Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…6061636566…316

Comments

  • #1862
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »
    This is wrong.

    If i rob a bank that is a crime.

    If the court cannot prove I robbed the bank that does not mean that me robbing the bank is not a crime.
    Yes it does! That's how the system works.

    How can a crime have been committed if the person who committed it isn't guilty of a crime?

    Robbing a bank is a crime. If the court cannot prove that you robbed the bank, then you are not a criminal.

    But if you were the only person in the bank at the time, the only person who could possibly have committed the crime, and yet the court finds that you didn't commit a crime, then how could a crime have been committed?

    A crime does not exist without a criminal. You cannot have a crime which nobody committed.


  • #1863
    irishrebe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    irishrebe wrote: »
    In case you didn't notice, I was replying to Wibbs asking what human rights abuses are being committed in Ireland.

    This was a Belfast case, and there are some who would argue that abortion violates human rights too - why drag this into another repeal/retain debate. It's got nothing to do with it.
    Of course it does. It all comes from the same backwards mentality on display in most of the comments here. Person after person implying that Irish women should just shut up their whingeing because sure, it's worse in India and the Middle East. We live in a country where women are denied access to abortion even after a rape, and you're honestly telling me that has no affect on the mentality of people regarding cases like this?


  • #1864
    Hoboo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    White salty men found not guilty. Let the public outcry commence.


  • #1865
    Maxpfizer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Maxpfizer


    irishrebe wrote: »
    I posted hours ago about allowing an acquaintance to use my toilet after a night out. He then made a move on me. I was able to get rid of him, but what if I hadn't been? The onus would have been on me to prove that the sex wasn't consensual, and how could I do that? It's my word against his. I would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the sexual contact was unwanted. How do you do that?

    The truth is that you can't. You wouldn't be able to prove it and there would be no justice.

    The justice system isn't perfect because it's impossible to know absolute truth without being right there at the time.

    Evidence can shed light on the truth and by examining evidence we can work out what happened.

    However, where there is no evidence the truth cannot be known. Where there is unreliable evidence the truth can be obscured.

    The obvious question is how do we get around that? How can we secure a conviction when there is no evidence?

    The answer is obvious. We can't. More than that, we shouldn't.

    Yet, it feels like this is what is being asked of us as a society. We should believe women. No matter what. Just believe.

    Blindly believing the accuser has a flip-side. We are refusing to believe the accused. Based on what? Gender alone?

    "Believe Her" in this case has the connotation "Do Not Believe Them". What right does the story of the accuser have to be believed over the story of the accused?

    Abandoning the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" would have massive, and most likely tragic, ramifications for our society.

    Imagine a world where one kind of person is believed automatically and another kind of person is imprisoned on the basis of accusation alone.

    Why should I believe her? What if the evidence contradicts her? What if there is something more sinister going on?

    Is this the kind of society we want to live in?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys


  • #1866
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    irishrebe wrote: »
    You were a victim, and yet you see fit to claim another woman 'cried rape', despite not being in that room and having no idea what was going on in her head, whether or not she genuinely believed she had been assaulted. You get to think of yourself as a 'real' victim and dismiss other women as liars. Nice person.

    I'm not so arrogant to assume that being a victim, never mind a woman, gives me some sort of extra credibility, nor does it place any kind of obligation on me to join the feckin yaya sisterhood where all men are rapists and all women are saints.

    These men were tried in a court of law before a jury of their peers. There was not enough evidence to convict them so they were acquitted.

    I am a victim in the sense that I suffered a sexual assault (albeit as a child). That is a statement of fact, that is all. It is not some claim to "victimhood" and I do not seek accolades, sympathy or special treatment. I am not sure what your "real victim" reference is supposed to mean in this context.

    Whether you think I am a nice person is largely irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #1867
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    yourdeadwright wrote:
    I'm not chastising you for anything, I'm telling you if you felt a Guard did not hear your side fairly you should have brought it to the Ombudsman that what he is there for,

    What's a guard there for? If a guard didn't believe it then it's conceivable the Ombudsman may also disbelieve it?


  • #1868
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irishrebe wrote: »
    We live in a country where women are denied access to abortion even after a rape, and you're honestly telling me that has no affect on the mentality of people regarding cases like this?

    If that's repealed, will you then stfu about inequality?


  • #1869
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    "Believe Her" in this case has the connotation "Do Not Believe Them".
    To some people. This is the problem. Some people have polarised themselves on this case, that somebody is obscuring the truth.

    I believe her and I believe them. None of their stories are 100% truth because they're human and we are incapable of recalling the truth perfectly.

    But I saw no evidence that anyone was lying, so I believe everyone.

    Unfortunately some people don't seem to think that's possible.


  • #1870
    Uncharted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭Uncharted


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    What's a guard there for? If a guard didn't believe it then it's conceivable the Ombudsman may also disbelieve it?

    Blindness...... self imposed blindness. I pity you and any else who is as blind as you.


  • #1871
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Well just playing devils advocate here as your above statement is incorrect.

    A not guilty verdict does not demonstrate she was lying or even that she "thought" she was telling the truth, it merely shows there was not enough evidence to convict.
    Innocents is assumed guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    While that is fair to say. I have already posted about that. But that was about 100 pages ago (so about 10 mins ago) so you probably didnt see it.

    I mentioned that while its true to say there was insufficient evidence, we shouldnt say that because it leaves doubt. At the end of the day these guys stood on front of a jury of their peers. They were judged by the western world who had them plastered all over their papers with headlines calling the rapists. They have suffered career wise, finance wise and respect wise from their friends and family. They had to stand back and watch the world call them horrible things. They were not allowed to stand up and talk for themselves. They couldnt tell the world that they are being wrongfully accused. They after 9 weeks of stress have finally been told that they are not guilty. They have been told that despite their claims of innocence, there has been insufficient evidence to prove their guilt.

    They have no actual way of proving innocence in this case and people will always label them now. Their lives are effectively over.

    We need to stop acting like they got away with it due to evidence and actually say they are not guilty because the evidence suggests they didnt commit the crime.

    They are innocent and we should let them be.

    The same with this woman. I do believe that she looked back at the night and for some reason said she was raped. Now I hope and want to believe it wasnt done for any other reason than she genuinely believed it. But thats because I dont want to think of her as a liar.


  • Advertisement
  • #1872
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I think an awful lot of people do not understand the justice system. Criminal law is based on the presumption of innocence not that the accused is innocent. It is as other have quoted in Common law countries on that it is better that 9 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person is convicted. Accross Contenintal Europe it is based on an accusatoral system where to a certain extent the defendent has to prove there innocence.

    Why was this case decided so fast by the Jury. In essence the judge in her direction told them to ignore all other evidence except that of Dara Florence who she described as a key withness. If you then look at her evidence she gave evidence that what she saw was what she presumed a threesome and when cross examined by the proscution she also stated that nothing she saw indicated that consent was given.


    With that evidence the jury had little choice but to give a not guilty verdict and the accused have there presumption of innocence intact as we all do or are innocence until proven guilty. But the jury were not asked did a rape take place. They were asked was there enough evidence to convict the accused and they could not find that.

    Personnelly I like to find out what was the taxi drivers opinion was. But in the aftermat we can only look at the result. The accused have not come out of this covered in glory and the difference in attitude and direction taken by Olding and Jackson's and there legal teams in there press statements leaves Jackson digging a hole for himself.

    Will they ever play rugby for Ireland again. It is very unlikly for two reasons firstly there is will a large section of Irish supporters be happy with them playing and secondly it is unlikly they will ever reach that standard of fitness and match acumen again after what will be two years away from the game and training. Is that right and fair in the end you are responsibe for your own action and you have to accept that other may think while your action may not have been illegal they have ethical issue's with them.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #1873
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    irishrebe wrote: »
    In case you didn't notice, I was replying to Wibbs asking what human rights abuses are being committed in Ireland.

    The 8th is not a violation of human rights

    This is not the place for that discussion either


  • #1874
    irishrebe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    irishrebe wrote: »
    I posted hours ago about allowing an acquaintance to use my toilet after a night out. He then made a move on me. I was able to get rid of him, but what if I hadn't been? The onus would have been on me to prove that the sex wasn't consensual, and how could I do that? It's my word against his. I would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the sexual contact was unwanted. How do you do that?

    The truth is that you can't.  You wouldn't be able to prove it and there would be no justice.

    The justice system isn't perfect because it's impossible to know absolute truth without being right there at the time.

    Evidence can shed light on the truth and by examining evidence we can work out what happened.

    However, where there is no evidence the truth cannot be known.  Where there is unreliable evidence the truth can be obscured.

    The obvious question is how do we get around that?  How can we secure a conviction when there is no evidence?

    The answer is obvious.  We can't.  More than that, we shouldn't.

    Yet, it feels like this is what is being asked of us as a society.  We should believe women.  No matter what.  Just believe.

    Blindly believing the accuser has a flip-side.  We are refusing to believe the accused.  Based on what?  Gender alone?

    "Believe Her" in this case has the connotation "Do Not Believe Them".  What right does the story of the accuser have to be believed over the story of the accused?

    Abandoning the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" would have massive, and most likely tragic, ramifications for our society.

    Imagine a world where one kind of person is believed automatically and another kind of person is imprisoned on the basis of accusation alone.

    Why should I believe her?  What if the evidence contradicts her?  What if there is something more sinister going on?

    Is this the kind of society we want to live in?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
    But why is it, that it's just 'too bad' if a women gets raped and can't prove it (as in my example), but people are up in arms if a man is accused with no proof? You're essentially telling me justice wouldn't be done in my case, because I'd have no proof, so I'd have to suck it up, so essentially automatically believing the man who says he's innocent. Yet you're saying we shouldn't automatically believe the woman. It's not that I disagree with you - I don't believe the accused should be referred to as rapists when a court ruled otherwise - but do you see the issue here when it's one party's word against the other's? There's always going to be one loser.


  • #1875
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,040 ✭✭✭optogirl


    This sums up my frustration with this trial

    DZZEslJXkAECl5E.jpg


  • #1876
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The human rights abuse is actually all these feminists still trying to hang 4 innocent men for a crime they didnt commit after evidence proved they didnt commit it


  • #1877
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    Uncharted wrote:
    Blindness...... self imposed blindness. I pity you and any else who is as blind as you.

    I pity rape victims who are intimidated about coming forward because of small minded people like you. Yours is the most useless retort to any comment I've ever said, why am I blind? Use your words.


  • #1878
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    Yet, it feels like this is what is being asked of us as a society. We should believe women. No matter what. Just believe.

    Blindly believing the accuser has a flip-side. We are refusing to believe the accused. Based on what? Gender alone?
    That's pretty much what they're saying. Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. It always comes back to this. Always.
    Imagine a world where one kind of person is believed automatically and another kind of person is imprisoned on the basis of accusation alone.
    We don't need to imagine it, as that was often the case in the bad old days of yore when men were automatically believed over women. Y'know real patriarchal societies. Which says much and calls BS on current "feminists" claims of wanting equality. It's all too often looking for an overswing of the pendulum to an equally daft position of a matriarchal society.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #1879
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    I think an awful lot of people do not understand the justice system. Criminal law is based on the presumption of innocence not that the accused is innocent. It is as other have quoted in Common law countries on that it is better that 9 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person is convicted. Accross Contenintal Europe it is based on an accusatoral system where to a certain extent the defendent has to prove there innocence.

    Why was this case decided so fast by the Jury. In essence the judge in her direction told them to ignore all other evidence except that of Dara Florence who she described as a key withness. If you then look at her evidence she gave evidence that what she saw was what she presumed a threesome and when cross examined by the proscution she also stated that nothing she saw indicated that consent was given.


    With that evidence the jury had little choice but to give a not guilty verdict and the accused have there presumption of innocence intact as we all do or are innocence until proven guilty. But the jury were not asked did a rape take place. They were asked was there enough evidence to convict the accused and they could not find that.

    Personnelly I like to find out what was the taxi drivers opinion was. But in the aftermat we can only look at the result. The accused have not come out of this covered in glory and the difference in attitude and direction taken by Olding and Jackson's and there legal teams in there press statements leaves Jackson digging a hole for himself.

    Will they ever play rugby for Ireland again. It is very unlikly for two reasons firstly there is will a large section of Irish supporters be happy with them playing and secondly it is unlikly they will ever reach that standard of fitness and match acumen again after what will be two years away from the game and training. Is that right and fair in the end you are responsibe for your own action and you have to accept that other may think while your action may not have been illegal they have ethical issue's with them.

    10

    plus youd like to find out what the taxi drivers opinion was???

    was he in the room also??
    obviously you dont seem to understand the legal system either


  • #1880
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman


    seamus wrote: »
    Yes it does! That's how the system works.

    How can a crime have been committed if the person who committed it isn't guilty of a crime?

    Robbing a bank is a crime. If the court cannot prove that you robbed the bank, then you are not a criminal.

    But if you were the only person in the bank at the time, the only person who could possibly have committed the crime, and yet the court finds that you didn't commit a crime, then how could a crime have been committed?

    A crime does not exist without a criminal. You cannot have a crime which nobody committed.

    Again you are wrong. Robbing the bank is a crime. A crime for which no one was convicted but a crime all the same.

    Boston's Gardner Museum - $500m worth of paintings were stolen. This is a crime. No one has been convicted. This is still a crime. You don not need a convicted person for a crime to have occurred.

    At this point if you don't understand I think there is little point in trying to educate you on it.


  • #1881
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,940 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    optogirl wrote: »
    This sums up my frustration with this trial

    DZZEslJXkAECl5E.jpg

    Ahh another person looking to look 4 men up for a whatsapp conversation. Thats not evidence enough to prove anything no matter how much you want it to be


  • Advertisement
  • #1882
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Hmmmm.

    With such a low conviction rate, I'm not so sure. Not even including the cases which don't make it to trial or go unreported.

    Wouldn't be too quick to be crowing about justice unless you believe that the vast, vast majority of women making these allegations are lying.


  • #1883
    Mokuba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,690 ✭✭✭Mokuba


    optogirl wrote: »
    This sums up my frustration with this trial

    DZZEslJXkAECl5E.jpg

    I love that in amongst these "facts" is a theory on twitter.

    If I subjectively compile evidence for the defense into a page then I can make it look like she lied.

    Anybody who shares this biased rubbish should be avoided.


  • #1884
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,040 ✭✭✭optogirl


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Ahh another person looking to look 4 men up for a whatsapp conversation. Thats not evidence enough to prove anything no matter how much you want it to be

    The manky Whatsapp stuff is only part of the above. I didn't say I wanted to lock them up for a Whatsapp conversation - that would be absurd.


  • #1885
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,619 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Street protests planned today I heard on the news.

    It's quite obvious there are many out there who think this was a miscarriage of justice.


  • #1886
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    yourdeadwright wrote:
    I'm not chastising you for anything, I'm telling you if you felt a Guard did not hear your side fairly you should have brought it to the Ombudsman that what he is there for,

    What's a guard there for? If a guard didn't believe it then it's conceivable the Ombudsman may also disbelieve it?
    Like any job or any people in life some are inept and some are arsh*les ,
    If you bring it to the Ombudsman they must look at the evidence and not dismiss it like the said Guard did,
    As I said Iv no idea what happened or what didn't , I'm not blaming the women here all I'm  saying is there is an avenue to go down if you feel like the Guard just brushed you off,
    Its a horrible crime, if someone commits it they should be brought to justice, 
    If a women first compliant is ignored by a guard they should 110% go to the Ombudsman


  • #1887
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    irishrebe wrote: »
    but do you see the issue here when it's one party's word against the other's? There's always going to be one loser.

    But I think that's just inherent in these particular types of crime where in a lot of cases there may not be enough physical/factual evidence.

    That sucks, I really do think it does, however there is no alternative that would be better. Even you can't come up with one (least I don't think I've seen you field anything and don't take that to be an accusation of any kind please).

    It's just a case of having an imperfect system but there not being a better alternative :(


  • #1888
    C__MC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,255 ✭✭✭C__MC


    Mokuba wrote: »
    I love that in amongst these "facts" is a theory on twitter.

    If I subjectively compile evidence for the defense into a page then I can make it look like she lied.

    Anybody who shares this biased rubbish should be avoided.

    +1

    Comical stuff.


  • #1889
    Uncharted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭Uncharted


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    I pity rape victims who are intimidated about coming forward because of small minded people like you. Yours is the most useless retort to any comment I've ever said, why am I blind? Use your words.

    You're blind to the fact that this case is closed. They are innocent. Deal with it.
    You're blind to other peoples opinions.
    You're blind to the reality that women have never had so much equality.
    You're blinded by hate.

    You're also boring.


  • #1890
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It's starting to piss down rain now in Dublin where these protesters are. That's probably men's fault too, or God, the fcuking misogynist that he is.


  • Advertisement
  • #1891
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,011 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    irishrebe wrote: »
    Yeah sure, just small minor little things that need to be fixed. So hyperbolic, stating that women are forced to give birth to their attackers' babies, things like that. Looking to prosecute desperate women who take matters into their own hands. Letting a woman die in a hospital bed, poisoned because of the fetus inside her, because removing it would have been an evil abortion.Yeah, this is exactly how a European country should operate in the 21st century.

    So you have given up on the witchunt and are now moving goapposts to a separate pitch altogether.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement