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_

Oh my god, my sister has a status with the hashtags #IBelieveHer and #TogetherForYes. As a passionate repealer, I'm annoyed at her and others for conflating the two issues.

Sis said the female jurors agreed only because a unanimous decision was needed. How would she know that? Very irrational stuff. We used to agree on a lot of things but have diverged quite sharply in recent years.

AudreyHepburn

Murdoc90 wrote: »

4 scumbags, everything you need to know about these lads is in the whatsapp messages!

Those messages mean nothing in the context of the trial.

Mr.H

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I never said it was okay, did I?
My point was both men and women can take part in this kind of chat in my experience.

Exactly. I know loads of girls who talk like that about men

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Well hopefully it's been a wake up call for those guys, and they might think more carefully about how they conduct themselves, and behave around women and speak about them in future.

py2006

SAMTALK wrote: »

Sorry but this is your post.

" you can't blame young blokes for taking advantage"

Of course you can blame them. Have some respect for themselves and have some respect for the women.

How would "blokes" feel if they saw someone in their family being treated and talked about like this

Eh, I am talking about rich and famous guys getting lots of female attention and opportunities.

Murdoc90

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Convinced twitter is turning people daft. You have clowns just spewing out off the cuff nonsense without even thinking about what they are saying. Then you have other reading it, believing it and retweeting the same garbage to hundreds of other gullible fools who are unable to form their own opinions.

Im all for free speech but twitter seems particularly mobbish and attracts certain many ill informed folk.

You basically described all forms of social media, including this one, where it seems people are outraged by outrage. It's gas craic.

Nerdlingr

People going on about the whatsapp messages and calling them ALL scumbags. Has anyone read the transcript of what Paddy Jackson wrote as a matter of interest?

Mr.H

Augeo wrote: »

An eye witness account is a type of evidence.

link?

Sidebaro

Mr.H wrote:

NOT GUILTY

You seem to have overlooked my question in post #488. It's a frantic thread so it's easy happen. Interested to hear your reply.

RocketRaccoon

They were found not guilty. Is it time for the tables to be turned on this woman now? Slander? Character defamation? Loss of earnings?

Samuel T. Cogley

_Dara_ wrote: »

But what's the shtory with all the tweets that are basically slandering them now?

It very much depends on what's said but they could of course look at suing people individually or trying to take on twitter. They probably want to keep their heads down tbh.

I'm only (in passing) familiar with Irish Defamation so the NI position could be different.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I never said it was okay, did I?
My point was both men and women can take part in this kind of chat in my experience.

Of course they can, and it's reprehensible whoever does it. But some posters seem to think that because they're in a whatsapp group that does similar that it's perfectly okay. It's worrying that some people are normalising that kind of behaviour and attitude, whether towards men or women.

pjohnson

_Dara_ wrote: »

Oh my god, my sister has a status with the hashtags #IBelieveHer and #TogetherForYes. As a passionate repealer, I'm annoyed at her and others for conflating the two issues.

Sis said the female jurors agreed because a unanimous decision was needed. How would she know that? Very irrational stuff. We used to agree on a lot of things but have diverged quite sharply in recent years.

Thats the rubbish that could stop the repeal happening.

meeeeh

Mr.H wrote: »

Exactly. I know loads of girls who talk like that about men

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

Nerdlingr

Augeo wrote: »

An eye witness account is a type of evidence.

The eye witness account was a major reason why they got off.
She said it looked like a threesome and that the girl wasnt in distress.

manwithaplan

It's entirely possible that the accuser and the accused had different interpretations of the same thing. It is also entirely possible that the accuser is convinced she did not give or maintain consent and that the accused believe that consent was given and maintained.

The fact is that they are not guilty. That does not mean that she is a liar. They have all, accuser and accused, been through a pretty horrible few months (couple of years in fact). I hope they can all move on and that they don't suffer professionally or personally in the longer term.

[Deleted User]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-players-will-continue-to-be-relieved-of-all-duties-while-irfu-review-in-process-36752705.html

The IRFU released a statement following the verdicts, which read;

"The IRFU and Ulster Rugby note the verdict handed down today at the Belfast Crown Court in relation to the case brought against Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We wish to acknowledge that this has undoubtedly been a difficult and extremely traumatic time for all involved.

"To respect the judicial proceedings, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby postponed any internal review of the matter with the players, until the proceedings concluded.

"IRFU and Ulster Rugby officials will review the matter, in line with existing procedures for all contracted players. A Review Committee, made up of senior representatives of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby, has been appointed and will conclude its review as soon as practicable.

