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

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 10:55pm

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It all depends right? If a girl is paralytic and 2 guys take her back and have sex with her, that's rape. I get that you are trying to make a point regarding the level of drunkenness and I think it's fair to have concerns about what constitutes too drunk to consent, it's a debate that rages worldwide, but there are pretty obvious scenarios that if presume most can agree on.

Yea of course. Listen if some d88khead gets some poor woman as drunk as possible so she cant say no then that scum deserves to rot.

But I just find some of the scenarios bogus.

If I travel to Florida (or is it Cali? I forget which) with my wife. We have a glass of wine and then have sex. Then in the state of Florida I raped her. That is insane. We had the same amount but these sexist laws are a bit too much.

Obviously not many would agree that its right and I am pretty sure we would agree with most if not all scenarios surrounding that topic.

Mrsmum · 28-03-2018 10:55pm

I thought the lady that walked in was a friend of the lads, not a friend of the girl in the bedroom. No ?

Faugheen · 28-03-2018 10:56pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

To those people saying she should be hauled before a jury accused of reporting a false rape.

What evidence have the prosecution got in this? Nothing. All they have are the inconsistent accounts of the complainants (in this case would be the three lads) and in return an inconsistent account of the defendant, with the same witnesses and what have you that led to a not guilty verdict in the first place.

The result is the same. Not guilty. Does this mean, by the logic of a few, that all the lads would be lying and they actually did rape her?

No. It wouldn't. Would the preachers of the law here accept that verdict? Would they bollocks.

Sooooooo much irony...

Go on then, I'll bite.

Point out what is wrong with my post, please

gk5000 · 28-03-2018 10:56pm

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

She didn't claim she was too drunk to consent though. She claimed that she did not consent full stop and said as much during the act, unless I am misremembering. Why would they talk about her level of drunkenness when she is clear in what she feels took place?

Yes you are correct - but I'm wondering:
- Was this possibly closer to the truth i.e. she's not fully sure, or is only sure in retrospect
- would the prosecution have got further if they had went this way

It's believable to me, and would explain a lot

pitifulgod · 28-03-2018 10:57pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why?

Some county has to have the lowest convictions.

Why not ireland?

50% less than other countries is significantly lower.

storker · 28-03-2018 10:57pm

Mr.H wrote: »

While I agree with absolutely everything you are saying, I find it hard to agree to people using this last line.

[...]

By saying there is a difference between not guilty and innocent, while correct, puts doubt on their innocence and ensures that they remain guilty.

They cant prove their innocence unless they prove she is a liar. It is impossible to prove that, therefore impossible to prove innocence.

It seems a bit strange alright, because if this is true, we have presumption of innocence as per the constitution, until guilt is proven, but once a not guilty verdict is delivered, the accused status changes from "innocent" to just "not guilty", which sounds a bit like the verdict of "not proven" that exists in Scottish law, but not Irish law, as far as I know. Surely it makes more sense, and is consistent with the wording of the principle for "innocent" to remain the default status in the absence of a guilty verdict i.e. the accused began the trial innocent, guilt was not proven, so they're still innocent. More logical than having the accused begin the trial innocent, be found not guilty and having their status changed to some kind of not-guilty-but-not-innocent-either twilight zone.

(A bit like OJ Simpson, hmmm...)

Perhaps there is confusion in terms of what meant by "innocent" i.e. innocent in the eyes of the law vs absolutely 100% did not commit the crime. Maybe people should be clearer about what they mean when they use the word.

milehip · 28-03-2018 10:58pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

I thought the lady that walked in was a friend of the lads, not a friend of the girl in the bedroom. No ?

She was neither, just a random from the night out.

trixychic · 28-03-2018 10:58pm

Mr.H wrote: »

I am glad they didnt because that angle is bulls888

Can I ask how it is bull???

Oops69 · 28-03-2018 10:59pm

so its back to the northern assembly impasse now for Tommie Gorman et al. .... Downer for them .

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 10:59pm

strandroad wrote: »

The girl who walked in was not her friend, she didn't know her at all.

Oh I thought they knew each other and thats why people were saying that her friend wasnt even backing her story up.

But that is aside from the point. My plausible story is just a story I made up that is probably not far from the truth and points to a result were she is not guilty and either are the lads.

Happy ending if you will (no pun intended!)

PhlegmyMoses · 28-03-2018 10:59pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can she be sued ? that in itself would be very risky as they would then have to find proof she made a false allegation and that alone could open a can of worms !

They will not sue. Oldings statements suggests that he understands that the girl has been through a lot and that at best the night was seedy and one to forget. I can't see him trying to put her through more.

