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

hill16bhoy · 30-03-2018 12:11AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm absolutely furious and disgusted by the "accusation = guilt" morons who have the gall to call themselves feminists, but the fact that this wasn't rape doesn't necessarily mean that the complainant didn't, under the influence of a mind altering substance, genuinely and entirely innocently believe that it was.

Of course an accusation doesn't equal guilt.

We don't know for a fact that it wasn't rape, only that a jury ruled that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, thus the verdict was not guilty.

It's possible a civil case could be taken and there could be a ruling that on the balance of probabilities, a rape did take place.

That wouldn't tell us for a fact that a rape did take place either.

Faugheen · 30-03-2018 12:15AM

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

You said earlier that this was a consensual threesome and displayed that as fact, and I called you out on it.

My opinion is that they were all locked and none of them truly remembers what happened. I got that from the inconsistencies in both the defence and prosecution statements.

I believe it was consensual and they were all locked.

As i said i dont know how it got to trial, i think Jackson has been extremely badly treated and the DPP did a terrible job. I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.

That's all well and good, but you've no proof of your judgements. You're just calling her a liar and referring to false allegations when she's entitled to the same 'innocent until proven guilty' tag you believe the lads are entitled to.

It's all well and good to believe something, but don't use the verdict as if it backs up your point and presents it as a fact. It doesn't. Maybe you'll learn that one day.

professore · 30-03-2018 12:19AM

spookwoman wrote: »

Position of where she was and what she could see would be 1 factor and the other is over a minute because not all rapes are violent where the victim is being held down, beaten etc.
The victim turned her face away so how could dora see her face. The victim was bleeding and it looks like dora didnt see that either.
It was after she went that jackson it seems tried to force his hand fully inside her and at that stage she was bleeding heavy.
I don't know about anyone else but I think any self respecting person would be worried with seeing blood during a fisting

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

Jackson followed, she said, and grabbed her trousers, pulling them down to her knees. She said she froze as Jackson pushed her down on the bed and with her tight trousers caught at her knees, she couldn’t move. “I was face down on the bed and he was having sex with me.”

Jackson knew she did not want it to happen “but he kept going”, she said.

Then the door opened and Olding walked in. “My heart just sank. I knew what was going to happen. I looked Patrick Jackson straight in the eyes and said ‘please no, not him as well’.”

How did she look him in the eye if she was face down on the bed?

She immediately got off the bed and grabbed her clothes. She put her trousers on and her underpants in her pocket. She said McIlroy said to her: “You f***ed the other guys, why won’t you f**k me?”

When did her tight trousers magically disappear? How did her underpants get off over her tight trousers?

She told McIlroy: “How many times does it take for a girl to say no for it to sink in?”

Doesn't sound like something someone paralysed by fear would say.

retro:electro · 30-03-2018 12:19AM

Can’t tell you how many times I’ve read “the four rapists” over social media today. Can’t be easy for Harrison having his name muddied in with those accused of rape and exposure. A lot of uneducated people spouting nonsense, but that’s on both sides mind you. But people should at least educate themselves on what the charges were before they assert an opinion on the case

hatrickpatrick · 30-03-2018 12:19AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't wish to antagonise you...but have you looked at who drunk what that night...and asked yourself, what if the lads had so much to drink....

You mean that they might have thought it was consensual and in fact it wasn't? Absolutely, but the fact is that they have been found innocent of rape by a jury of their peers. What's relevant now is that some people are accusing the complainant of lying, and I'm merely pointing out that when one's memory is impaired (and depending on the person it can take a surprisingly small amount of alcohol to do this), it's unfair to assume she's deliberately lying. It's extremely possible that her mind is filling in blanks with unpleasant assumptions. Most of us who have experienced "the fear" after a night out for literally no reason can attest to the fact that our brains have a tendency to do this - indeed, it's one of the building blocks of horror movies, the fact that the human brain tends to fill unknowns with scary thoughts.

I'm focus on this because as far as I'm concerned, now that the accused have been found not guilty, there's nothing to discuss as far as their own defense goes. I'm merely countering the suggestion that someone who makes a false allegation necessarily made it deliberately and out of malice.

People get things wrong. People get things especially wrong when they've been drinking. To assume malice on her part requires an extremely unfair filling in of blanks - in much the same manner as I've described.

Tsipras · 30-03-2018 12:21AM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

If your hugging strangers or putting your arm on their waist you really ought to stop. At best your wierding people out.

Agree 100%, Unless you're good friend with a girl, if you put your arm around their waist then you are for sure trying it on, or a you're creep

RuMan · 30-03-2018 12:22AM

Faugheen wrote: »

That's all well and good, but you've no proof of your judgements. You're just calling her a liar and referring to false allegations when she's entitled to the same 'innocent until proven guilty' tag you believe the lads are entitled to.

It's all well and good to believe something, but don't use the verdict as if it backs up your point and presents it as a fact. It doesn't. Maybe you'll learn that one day.

spare me the condescending last line we are not in court.

Its possible she lied and you seem to think she didnt really know as she was drunk. If she wasnt sure she should not gave filed a complaint.

kittensmittens · 30-03-2018 12:25AM

professore wrote: »

Jackson followed, she said, and grabbed her trousers, pulling them down to her knees. She said she froze as Jackson pushed her down on the bed and with her tight trousers caught at her knees, she couldn’t move. “I was face down on the bed and he was having sex with me.”

Jackson knew she did not want it to happen “but he kept going”, she said.

Then the door opened and Olding walked in. “My heart just sank. I knew what was going to happen. I looked Patrick Jackson straight in the eyes and said ‘please no, not him as well’.”

How did she look him in the eye if she was face down on the bed?

She immediately got off the bed and grabbed her clothes. She put her trousers on and her underpants in her pocket. She said McIlroy said to her: “You f***ed the other guys, why won’t you f**k me?”

When did her tight trousers magically disappear?

I would imagine she used her neck to turn her head over to look at him

Brae100 · 30-03-2018 12:26AM

I haven't read all of the thread, so apologies if this has been already covered, but has there been any further info or discussion about the WhatsApp group called The Juicers, that McIlroy posted the photo to? Juicer is a well known euphemism for a steroid user. In a trial involving professional sports people, I was sure this would be worthy of investigation.

hatrickpatrick · 30-03-2018 12:26AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Of course an accusation doesn't equal guilt.

This may be obvious to you and to me, but it clearly isn't obvious to many of the self-styled 'feminists' commenting publicly on this case today.

We don't know for a fact that it wasn't rape, only that a jury ruled that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, thus the verdict was not guilty.

As far as I'm concerned, these two statements are synonymous. Found not guilty by a jury = factually not guilty. End of, unless further evidence comes to light. That's how our democracy functions and this is how it must function. The very concept of justice falls apart if it only applies in court, and not to the parties' lives and reputations thereafter. This goes both ways, of course - the people smearing the defendants today are on a direct par with the people queuing up to shake a rapist's hand just after a conviction a few years ago. I make no distinction when I regard the rulings of our justice system as facts in cases of guilt or innocence.

Yes, miscarriages of justice do happen. But for the public at large to assume hat an acquitted party is still guilty, is to deny that individual of their basic, fundamental human rights.

Muahahaha · 30-03-2018 12:27AM

Just on the alcohol aspect Olding is on record as having had 12 pints, 5 vodkas, 2 gins and three shots for a total of 22 alcoholiic drinks. iirc Jackson is down for a similar amount.

The complainant is on record as having 3 double vodkas, a total of 6 alcoholic drinks.

I think given the above the complainant may have been somewhat drunk but she cannot have been anywhere near as pissed as the two defendants who had consumed 3.5 times more alcoholic drinks than her.

Faugheen · 30-03-2018 12:28AM

RuMan wrote: »

spare me the condescending last line we are not in court.

Its possible she lied and you seem to think she didnt really know as she was drunk. If she wasnt sure she should not gave filed a complaint.

Yes you have it in one - it's possible.

You have been presenting it as fact. That's what my point has been this entire time. You have no basis to present it as fact.

hatrickpatrick · 30-03-2018 12:29AM

Brae100 wrote: »

I haven't read all of the thread, so apologies if this has been already covered, but has there been any further info or discussion about the WhatsApp group called The Juicers, that McIlroy posted the photo to? Juicer is a well known euphemism for a steroid user. In a trial involving professional sports people, I was sure this would be worthy of investigation.

