Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Options
1…8182848687…108

Comments

  • Options
    #2492
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The jury were asked to decide if the men were guilty of a non consensual act. They decided that they weren't.
    They didn't believe the prosecution or the alleged victim who were most definitely saying that.

    No no Francie, you have this wrong, again.

    You cannot definitively say what the jury thought happened that night. All you can say is that they couldn't convict beyond reasonable doubt.

    How many times have we had this discussion and you keep making **** up to suit your own narrative.


  • Options
    #2493
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    "The poster" said no such thing.

    You may need to read the names of who you are quoting and replying to.

    I wasn't talking about you.


  • Options
    #2494
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    No no Francie, you have this wrong, again.

    You cannot definitively say what the jury thought happened that night. All you can say is that they couldn't convict beyond reasonable doubt.

    How many times have we had this discussion and you keep making **** up to suit your own narrative.

    Did they jury find them guilty of a non consensual act?


  • Options
    #2495
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Faugheen wrote: »
    I wasn't talking about you.
    Faugheen wrote: »
    You'd be called a liar if you said the jury thought everything was consensual.

    I have worked in the legal profession. Don't tell me what verdicts mean and what the jury thinks by delivering a verdict.

    That was your first reply to me.


    Would you be arguing the point that you weren't found innocent but they just couldn't prove the case against you if it was you in the dock?


  • Options
    #2496
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,617 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    mfceiling wrote: »
    How did they know LI would get promoted before the season even started?
    I'd assume the contract had a clause that the sponsorship deal would increase based on promotion...You think CC knew that LI would get promoted therefore would have known that their sponsorship would have increased.

    Well if you're a betting man a relegated club with world class coaches like Kidney and Kiss on board has a pretty decent shot at getting promoted again, which they did.
    Regards the contract, nobody knows unless theyve seen what it in. LI could have been desperate for sponsorship at the time of relegation so it might well have been a 3 year deal at the same price regardless of promotion. Its not like relegated clubs are negotiating from a position of power, in fact its the opposite.

    All we know is that CC signed a three year deal in Sept 2018 and they dropped it in June 2019, less than 8 months into it. Its because of Jackson, plain and simple. If it wasnt then you'd see London Irish suing CC for breach of contract, its a contract, not something you can just walk away from whenever you feel like it. They wont be suing LI because all these sponsorship contracts have clauses that allows the company an out if they feel their brand is being negatively affected. CC replied to people on Twitter who had complained about Jackson, telling them they were dropping the sponsorship, for them thats evidence of the sponsorship with LI bringing their brand into disrepute.

    Its a holy mess and will be an even bigger one for London Irish if Guinness drop them too. Kidney and Kiss are trying to build something here and Jackson is integral to that. But if he is losing them sponsors then that puts the club in a precarious position. It might all blow over but those were some pretty strong words from Diageo today, they sound like they are going to cut London Irish loose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2497
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Did they jury find them guilty of a non consensual act?

    Ok Francie

    Show me exactly where the jury said 'we believe this was a consensual act' and I'll take my years of legal experience and throw it away for someone who just is not interested in properly engaging.


  • Options
    #2498
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Ok Francie

    Show me exactly where the jury said 'we believe this was a consensual act' and I'll take my years of legal experience and throw it away for someone who just is not interested in properly engaging.

    Why won't you answer the question?

    I think we know why.
    If they didn't find them guilty of a non consensual act then it is safe to believe/say they didn't think a non consensual act took place otherwise...

    That could be for any number of reasons, which none of us (including you) know.


  • Options
    #2499
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Why won't you answer the question?

    I think we know why.
    If they didn't find them guilty of a non consensual act then it is safe to believe/say they didn't think a non consensual act took place otherwise...

    That could be for any number of reasons, which none of us (including you) know.

    I have answered that question multiple times in the thread, as you well know.

    Find me where the jury said 'we believe this was a consensual act' please.

    I don't want 'safe to say' or 'assumptions', I want to see where they actually said it. Because unless they said it you don't know what members of the jury thought. That's my point.


  • Options
    #2500
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    I have answered that question multiple times in the thread, as you well know.

    Find me where the jury said 'we believe this was a consensual act' please.

    I don't want 'safe to say' or 'assumptions', I want to see where they actually said it. Because unless they said it you don't know what members of the jury thought. That's my point.

    But you know that doesn't exist. You therefore, if in possession of a legal mind, know or can infer that the poster voiced an 'opinion'.

    But you continue to contest what can only be opinions, and it is safe to also assume why you feel the need to do that or safe for me anyhow.

    I'll leave you to ponder what you consistently try to do to these men, for whatever reason. Good night.


  • Options
    #2501
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    But you know that doesn't exist. You therefore, if in possession of a legal mind, know or can infer that the poster voiced an 'opinion'.

    No Francie, the poster presented this ‘opinion’ as a fact, which is incorrect. When I pointed this out, people like you kept arguing a toss with me about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2502
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    No Francie, the poster presented this ‘opinion’ as a fact, which is incorrect. When I pointed this out, people like you kept arguing a toss with me about it.

