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

fash · 29-03-2018 03:04PM

seamus wrote: »

Justice is justice, if the jury who sat there and heard all of the evidence weren't convinced it was rape, then it probably wasn't.

haven't followed this case too closely, but I wouldn't draw that conclusion: I sat as jury on one case where for one of the charges we thought it probably happened, but weren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. Civil proceedings would be the forum due determining what probably happened.

VinLieger · 29-03-2018 03:04PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, they boasted about a 3some.

So you lied when you said they boasted about raping someone, you know thats exactly how this **** gets even more messed up yeah?

Blud · 29-03-2018 03:06PM

Mr.H wrote: »

did the evidence prove rape?

so it proved they didnt rape her. it proved they were not guilty therefore they didnt rape her

but dont worry youll get it eventually...................... probably not;)

Jesus it baffles me how many times this has to be explained, but here goes with my effort.

Your saying "did the evidence prove rape?", with the obvious answer being no it did not hence the verdict, but your conclusion that follows is "so it proved they didnt rape her" - this absolutely does not automatically follow on.

I'm not sure this is even difficult to understand

If I go all rogue and ninja tonight, break into someone's house and kill them without there being any witnesses and leaving behind zero evidence, then the evidence will not prove I killed that person. The lack of evidence proving I did it is not proof I didn't, because in this hypothetical I did in fact do it.

Not enough evidence to convict is not proof of innocence. Innocence is presumed until found guilty, but never proven.

Proving they didn't commit the crime is not the point of the trial.

Noveight · 29-03-2018 03:06PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

It makes no sense who do they want this Justice from ?

I'm at a loss myself as well. Might as well be shouting "we didn't get what we want, appease us!"

Boom_Bap · 29-03-2018 03:07PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Threesomes are not rape

Threesomes are a sexual act performed by consenting adults.

Some people like them

I think that you are missing what is confusing me.

People for eternity have probably boasted about having a 3some. There is no problem with that.

It's that fact that I don't think lads would boast in a group chat about having a 3some, if it was infact a rape. It's not something I would imagine lads would boast about.

Sidebaro · 29-03-2018 03:07PM

GreeBo wrote:

I commented on hers to expose the fallacy on solely commenting on theirs and somehow drawing conclusions from them.

Well then your intent went over my head. Mostly because there was no allusion to your expose.

GreeBo wrote:

What in their texts is incriminating them of rape exactly?

Nothing. Incriminating was probably a poor choice of words. Basically, made them look scummy. Their texts made them look a lot worse than her texts.

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:07PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Im afraid thats both a logic and an understand of legal matters failure.

Failure to prove something doesnt prove the opposite of it.

I cant prove that there is no life on Mars...does that mean I just proved there is?

So what your saying is there is life on mars?? and this was proven in the evidence at the trail? I really wasnt paying attention

Of course it doesnt mean the opposite but, my point is that. By default these men are innocent. They stand trial for rape. They are found not guilty. The evidence couldnt prove they were guilty so they were found not guilty because of the evidence. Therefore the evidence provided found them not guilty. That means they are still innocent.

Im not saying she lied. I am just saying they are innocent and there was no evidence that they raped her.

GreeBo wrote: »

No, but like I didnt appreciate the tone they used so basically yeah they did...damn rapists.

They are dicks to be fair but thats doesnt mean they are rapists

Boom_Bap · 29-03-2018 03:10PM

VinLieger wrote: »

So you lied when you said they boasted about raping someone, you know thats exactly how this **** gets even more messed up yeah?

No, you are not reading me right, or I expressed it wrong. Apologies if the latter.
My intention is to say that I find it hard to believe that they would boast about raping someone in a whatsapp group.

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:10PM

Blud wrote: »

Jesus it baffles me how many times this has to be explained, but here goes with my effort.

Your saying "did the evidence prove rape?", with the obvious answer being no it did not hence the verdict, but your conclusion that follows is "so it proved they didnt rape her" - this absolutely does not automatically follow on.

I'm not sure this is even difficult to understand

If I go all rogue and ninja tonight, break into someone's house and kill them without there being any witnesses and leaving behind zero evidence, then the evidence will not prove I killed that person. The lack of evidence proving I did it is not proof I didn't, because in this hypothetical I did in fact do it.

