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

_Dara_

py2006 wrote: »

Explain? You are saying they hate women?

Misogyny encompasses a number of things. It’s not just hatred. Mistreatment, disregard, contempt for women. Yes, they absolutely fall under the banner.

Shefwedfan

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Speak for yourself and your own mates buddy

Did you read what was said in the group texts they brought up in court?

* now go google quickly and starting trying to find something to back up your point

givyjoe

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Weren't there also texts from locals in the area, that the alleged victim had 'falsely' accused someone previously?

awec

This is the verdict I expected from the moment the prosecution finished presenting their side of the story.

They didn't deliver a strong enough case.

C__MC

I have followed the trial from the start. I don’t know what happened that night, no body ever will. But her evidence didn’t add up, a lot of inconsistencies between her account to the doctor and say psni. The lads may have lied but there was no way they could have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The PSNI made a joke of this case and some serious questions needs to be asked. There are no winners

py2006

_Dara_ wrote: »

Misogyny encompasses a number of things. It’s not just hatred. Mistreatment, disregard, contempt for women. Yes, they absolutely fall under the banner.

By having sex with her?

RockDesk

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.

Or to quote the sometimes used response to a not guilty verdict "they got away with it"!

bloodless_coup

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.

Their careers ruined because someone accused them of something they were found not guilty of. And you are happy that this is the case? Pure misandry.

AudreyHepburn

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

This has been my feeling from the start.

And you cannot call them rapists if she didn’t make her feelings clear.

sightband

pjohnson wrote: »

Will she be named now?

Norn iron community very small, especially in those circles. Her name and pics were doing the rounds before it even went to trial. She looks like she did some serious comfort eating in the lead up to the trial.

retro:electro

This is gonna be one of those threads where the next time I check in it’ll be at 375 pages with lengthy multi-quote marathons between two posters

seamus

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

They would have to prove that she was acting with malice or negligence and that her statements weren't honestly made.

There's a lower standard of proof for civil cases, she could end up having a civil court declare that they probably did rape her.

So they won't pursue her for costs unless they can prove it was all made up.

The Talking Bread

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

Not how it works. .....

Laois_Man

bluewolf wrote: »

Surprised at the verdict and it being so quick

I don't know why!
I was more surprised it went to a second day

The prosecution came nowhere near achieving the required level of convincing of gilt.

py2006

Too many men are falsely accused of harassment and even rape. Many are in jail today too.

Lets assume their innocence and not guilt purely because they are men.

Del.Monte

The only possible verdict given all the different stories/lies in the case. The men's reputations are seriously damaged though and I wonder if the careers of Jackson and Olding can be rehabilitated.

Strazdas

I've been following the trial on Twitter since it started and I'm not entirely surprised with the verdict.

I don't think those four guys did themselves any favours though. Acted like a bunch of selfish jerks on the night and didn't seem too bothered that a girl left their house upset and in tears and instead were high fiving each other and bragging about their exploits online.

eviltwin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Does it really take 8 days to cover the events of one night? I don't want innocent people going to prison but equally I don't want anyone going free because a victim is afraid of a similar experience.

Berserker

eviltwin wrote: »

One thing I do know the 8 days she was cross examined is going to deter a lot of rape victims taking cases.

What are you on about? You need to cross examine people who make claims of this nature in the necessary detail. If it takes that amount of time to get through everything then it takes that long.

BoJack Horseman

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Not how it works. .....

Aah.... ok.

That's a shame.

False accusations of this life-changing nature should have consequences.

_Dara_

py2006 wrote: »

By having sex with her?

I’m not going down this rabbit hole. It’s as futile as watching a spider trying to crawl out of a bathtub. You’re entrenched. There’s no point debating with you. If you want to take this as a “win”, knock yourself out.

C__MC

If you look back, her barrister has nothing on paddy Jackson when he was cross examined. He just accused Olding of lies as well. I knew from that her goose was cooked.

castletownman

I have been following this case from the off, and my opinion virtually meandered from one side to the next every second day. I initially believed her version of events as the stigma associated with rape, the false reporting of it and the process the "victim" had to go through led me to believe that she couldn't possibly be making it up.

Gradually, as some holes started to be unraveled I felt that they simply had to be acquitted as there wasn't enough concrete evidence to nail them. So I suppose justice prevails in the end, even if I do think they are slime-balls still.

I will say though that they are part of a misogynistic/sex-obsessed culture within rugby circles. The only real-life stories I have known of fellas having threesomes and other "adventurous" sexual encounters all involved lads that play the game. There is certainly an element of "jock culture" associated with those particularly from a private-school background.

_Dara_

py2006 wrote: »

Too many men are falsely accused of harassment and even rape. Many are in jail today too.

Lets assume their innocence and not guilt purely because they are men.

What are the stats on

1) false accusations of rape or sexual assault

2) wrongly-convicted men sitting in jail for same

py2006

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m not going down this rabbit hole. It’s as futile as watching a spider trying to crawl out of a bathtub. You’re entrenched. There’s no point debating with you. If you want to take this as a “win”, knock yourself out.

oh surprise surprise!

DEFTLEFTHAND

I think it was obvious from a long way out how this was going to go.

Should never have been brought to trial.

The Talking Bread

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Speak for yourself and your own mates buddy

Did you read what was said in the group texts they brought up in court?

* now go google quickly and starting trying to find something to back up your point

What are you talking about??? I read the messages and I maintain there is only a certain breed of men who speak about women like that. You clearly are in that bracket apparently

Berserker

eviltwin wrote: »

Does it really take 8 days to cover the events of one night? I don't want innocent people going to prison but equally I don't want anyone going free because a victim is afraid of a similar experience.

Most definitely could take that long, if not more. Every little detail of that night needs to be discussed and treble checked for the purpose of clarity, if necessary. Have you ever sat in on a trial? The level of detail is painstaking and it needs to be.

[Deleted User]

Laois_Man wrote: »

I don't know why!
I was more surprised it went to a second day

The prosecution came nowhere near achieving the required level of convincing of gilt.

Was it the second day? I was only reading they went to deliberate today, maybe i am out of date

[Deleted User]

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m not going down this rabbit hole. It’s as futile as watching a spider trying to crawl out of a bathtub. You’re entrenched. There’s no point debating with you. If you want to take this as a “win”, knock yourself out.

Is this an early manifestation of a sort of reaction to what feminism has become though?..