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

28-03-2018 01:43PM

Isshelying wrote: »

So the verdict didnt go the way you wanted to you still need to imply those men are rapists and she is just an innocent victim.

If they had been found guilty would you be as quick to say that it didnt mean they actually did it?

There was a whole thread full of that on the last conviction

The Talking Bread · 28-03-2018 01:43PM

The only thing this verdict equates to is that the jury could not decide BRD whether the 4 accused individuals were guilty of the accusations. Very expected but no scientific or truly factual proof for them to believe or disbelieve her

That's a criminal trial and this one was one of the most clouded trials for a jury to decide BRD

PhlegmyMoses · 28-03-2018 01:43PM

C__MC wrote: »

The defense never used dara florence as a witness

They would know she is coming up and would know what she was about to say though. The prosecution kept that girl on the stand because their evidence was the girl's story and they needed to establish her as credible. The defence keep her up there to poke holes in her story.

The defence doesn't really need to do this with PJ and the lads, because they have Dara Florence as an ace in the hole. She is their main corroborator of their story.

erica74 · 28-03-2018 01:44PM

Mr.H wrote: »

yes

Being labeled a rapist wrongly where it will follow you around for the rest of your life and everyone will call you a rapist and avoid you because your a rapist. When you are not one.

That is worse than being raped yes.

Being raped is a crime that while you may get some sort of (very minimal IMO) justice. Being falsely accused of rape brings no such justice.

The lads even she lied, cant look for justice because people will always say "there wasnt enough evidence to bring a prosecution".

Being falsely accused of rape is worse than being raped?! Seriously? I haven't picked you up wrong there, this is something you actually believe?

Squeeonline · 28-03-2018 01:45PM

This is 100% the reason why the defendants details should be kept as private as the prosecutions.

Regardless of whether they did commit any crimes or not, and also other cases, their lives are changed for the worse and forever. A jury of their peers found them not-guilty but they will be tarred and feathered for life.

eviltwin · 28-03-2018 01:45PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Of course. Listen I am not downplaying being raped ffs.

I am saying that counselling and time can get you to live with being raped.

No amount of time or counselling can erase such an accusation

Counselling and time don't undo a rape, I speak from 32 years experience.

Besides I'm not sure a who has it worse debate is helpful.

The Backwards Man · 28-03-2018 01:45PM

I wouldn't be too comfortable about hailing the defendants as upstanding and respectable human beings, but that's not a crime. Absolute disaster of a case for everyone except the lawyers.

Raging_Ninja · 28-03-2018 01:46PM

Mutant z wrote: »

She has potentially damaged their reputation for her lies she deserves no sympathy absolutely none now let's hope those innocent men can go back to their rugby careers with the minimul of fuss but i wouldn't bet on it.

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", and it all came down to he-said she-said. I don't think any of us are in the position to know what truly happened on that night. We've only heard a fraction of a percent of what evidence was in the trial.

jmayo · 28-03-2018 01:46PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

This won't affect their careers in the slightest, nor should it.
They are innocent.

Very deluded.

jammiedodgers wrote: »

None of them should ever have been named in the first place.

Ideally yes, but Ireland and Northern Ireland is a small place and then add in the fact they were high profile sportsmen.
Even in Britain it would be hard to hide and rumours would quickly leak out.
It would have been hard to hide the fact that some of a fairly prominent team were missing for a period of time.

murpho999 wrote: »

Why would their careers have ended?

Not guilty, they can move on with their lives and play rugby again.

They may return to nominally play for Ulster, but Ireland no chance.
And you will find their Ulster contracts will not be renewed.
Also I think Jackson is on a central IRFU contract and that will most definitely be axed.

Sponsors also will not want to be associated with them.
This is rugby union, this is Ulster not some soccer club in England where the fans couldn't give a rats ass what their "heroes" get up to.

They have been found not guilty of rape, but haven't they openly admitted to spit roasting some young girl and then discussing her like a piece of meat.
That doesn't play well with a lot of people.
Ulster seem to attracts some pretty religious guys and I can't see them readily sharing a dressing room with these guys.