Not enough evidence to convict is not proof of innocence. Innocence is presumed until found guilty, but never proven.

Proving they didn't commit the crime is not the point of the trial.

Ok try to stick to the actual trail and not some fantasy you have.

Did the evidence provided lead to a guilty or not guilty?

Simple question

c.p.w.g.w · 29-03-2018 03:11PM

Nesta99 wrote: »

Maybe this has been braoched already but bear with this hypothetical for a moment:o

It has been said that there was a reluctance among some of the legal profession to take on the prosecution for the PPS. I think its a fair question to ask why the PPS would proceed to trial if there was such doubt on securing a guilty verdict among the legal profession in Belfast.

There is massive outrage after total due process because people disagree with a decision made by fellow peers while exercising the rule of law to the letter.

Imagine the outrage if the PPS/PSNI had decided not to go to trial because they knew there wasnt sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, maybe thinking about saving the girl the from the distress of a long shot trial. This gets in to the public domain and knowing that the accused (even without names) are people of privilege, celebrity etc There would be a massive outcry of cronyism, protecting privilaged and wealthy people and there would be serious issue of credibility for the PPS and with the PPS probably not being able to say too much, leading to accusations of laking transparency and seriously damaging the institution. Trust is not easily won in Northern Ireland!

The PPS forsee this maelstrom happening and think that the least potentially damaging of the two options is to take the case to trial knowing that a guilty verdict is unlikely due to lack of tangible, forensic evidence and hence reasonable doubt. There will be criticism if the conviction isnt secured, there will be questions to be answered on why do all this. But those questions can be batted away, certainly a lot easier than questions about why they didnt take these well heeled lads to trial and then be unable to answer those questions due to legal constraints in this scenario.

The point of this long winded post is that due to a system of naming the accused before any verdict never mind a guilty one, could very well have led to a horrible situation where the girl was put through an awful ordeal, in a no win case if going by the consensus of quite a few barristers, to preserve the integrity of the prosecuting institutions. The seriously flawed legal system may have led to an already vulnerable person being thrown to the wolves as the alternative could have been more damaging to how sexual assualt victims are feel they will be treated.

I think the anger at the verdict is misdirected and should be agitating for change to the system eg not naming the accused until a guilty verdict, minimising the impact of social media on cases, educating young people (and not so young) on issues of consent, as much as is possible creat awareness of what to do after an assault eg to preserve evidence, some sort of duty of care even - particularly in relation to the use of social media, showing support for the courage shown by the complainant in the wake of a not guilty verdict to try and prevent this from discouraging the reporting of sexual assault by others.

Just not a witchhunt against people whether like it or not have been cleared of all charges in an open court of law!!

Very good point, but with education. It was mentioned a while back about education girls of the dangers of alcohol. That getting too drunk can lead to losing control of your body and decisions making can become impaired...But apparently it was wrong to suggest education... Because if was sexist and victim blaming...

If I go out tonight, get blind drunk and walk into a dodgy area and get jumped. I'm partly at fault for getting to state which leads me into a situation I'd not do when in full control of my facilities.

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:11PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, you are not reading me right, or I expressed it wrong. Apologies if the latter.
My intention is to say that I find it hard to believe that they would boast about raping someone in a whatsapp group.

Yea I completely thought you meant they actually were boasting about raping someone:D

irishrebe · 29-03-2018 03:12PM

seamus wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's far too much being made about the messages because people are unable to see context.

Where they see "posh rapey guys boasting online about raping a woman", when the actual context is, "private chat between close friends after a night of partying and interesting sexual encounters".

The language used by these guys appears in private chats all over the world, by both men and women.

We've all got messages containing the picture of that black dude with the huge dick, right?

How much stuff pops up in your whatsapp chats that you'd never ever want your colleagues or even your family to see?

A lot.

I understand that some people won't have Whatsapp chats like this. They don't have a crude mate with colourful language, and it's mostly just texts to your mother or your kids.

But lots of people have pretty open and unrestrained private chats. It's completely normal.[/quote]
No, it's NOT normal. The language used is absolutely vile and misogynistic. If you think it's normal to refer to a woman you just slept with as a 'sl*t', then you have a problem. There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

SAMTALK · 29-03-2018 03:12PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The one thing that I keep going back to is why would the lads boast in a whatsapp group about raping someone?
There are other people in the group chat as well that were not at the party.

