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

MojoRisinnnn

Faugheen wrote: »

I just want to point out that I 100% agree with the verdict but only based on the evidence. Both sides hold inconsistencies.

Hers you could put down to trauma (find me a race victim who remembers every single detail of their ordeal).

The fact that the 4 defence barristers all cross-examined the accused tells you the inconsistencies in their story.

Olding put it down to perception. While she may not have been consenting, there is nothing even in her account that suggests that Olding knew that.

Personally I think the most likely situation is that nobody remembers the full ins and outs of what happened that night. Olding and Mcilroy in particular had a **** load of drink taken.

However, all of the above just shows that the not guilty verdict is the correct one because there is so much reasonable doubt. It does not mean that Jackson and Olding still committed rape, but it doesn't mean she was lying either.

Exactly this.

[Deleted User]

This entire public case is a great lesson - indeed several of them - to any young Ross O'Carroll Kelly types who get carried away with their family connections and feel they're invincible. And believe me there are far too many of those entitled dickheads around, people who get hard-ons by mentioning people their Daddy knows.

"Lad culture", like all forms of group think and bullying, needs to be kept in check.

And I agree totally: there are no winners here. There may be relieved men, but rightly or wrongly there's a whole army of people in society who follow the "No smoke without fire" school of thought regardless of what a court of law might adjudge. On the whole, on that basis alone I think it's fairer not to name people until they are found guilty.

irishrebe

Pelvis wrote: »

I hadn't been following the trial and only looked up the whatsapp texts today to see what was said. I must admit that it raised a red flag immediately how flippantly she had told friends that she was raped, literally sending to a friend at 9.51am: "worst night ever, so I got raped.", and then 20 minutes later sending to another friend: “So I got raped by 3 Ulster ****ing rugby scum brilliant ****ing night.”.

It just strikes me as... odd.

Now we're policing victims' reactions to being assaulted? You couldn't ****ing make it up. I sent a similar text when I was randomly attacked in the street years ago. I was shocked, angry and in disbelief about what had just happened. Thankfully the Gardai didn't use it as evidence of how I must be a lying hoor.

Kivaro

david75 wrote: »

? I don’t care either way tbh. I was just taking the piss out of a certain element here.

Were you taking the piss when you claimed the judge was a man and "He pretty much instructed this jury to find these lads innocent."

I'd say you were taking the piss, because nobody could be that stupid.

tinpib

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Does anybody know why a guilty verdict wasn't returned?

The same as any other case. The jury of 11 deliberated and decided the prosecution had not proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If you want to know more you can read the dozens of articles on any mainstream news sites.

razorblunt

bigpink wrote: »

She was a friend of the rugby guys I’d say

She wasn't.

manonboard

Deleted User wrote: »

Not wholly surprising either if true but your link doesn't work. :pac:

Fixed. thank you for letting me know.

Noveight

Ah the courtroom, the final bastion of society yet to have its arm twisted into pandering to the wails of the “hashtag-movement” warriors.

Strazdas

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I haven't followed this case thoroughly. Does anybody know why a guilty verdict wasn't returned? I've no doubt the guys were real sleazeballs, with no respect for women - but what's less clear to me is if they actually raped her. I only ask because twitter has returned a guilty verdict. So many women on there are certain they are guilty.

I'm open to the possibility that they were, but was there any specific evidence that stood out?

The evidence of the young woman Dara Florence was very problematic for the prosecution. Says she looked into the bedroom containing the complainant and two men and didn't form the impression a rape was underway.

Kivaro

Faugheen wrote: »

I pray the posters here who make it sound so black and white never have a family member go through the same thing as the complainant.

Or the accused young men who lives are now forever changed.

david75

Vicxas wrote: »

Christ, social media is a sh1tstorm right now...

I don’t see how a thread like this is any different? It too will disappear into oblivion in a few days.

[Deleted User]

irishrebe wrote:

Now we're policing victims' reactions to being assaulted? You couldn't ****ing make it up. I sent a similar text when I was randomly attacked in the street years ago. I was shocked, angry and in disbelief about what had just happened. Thankfully the Gardai didn't use it as evidence of how I must be a lying hoor.

You do realise that it was only said that it seemed odd. Nobody was policing anything, but we're saying that it didn't seem like a typical reaction. And to a lot of people it does seem odd. Its a fair observation. But you obviously know best from your anecdotal experience. Calm the **** down. Not everything is victim blaming.