Not so much, steroids are something athletes and bodybuilders regularly slag eachother off about without meaning anything. That's just standard banter, like "oh you made a new one rep max, clearly been guzzling the D-Bol ey ey

".

Many groups of lads joke about sh!t like that and it doesn't mean anything.

professore · 30-03-2018 12:29AM

kittensmittens wrote: »

I would imagine she used her neck to turn her head over to look at him

Thats impossible if you are forced face down on a bed. Just try it.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-03-2018 12:29AM

These men have been found innocent in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of some, including my other half :rolleyes:

If a court of law can't exonerate you, what can? Is mob rule the future?

These men may not be gents, but in the eyes of the law they did nothing wrong. Yet they will be reviled and treated as dirt for decades to come. That's not justice.

hatrickpatrick · 30-03-2018 12:33AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the alcohol aspect Olding is on record as having had 12 pints, 5 vodkas, 2 gins and three shots for a total of 22 alcoholiic drinks. iirc Jackson is down for a similar amount.

The complainant is on record as having 3 double vodkas, a total of 6 alcoholic drinks.

I think given the above the complainant may have been somewhat drunk but she cannot have been anywhere near as pissed as the two defendants who had consumed 3.5 times more alcoholic drinks than her.

This is fair. But being honest, depending on a person's height, weight, whether they've eaten etc, I've seen people black out in less than this. I know of one lad who had two double vodkas in quick succession at the beginning of a night, threw up on himself, got kicked immediately out by the bouncers, and at least claims he doesn't remember any of this

kittensmittens · 30-03-2018 12:35AM

professore wrote: »

Thats impossible if you are forced face down on a bed. Just try it.

She never said she was held down on the bed by the back of her head.
THAT would be impossible to turn your head around so

It says she was forced face down onto the bed. As in on her stomach
Face Downwards.. not held down at the back of the head.
But I would imagine anyone sensible knows what being face downwards means
It means on your stomach.
And as such, you can turn your head around.

Silentcorner · 30-03-2018 12:36AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just on the alcohol aspect Olding is on record as having had 12 pints, 5 vodkas, 2 gins and three shots for a total of 22 alcoholiic drinks. iirc Jackson is down for a similar amount.

The complainant is on record as having 3 double vodkas, a total of 6 alcoholic drinks.

I think given the above the complainant may have been somewhat drunk but she cannot have been anywhere near as pissed as the two defendants who had consumed 3.5 times more alcoholic drinks than her.

Does anyone know if they had been drinking before they got on that plane in south Africa? I read somewhere that they had....the amount of alcohol listed were what they had when they got back to Belfast...

hatrickpatrick · 30-03-2018 12:36AM

professore wrote: »

Thats impossible if you are forced face down on a bed. Just try it.

Have a fair amount of experience with this, do you? :pac:

professore · 30-03-2018 12:37AM

There are far more cut and dried cases of rape out there than this one but no one cares about them. At the end of the day these men will still have flocks of women lining up to have sex with them...if anything more so than before. 50 shades was the last straw on that.

It's as much an indictment of our pathetic society - both men and women. The justice system is the only reasonable and honourable part of it.

The whole thing is bizarre and disgusting.

professore · 30-03-2018 12:38AM

kittensmittens wrote: »

She never said she was held down on the bed by the back of her head.
THAT would be impossible to turn your head around so

It says she was forced face down onto the bed. As in on her stomach
Face Downwards.. not held down at the back of the head.
But I would imagine anyone sensible knows what being face downwards means
It means on your stomach.
And as such, you can turn your head around.

You can't look someone behind you in the eye lying on your stomach. It's physically impossible.

Tsipras · 30-03-2018 12:39AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

These men have been found innocent in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of some, including my other half :rolleyes:

If a court of law can't exonerate you, what can? Is mob rule the future?

These men may not be gents, but in the eyes of the law they did nothing wrong. Yet they will be reviled and treated as dirt for decades to come. That's not justice.

