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

Heres Johnny

Uncharted wrote: »

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Busted!! But no thats not me

John Fogarty.......?

First name right!

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

People find different things offensive and are perfectly entitled to think the messages were disgusting . And perfectly entitled to say so without being knocked down with a " get over it "
I found the language in the messages disgusting , so does my husband , my son and my daughter . And so do my friends and my family . Maybe we just have different standards to you how we speak about others but such is life .

Of court you can find them offensive- what you can’t do is use them to find someone guilty of rape.

Fann Linn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

People find different things offensive and are perfectly entitled to think the messages were disgusting . And perfectly entitled to say so without being knocked down with a " get over it "
I found the language in the messages disgusting , so does my husband , my son and my daughter . And so do my friends and my family . Maybe we just have different standards to you how we speak about others but such is life .

Sometimes late at night with nothing on tv I might have a look at Sun, sea and suspicious parents'.
Disgusting and foul behaviour alright but appears to be fairly common. Plenty of grinding, dry ridin, tits etc on show from all and sundry and all appearing to be consensual and voluntary.

This sorta thing does go on and later in the year we'll hear more about it on de lavelahn as little Johnny and Mary head for Cyprus or wherever following their leaving cert., and do the same.

[Deleted User]

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Some will interpret that he is implying that they are guilty after the verdict of " not guilty " was reached.
If someone is found " not guilty " in court & someone else says something publicly interpreted to imply that he/she is still guilty that might be seen as libel/defamation cause after a " not guilty " verdict has been reached to imply he/she is still guilty might be seen as libel.

It "could" also be argued, that he was simply referring to the "collective" mindset of NI middle class rugby in general and not to any one individual in particular- he didn't name anyone in that particular tweet (and yes, I'm being devils advocate here and no, I'm not defending anyone)- there are worse tweets out there directed at and naming the players- they'd have a much easier time issuing legal proceedings to those people.

Canterelle

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Then explain it to me instead of getting of getting stroppy. Because if it’s not about the case or how rape victims are treated then I can’t see what it’s about.

You said it was just about the outcome of the case, originally. All I’m saying is that’s it’s more than that I.e. the treatment of the accuser in court, 8 days of questioning as opposed to much less questioning of the accused, the suggestions that her answers were rehearsed, the suggestions that because she put her hand on someone’s knee briefly - that this was in some way relevant to the alleged rape. The WhatsApp messages that were dismissed by the defence as silly banter. Her underwear being scrutinised in court. This sort of treatment.

Nailz

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I don't hate women.

Of course I don't.

I don't call them back on more than one occasion after banging them, though, and I don't think about consent.

I'm scared, now I think about it.

Actually, I do hate women.

This sort of twisting should be ****ed right off. No place in logical thought/discussion for this sort of bullshit.

AudreyHepburn

Strazdas wrote: »

He has just been found not guilty after a nine week criminal trial, that clears his name right there.

Getting involved in a legal spat with a minor public representative over a tweet the latter sent and a huge amount of people probably never even saw might not be the wisest course of action.

You keep saying it’s not a good idea but you seem unable to say why. Why is that? Perhaps you believe he did rape her?

He’s been found not guilty yet people are continuing to assume he’s guilty and say as much publicly- that’s reason enough to take action in my book.

Amalgam

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

A screenshot of Aodhan said on twitter.

..is this post wise, oh well.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of court you can find them offensive- what you can’t do is use them to find someone guilty of rape.

At no stage have I ever disputed the fact that the courts found them not guilty of rape ? In fact I have said on a few occasions that I would accept the jury's decision and in fact I too if on that jury would have found them not guilty of rape as charged

Amalgam

tritium wrote: »

And yet that’s essentially what the #ibelieveher crowd are complaining didn’t happen

I didn't mean it as in legal action, but more of, if they spent less time fiddling about with their phones and more.. Slap, a metaphorical one.

A 'cop on' cuff of the collar, so to speak.

RuMan

iamwhoiam wrote: »

People find different things offensive and are perfectly entitled to think the messages were disgusting . And perfectly entitled to say so without being knocked down with a " get over it "
I found the language in the messages disgusting , so does my husband , my son and my daughter . And so do my friends and my family . Maybe we just have different standards to you how we speak about others but such is life .

I'd say the same if my wife asked me !

but its fairly standard language after a lads/ ladies night out in my experience.

Its like the 60's neverchapp

Appledreams15

What is anyone's opinions of Stuart Olding apologising and Paddy Jackson not?
I thought it was good of Stuart as he is under no obligation to to this. I think it made PJ look a bit hard.

Strazdas

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You keep saying it’s not a good idea but you seem unable to say why. Why is that? Perhaps you believe he did rape her?

He’s been found not guilty yet people are continuing to assume he’s guilty and say as much publicly- that’s reason enough to take action in my book.

You're speaking as if it's obligatory (and standard practise) to sue someone who makes a derogatory remark about you on Twitter when in truth there are millions of such tweets out there and such libel cases are in fact very rare.

I've said further up I think AOR was wrong and stupid to post such a comment as a public representative after the trial.

AudreyHepburn

Canterelle wrote: »

You said it was just about the outcome of the case, originally. All I’m saying is that’s it’s more than that I.e. the treatment of the accuser in court, 8 days of questioning as opposed to much less questioning of the accused, the suggestions that her answers were rehearsed, the suggestions that because she put her hand on someone’s knee briefly - that this was in some way relevant to the alleged rape. The WhatsApp messages that were dismissed by the defence as silly banter. Her underwear being scrutinised in court. This sort of treatment.

That’s what happens at a trial.

Of course she must be questioned in detail - her version of events cannot be taken at face value.

If the actions of the four men are relevant so must herd be and the defense are well within their rights to question her and try to pick holes and find inconsistentie.

And they will of course try to put a positive spin on the evidence being used against their clients including the messages if they can. That is their job.

And the underwear is clearly vital physical evidence - where do you think DNA evidence comes from in these cases?

What exactly do you want for such a trial? That the accused be locked away no questions asked?

Sorry but that’s not how a fair trial works.

dxhound2005

Strazdas wrote: »

He has just been found not guilty after a nine week criminal trial, that clears his name right there.

Getting involved in a legal spat with a minor public representative over a tweet the latter sent and a huge amount of people probably never even saw might not be the wisest course of action.

It is a very wise move. For the reasons outlined by the law firm. I hope it is the start of a move to bring what is being published online at least up to the standards of what we see in newspapers. The same law applies.

KRW Law says it will not hesitate to repeat similar legal action against anyone who deliberately or otherwise attacks its client.

Senior associate of KRW Law solicitors, Marie Hans, says: "I can confirm we have issued pre-action libel correspondence against a named Senator in the Republic of Ireland.

"The legal action related to a tweet sent to a number of others persons before it was eventually taken down."

She adds:"We will not hesitate to repeat similar legal action against anyone who deliberately or otherwise, sees fit to attack our client. We are examining carefully every item of social media commentary which seeks to challenge the integrity of the jury's full endorsement of our client's innocence.

super_furry

Mokuba wrote: »

Again really would love if someone could point out the WhatsApp messages that were sent by Paddy Jackson himself.

Don't think anyone here is making any claims about what messages were and weren't sent.

AudreyHepburn

Strazdas wrote: »

You're speaking as if it's obligatory (and standard practise) to sue someone who makes a derogatory remark about you on Twitter when in truth there are millions of such tweets out there and such libel cases are in fact very rare.

I've said further up I think AOR was wrong and stupid to post such a comment as a public representative after the trial.

I’mi not saying it’s obligatory. I’m saying I can understand 100% why PJ wants to do and I cannot see why anyone would think it’s a bad idea.

You see to have a real chip on your shoulder about this.

Neamhshuntasach

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I don't hate women.

Of course I don't.

I don't call them back on more than one occasion after banging them, though, and I don't think about consent.

I'm scared, now I think about it.

Actually, I do hate women.

Absolutely mental that there are people out there that can equate one night stands to hating women. That's some logic you have there. Do women not like getting "banged" or something? Do they not have one night stands and not call? Do they hate men?

I've had plenty of one night stands. I have had zero verbal consent nor do i have any signed contract of consent. But i've never raped, sexually assaulted or violated any woman sexually. And i don't hate women.

But i suppose because of those one night stands i actually do hate women deep down despite what i may tell people. And i have most likely raped a few women at some stage. That seems to be the logic at play here.

Strazdas

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What is anyone's opinions of Stuart Olding apologising and Paddy Jackson not?
I thought it was good of Stuart as he is under no obligation to to this. I think it made PJ look a bit hard.

Yes, Olding's comments were very conciliatory towards the young woman and he even apologised to her for things that happened and the way it all unfolded.

Jackson's lawyer seems to be rather confrontational and to have a motto of fight fire with fire.

markodaly

dark crystal wrote: »

I am not debating the verdict at all, I am simply saying a not guilty verdict does not automatically equate to the plaintiff having lied. It just means the accusation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I never said the plaintiff lied, never.

However, from what I see is many are trying to hold two opposing opinions at the same time.

People who say they believe the plaintiff, #ibelieveher. Fine, however they are then reluctant to say that the trial process was botched, corrupted or anyhow unfair.

You cant say you believe the plantiff and then say that the jury came out with the correct decision and the the process was anyhow not legit

The implication from the #ibelieveher movement is that there has been a miss-carriage of justice.

Put it this way, say they found the defendants guilty, would we have seen mass demos from men with a #ibelievehim. Not a hope in hell.

The feminist and womens movement need to cope on and stop being so hysterical about every single perceived slight against them. We are not going to turn our court and legal system upside just to appease a few nut jobs on social media. Extremists, whatever their hue do not get to bully the nation.

freshpopcorn

Do some people want certain kind of sexual activity band because it's a bad way to treat women even when they are consenting?

Appledreams15

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That’s what happens at a trial.

Of course she must be questioned in detail - her version of events cannot be taken at face value.

If the actions of the four men are relevant so must herd be and the defense are well within their rights to question her and try to pick holes and find inconsistentie.

And they will of course try to put a positive spin on the evidence being used against their clients including the messages if they can. That is their job.

And the underwear is clearly vital physical evidence - where do you think DNA evidence comes from in these cases?

What exactly do you want for such a trial? That the accused be locked away no questions asked?

Sorry but that’s not how a fair trial works.

God were the knickers actually passed around at the trial. Surely that can be changed going forward. Where is the advocate for victim rights? Why can't they show photos and a forensic testimony? And limit the amount of days that she can be interrogated on the stand.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I don't hate women.

Of course I don't.

I don't call them back on more than one occasion after banging them, though, and I don't think about consent.

I'm scared, now I think about it.

Actually, I do hate women.

World class twisting and misinterpreting there.
Top drawer stuff.

almostover

Canterelle wrote: »

You said it was just about the outcome of the case, originally. All I’m saying is that’s it’s more than that I.e. the treatment of the accuser in court, 8 days of questioning as opposed to much less questioning of the accused, the suggestions that her answers were rehearsed, the suggestions that because she put her hand on someone’s knee briefly - that this was in some way relevant to the alleged rape. The WhatsApp messages that were dismissed by the defence as silly banter. Her underwear being scrutinised in court. This sort of treatment.

You do know that a judge presided over this case and it was her job to ensure that both the alleged victim and the defendants were granted a fair trial? This included telling the jury what evidence was and was not admissible in court. If the line of questioning was out of order by the defence the judge would have stopped it.

AudreyHepburn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Do some people want certain kind of sexual activity band because it's a bad way to treat women even when they are consenting?

