too but didnt have the cash?

I think Jackson might be holding out-but Olding knew he didn't have too many options.
Jackson doesn't sound as savvy.

Muahahaha

Why do you not think he is not as savvy? Also is there a transfer deadline that Jackson needs to meet so he can play again? If he waits too long and clubs know he has no options he might find himself low-balled into a contract.

RabbleRouser2k

Muahahaha wrote: »

Why do you not think he is not as savvy? Also is there a transfer deadline that Jackson needs to meet so he can play again? If he waits too long and clubs know he has no options he might find himself low-balled into a contract.

I think it goes back to their statements after the court case-they were night and day apart.

Olding knew there were no winners in the court case, and Jackson didn't. Olding was thinking of his future, which was bleak-Jackson seemed to be in the mindset that he could return to playing.

Despite all his injuries, and a lack of form, it says something that Olding was able to get signed before Jackson. The stink may be still on Jackson for a while now.

Well, Jackson has bills to pay, legal and otherwise. So that's gonna hamper his choices.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Why do you not think he is not as savvy? Also is there a transfer deadline that Jackson needs to meet so he can play again? If he waits too long and clubs know he has no options he might find himself low-balled into a contract.

There are no deadlines. He can join any team at any time. There are some stipulations about playing European champions cup rugby as each team has to announce their squad in advance. I doubt Jackson will sign for a team competing in that though.

Faugheen

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think it goes back to their statements after the court case-they were night and day apart.

Olding knew there were no winners in the court case, and Jackson didn't. Olding was thinking of his future, which was bleak-Jackson seemed to be in the mindset that he could return to playing.

Despite all his injuries, and a lack of form, it says something that Olding was able to get signed before Jackson. The stink may be still on Jackson for a while now.

Well, Jackson has bills to pay, legal and otherwise. So that's gonna hamper his choices.

Exactly, Olding acknowledged the night was basically all about perceptions and that he was led to believe the encounter was consensual even if she didn't.

Jackson attacked everyone in sight and sent a thinly veiled threat to Ulster and the IRFU, before suggesting the case was only brought because he was an international rugby player. Whatever you think about the case, that was a completely stupid move and I'd love to know who advised him of that.

There was barely a word said about Olding after that, and Jackson threatening to sue people and then giving a half-arsed apology when his back was against the wall essentially ruined him PR wise.

Fann Linn

Delighted for Olding, time to move on. Hopefully Jackson gets sorted now during the summer.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Exactly, Olding acknowledged the night was basically all about perceptions and that he was led to believe the encounter was consensual even if she didn't.

Jackson attacked everyone in sight and sent a thinly veiled threat to Ulster and the IRFU, before suggesting the case was only brought because he was an international rugby player. Whatever you think about the case, that was a completely stupid move and I'd love to know who advised him of that.

There was barely a word said about Olding after that, and Jackson threatening to sue people and then giving a half-arsed apology when his back was against the wall essentially ruined him PR wise.

Talk about 'making the best of it'. ^^ :rolleyes:

There were those here who adamantly stated (with no small amount of spitefulness) that these guys would never play again.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Talk about 'making the best of it'. ^^ :rolleyes:

There were those here who adamantly stated (with no small amount of spitefulness) that these guys would never play again.

The first paragraph, what are you talking about?

Secondly, I'm pretty sure it was widely accepted that they would get moves abroad.

Are you sure it wasn't that they'd never play in Ireland again?

There were plenty who thought they'd walk back into Ulster with no problems as well, by the way.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

The first paragraph, what are you talking about?

Secondly, I'm pretty sure it was widely accepted that they would get moves abroad.

Are you sure it wasn't that they'd never play in Ireland again?

There were plenty who thought they'd walk back into Ulster with no problems as well, by the way.

No, there were people claiming nobody would touch them, which was the triumph of hope over the reality.

Olding will now rebuild his career while Jackson will sit it out for a while until the mob dissipates a bit more. (which they clearly have done with Olding) Where are the oh so concerned Twitterati???

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, there were people claiming nobody would touch them, which was the triumph of hope over the reality.

Who were the people claiming that? I thought everyone accepted that they would play again, not in Ireland but abroad. I think Appledreams hoped they wouldnt play again but iirc people who follow rugby recognised that they would

In any case your own claims proved to be well wide of the mark-

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jackson heading to Clermont.
Olding heading to Exeter.

Brilliant, two good enough teams and still in the Irish public eye. Delighted.

Since Clermont and Exeter refused them we can also add Sale Sharks to the list and god knows how many others we dont know about in the background.

Almost three months on from the trial and Olding has signed for relegation fodder in France and Jacksons latest hope is that Waikato in New Zealand will sign him. This is resting on whether or not his friend and former Ulster Rugby coach Jono Gibbes (who was appointed to the Waikato head coach job only last Monday) can persuade the board of Waikato rugby that Jackson is not toxic to their brand. Waikato won only two games last season and are not even in the Super 14. In fact they just got relegated from the Premiership.

I doubt Jackson would even go to what is essentially a third division club in New Zealand, his skill and talent is far above that station. But who knows, maybe at this stage with no offers on the table he is desperate and a move the other side of the world might be the best he can achieve in the circumstances. If it is then he can expect a massive paycut and he will also be paid in NZ$ which compounds the his financial situation even further.

One thing is for certain here though, all the big teams are giving him a wide berth. And that his actions throughout this sorry mess have seriously turned off sponsors for whom clubs depend to pay the wages. Jackson bit the hand that feeds him and he is finding out the reality of that situation now.