Boasting about a 3some in a group, I get.
Boasting about raping someone, I don't get.

FYI - I'm not presuming saying innocent or guilt for anyone, I don't know what happened, but the above is something I ask myself in my inner deliberations.

Maybe because they didn't think it was rape.
Maybe because it wasn't rape

irishrebe · 29-03-2018 03:13PM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Nesta99 wrote: »

Maybe this has been braoched already but bear with this hypothetical for a moment:o

It has been said that there was a reluctance among some of the legal profession to take on the prosecution for the PPS. I think its a fair question to ask why the PPS would proceed to trial if there was such doubt on securing a guilty verdict among the legal profession in Belfast.

There is massive outrage after total due process because people disagree with a decision made by fellow peers while exercising the rule of law to the letter.

Imagine the outrage if the PPS/PSNI had decided not to go to trial because they knew there wasnt sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, maybe thinking about saving the girl the from the distress of a long shot trial. This gets in to the public domain and knowing that the accused (even without names) are people of privilege, celebrity etc There would be a massive outcry of cronyism, protecting privilaged and wealthy people and there would be serious issue of credibility for the PPS and with the PPS probably not being able to say too much, leading to accusations of laking transparency and seriously damaging the institution. Trust is not easily won in Northern Ireland!

The PPS forsee this maelstrom happening and think that the least potentially damaging of the two options is to take the case to trial knowing that a guilty verdict is unlikely due to lack of tangible, forensic evidence and hence reasonable doubt. There will be criticism if the conviction isnt secured, there will be questions to be answered on why do all this. But those questions can be batted away, certainly a lot easier than questions about why they didnt take these well heeled lads to trial and then be unable to answer those questions due to legal constraints in this scenario.

The point of this long winded post is that due to a system of naming the accused before any verdict never mind a guilty one, could very well have led to a horrible situation where the girl was put through an awful ordeal, in a no win case if going by the consensus of quite a few barristers, to preserve the integrity of the prosecuting institutions. The seriously flawed legal system may have led to an already vulnerable person being thrown to the wolves as the alternative could have been more damaging to how sexual assualt victims are feel they will be treated.

I think the anger at the verdict is misdirected and should be agitating for change to the system eg not naming the accused until a guilty verdict, minimising the impact of social media on cases, educating young people (and not so young) on issues of consent, as much as is possible creat awareness of what to do after an assault eg to preserve evidence, some sort of duty of care even - particularly in relation to the use of social media, showing support for the courage shown by the complainant in the wake of a not guilty verdict to try and prevent this from discouraging the reporting of sexual assault by others.

Just not a witchhunt against people whether like it or not have been cleared of all charges in an open court of law!!

Very good point, but with education. It was mentioned a while back about education girls of the dangers of alcohol. That getting too drunk can lead to losing control of your body and decisions making can become impaired...But apparently it was wrong to suggest education... Because if was sexist and victim blaming...

If I go out tonight, get blind drunk and walk into a dodgy area and get jumped. I'm partly at fault for getting to state which leads me into a situation I'd not do when in full control of my facilities.

So you're equating being drunk in the company of men with being drunk and walking into a dodgy area? And you don't see what you're implying with that?

the_syco · 29-03-2018 03:13PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Threesomes are not rape

How many of the lads had the threesome?

ShowMeTheCash · 29-03-2018 03:15PM

Mr.H wrote: »

did the evidence prove rape?

so it proved they didnt rape her. it proved they were not guilty therefore they didnt rape her

but dont worry youll get it eventually...................... probably not;)

These comments are getting better by the post.

They did not prove they did not rape her, she still could of been raped.
They did not have enough evidence to prove she was raped thus they could not prove their guilt.

Before you tie yourself in knots anymore than you are already doing just go back to your earlier statements.
They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. - Correct
They do not need to prove their innocents the prosecution needs to prove their guilt. That is how the court systems works.
If they had to prove they did not rape her, I can assure you they would all be banged up in jail as we speak.

GreeBo · 29-03-2018 03:15PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Ok try to stick to the actual trail and not some fantasy you have.

Did the evidence provided lead to a guilty or not guilty?

Simple question

a lack of evidence proving guilt led to a verdict of not guilty.
This does not prove innocence as a jury does not return a verdict of innocence, in fact no one proves innocence, its up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

c.p.w.g.w · 29-03-2018 03:16PM

irishrebe wrote: »

So you're equating being drunk in the company of men with being drunk and walking into a dodgy area? And you don't see what you're implying with that?

I was referring to getting drunk in general. And how it affects decision making process

But with regards this case. Maybe the girl agreed to the threesome because she was drunk, and decision she wouldn't have made sober or with less alcohol in her system.

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:17PM

irishrebe wrote: »

No, it's NOT normal. The language used is absolutely vile and misogynistic. If you think it's normal to refer to a woman you just slept with as a 'sl*t', then you have a problem. There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

So women dont refer to men as pigs or dogs?

You or your friends didnt get all hot under the collar about the 50 shades saga?? or magic mike??

Women and men are the exact same. They both talk about sexual conquests with their friends and treat potential sexual partners as meat (as part of their story). I remember one story a friend from work told me about this dog (guy) she was with and he had a tiny thing. She told me she couldnt feel anything and he was a minger anyway so she just made him go down on her and said she had to leave because she had work in the morning.

Women are just as bad as men and ironically its the ones who want us to be equal that cant see that

GreeBo · 29-03-2018 03:18PM

Sidebaro wrote: »

Well then your intent went over my head. Mostly because there was no allusion to your expose.

Perhaps if you follow the preceding posts it will be more enlightening.

Sidebaro wrote: »

Nothing. Incriminating was probably a poor choice of words. Basically, made them look scummy. Their texts made them look a lot worse than her texts.

Incriminating is a pretty specific word with a specific meaning, there is a world of difference between not liking something and that thing being incriminating!

Benteke · 29-03-2018 03:18PM

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

Permabear · 29-03-2018 03:18PM

This post has been deleted.

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:19PM

GreeBo wrote: »

a lack of evidence proving guilt led to a verdict of not guilty.
This does not prove innocence as a jury does not return a verdict of innocence, in fact no one proves innocence, its up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

the jury decides guilty or not guilty. They rely on evidence and statements. The evidence and statements provided to them led to a not guilty verdict.

That means the evidence and statements proved not guilty

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:19PM

the_syco wrote: »

How many of the lads had the threesome?

In here or on the night??

irishrebe · 29-03-2018 03:20PM

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No, it's NOT normal. The language used is absolutely vile and misogynistic. If you think it's normal to refer to a woman you just slept with as a 'sl*t', then you have a problem. There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

So women dont refer to men as pigs or dogs?

You or your friends didnt get all hot under the collar about the 50 shades saga?? or magic mike??

Women and men are the exact same. They both talk about sexual conquests with their friends and treat potential sexual partners as meat (as part of their story). I remember one story a friend from work told me about this dog (guy) she was with and he had a tiny thing. She told me she couldnt feel anything and he was a minger anyway so she just made him go down on her and said she had to leave because she had work in the morning.

Women are just as bad as men and ironically its the ones who want us to be equal that cant see that

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

GreeBo · 29-03-2018 03:20PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which is exactly the issue I have with your posts, you are implying a predatory aspect to it without any evidence of such.

Sidebaro · 29-03-2018 03:21PM

c.p.w.g.w wrote:

If I go out tonight, get blind drunk and walk into a dodgy area and get jumped. I'm partly at fault for getting to state which leads me into a situation I'd not do when in full control of my facilities.

I don't really agree. Your level of drunkness wouldn't warrant being jumped? You could just as easily have been sober and gotten jumped in this scenario, no?

Mr.H · 29-03-2018 03:21PM

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

How do you know?

They always say not guilty as the evidence doesnt show any guilt

29-03-2018 03:21PM

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

No it wasn't. It was in Northern Ireland and it was a Not Guilty case.

wexie · 29-03-2018 03:22PM

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

Out of curiosity what happens in the case of a 'not proven' verdict?

Does it still lead to some form of consequence as a 'guilty' verdict would or is it more a kind of 'we think you're shady as **** but just can't really prove it' type thing?

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

Comments