"The players will continue to be relieved of all duties while the Review Committee is in process and determining its findings."

I would have expected a more supportive statement from the IRFU.

Mr.H

Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: »

Well hopefully it's been a wake up call for those guys, and they might think more carefully about how they conduct themselves, and behave around women and speak about them in future.

Why???

They are innocent

Samuel T. Cogley

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

Jesus I dunno what gets me more the people who want to try these lads in the court of public opinion or the PC gone mad brigade. Adults can talk like idiots with no malice behind it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mr.H wrote: »

Why???

They are innocent

Them being innocent doesn't mean they were gentlemen. A higher standard is expected of people in the public eye - if they wish to remain in the public eye.

Mr.H

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

You must have never been around a group of women

Women and men are the exact same. Both sides talk about sex and what they would do to, or have done by, certain attractive members of the opposite sex.

Im sure you dont know any women who went nuts for the fifthy shades movies or magic mike.

[Deleted User]

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The eye witness account was a major reason why they got off.
She said it looked like a threesome and that the girl wasnt in distress.

But she said Jackson was having sex with the girl, from behind. Jackson denies this, the girl claims he was raping her.

So the witness and the girl are both claiming that he penetrated her with his penis, Jackson denies this.

I cannot fathom how a jury can take the eye witness account as a major reason of finding Jackson not guilty. If they found her credible than why seemingly ignore the penetratiion aspect of her account?

ArmaniJeanss

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Is it time for the tables to be turned on this woman now? Slander? Character defamation? Loss of earnings?

Interesting the way it only seem to be in rape cases that a not guilty verdict automatically leads to people assuming that the main witness/complainant must be guilty of something.

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

You must hang out with a lot of scum then. I know very few people like that for a reason - I don't like them.

This kind of snobbery helps nothing. Do we really think these lads are the only 4 young men in the country who talk like that amongst themselves?

It doesn’t mean they feel any malice or that they believe women are beneath them. It’s just them being lads.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Mr.H wrote: »

Why???

They are innocent

Yes, they are innocent of rape. But their general behaviour did not really stand up well when put under a spotlight. They come across as a group of self entitled brats who treat women like objects, to be used and then laughed about later.

I'm not saying that means they should be accused of rape. I'm just wondering how they felt when their drunken, loutish behaviour was being held up to cold scrutiny.

suicide_circus

This is the verdict I expected. At no point did we hear of a knock out piece of testimony or evidence that pushed the question beyond reasonable doubt. There was only really one verdict open to the jury on that basis.

It felt like buyers remorse on her part which probably morphed into really believing she had been raped. I don't think she took the case for a laugh.

While the whatsapp group messages were obviously crass and juvenile to me this actually pointed more to their innocence - no one but an individual with the most twisted and evil mind who had just knowingly participated in a rape would describe themselves as "top shaggers" (cringe). This indicated that they fully believed it was consensual.

Mr.H

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Them being innocent doesn't mean they were gentlemen. A higher standard is expected of people in the public eye - if they wish to remain in the public eye.

I disagree

Just look at celebs in the US. Do you really think that they act like ladies and gents??

I dont like the way they talked dont get me wrong. But it happens and its not just men that talk like that.

meeeeh

Augeo wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-players-will-continue-to-be-relieved-of-all-duties-while-irfu-review-in-process-36752705.html

The IRFU released a statement following the verdicts, which read;

"The IRFU and Ulster Rugby note the verdict handed down today at the Belfast Crown Court in relation to the case brought against Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We wish to acknowledge that this has undoubtedly been a difficult and extremely traumatic time for all involved.

"To respect the judicial proceedings, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby postponed any internal review of the matter with the players, until the proceedings concluded.

"IRFU and Ulster Rugby officials will review the matter, in line with existing procedures for all contracted players. A Review Committee, made up of senior representatives of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby, has been appointed and will conclude its review as soon as practicable.

"The players will continue to be relieved of all duties while the Review Committee is in process and determining its findings."

I would have expected a more supportive statement from the IRFU.

With those what's app messages it would be stupid to come out with strong support. I would think part of review process will be assessing sponsor reaction. The boys don't come accross as people sponsors would like to be associated with.

garbo speaks

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Is it time for the tables to be turned on this woman now? Slander? Character defamation? Loss of earnings?

Here's hoping

Mr.H

Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: »

No, sadly they're not.

And women do it too!!

It sucks but it happens. I dont talk like that but I cant just shout down everyone who does.