nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

jr86

It brought out some amount of unhinged nutjobs on Twitter that's for sure, who haven't an absolute breeze about how the court process works. You'd really weep for humanity

All the best to the lads in the rest of their careers

bogwalrus

Anne1982h wrote: »

I believe her solely because I have no idea why you would put yourself through that incredibly public and humiliating trial if nothing bad actually happened at all. It doesn’t make sense.

Possibly because she didn't know what she was getting herself into. I imagine her family and peers might have influenced her to take action also.

BoJack Horseman

Hopefully they will peruse a civil suit against the accuser for damages.

padd b1975

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I'd love to say you're right but I doubt it. Maybe I am being cynical, maybe you're being naive but I don't think they will play international rugby again.

They're not exactly sponsor friendly I'll admit, but if they're good enough they'll definitely play.

Rugby is a serious professional business these days and we're not exactly over supplied with international class players.

tinpib

spurious wrote: »

Well there you go. Two hours not long to discuss I would have thought.

Roundabout 3.5/4 hours in total. 2 hours yesterday according to reports.

They started deliberating at 10:20am today and news broke at around 12:35pm, so maybe 90 mins or a bit more today.

Still though 3.5/4 hours still seemed quite short to me. Thought it would go on longer.

However based on that length of time it must have been quite clear to the jury that it was going to be an acquittal.

_Dara_

py2006 wrote: »

A hell of a lot more than just sometimes these days. They now use it instead of the word sexist and use it ANY time a man disagrees or criticises feminism.

In this case, it’s an accurate use of the word. What’s your problem with that?

It’s kinda pathetic that you are using THIS for points-scoring.

eviltwin

I don't think she's a liar. I believe she felt what happened was a rape, assault.

That doesn't mean they raped her though. It's entirely possible they believed she was completely up for it.

Having sex with strangers when you are under the influence of alcohol is a risky thing to do.

Ursus Horribilis

I'm not surprised. There was so much muddying of the waters here, it was hard to know who to believe. I honestly don't know if justice has been served but it was always going to be a big ask to have a unanimous verdict. It has probably been an eye opener for some people into how rugby players behave though. Something tells me this wasn't their first time round the block when it came to having young ladies vie for their attention.

The Talking Bread

cavemeister wrote: »

Anne1982h wrote: »

I believe her solely because I have no idea why you would put yourself through that incredibly public and humiliating trial if nothing bad actually happened at all. It doesn’t make sense.

But she had total anonymity in court. She was hidden behind a curtain the whole time. If she was lying (and unfortunately, the jury believed she was) she will never be named or identified publicly. Paddy and Stuart have been found to be not guilty and now have their names associated with rape for the rest of their lives.

Her anonymity was gone months ago and she would have been informed by her legal team of this inevitability

Akrasia

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Are you serious?

Every lads group on Watsapp has the exact same BS in it....

No it doesn't. And don't be smearing me with your attitudes towards women.

eurokev

There's a distinct difference imo, of being innocent and of getting away with something.
They got away with this here imo

facehugger99

Not enough evidence to find them guilty, but I suspect what went on that night was far beyond the bounds of chivalrous behavior. These lads reputations have been rightly ruined and careers ended I suspect.

Given the victim was a young woman, I suspect the internet's finest will form a Twitter hate mob.

God help her.

endacl

Louise O'Neill's gonna explode...

AudreyHepburn

Inmyownworld wrote: »

Not guilty doesn't equate to innocent.

Just like them being found not guilty doesn't equate to her making it up.

Not surprised with the verdict but I am surprised how quickly they reached it.

Every one of their lives changed after that, hers and theirs.

Do you honestly think they are the only group of young men who have talked about the women they have been with that way?

Do you think that young women don’t talk about their conquests in similar ways?

I know I and my friends did when we were in our late teens and early twenties.

.......

This post has been deleted.

py2006

_Dara_ wrote: »

In this case, it’s an accurate use of the word. What’s your problem with that?

It’s kinda pathetic that you are using THIS for points-scoring.

Explain? You are saying they hate women?

Edward M

If there was any doubt, a jury had to find not guilty.
This was a difficult case, one woman against four, with no support of any sort from any other witness.
From what I have read, I couldn't say I could definitely be sure they were guilty of what they were charged with.
A horrible case, but ultimately I think the right verdict based on the evidence.

Bob Harris

You knew the verdict before the case even started. Complete waste of time.

[Deleted User]

murpho999 wrote: »

Of course not guilty means innocent.

They are innocent until proven guilty.

Are you bitter at the result?

Not guilty just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. Even the slightest bit of doubt and the jury have to find them not guilty. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, the only people who know that for certain are the people involved.

UnknownSpecies

facehugger99 wrote: »

Not enough evidence to find them guilty, but I suspect what went on that night was far beyond the bounds of chivalrous behavior. These lads reputations have been rightly ruined and careers ended I suspect.

Given the victim was a young woman, I suspect the internet's finest will form a Twitter hate mob.

God help her.

Are you privy to some additional evidence that the jurors weren't? How have their reputations been rightly ruined? If it was your son up there, would you feel the same?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Plague Maiden

Misogynism is such an overused and misapplied word these days. It is not the same thing as sexism or the sexual objectification of women.

[Deleted User]

ChikiChiki wrote: »

How the bloody hell can you feel sorry for a liar??

Because the patriarchy, obviously.

padd b1975

Flying Fox wrote: »

Not guilty just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. Even the slightest bit of doubt and the jury have to find them not guilty. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, the only people who know that for certain are the people involved.

The courts don't always get it right.

They got it right on this occasion, she had over two months to make her case.

Akrasia

Flying Fox wrote: »

Not guilty just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. Even the slightest bit of doubt and the jury have to find them not guilty. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, the only people who know that for certain are the people involved.

Not slightest doubt, reasonable doubt. Big difference

Noveight

Edward M wrote: »

A horrible case, but ultimately I think the right verdict based on the evidence.

Bang on the money.

Berserker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hopefully they will peruse a civil suit against the accuser for damages.

They won't do that.

endacl wrote: »

Louise O'Neill's gonna explode...

Perfect for her, isn't it. A nice juicy case involving a few rugby jocks.

AudreyHepburn

Anne1982h wrote: »

I believe her solely because I have no idea why you would put yourself through that incredibly public and humiliating trial if nothing bad actually happened at all. It doesn’t make sense.

Thankfully you need something a lot stronger than that to convict someone.

Women can and do lie about rape for a myriad of reasons and to simply believe them without asking questions just isn’t good enough.

yerwanthere123

Oh Jesus, Louise O'Neill is already out in force on Twitter. Didn't take long.

py2006

Plague Maiden wrote: »

Misogynism is such an overused and misapplied word these days. It is not the same thing as sexism or the sexual objectification of women.

Nowadays it is used to dismiss men (and only men) who disagree with or criticise the opinions or actions of any woman.