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.
Boom_Bap wrote: » No, they boasted about a 3some.
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;)
yourdeadwright wrote: » It makes no sense who do they want this Justice from ?
Mr.H wrote: » Threesomes are not rape Threesomes are a sexual act performed by consenting adults. Some people like them
GreeBo wrote: I commented on hers to expose the fallacy on solely commenting on theirs and somehow drawing conclusions from them.
GreeBo wrote: What in their texts is incriminating them of rape exactly?
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?
GreeBo wrote: » No, but like I didnt appreciate the tone they used so basically yeah they did...damn rapists.
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?
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.
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!!
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.
seamus wrote: » This post had been deleted.
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.
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.
Mr.H wrote: » Threesomes are not rape
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
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?
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.
Sidebaro wrote: » Well then your intent went over my head. Mostly because there was no allusion to your expose.
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.
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_syco wrote: » How many of the lads had the threesome?
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
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
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.
Benteke wrote: » Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven This was a Not Proven case
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
