Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Cryptopagan

Machina wrote: »

Show me how to search through the Sun or Star archives from the late 90's and I'll PM you the article.

If something like that happened the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE would all have reported it, and it would be possible to link to some sort of evidence, unless you think someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a regular thing not considered newsworthy by Irish court reporters (and after his mam rang up Joe Duffy and everything...sorry, rang up Joe Duffy “types”).

Anyhow, I won’t drag things off topic any further.

suicide_circus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt

Machina

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If something like that happened the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE would all have reported it, and it would be possible to link to some sort of evidence, unless you think someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a regular thing not considered newsworthy by Irish court reporters (and after his mam rang up Joe Duffy and everything...sorry, rang up Joe Duffy “types”).

Anyhow, I won’t drag things off topic any further.

You think I'm a liar. That's your prerogative.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There definitely have been jurors in famous cases (the MJ trial was one of them I believe) who said “My opinion is that he did it but the prosecution didn’t prove it”.

In other words, he was likely guilty but the standard of proof was high and it wasn’t met.

That’s why you hear defense lawyers place so much emphasis on creating tiny holes in the prosecution’s argument: because to get their client off all they have to prove is “reasonable doubt”.

As such any small inconsistency, any minor mistake in how the evidence was handled could be enough (with the right legal team) to convince a jury to let a man they think is guilty go free based on reasonable doubt.

Those lads didn’t spend half a million pounds sterling on legal fees for nothing.

i dont think theres any problem with anyone who wants to say "i think they did 'it'". i know that a juror can have reasonable doubt while still believing in someone's guilt, i dont think any of that is up for debate really

there are people who think that the "not guilty" verdict means that sponsors and clubs shouldnt be able to take a negative view of associating with these players. i think thats impossible to argue for or enforce and that's what the current revive is about, and hey theres a discussion there.

but there is no room imo for anyone to baldly state "the guys werent cleared" or any such sentiment.

you don't have to agree or like it

the guys were cleared

to try to add 'legally' to any opinion to the contrary is nonsense

FrancieBrady

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If something like that happened the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE would all have reported it, and it would be possible to link to some sort of evidence, unless you think someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a regular thing not considered newsworthy by Irish court reporters (and after his mam rang up Joe Duffy and everything...sorry, rang up Joe Duffy “types”).

Anyhow, I won’t drag things off topic any further.

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There definitely have been jurors in famous cases (the MJ trial was one of them I believe) who said “My opinion is that he did it but the prosecution didn’t prove it”.

In other words, he was likely guilty but the standard of proof was high and it wasn’t met.

The majority of them in that case stated publicly they thought he was innocent, 2 dissented after they were offered money and book deals.

In this part of the world, we are not allowed hear from Jurors.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Those lads didn’t spend half a million pounds sterling on legal fees for nothing.

I don't see how cost should have any bearing on their right to liberty TBH.

It was a very long trial with multiple defendants, given the costs associated with the legal profession, that sounds about right, if not cheap TBH.

Remember defendants are up against the state which in reality means "unlimited" funds, so they are all ready at a disadvantage.

What was their costs?

Boggles

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Just means he is not guilty, doesn't mean he is innocent.

Machina

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

If it's not reported by the Irish Times it didn't happen.

KikiLaRue

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Can you back up the first statement above?

Cryptopagan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

That’s just an example of a false allegation, not of a wrongful conviction. I know one case in Ireland where there was a wrongful conviction on foot of a false allegation, but it was against a woman (and is notable enough to have a fairly detailed Wikipedia article).

FrancieBrady

Boggles wrote: »

The majority of them in that case stated publicly they thought he was innocent, 2 dissented after they were offered money and book deals.

In this part of the world, we are not allowed hear from Jurors.



I don't see how cost should have any bearing on their right to liberty TBH.

It was a very long trial with multiple defendants, given the costs associated with the legal profession, that sounds about right, if not cheap TBH.

Remember defendants are up against the state which in reality means "unlimited" funds, so they are all ready at a disadvantage.

What was their costs?

It should also be remembered as significant that the jury threw out lesser charges as well.

That they were entirely unconvinced by the prosecution and the available evidence is abundantly clear.

KikiLaRue

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It should also be remembered as significant that the jury threw out lesser charges as well.

That they were entirely unconvinced by the prosecution and the available evidence is abundantly clear.

It’s great that you’re able to speak for those jurors better than they were able to speak for themselves, that’s some talent you have.

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Can you back up the first statement above?

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

Shemale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it happens, we have one of the highest rates of false rape allegations in Europe.

Here is a recent one:
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33540-woman-21-given-jail-for-false-rape-allegation

Says it all really, woman charged for false accusation and it's reported nowhere nationally and no outcry.

Whereas nationally all men are guilty even if found not guilty

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s great that you’re able to speak for those jurors better than they were able to speak for themselves, that’s some talent you have.

The jury have not and are barred from speaking for themselves outside a court.

In the court they threw out the rape charge and the lesser crime of sexual assault. Fact.

ive to be honest i dont like to go down the avenue of discussing false rape allegations and all that.

i think you have to accept that the majority- the vast majority- of sexual assaults dont lead to convictions and i think you have to keep that in mind when discussing these things

the difficulty in determining consent, intent, gathering evidence, the publicity or otherwise around allegations, the high bar we have as a society for legal proof- these are all far more relevant items to consider and defend/discuss before we focus on what i would think are a very low number of false allegations.

suicide_circus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

unlikley that that study from TCD would get funding let alone be published today

Shemale

Deleted User wrote: »

ive to be honest i dont like to go down the avenue of discussing false rape allegations and all that.

i think you have to accept that the majority- the vast majority- of sexual assaults dont lead to convictions and i think you have to keep that in mind when discussing these things

the difficulty in determining consent, intent, gathering evidence, the publicity or otherwise around allegations, the high bar we have as a society for legal proof- these are all far more relevant items to consider and defend/discuss before we focus on what i would think are a very low number of false allegations.