    And such a legal mind as yours should know that NOBODY has 'facts' around what the jury decided and that it can/should be assumed that anything said about what the jury decided is automatically an 'opinion'.

    Of course you know this and your interjections are made for a more sinister, reason.


  • Options
    #2503
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    a pity the jury didnt have an option of "as good as guilty" really


  • Options
    #2504
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Deleted User wrote: »
    a pity the jury didnt have an option of "as good as guilty" really

    That jury lives partly here and on the twit machine.


  • Options
    #2505
    Jackman25
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Jackman25


    42 day trial, less than an hours deliberation per defendant and unanimous verdicts on all counts.
    I'm really not buying the "just couldn't get over the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt" narrative that the #ibelieveher lot would seek to push.


  • Options
    #2506
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    its a pretty simple position of not believing the verdict

    fine, but niggling about it every time the thread is bumped is a bit much


  • Options
    #2507
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And such a legal mind as yours should know that NOBODY has 'facts' around what the jury decided and that it can/should be assumed that anything said about what the jury decided is automatically an 'opinion'.

    Of course you know this and your interjections are made for a more sinister, reason.

    No, I'm trying to stop people making sinister statements such as 'the jury believed everything was consensual' and presenting that as fact.

    Why are you flat out refusing to read my posts?


  • Options
    #2508
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    this is a victory for womyn


  • Options
    #2509
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    No, I'm trying to stop people making sinister statements such as 'the jury believed everything was consensual' and presenting that as fact.

    Why are you flat out refusing to read my posts?

    That is just your counter 'opinion'. You don't know what they believed or didn't believe either.

    IF the jury believed that it was NON consensual they would have found them GUILTY.
    As they found them NOT guilty it is safe to assume that for whatever reason - lack of evidence - lack of belief in the various testimonies, etc that they could not conclude it was non consensual.


    It is entirely safe to offer the 'opinion' that 'the jury SEEMED to accept the goings on that night were consensual' which is what the poster said and not what you are inventing they said i.e. - 'the jury believed everything was consensual'.

    Why are you flat out misquoting?


  • Options
    #2510
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,741 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Cash Converters and a Drinks Company taking the moral high, fook me.

    I wonder how many desperate people taking out a 700% interest loan would chose some other company because Jackson plays for London Irish.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2511
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,281 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    That is just your counter 'opinion'. You don't know what they believed or didn't believe either.

    IF the jury believed that it was NON consensual they would have found them GUILTY.
    As they found them NOT guilty it is safe to assume that for whatever reason - lack of evidence - lack of belief in the various testimonies, etc that they could not conclude it was non consensual.


    It is entirely safe to offer the 'opinion' that 'the jury SEEMED to accept the goings on that night were consensual' which is what the poster said and not what you are inventing they said i.e. - 'the jury believed everything was consensual'.

    Why are you flat out misquoting?

    It is equally safe to offer the opinion that "the jury were not convinced it was consensual but the prosecution did not produce sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict". both opinions are based on the same amount of evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2512
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,159 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Jackman25 wrote: »
    42 day trial, less than an hours deliberation per defendant and unanimous verdicts on all counts.
    I'm really not buying the "just couldn't get over the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt" narrative that the #ibelieveher lot would seek to push.

    That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.


  • Options
    #2513
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.

    what does not being convicted mean, legally?


    jesus christ


  • Options
    #2514
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is equally safe to offer the opinion that "the jury were not convinced it was consensual but the prosecution did not produce sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict". both opinions are based on the same amount of evidence.

    Exactly. Both are 'opinions' and hold equal weigh. Faugheen jumping in everytime to disallow 'opinions' other than his/her own seems to me to be agenda driven.


  • Options
    #2515
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.
    so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?


  • Options
    #2516
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,741 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Grayson wrote: »
    Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent.

    It absolutely does, you go in to court innocent, if you are found not guilty you leave legally innocent.

    What else could it mean, legally, seriously?


  • Options
    #2517
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

    thats down to opinion, to be fair

    but to try to weasel-word around that they were legally cleared is another thing entirely.


  • Options
    #2518
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,275 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

    Ordinarily not.
    That is the sinister aspect of this case and cases like it. Certain people and businesses will reserve the right to infer/insinuate guilt. Seems to me it is the age of virtue signalling at fault for this.
    We see it in relation to a lot of cases...all that is required is an accusation to be made. At one point in the #metoo frenzy you were not allowed to even question an allegation.


  • Options
    #2519
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,452 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.

    Erm.....that's exactly what it means.


  • Options
    #2520
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Ordinarily not.
    That is the sinister aspect of this case and cases like it. Certain people and businesses will reserve the right to infer/insinuate guilt. Seems to me it is the age of virtue signalling at fault for this.
    We see it in relation to a lot of cases...all that is required is an accusation to be made. At one point in the #metoo frenzy you were not allowed to even question an allegation.
    thats some terrifying dystopian sh1t right there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2521
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Erm.....that's exactly what it means.

    From a juror’s perspective it can often be the case that they really think the accused is guilty but the prosecution failed to prove their case sufficiently as to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    So they are forced to acquit, because that’s what the law tells them to do, despite their own opinions.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement