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

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

An interesting perspective.

I wonder will she sue for damages. The burden of proof in a civil cases is on the balance of probabilities.

I doubt she wants to go through it all again.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Could the 4 alleged defendents also sue?

I could sue you. Anyone can sue anyone.

Cyrus

monty_python wrote: »

The case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence

Different to being found not guilty

the case was dismissed? when did that happen?

pjohnson

david75 wrote: »

You were the very first person to even bring that referendum up in this thread funny enough. So it’s ok for you but nobody else? Right.

I believe it was actually Dara (?) saying her sister linked the two. You have at least twice jumped on two posters for having differing views on each.

Sorry fresh I'll drop it.

PistolsAtDawn

She should be prosecuted now, named and shamed.

Appledreams15

#ibelieveher no.1 trend on Twitter in Ireland.

I think everyone is just a bit fed up of the legal systems in rep.of Ireland and Northern Ireland that nearly always lets the rape accused off.

I am not talking about the lads in particular, the overall system needs to be changed!!!!

markodaly

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

My point was that opposing the feminist view has proven fatal for a career in so it wouldn't be surprising that the reason male guests declined the invite was due to holding a different view.
.

They didn't want the hassle of having be bat away a baying mob on twitter afterwards. One slip of the tongue and their career could be over as they will have demonstrated that they 'hate women', of course.

Power abhors a vacuum and its as clear as day that the media at any rate are now the moral arbiter of society, haven taken over from the church. This media is so one sided in its view on these matters that its not even funny any more but dangerous to the well being of society.

Feminists, no matter how bat **** crazy they are should be given a platform BUT other people (men or women) have to be given license to challenge and deconstruct their stupid ideas without having to risk their careers with every utterance and syllable they use.

What we see is bat **** crazy feminists given free license to waffle ****e, and no one challenges them because to do so, would open yourself up to the idea that you hate women and are against equality or some other such none sense.

No one challenged the church before because to do so, you risked a huge social cost in terms of status and social standing in the community, so they were left do what they want for decades after decades.

We are repeating the same mistakes again now.

markodaly

Appledreams15 wrote: »

#ibelieveher no.1 trend on Twitter in Ireland.

I think everyone is just a bit fed up of the legal systems in rep.of Ireland and Northern Ireland that nearly always lets the rape accused off.

I am not talking about the lads in particular, the overall system needs to be changed!!!!

No, Just no...

PistolsAtDawn

Zulu wrote: »

I feel sorry for the girl, whether or not she was telling porkies or not, it's a sorry sorry affair.

Do you not feel sorry for the guys, had to go through the whole trial, publicly scrutiny etc...

Why do you feel sorry for her?

Faugheen

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

She should be prosecuted now, named and shamed.

For what? She wasn't found guilty of anything.

jimmycrackcorm

monty_python wrote: »

The case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence

Different to being found not guilty

No it wasn't - it was unanimous - the jury could have come back and said that they couldn't agree on a verdict.

sightband

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Ah always blame the apes.

Surely if we have evolved from apes, our behaviour evolves too.
Someone , a man, said to me this week, while this case is in the news,

'Rape is a very animalistic thing, Im surprised it hasn't died out by now'.

Are we not getting any more enlightened in anyway shape or form??

Think she described Olding as monkeyish, not apeish. She wasn’t far wrong either.

The Talking Bread

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

suicide_circus wrote: »

I don't think we can assert she was lying. "Wrong" seems to be a more appropriate label.

Well if not that then she was wrong about what occurred.

How do you know........... neither you nor the jury were there. You can be sure they still aren't sure in their decision but "beyond reasonable doubt " is the level they must pass to find guilty.

So they can probably be content in doing all they can do in their duties as jurors.

PistolsAtDawn

Deleted User wrote: »

It saddens me that (regardless of whether or not she was up for it or whatever) they would want to defile a young woman like that anyway..

On a scale of 1-10 how saddened are you by the verdict?

Isn't there even the slightest possibility that she wanted to be plugged by big famous rugby players and then tried to grab a little fame for herself afterwards?

LirW

As a woman I believe it was the right thing to see them not being guilty. But not out of sympathy but I'm a firm believer of "In dubio pro reo" is the most important principle in law. Ultimately there was no hard evidence for a rape and the evidence that was there could have gone either way. Yes it could have been rape, but it also could have been some rough, messy drunk sex from all of the involved.
Nobody will ever really know what happened that night.

It was a trial of no winners. Even though they walk free now they'll have a lot on their plates and let me put it like that, I don't feel remotely sorry for the lads.
But being an utter sleazy selfish disrespectful spoilt pr1ck is no crime.

I do believe though that they shouldn't be let back on the pitch. They are people in the public eye, they should have known better. The IRFU stands and advertises for their family friendliness and the guys acted anything but. You avoid getting into a situation like that in the first place, that's part of being a professional.

AudreyHepburn

Faugheen wrote: »

For what? She wasn't found guilty of anything.

Why should the four men have their faces splashed all over the media and not her?

You either name them all or name none of them.

dark crystal

markodaly wrote: »

No, Just no...

