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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

markodaly

spookwoman wrote: »

Video evidence could be proof of her not getting raped. Do you have that go to the police..

Video evidence of what exactly? Of her sleeping soundly in her own bed and not being at a house party? Eh, no I do not have that, but by not having that it does not mean that she was out robbing a bank or being raped. Again, think about the concept about proving a negative. It generally cannot be done. Hence why the onus is on the prosecution and the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

If we lived in your world, it would be guilty until proven innocent, whereby there would be scores upon scores of more innocent people locked up in jail. They used similar procedures in Stalinist Russia by the way, so not a good benchmark.

Have a read of this from a solicitors about the meaning of not guilty. It's what I've been saying.

not guilty the verdict of a court that a person is not, in law or in fact, responsible for the crime charged against him. See GUILTY, NOT PROVEN.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

the_pen_turner

what laws are they trying to change and on what grounds

Mutant z

Where's Una Mullally who was so convinced they were guilty disappeared in all this where have all those twitter mobs disappeared to.

The Talking Bread

touts wrote: »

No it won't. Even though they were found innocent these men are now basically unemployable and have their reputations destroyed.

No they aren't. In fact I would be very surprised if Jackson doesn't continue on with Ulster for years to be honest.

[Deleted User]

All I hear on Prime Tome now is how this effects Women and Women this WTF ? little about the lives of the 3 men ruined over this.

Why isn't her name now in the papers ?

Wouldn't be a young lad today out for a night looking for a ride ! Jesus Christ what's the world come to ?

Spanish Eyes

This is top of the list because the accused were Ulster Rugby.

Nothing else.

I am sure there are rape cases heard in NI now and then, but they would not engender the same publicity would they?

Faugheen

Autochange wrote: »

She should be forced to apologise to each one of them. Publicly

Why? She wasn't found to have done anything wrong.

[Deleted User]

Still watching and it's still all about women........

Nothing along the lines of what does this do to men falsely accused ? wtf RTE

wexie

Mutant z wrote: »

...... lynch mom feminist......

and the award for typo of the thread.....

Autochange

Faugheen wrote: »

Why? She wasn't found to have done anything wrong.

Their names dragged through the dirt. Careers possibly ruined. Public apology and she should be sued

Spanish Eyes

touts wrote: »

No it won't. Even though they were found innocent these men are now basically unemployable and have their reputations destroyed.

Not my problem, but if they are unemployable they can surely take a case against their employer.

They are not guilty/innocent in the eyes of the law.

Employers beware!

HandsomeBob

C__MC wrote: »

Prime time now

If it’s about the dignity of the girl and her bravery and wondering how the lads got off, I’ll go f***ing spare.

The lads have been acquitted, there was no rape.

Whatever about these lads (and they have come across as knobends), acquittal means they should be able to move on and get on with their lives. That is their right now.

Rape is one of the most heinous crimes one can be accused of, and one of the most degrading and humiliating crimes someone can be a victim of. Combine that reality with the other uncomfortable reality that yes, guilt (and not innocence) does need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, this is why these cases must be difficult to endure. That's the way it must be and the way it must stay.

I think the real problem here at the end of day was that money spoke and money was able to buy a defence capable of getting an acquittal against the odds. I honestly thought at times that the prosecution was incompetent the way they let the case meander and descend into farce. A quality prosecution would have done far better here with the basic facts.

[Deleted User]

No she wasn't they'd have to sue , another court case......

Skylinehead

Autochange wrote: »

Their names dragged through the dirt. Careers possibly ruined. Public apology and she should be sued

For.What.

Faugheen

Autochange wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Why? She wasn't found to have done anything wrong.

Their names dragged through the dirt. Careers possibly ruined. Public apology and she should be sued

...what did she do wrong?

homerjay2005

prime time wouldnt give you alot of faith in the justice system.

in these cases, a conviction is virtually impossible.

Christy42

Autochange wrote: »

Their names dragged through the dirt. Careers possibly ruined. Public apology and she should be sued

what did she do wrong? There is absolutely no proof she brought a false accusation forward. She brought an accusation forward but it has not been proven false (it has just not been proven true so we don't send the accused to prison)

It has been shown there is not enough evidence to charge the men. It has not been shown there is enough evidence to show that she is guilty. She gets the same presumption of innocence.

[Deleted User]

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

You didn't really think RTE was going to go against the feminist narrative, did you?

For once I had hoped,

RTE , = Liberal feminists Support Group !

Rodin

Faugheen wrote: »

That's fair enough.

It still doesn't prove anything with regards to this case, though. Proof that some women lie about rape doesn't mean all women lie about rape.

I agree.
But it does show that there should be a presumption of innocence until convicted in a court of law after due process.

It does appear that a presumption of guilt exists.

Jimbob1977

The future of dating could include printed consent forms or voice recordings.

Ace2007

touts wrote: »

No it won't. Even though they were found innocent these men are now basically unemployable and have their reputations destroyed.

your nearly as bad as the guys on twitter, no one was found innocent today - so why do you keep throwing it around.

Rodin

Christy42 wrote: »

what did she do wrong? There is absolutely no proof she brought a false accusation forward. She brought an accusation forward but it has not been proven false (it has just not been proven true so we don't send the accused to prison)

It has been shown there is not enough evidence to charge the men. It has not been shown there is enough evidence to show that she is guilty. She gets the same presumption of innocence.

By 'charge' I presume you mean 'convict'.

suicide_circus

Regarding these guy's destroyed careers and reputations it's basically tough ****. They have no comeback. No sponsor will ever touch them. It's a man's world, eh?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Jaysus, the lynch mobs are in force. Thank Christ I'm out of the dating game and married. It's a brutal world out there.

Couldn't imagine having a one night stand these days, very dangerous.

[Deleted User]

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

The future of dating could include printed consent forms or voice recordings.

I was just thinking that.

Or lads will be just asking , you sure now, you're not going to go to the Guards after, I have to know. You serious ? 100 times . :mad:

BrianBoru00

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Whatever about these lads (and they have come across as knobends), acquittal means they should be able to move on and get on with their lives. That is their right now.

Rape is one of the most heinous crimes one can be accused of, and one of the most degrading and humiliating crimes someone can be a victim of. Combine that reality with the other uncomfortable reality that yes, guilt (and not innocence) does need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, this is why these cases must be difficult to endure. That's the way it must be and the way it must stay.

I think the real problem here at the end of day was that money spoke and money was able to buy a defence capable of getting an acquittal against the odds. I honestly thought at times that the prosecution was incompetent the way they let the case meander and descend into farce. A quality prosecution would have done far better here with the basic facts.

Thats a ridiculous assertion.

Just because someone has money and engages the best barristers does not mean they are more or less likely to be guilty.

Personally I think its ridiculous that the CPS brought this case. I think it has done untold damage to rape victims where its a clear cut case.

I've followed the case closely and I cannot understand how they thought they'd get a verdict of guilty and I d suggest the speed with which the 4 verdicts (or 3? ) were arrived at would indicate the jurors saw it similarly.

C__MC

The Talking Bread wrote: »

There was no rape PROVEN ...........(Beyond reasonable doubt)

Whatever about the rest of your post, you may need to rethink your logic as to how a trial by jury works

It was a unanimous call in the space of a few hours. It never happened

thecretinhop

Unreal bias from the rte you would think they were guilty. God knows what coverage would be like if they were found guilty..

Fann Linn

Ace2007 wrote: »

your nearly as bad as the guys on twitter, no one was found innocent today - so why do you keep throwing it around.

'Innocent until proven guilty', was a tenet of law I thought.

Potatoeman

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Thats a ridiculous assertion.

Personally I think its ridiculous that the CPS brought this case. I think it has done untold damage to rape victims where its a clear cut case.

I've followed the case closely and I cannot understand how they thought they'd get a verdict of guilty and I d suggest the speed with which the 4 verdicts (or 3? ) were arrived at would indicate the jurors saw it similarly.

The couldn’t risk not having a case as it would look like they were protecting the accused because of their status.