Rubberchikken

None of these people come out of this well imo.
On the evidence given and the witnesses heard the jury made their decision and i accept that.

If thats what men and women these days are like then i despair.

Faugheen

Strazdas wrote: »

The evidence of the young woman Dara Florence was very problematic for the prosecution. Says she looked into the bedroom containing the complainant and two men and didn't form the impression a rape was underway.

But she was also 100% sure Jackson was having sex with her, which he denies.

She also said that there were no signs of the complainant consenting either when re-examined by the prosecution.

I don't think DF's testimony helped anyone, really. It just summed up the case for me, nobody truly knows what happened. All they can go by is their recollections.

I never thought Stuart Olding would be the one talking the most sense after this trial.

kerplun k

What 19yo goes out looking for a gang bang, like she might have been up for something with PJ, and then thinks do you know that this needs, more cocks please, the lads were ****faced and treated her like a piece of meat. I bet each and everyone of them knew they crossed the line the morning after.

manonboard

sightband wrote: »

A fair number of your friends are getting raped and they come to you looking for advice where you tell them not to report it for their own sake?

Statistically speaking a fair number of your friends have not been raped, or you have incredibly unlucky friends or you and all your friends are in prison on a wing with a heap of reoffending sex offenders. Or you and your friends have very over active imaginations and this is all a load of bollocks.

It must be the incredibly unlucky one. I had a discussion on boards before about it recently.
The only reasons i could come up with are: 1: Unlucky statistical anomaly, 2: more prevalent than statistics show 3: subgroups they are part of are much higher in stats (trans, gay, sub/dom, codependents), 4: I was dysfunctional in my younger years and sought out people akin to those mentality in their behaviors. 5. They are mistaken/lying/different opinions on what rape is (i doubt this). From Alley rapings, drugged, some very violent. There doesnt seem to be too many difference of opinions.

I absolutely was codependent when younger. It took many years to unlearn. It makes sense that it's a mix of all the above points.

Yes, in answer to your first question. Many of them have told me years after the fact. I don't think much good for them will come from it, so i don't encourage them to report it given what i know about how it tends to go. Of course, if they do decide to report it. I'll support them as a friend, but i wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt go well for them.

hots

Faugheen wrote: »

She also said that there were no signs of the complainant consenting either when re-examined by the prosecution.

What would that have looked like? A big thumbs up?

Edgarfrndly

Strazdas wrote: »

The evidence of the young woman Dara Florence was very problematic for the prosecution. Says she looked into the bedroom containing the complainant and two men and didn't form the impression a rape was underway.

Thank you.

Faugheen

Kivaro wrote: »

Or the accused young men who lives are now forever changed.

So if your wife, sister, daughter or what have you had to go through this and the accused were found not guilty, would you not believe the complainant?

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole 8th thing is gonna be very messy and I hope despite the best efforts of the lunatic fringe they don't manage to put off enough people. They don't seem to get that everyone's vote counts equally and that they need to make sure not to alienate the sizable middle. Everything, everything is the patriarchy to some very loud people and if there's any sense they'll not be sent out to tell men that the "patriarchy" is to blame for all of society's ills.

I'm sorry, but I have zero respect for someone who believes in repealing the 8th voting against repeal because they think someone on the repeal side is a poo poo head. I believe in democracy so if someone was inclined to vote for keep the eight for such a terrible reason, then I have to accept it. But respect it, I won't. It is gobsmackingly moronic. Voting against something you believe in for such a flimsy reason? Mother of jaysus.

chrissb8

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Are you serious?

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

Yeah every jackass of a "lad" who thinks they're some Stifler kind of character from American Pie or something adding notches to their belt over the "burds" they "Shagged".

Word for any of those lads who might read this or even the whataspp msgs between these eejits. Grow up and treat women, everyone, anyone with respect. If you have sex with a woman understand that she decided to have the closest physical human experience with you in all yours and hers vulnerability. She wasn't "Gagging" for it or "Desperate for it". She wanted sex like you did. Takes two (or three) to tango. Don't demean her as something to be used and thrown away.

That kind of talk is indicative that you're emotionally retarded and don't actually understand the value of a person but really just as an object like throwing your Iphone onto your bed across the room. If you can't understand that then simply F off over a cliff or something idk.