....... · 28-03-2018 01:46PM

This post has been deleted.

28-03-2018 01:48PM

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", and it all came down to he-said she-said.

I have a huge issue with this. If you are found not guilty of a crime, you should be able to proclaim you are innocent.

This is a huge double standard.

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 01:48PM

erica74 wrote: »

Being falsely accused of rape is worse than being raped?! Seriously? I haven't picked you up wrong there, this is something you actually believe?

Being raped you are a victim. You didnt choose to be a victim. It was the act of a sicko.

Being accused or rape you are accused by someone of committing that crime. The accuser knowingly made you that sicko.

As I said you can get help and justice for one and not the other

facehugger99 · 28-03-2018 01:48PM

Mr.H wrote: »

But the lads have headlines from all over the world with the words rapist over their pictures

Given the deeply misogynistic attitudes displayed by 'the lads', I think they can count themselves lucky they haven't suffered a worse outcome

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-03-2018 01:48PM

So, forgive my ignorance (haven't been following the case closely, and when I was I couldn't find an accurate answer): was this a case of they had sex, but it was consentual; or there was no sex; or they did something a bit iffy to potentially invalidate the consent during the act; or something else...?

Sidebaro · 28-03-2018 01:48PM

Mr.H wrote:

Of course. Listen I am not downplaying being raped ffs.

I am saying that counselling and time can get you to live with being raped.

No amount of time or counselling can erase such an accusation

If you say one thing is worse than another then you kind of are downplaying it, no?

Surely if counselling and time can get you to live with being raped then it would work for being falsely accused also?

Equally, if no amount of time or counselling can erase an accusation then it also can't erase such a traumatic thing like being raped?

....... · 28-03-2018 01:49PM

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_ · 28-03-2018 01:49PM

david75 wrote: »

Apparently the judge in the case has previous and oversaw a trial where a guy raped a 12 year old got her pregnant and somehow walked out free from the court.
He pretty much instructed this jury to find these lads innocent.

Personally I believe her.

The judge said that for a conviction, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not instructing them.

RandomName2 · 28-03-2018 01:49PM

Adamocovic wrote: »

only the people themselves really know.

Given the amount of alcohol that was consumed by all parties, that's not necessarily the case.

Whilst I don't personally think the guys were guilty, I don't actually doubt her emotional sincerity.

28-03-2018 01:49PM

Isshelying wrote: »

So the verdict didnt go the way you wanted to you still need to imply those men are rapists and she is just an innocent victim.

If they had been found guilty would you be as quick to say that it didnt mean they actually did it?

I think the verdict is correct. It was basically a 1 v 4 argument that was never going to pass in a court of law. So yes, they aren’t guilty.

Innocent would imply these lads are angels and they aren’t. The way they treated this girl was shocking and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Not guilty of rape, but guilty of being sleezy dirty scumbags.

In my opinion of course, but then, I have a daughter and if this ever happened to her, I would not be relying on the law courts to sort it out.

eviltwin · 28-03-2018 01:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a huge issue with this. If you are found not guilty of a crime, you should be able to proclaim you are innocent.

This is a huge double standard.

Not guilty just means the prosecution was unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It doesn't mean the accused didn't do the crime.

C__MC · 28-03-2018 01:50PM

I read somewhere olding was interviewed 10 times plus while major questions were left out when interviewing the woman. Strange. At times, it felt like a farce of a case.

Isshelying · 28-03-2018 01:50PM

Mr.H wrote: »

yes

Being labeled a rapist wrongly where it will follow you around for the rest of your life and everyone will call you a rapist and avoid you because your a rapist. When you are not one.

That is worse than being raped yes.

Being raped is a crime that while you may get some sort of (very minimal IMO) justice. Being falsely accused of rape brings no such justice.

The lads even she lied, cant look for justice because people will always say "there wasnt enough evidence to bring a prosecution".

While rape is a horrible thing, a rape victim is just that, a victim. They get any amount of sympathy, support and anonymity. There is a chance that their attacjer will be very harshly punished.