I did feel like Jackson's lawyer was hinting at issues with the police, DPP, how the papers were reporting things and also how the IRFU and Ulster Rugby handle the situation going forward. I can see some potential legal action there.

28-03-2018 10:59pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I agree with you on all but the global warming bit.

How are liberals "pro global warming"

Because they believe it !

So the catch with what I said is that Global warming as the Media wrongly portray it does not exist but the liberals believe it does, get me now ?

In other words RTE believe it's real and because it's of popular opinion like the Anti Trump rhetoric they'll keep spinning the story and only announce reports of pro warming data and not anti warming data you know what I mean so this is what I say when I say they only interview or print what suits their agendas.

Media should be impartial , they should investigate and report the truth not distort it, so as a result people actually believe Co2 is a pollutant worse than diesel exhaust, see how the truth is twisted ?

The media can be very dangerous.

So dangerous that when I ask people why they're against trump they say, oh eah well he hates women, Yeah ? give me an example ? they can't because all they hear is anti trump anti trump anti trump np matter what he does or does not. Why do you hate trump ? he's an idiot, Oh give me an example ? they can't.

almostover · 28-03-2018 11:02pm

Autochange wrote: »

Like Brexit or the Lisbon treaty. I don't like the result I want to go again.

Don't think there can be a retrial without new evidence? Isn't that double jeopardy?

_Dara_ · 28-03-2018 11:03pm

People on social media have really latched onto the whole ‘Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent’ thing. I find this deeply disturbing. What, so going forward, you can deregard any verdict you don’t agree with?

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 11:03pm

trixychic wrote: »

Can I ask how it is bull???

If a guy and a girl consume the same amount of alcohol then how is it that the guy can consent and the woman can not?

I have already responded to another person about this post.

"Yea of course. Listen if some d88khead gets some poor woman as drunk as possible so she cant say no then that scum deserves to rot.

But I just find some of the scenarios bogus.

If I travel to Florida (or is it Cali? I forget which) with my wife. We have a glass of wine and then have sex. Then in the state of Florida I raped her. That is insane. We had the same amount but these sexist laws are a bit too much.

Obviously not many would agree that its right and I am pretty sure we would agree with most if not all scenarios surrounding that topic."

that was my response.

PhlegmyMoses · 28-03-2018 11:04pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because they believe it !

So the catch with what I said is that Global warming as the Media wrongly portray it does not exist but the liberals believe it does, get me now ?

In other words RTE believe it's real and because it's of popular opinion like the Anti Trump rhetoric they'll keep spinning the story and only announce reports of pro warming data and not anti warming data you know what I mean so this is what I say when I say they only interview or print what suits their agendas.

Media should be impartial , they should investigate and report the truth not distort it, so as a result people actually believe Co2 is a pollutant worse than diesel exhaust, see how the truth is twisted ?

The media can be very dangerous.

So dangerous that when I ask people why they're against trump they say, oh eah well he hates women, Yeah ? give me an example ? they can't because all they hear is anti trump anti trump anti trump np matter what he does or does not. Why do you hate trump ? he's an idiot, Oh give me an example ? they can't.

Scientists believe it is real. I am not an expert so cannot outright prove it to you, but I will take my chances with what the scientists are telling me.

Actually, this is not the thread for this :pac:

gk5000 · 28-03-2018 11:04pm

spookwoman wrote: »

from psni https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/advice--information/the-law-on-sex-in-northern-ireland/the-law-on-sex-in-ni-english-version.pdf

Consent to Sex
Consent is where a person 'agrees by
choice and has the freedom and capacity
to make that choice'. This would not
include occasions where a person has
been subjected to threats of violence;
are asleep; are intoxicated through
alcohol or drugs; are exploited or
coerced in any way.

Thanks. The evidence to me suggests she may have been incapable of consent through alcohol - or is at least plausible - so how come they did not go this route instead?

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 11:05pm

razorblunt wrote: »

You are way off. The girl that walked in wasn’t her friend. There were 3 girls all friends in the gaff and the girl in question for the case didn’t know any of them. She’d actually said they’d been behaving slutty, the lads said they were sluts. That gets mentioned for people wanting them to be guilty for some reason.

You could at least know the basics of the trial than speculating wildly even though the facts are readily available.

Not speculating on anything. In fact I said that was just a story I made up;)

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 11:06pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Thanks. The evidence to me suggests she may have been incapable of consent through alcohol - or is at least plausible - so how come they did not go this route instead?

Where does the evidence suggest that she consumed more than the lads??

28-03-2018 11:06pm

_Dara_ wrote: »

People on social media have really latched onto the whole ‘Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent’ thing. I find this deeply disturbing. What, so going forward, you’re can deregard any verdict you don’t agree with?

I don't find it disturbing because people are just ready to jump on whatever suits their point.
Elsewhere it's not been enough for me to say I believe her. I literally saw someone somehow mention misogyny, internalised misogyny, consent, slut-shaming by women, patriarchy, the "pay gap", "toxic masculinity" and homophobia. Also I've seen people bring in the whole 8th thing.

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 11:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't find it disturbing because people are just ready to jump on whatever suits their point.
Elsewhere it's not been enough for me to say I believe her. I literally saw someone somehow mention misogyny, internalised misogyny, consent, slut-shaming by women, patriarchy, the "pay gap", "toxic masculinity" and homophobia. Also I've seen people bring in the whole 8th thing.

Thats because those people are idiots

Sidebaro · 28-03-2018 11:07pm

Mr.H wrote:

Not speculating on anything. In fact I said that was just a story I made up

You also said it was probably not far from the truth.

Post #488, awaiting your response.

gk5000 · 28-03-2018 11:08pm

Mr.H wrote: »

Where does the evidence suggest that she consumed more than the lads??

I don't think she has to have consumed more. How about she had just said she was drunk?

Edit - we're not talking morally - but legally here.

28-03-2018 11:09pm

Mr.H wrote: »

Thats because those people are idiots

Loud, social media-active idiots.

28-03-2018 11:09pm

gk5000 wrote: »

I don't think she has to have consumed more. How about she had just said she was drunk?

I look forward to a judge dealing with that argument by pointing out that if two people are drunk then they're raping each other.

storker · 28-03-2018 11:10pm

_Dara_ wrote: »

People on social media have really latched onto the whole ‘Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent’ thing. I find this deeply disturbing. What, so going forward, you’re can deregard any verdict you don’t agree with?

It's a difficult one though. I'm thinking of the OJ Simpson trial, where it seemed pretty clear that he did it and yet I could understand why a not guilty verdict came in. Of course there were some big differences between this trial and the Simpson-Goldman murders, such as the nature of the crime and the background of racial tension.

Roger Hassenforder · 28-03-2018 11:10pm

if the sex was non consensual, and the lads acquitted due to insufficient evidence, i.e. "they got off", I feel genuinely very sorry for her.

Obviously I wasn't in the room, so I dont know the facts, only what was reported, but from my following of the case, i thought it a case of her maybe going too far in the heat of the moment, and possibly thinking she was about to be shamed by your wan (Dara Florence) that walked in on them, which rapidly caused her to reevaluate her position. I dont think the lads believed they were raping her.

Threesomes happen all the time, & "lads" message each other about their sexual activities all the time. it does not make a rape.

The CPS and detectives have a lot to answer for, how did they expect this to go, when the only witness not involved in the sex, saying that it appeared consensual, and did not look like rape. I see they're praising her "resolve and confidence" in the media. did they anticipate this would happen but thought it would suit some agenda, and not give a whit about their complainant in the process.
this shouldn't have got near a court.

c.p.w.g.w · 28-03-2018 11:11pm

_Dara_ wrote: »

People on social media have really latched onto the whole ‘Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent’ thing. I find this deeply disturbing. What, so going forward, you’re can deregard any verdict you don’t agree with?

3 female Facebook friends getting out...sighting the complainants watsapp message saying "terrible night, got raped" well that's not the exact quote I know...

So if I'm out and message a buddy "bad night got assaulted" ...When in fact someone just bumped into by accident...

There very much seems to be a huge about of gender bias across the internet...

Strazdas · 28-03-2018 11:12pm

The theory that the woman made up the story because she feared she had been filmed and it would be uploaded to social media simply doesn't hold up. Such footage never showed up anywhere, either on social media or in the press or with the police. She could have withdrawn the complaint at any point.

Mr.H · 28-03-2018 11:13pm

Sidebaro wrote: »

You also said it was probably not far from the truth.

Post #488, awaiting your response.

Probably isnt. You could remove the line about her friend (which has been pointed out wasnt her friend) and it probably is close to the truth.

There are three outcomes it had to have been

1) she set the lads up
2) she was up for it. The story somehow was escalated into a rape claim
3) she was raped

They are the only outcomes that can exist. The third one was ruled out by a jury who hear ALL THE EVIDENCE. So that just leaves two options remaining.

My made up story is pretty much the second answer (bar the part about the woman being her friend)

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

Comments