Are you a bit worried about your OH man?
My wife knew half way through the trial it was a load of nonsense, there are still some sane women out there you know, (not on twitter obviously)

professore · 30-03-2018 12:41AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have a fair amount of experience with this, do you? :pac:

Lol no my sex life isn't that exciting

hatrickpatrick · 30-03-2018 12:41AM

professore wrote: »

There are far more cut and dried cases of rape out there than this one but no one cares about them. At the end of the day these men will still have flocks of women lining up to have sex with them...if anything more so than before. 50 shades was the last straw on that.

It's as much an indictment of our pathetic society - both men and women. The justice system is the only reasonable and honourable part of it.

The whole thing is bizarre and disgusting.

How does any of that render our society "pathetic"?

professore · 30-03-2018 12:43AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How does any of that render our society "pathetic"?

The obsession with celebrity and sex is pathetic.

kittensmittens · 30-03-2018 12:43AM

professore wrote: »

You can't look someone behind you in the eye lying on your stomach. It's physically impossible.

Oh give over...there is always wriggle room to turn your head during that position unless you are totally restrained by the back of the head very forcibly at all times.
So unless you are saying he had her head RAMMED into the bed with full force. then it is totally physically possible.

Which is it? Head smashed down full force into the bed or face forward in the bed with ability to look behind over the shoulder? Cant be both

hill16bhoy · 30-03-2018 12:43AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This may be obvious to you and to me, but it clearly isn't obvious to many of the self-styled 'feminists' commenting publicly on this case today.

As far as I'm concerned, these two statements are synonymous. Found not guilty by a jury = factually not guilty. End of, unless further evidence comes to light. That's how our democracy functions and this is how it must function. The very concept of justice falls apart if it only applies in court, and not to the parties' lives and reputations thereafter. This goes both ways, of course - the people smearing the defendants today are on a direct par with the people queuing up to shake a rapist's hand just after a conviction a few years ago. I make no distinction when I regard the rulings of our justice system as facts in cases of guilt or innocence.

Yes, miscarriages of justice do happen. But for the public at large to assume hat an acquitted party is still guilty, is to deny that individual of their basic, fundamental human rights.

It's a fact that they were found not guilty.

But strong belief in guilt, in a criminal trial, still equals not guilty - we don't know where on that spectrum of not guilty the jury members found them to be.

I didn't say the verdict shouldn't be respected, I respect the rule of law, it should.

Given that, I think they should be allowed resume their careers, at Ulster too.

That doesn't mean I can't have a personal opinion that I believe the complainant told the truth or that I believe the defendants lied (it's a fact that at least some of them did during the case) or that the verdict is foolproof or a "fact".

It also doesn't mean that the protests that took place today weren't legitimate - I think there are a lot of legitimate things to protest after this trial.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-03-2018 12:48AM

Tsipras wrote: »

Are you a bit worried about your OH man?

I'm right behind most feminist causes, but not this one.

I've served on two juries*, I always thought that the evidence in this trial was flimsy and would likely be rejected by the jury.

Jury considers evidence - finds it sorely lacking - shock horror they acquit. They, including the three women on the jury, must be woman hating assholes :rolleyes:

* One of them was a rape trial - both of the parties involved were male...

_Whimsical_ · 30-03-2018 12:49AM

Is anyone else very concerned by all the people in the media saying they'd never report a rape and would actively encourage a friend or relation not to do so?

I can fully understand the sentiment, I feel like it myself, but I feel it's very dangerous to verbalise it so much. If anything what we need to be saying is that we'll stand with victims and actively support them through any trial, that we'll try to lobby for better conditions for victims in this situation.

Right now it's as if we are declaring open season for rapists and criminals by telling them we'd all be too afraid to report them.

hill16bhoy · 30-03-2018 12:50AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Does anyone know if they had been drinking before they got on that plane in south Africa? I read somewhere that they had....the amount of alcohol listed were what they had when they got back to Belfast...

I'd be interested to know how much they had to drink on the plane too and what sort of sleep they'd had over the previous couple of days.

The complainant had gone 30 hours without sleep by the time she was examined at the Rowan Centre and gave her first evidence to Dr. Lavery.

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

Comments