I think that’s the way of it unfortunately.

We’re at the point now that if you’re a man you’re going to need to sign a contract before you so much as hold a woman’s hand to protect yourself from false accusations.

[Deleted User]

RuMan wrote: »

I'd say the same if my wife asked me !

but its fairly standard language after a lads/ ladies night out in my experience.

Its like the 60's neverchapp

Like iamwhoiam, I also found the comments disturbing.

However, I think expressions such as "sowing your wild oats before settling down" has too much romanticism attached to it. The expression, historically related exclusively to males, conjures up an image of a young man progressing to mature and responsible adulthood through gaining sexual experience as a right of passage.
The reality is probably more like a series of drunken one night stands and as someone mentioned a while back on this thread, who's a retired rugby player, filled with a certain regret and in some cases, hurt.

While I don't like the comments (WhatsApp posts) I also think that romanticising or sterilising a concept that in reality is quite a dangerous practice that often can lead to much negativity- STI's, long term emotional damage, criminal acts etc is not helpful in this modern but complex world.

Pac1Man

Appledreams15 wrote: »

God were the knickers actually passed around at the trial. Surely that can be changed going forward. Where is the advocate for victim rights? Why can't they show photos and a forensic testimony? And limit the amount of days that she can be interrogated on the stand.

A person's feelings or dignity should never ever stand in the way of presenting evidence in a serious trial. Cop on.

AudreyHepburn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

God were the knickers actually passed around at the trial. Surely that can be changed going forward. Where is the advocate for victim rights? Why can't they show photos and a forensic testimony? And limit the amount of days that she can be interrogated on the stand.

Somehow I doubt the knickers themselves were present at the trial.

And why should there be a limit to the questioning? If you make a claim it’s up to you to prove it to be true and if that involves undergoing rigorous investigation so be it.

Appledreams15

markodaly wrote: »

I never said the plaintiff lied, never.

However, from what I see is many are trying to hold two opposing opinions at the same time.

People who say they believe the plaintiff, #ibelieveher. Fine, however they are then reluctant to say that the trial process was botched, corrupted or anyhow unfair.

You cant say you believe the plantiff and then say that the jury came out with the correct decision and the the process was anyhow not legit

The implication from the #ibelieveher movement is that there has been a miss-carriage of justice.

Put it this way, say they found the defendants guilty, would we have seen mass demos from men with a #ibelievehim. Not a hope in hell.

The feminist and womens movement need to cope on and stop being so hysterical about every single perceived slight against them. We are not going to turn our court and legal system upside just to appease a few nut jobs on social media. Extremists, whatever their hue do not get to bully the nation.

Appease nutjobs on social media?

How about to appease 50% of the population.

A quote from the lawyer for the Delhi rapist comes to mind ( lawyer for man who gang raped, murdered and pulled out intestines of woman on bus)

"India is one of the best countries in the world, there is no place for women in India".

I think some men want no women to be in this country at all. Maybe we should all feck off somewhere else. I am moving abroad actually, soon, and treatment of women in Ireland is the no.1 reason.

I remember my mother said to me, when men in her generation used to say the most vicious disgusting things about women in Ireland, she said to them "If you hate women so much, are you gay?" She couldnt understand where the hate came from, and neither do I

hill16bhoy

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The lead juror came out on social media after the verdict and said re the complainant: "Mummy and Daddy live in South Belfast in a millionth pound house".

Why she would need to do such a daft thing raises quiet suspicions.

I read the screenshots of those comments.

GUBU stuff.

Why she would feel the need to be online within hours writing about the complainant's social class raises serious questions.

It's been interesting to note the cognitive dissonance at play from many posters regarding Aodhan O'Riordain's comments and the juror's.

Lots of outrage at O'Riordain mentioning their social class, yet absolutely nothing from these same posters regarding the juror bringing up the complainant's social class, in a very sarcastic, almost disparaging way.

Mr. O'Riordain was not on the jury, as far as I'm aware.