Faugheen

hots wrote: »

What would that have looked like? A big thumbs up?

Exactly my point. No witness could be sure of what consent looked like.

DF was brought in by the prosecution for the simple reason that she claims to have seen Jackson having sex with her.

Kivaro

Faugheen wrote: »

So if your wife, sister, daughter or what have you had to go through this and the accused were found not guilty, would you not believe the complainant?

Not if the EVIDENCE contradicted her statements.
The EVIDENCE in this instance included a woman at the party who gave her account of the scene when she walked into the room.

kunst nugget

_Dara_ wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I have zero respect for someone who believes in repealing the 8th voting against repeal because they think someone on the repeal side is a poo poo head. I believe in democracy so if someone was inclined to vote for keep the eight for such a terrible reason, then I have to accept it. But respect it, I won't. It is gobsmackingly moronic. Voting against something you believe in for such a flimsy reason? Mother of jaysus.

There was a lot of that during the marriage equality referendum as well…

Really don't know what any of this has to do with the trial though.

Assetbacked

chrissb8 wrote: »

Yeah every jackass of a "lad" who thinks they're some Stifler kind of character from American Pie or something adding notches to their belt over the "burds" they "Shagged".

Word for any of those lads who might read this or even the whataspp msgs between these eejits. Grow up and treat women, everyone, anyone with respect. If you have sex with a woman understand that she decided to have the closest physical human experience with you in all yours and hers vulnerability. She wasn't "Gagging" for it or "Desperate for it". She wanted sex like you did. Takes two (or three) to tango. Don't demean her as something to be used and thrown away.

That kind of talk is indicative that you're emotionally retarded and don't actually understand the value of a person but really just as an object like throwing your Iphone onto your bed across the room. If you can't understand that then simply F off over a cliff or something idk.

I would agree with all of what you said but regarding the conclusion, I disagree. You should simply ignore a person with this attitude if you don't agree with it. Otherwise you are no worse than what you disagree with.

Mr.H

chrissb8 wrote: »

Yeah every jackass of a "lad" who thinks they're some Stifler kind of character from American Pie or something adding notches to their belt over the "burds" they "Shagged".

Word for any of those lads who might read this or even the whataspp msgs between these eejits. Grow up and treat women, everyone, anyone with respect. If you have sex with a woman understand that she decided to have the closest physical human experience with you in all yours and hers vulnerability. She wasn't "Gagging" for it or "Desperate for it". She wanted sex like you did. Takes two (or three) to tango. Don't demean her as something to be used and thrown away.

That kind of talk is indicative that you're emotionally retarded and don't actually understand the value of a person but really just as an object like throwing your Iphone onto your bed across the room. If you can't understand that then simply F off over a cliff or something idk.

Yes or else youll get accused of rape!!!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Faugheen wrote: »

But she was also 100% sure Jackson was having sex with her, which he denies.

She also said that there were no signs of the complainant consenting either when re-examined by the prosecution.

I don't think DF's testimony helped anyone, really. It just summed up the case for me, nobody truly knows what happened. All they can go by is their recollections.

I never thought Stuart Olding would be the one talking the most sense after this trial.

The reason why I believe Jackson on this point aside the fact that there is no DNA evidence is that he admitted to suffering with problems down stairs on the night in question.

No man, especially a 25 yr old macho rugby player is going to admit to that in public unless they absolutely have to.

joe40

In a court case its not just what you believe, it is what you believe beyond reasonable doubt. The woman made the complaint to the police. The police then investigated, gathered evidence and passed the file to the public prosecutor. They obviously "believed" the woman and thought they had enough for a conviction.
The jury had to go with beyond reasonable doubt.

freshpopcorn

kerplun k wrote: »

What 19yo goes out looking for a gang bang, like she might have been up for something with PJ, and then thinks do you know that this needs, more cocks please, the lads were ****faced and treated her like a piece of meat. I bet each and everyone of them knew they crossed the line the morning after.

A girl I went to college with would have being up for it.

david75

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The reason why I believe Jackson on this point aside the fact that there is no DNA evidence is that he admitted to suffering with problems down stairs on the night in question.

No man, especially a 25 yr old macho rugby player is going to admit to that in public unless they absolutely have to.

There’s many the cute hoor who would say anything to get away with such an allegation. Including saying they can’t perform and under stage fright.

Shouldn’t just believe him cos it’s such a display of vulnerability or whatever.