What a one sided outlook. A man who is falsely accused is still treated as guilty no matter what, his life is ruined why is that different to a victim whose life is also ruined? I know of a guy who had a false rape allegation made which the woman later admitted was false and people refer to him as "the rapist".

FrancieBrady

suicide_circus wrote: »

unlikley that that study from TCD would get funding let alone be published today

The #metoo #IBelieveHer mobs would have you believe an allegation is enough. To question it is 'victim blaming' etc.

A very dangerous road to go down not withstanding the difficulties surrounding these issues.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It should also be remembered as significant that the jury threw out lesser charges as well.

That they were entirely unconvinced by the prosecution and the available evidence is abundantly clear.

What do you mean throw out? I don't think a jury can throw out or dismiss a charge. They can judge guilty or not guilty(Please correct me if I'm wrong).

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

What do you mean throw out? I don't think a jury can throw out or dismiss a charge. They can judge guilty or not guilty(Please correct me if I'm wrong).

They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault and the case was therefore thrown out.

throw out

See: discharge, dislodge, dismiss, displace, eject, eliminate, emit, evict, exclude, expel, oust, pose, propound, radiate, reject, relegate, remove

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault and the case was therefore thrown out.

throw out

See: discharge, dislodge, dismiss, displace, eject, eliminate, emit, evict, exclude, expel, oust, pose, propound, radiate, reject, relegate, remove

That's not what thrown out means in legal terms. Thrown out is a colloquial phase for charges being dismissed. That's what happens when the judge dismisses the case.
For example evidence can also be thrown out of court. That means the judge says it's not admissible. It doesn't mean the jury thought it was so.

take for example this case that was "thrown out".

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/drinkdrive-case-thrown-out-after-garda-blunder-27968710.html

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

That's not what thrown out means in legal terms. Thrown out is a colloquial phase for charges being dismissed. That's what happens when the judge dismisses the case.
For example evidence can also be thrown out of court. That means the judge says it's not admissible. It doesn't mean the jury thought it was so.

take for example this case that was "thrown out".

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/drinkdrive-case-thrown-out-after-garda-blunder-27968710.html

This is a bit like the Dead Parrot sketch and I am not bothered arguing. Suffice to say: They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault.

KikiLaRue

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?

Seems like crying “false allegation” is the wrong first port of Call.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is a bit like the Dead Parrot sketch and I am not bothered arguing. Suffice to say: They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault.

Not really. I'm not trolling or anything. It's just that people are misrepresentation what happened. cases weren't thrown out. A case being thrown out would indicate that there's not enough evidence for the trial to proceed or some serious flaw in the prosecution's case. That's not what happened. there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Neither were they found innocent. It was just determined that there isn't enough evidence for their guilt. That verdict doesn't state they are innocent or guilty, it's a judgement on the evidence, not on the accused.

And that's important because people are making arguments that are factually inaccurate. And I think most of the time it's not deliberate, it's just that they didn't understand the terms.

Shemale

Shemale wrote: »

What a one sided outlook. A man who is falsely accused is still treated as guilty no matter what, his life is ruined why is that different to a victim whose life is also ruined? I know of a guy who had a false rape allegation made which the woman later admitted was false and people refer to him as "the rapist".

any one incident of injustice is an injustice

a woman is far more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault that does not lead to a conviction than a man is to be the victim of a false allegation that does lead to a conviction

its something i believe is worth keeping in mind, and if you werent looking to jump to conclusions youd see that my posts in this thread arent on the side of lowering the bar for prosecution or guilt at all.

Shemale

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?

Seems like crying “false allegation” is the wrong first port of Call.

Why is 9% of cases being false acceptable in your opinion?

Why shouldn't 100% of allegations be true?

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Not really. I'm not trolling or anything. It's just that people are misrepresentation what happened. cases weren't thrown out. A case being thrown out would indicate that there's not enough evidence for the trial to proceed or some serious flaw in the prosecution's case. That's not what happened. there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Neither were they found innocent. It was just determined that there isn't enough evidence for their guilt. That verdict doesn't state they are innocent or guilty, it's a judgement on the evidence, not on the accused.

And that's important because people are making arguments that are factually inaccurate. And I think most of the time it's not deliberate, it's just that they didn't understand the terms.

legally they are innocent- you have stated the direct opposite in this thread

i agree that we should be very wary of people reading their own interpretation of the findings of the court as fact.

in either direction

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

Not really. I'm not trolling or anything. It's just that people are misrepresentation what happened. cases weren't thrown out. A case being thrown out would indicate that there's not enough evidence for the trial to proceed or some serious flaw in the prosecution's case. That's not what happened. there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Neither were they found innocent. It was just determined that there isn't enough evidence for their guilt. That verdict doesn't state they are innocent or guilty, it's a judgement on the evidence, not on the accused.

And that's important because people are making arguments that are factually inaccurate. And I think most of the time it's not deliberate, it's just that they didn't understand the terms.

They were innocent before the case began and that status remained after the case.

That is the term that is not being understood imo.

KikiLaRue

Shemale wrote: »

Why is 9% of cases being false acceptable in your opinion?

Why shouldn't 100% of allegations be true?

It’s not acceptable and I didn’t say it was. For almost every crime, there are a small percentage of false accusations. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean I like it.