A man falsely accused of rape is an outcast. He is despised, he has no support. He can lose everything from his family to his career. They arent safe in prison or the outside world. Even if they are acquitted, the accusation will follow them everywhere. If you google their name it will be the first result. There will be no justice for them, even if convicted a woman just faces a suspended sentence and is unlikely to lose their job or be shunned in their community.

It is worse, a lot worse and women will never understand it because they will never be in that situation.

sightband · 28-03-2018 01:50PM

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

In theory, they have been acquitted and should be eligible to resume their Ulster and Ireland careers immediately.

In practice, it will take some time to reintroduce them to rugby.

Can’t see them playing for Ireland ever again, average enough players not exactly needed at the moment. Not to mention they seem to be a right pair of absolute c*nts and what coach wants to deal with that and their reputation along with it.

28-03-2018 01:50PM

Ugh Jesus, to sum up just the first page of the thread:

Not guilty means not proven. OJ Simpson was found not guilty. I don't see too many calling for him to be welcomed back to Hollywood with open arms.

If she was up for it (I don't know) then what's this "defilement" ****e? I have no understanding why a straight guy would want to have sex with a few of his mates but I do get why a straight person would want to have sex with several of the opposite sex.

From what I heard I thought they probably were guilty but if I were on a Jury it'd be 50/50 whether it was proven. The people who were there for the whole trial needed very little time to decide that it wasn't proven.

The lads' stories didn't add up but as time went on the more I heard of her story the more it sounded like regret. We've all seen things happen at parties and the like followed not long after by a very different account of things from someone who wishes they hadn't done what they'd done.

As I said before, if someone close to me came to me saying she'd been raped I wouldn't be suggesting going to the Gardai. Unless it's open-and-shut with witnesses all it's gonna do is get a lot of stuff out in public unnecessarily.

Anyway, it'll be brave girls and guys heading to the celebration later. I'm glad I knew from when I was 15 that I didn't want to be around people who like group sex with their mates.

py2006 · 28-03-2018 01:51PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Given the deeply misogynistic attitudes displayed by 'the lads', I think they can count themselves lucky they haven't suffered a worse outcome

So they were lucky there weren't found guilty of rape based on immature comments?

awec · 28-03-2018 01:51PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I wouldn't be too comfortable about hailing the defendants as upstanding and respectable human beings, but that's not a crime. Absolute disaster of a case for everyone except the lawyers.

Dunno about that, case doesn't look too good for the prosecution QCs.

Raging_Ninja · 28-03-2018 01:51PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have a huge issue with this. If you are found not guilty of a crime, you should be able to proclaim you are innocent.

This is a huge double standard.

And yet there are people day in and day out found "not guilty" due to lack of evidence or technicalities. It's why I think there needs to be a third verdict option "not proven", which sits between "guilty" and "not guilty".

A pretty famous example of what I'm talking about is the former judge Brian Curtin, who had child porn on his computer and yet was found not guilty as a warrant was defective and evidence could not be used. He's hardly innocent now is he?

C__MC · 28-03-2018 01:51PM

The text messages were quite bad but messages like that are a common trait for young males.

Strazdas · 28-03-2018 01:52PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, forgive my ignorance (haven't been following the case closely, and when I was I couldn't find an accurate answer): was this a case of they had sex, but it was consentual; or there was no sex; or they did something a bit iffy to potentially invalidate the consent during the act; or something else...?

She definitely had sex and with more than one man. Another woman during the trial said she entered the bedroom briefly and saw her with two of the men.

Kyta · 28-03-2018 01:52PM

Aegir wrote: »

Innocent would imply these lads are angels and they aren’t. The way they treated this girl was shocking and they should be ashamed of themselves.

innocent
ˈɪnəs(ə)nt/
adjective
adjective: innocent
1.
not guilty of a crime or offence.

Legally they are innocent.
Your own personal interpretation of innocence may differ, but with all due respect that doesn't matter here.

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

Comments