You might feel differently if you were a rape victim.

markodaly

monty_python wrote: »

The case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence

Different to being found not guilty

One is innocent until proven guilty.

If there is a lack of evidence to convict then they are *drumroll*.... still innocent of all and any crimes they have been accused of.

Therefore they are innocent and not guilty of said accused crimes.

It is utterly amazing that people are trying to shoehorn in doubt on the verdict when the verdict was to quick and decisive.

dark crystal

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

She should be prosecuted now, named and shamed.

Prosecuted for what exactly?

alchemist33

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

She should be prosecuted now, named and shamed.

For what, exactly?

markodaly

dark crystal wrote: »

You might feel differently if you were a rape victim.

Unless everyone in Ireland is a rape victim, the other post is just wrong on so many levels.

AudreyHepburn

The Talking Bread wrote: »

How do you know........... neither you nor the jury were there. You can be sure they still aren't sure in their decision but "beyond reasonable doubt " is the level they must pass to find guilty.

So they can probably be content in doing all they can do in their duties as jurors.

You don’t know how the jurors are feeling anymore than I know for sure what really happened that night.

That said I lean very strongly towards it being a case of misunderstandings and lines blurred by drink because that’s the way the evidence tends.

NinetyTwoTeam

Just based on their whatsapp msgs alone they shouldn't be back on the team, ever. If we going to worship athletes as heroes they should be held to a high standard of behavior and while i would not be so naive as to expect young men to always be perfect gentlemen, I don't feel a gang of them banding together to defile a 19 yr old young lady and leave her bleeding and crying after the encounter is in any way acceptable. will never watch ireland again if they are on the squad at all.

Faugheen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

For what? She wasn't found guilty of anything.

Why should the four men have their faces splashed all over the media and not her?

You either name them all or name none of them.

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question. Take that up with the lawmakers in the North. If it were up to me none of them would have been named.

Why should she be prosecuted? If you don't think she should then you have quoted my post with an irrelevant reply for no reason.

Faugheen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

For what? She wasn't found guilty of anything.

Why should the four men have their faces splashed all over the media and not her?

You either name them all or name none of them.

BarryD2

Doltanian wrote: »

I hope the four lads go and sue every high profile twitter scumbag who is posting their anti-male. feminist hatred. They were found innocent in the court of law and I hope some of these twits on Twitter get sued for Defamation. And it is not ordinary Joe Soap bloggers but high-profile Twitter personalities.

Why do you only recommend suing 'high-profile Twitter personalities' and not also ordinary 'Joe Soaps'? Aren't all equally responsible for what they say/ write?

Your logic smacks a bit of how quite possibly this case ever got to the PSNI and the courts i.e. the accused included high profile defendants and their supposed conviction would have greater impact. This will all come out in the wash and we'll see if there other agendas were at play when the complainant decided to report and the prosecutor decided there was a case.

dark crystal

markodaly wrote: »

Unless everyone in Ireland is a rape victim, the other post is just wrong on so many levels.

Without speaking for the poster in question, she appeared to be talking specifically about rape cases. Do you believe the current rate of convictions for rape are excessive? You don't believe any reform is needed in how rape cases are handled?

david75

markodaly wrote: »

One is innocent until proven guilty.

If there is a lack of evidence to convict then they are *drumroll*.... still innocent of all and any crimes they have been accused of.

Therefore they are innocent and not guilty of said accused crimes.

It is utterly amazing that people are trying to shoehorn in doubt on the verdict when the verdict was to quick and decisive.

In a perfect world. Ask anyone here celebrating this verdict how they feel about Michael Jackson who was found innocent and up on charges easily disproved as a result of people using their kids to blackmail and threaten him.

Case was thrown out of court and he rightly walked off a free man. But this stuff sticks. You can’t escape an allegation. On his level internationally nor in a small town like Derry.

Nobody is coming out of this happy. Especially the woman involved.

AudreyHepburn

Faugheen wrote: »

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question. Take that up with the lawmakers in the North. If it were up to me none of them would have been named.

Why should she be prosecuted? If you don't think she should then you have quoted my post with an irrelevant reply for no reason.

She shouldn’t be prosecuted but you seemed to suggest she shouldn’t be named and it was that I disagree with - if the men involved can be named so can she.

Ideal of course neither side would be named.

Appledreams15

markodaly wrote: »

No, Just no...

Of course, it's in your favour?

Would you be suprised to know that Ireland is considered a bit archaic, in Europe?

We had a rape case where 50 men shook a rapists hand in court in Ireland. Is it that far away from stoning a rape victim in the Middle East?

We have a reputation for treating women badly.

markodaly

BarryD2 wrote: »

Why do you only recommend suing 'high-profile Twitter personalities' and not also ordinary 'Joe Soaps'? Aren't all equally responsible for what they say/ write?

Because these people should know better?

Like, they portray themselves as sophisticated, educated, progressive types who listen to evidence and reason. Yet, strip away the facade all they are are a bunch of jumped up loonies baying for blood because 'it feelz that way'.