nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

super_furry

torqtorq wrote: »

That solicitor of PJ is a rottweiler with a bone. He is not for letting go.

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

Uncharted

I hope the 4 Irish 'rugby players' are taken back immediately by the IRFU....... or else Mc Ilroy will have to go back at the golf, and his backswing ain't what it used to be.

Worrying times indeed....

Laois_Man

I see the foreperson of the jury has been threatened with arrest because of comments she made on broadsheet.ie and advised to get a lawyer.

I also see there are arguments between the judge and the media ongoing whereby the media were forbidden from reporting matters discussed in the absence of the jury for fear of influencing the jury. The media now arguing this is no longer valid and saying they should now be able to report on the exchanges.

This story might have a long way to run yet.

jr86

torqtorq wrote: »

A mealy mouth apology will not prevent more high profile people coming out spouting nonsense.

It will do exactly the opposite.

Of course it will, this a PR nightmare for him and his party

It's brilliant to see action being taken, everyone should be held accountable for what they Tweet

hill16bhoy

Mokuba wrote: »

Wrong on all 3 counts. Spectacularly so.

Laois_Man wrote: »

I disagree completely

Because
i) O'Riordain's is not elected to the Dail for him to be "re-elected" to it
ii) Saying someone got off because they are well connected and not because they are innocent is by no means shaky ground.
iii) May also be bring lots of coin onto himself.....which he may very well need now!

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Amalgam

super_furry wrote: »

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

Oh well, that's your opinion, then. Duly noted.

Heres Johnny

People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously?
Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on.

Is this an attack on all men?

One woman took a case, lost due to lack of any credible evidence and mainly due to another sober woman's testimony that it didn't look like she was in any way being subjected to anything she didn't want to be. 3 female jurors acquitted too.

She has to be grilled in court. Of course she does.

Feminists are coming out of this looking very stupid indeed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I said previously that some of the twitter posters using #ibelieveher were verging on defamatory. I noticed some of the top tweets have disappeared recently.

hill16bhoy

Laois_Man wrote: »

I see the foreperson of the jury has been threatened with arrest because of comments she made on broadsheet.ie and advised to get a lawyer.

I also see there are arguments between the judge and the media ongoing whereby the media were forbidden from reporting matters discussed in the absence of the jury for fear of influencing the jury. The media now arguing this is no longer valid and saying they should now be able to report on the exchanges.

This story might have a long way to run yet.

The juror gave away details of the complainant's family background, socio-economic status and where she lives.

There's no way the last of this has been heard.

hill16bhoy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I said previously that some of the twitter posters using #ibelieveher were verging on defamatory. I noticed some of the top tweets have disappeared recently.

The #ibelieveher hashtag is in no way defamatory.

Mokuba

I don't know what business the IRFU would have with 2 people that aren't contracted to them.

But lets not facts in the way of a good witch hunt.

Phoebas

super_furry wrote: »

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

I think some people are delighted with this because they don't like AOR or they are emotionally invested in this particular case, not on the actual merits of the possible defamation itself.

Uncharted

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Pffft.....yeah.... because every rugby match iv attended,iv sat shoulder to shoulder with purple haired,angry at the planet ,feminazi,men- hating lynchmobs.

Get a grip.

jr86

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Sorry to disappoint, but it'll be long forgotten by then. there'll be plenty more that the mob have moved onto in the meantime

99% of match goers would give them the respect they deserve. Don't mistake a minority of clowns on Social Media for being representative of the general population - particularly rugby fans

Mokuba

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The #ibelieveher hashtag is in no way defamatory.

That's not what he said.

Read it again.

Mrs Shuttleworth

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Correct. I despise AOR but see no reason why he can't express an opinion publicly in a different jurisdiction on this verdict. The fact they were found not guilty does not imply the woman is a liar.

Re the term "well connected" he is saying what a lot of us are privately thinking. Particularly as the head juror then came out after the verdict with some utterly daft and defensive social media posts of her own.

Amalgam

Phoebas wrote: »

I think some people are delighted with this because they don't like AOR or they are emotionally invested in this particular case, not on the actual merits of the possible defamation itself.

Yes, count me as one of those people. I wish more politicians got a good slap over their social media use..

jr86

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Correct. I despise AOR but see no reason why he can't express a public opinion in a different jurisdiction on this verdict. He is saying what a lot of us are thinking.

Really?

GreeBo

Sidebaro wrote: »

Was it not about privilege? The guy was a white male but the privilege that was being referred to didn't mention that, you seemed to add it.

So what's the basis for this supposed privilege this white male enjoys?

Canterelle

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Oh please these eejits protesting a case they know nothing about and willingly ignoring

THE FACT THESE MEN WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY.

I was using humour to show how irrational and biased these people are.

It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a protest purely against the verdict but about the treatment of the complainant and rape victims who bring a case to court. Instead you’re just saying all these people are biased irrational eejits. Another poster thinks they just need a good night in coppers. And of course try to diminish the men who want to join the protest. In the clip they clearly say why they are there. They didn’t say the men were guilty of rape. What was your “humour” about?

hill16bhoy

Heres Johnny wrote: »

People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously?
Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on.

Is this an attack on all men?

One woman took a case, lost due to lack of any credible evidence and mainly due to another sober woman's testimony that it didn't look like she was in any way being subjected to anything she didn't want to be. 3 female jurors acquitted too.

She has to be grilled in court. Of course she does.

Feminists are coming out of this looking very stupid indeed.

Somebody who proposes that that the complainant "be grilled in court" for so called false allegations, which you are clearly implying, looks very stupid indeed.

In fact the complainant would have a very good case for defamation against anybody alleging she made false allegations, when the jury didn't find that at all.

Sofiztikated

professore wrote: »

I'll ask again ... what sort of penis makes lacerations inside the vagina? I've been having all sorts of vigourous sex for 20 years or more and I've never once caused lacerations or bleeding. There aren't any sharp surfaces on a penis.

That you know of.

Have you had a medical professional check your partner after every sexual encounter?

dxhound2005

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Correct. I despise AOR but see no reason why he can't express a public opinion in a different jurisdiction on this verdict. He is saying what a lot of us are thinking.

The legal action will be heard in this jurisdiction. If an Irish newspaper defamed a citizen of another country they could be sued for that as well.

Heres Johnny

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Mokuba wrote: »

Wrong on all 3 counts. Spectacularly so.

Laois_Man wrote: »

I disagree completely

Because
i) O'Riordain's is not elected to the Dail for him to be "re-elected" to it
ii) Saying someone got off because they are well connected and not because they are innocent is by no means shaky ground.
iii) May also be bring lots of coin onto himself.....which he may very well need now!

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

That's just nonsense. It's all keyboard warrior stuff. Unless paddy is on Twitter at the same time as he's taking a place kick he will be fine.
Did you see the state of the great unwashed dopes out protesting? They won't be at any match.

If they attend the match, they will be contributing to his wages. The irony there would be lovely.

professore

Heres Johnny wrote: »

People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously?
Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on.

The Rory Best thing is ridiculous. If a good friend of mine was accused of rape, and I genuinely believed he didn't do it, do I not have the right to provide a character witness and attend his trial?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Preventing them playing for Ireland - that's up to the team. They are innocent in the eyes of the law, so I can't see a good reason not to play any of them. But I suspect they will get a lot of boos.

For Forks Sake

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I said previously that some of the twitter posters using #ibelieveher were verging on defamatory. I noticed some of the top tweets have disappeared recently.

Yeah, I've just checked some screenshots of some highly defamatory tweets from the other day and lo and behold they've all been deleted.

All mouth no trousers.

Phoebas

Amalgam wrote: »

Yes, count me as one of those people. I wish more politicians got a good slap over their social media use..

Using the legal system to give a 'good slap' to people you don't like probably isn't a great idea.

professore

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That you know of.

Have you had a medical professional check your partner after every sexual encounter?

No but my partner would not be shy about telling me if I caused any lacerations or bleeding. I'm not married to a shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination. And we're down to this level now that I would have sex with my partner with no concern for her welfare.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Correct. I despise AOR but see no reason why he can't express an opinion publicly in a different jurisdiction on this verdict. The fact they were found not guilty does not imply the woman is a liar.

Re the term "well connected" he is saying what a lot of us are privately thinking. Particularly as the head juror then came out after the verdict with some utterly daft and defensive social media posts of her own.

You can be defamatory in any jurisdiction. Furthermore with the nature of the internet you can be tried, as far as I know, in other jurisdictions if the post was available there.

I didn’t see his tweet so I can’t comment on the tweet itself.

GreeBo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Correct. I despise AOR but see no reason why he can't express an opinion publicly in a different jurisdiction on this verdict. The fact they were found not guilty does not imply the woman is a liar.

Re the term "well connected" he is saying what a lot of us are privately thinking. Particularly as the head juror then came out after the verdict with some utterly daft and defensive social media posts of her own.

Saying they got away with it is implying they are guilty. Saying that in public is not likely to be ignored.