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

foxyladyxx · 30-03-2018 11:53PM

irishman86 wrote: »

Wow, how many times has this been pointed out
Not guilty = innocent

Are you being deliberately obtuse. .Not guilty does NOT equal innocent.

It means that a reasonable doubt existed in the mind of the 11 jurors given the evidence presented in court ,

I was not in court. .neither were you.

I was not in Paddy Jackson's bedroom on the night in question so I have no idea what transpired there. I can only cobble together some rough idea based solely on media reports.

None of us know and I have not heard anyone imply the girl in question was lying . .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-03-2018 11:53PM

irishman86 wrote: »

Wow, how many times has this been pointed out
Not guilty = innocent

How many times does it need to be pointed out that no, it doesn't. It means not proven. Possibly innocent, but not definitely.

irishman86 · 30-03-2018 11:54PM

Happy4all wrote: »

O J Simpson not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown = innocent

Do we live in America :eek:
When exactly did this happen
First i learn today we live in Britain now this

Zonda999 · 30-03-2018 11:54PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Hmm. You would say that though.

I think both platforms have different extremes. Boards seems to be more right wing although I don’t think it was always that way.

Yeah undoubtedly so, but I'm basing that IQ comment on a lot more of Boards than just After Hours though. I just think a certain type of person would prefer to read in depth about whichever topic as opposed to a short snippet basically stating an opinion as opposed to any general information or detailed commentary.

Yeah, definitely more right wing but Boards is probably more representative of the country as a whole though I think.

Going back to the issue at hand, there would definitely be more appreciation of the mechanics of the judicial system here though where concepts like "reasonable doubt" are brought up. I've been looking at twitter a bit the last few days and haven't seen anything like this.

Moving on, while Twitter is being used to promote these "#IBelieveHer" protests that have no specific aim whatsoever, I somehow doubt Twitter is the platform to design this supposedly gender-equal utopia they purport to want to create.

It reminds me a bit of that whole "Occupy" anti-capitalism movement that were camping out on Wall Street and the likes a few years back. (If I recall correctly, they were even camping out on the South Mall in Cork, being the heavy hitting Financial Centre it is). Does anyone remember those? I suspect the people supporting and tweeting the "#IBelieveHer" stuff at the moment were also a fan of that whole fad, despite probably going on to continue to use the products and services of those mega stock-market listed corporations whose very existence the Occupy movement were meant to be protesting against. Corporations like Twitter Inc, as it happens.

drillyeye · 30-03-2018 11:54PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How many times oes it need to be pointed out that no, it doesn't. It means not proven. Possible innocient, but not definitely.

And where does that leave anyone, in practical terms?

Just following up on my last point.

Flipper22 · 30-03-2018 11:54PM

Faugheen wrote: »

The courts didn't decide she wasn't raped ffs.

The jury can find the defendants not guilty but still believe the complainants story.

However, it's not enough to believe the story, there needs to be enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which there wasn't.

People need to stop spreading this absolute nonsense, bull**** and completely untrue statement that the courts system said she lied and that no crime took place.

Not entirely true.

They didn't believe her story, or else they would have convicted. You're right that it doesn't mean they actively disbelieved her either. They may have actively disbelieved her, or they may not have been sure who to believe.

Faugheen · 30-03-2018 11:54PM

doylefe wrote: »

Nope. Wrong.

Merriam-Webster definition: a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Law.com definition: verdict after trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of 12 jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime

USLegal.com definition: Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.

I could go on, and on, but you continue to spread your ill-educated views like a good man.

Zulu · 30-03-2018 11:54PM

Rodin wrote: »

At no time were the lads never NOT innocent.

They walked in as innocent men and walked out as innocent men. Their status never changed.

Well that's clearly not true. There is an unfortunatly vast swade of our population who pronounced them guilty as soon as they were accused. And still can't see past their prejudices to view them any other way.

One_Of_Shanks · 30-03-2018 11:55PM

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And your point is?

You called the British justice system a mockery and then used the phrase "Fab four". Before citing the most obscure recent legal anomalie to hit sky news so yeah I think we can all be hopeful that you don't pop up on a jury any time soon.

The British Justice system that you're so annoyed with was ultimately a jury who saw no evidence to lock anyone away so I think that's fair enough.

If you have no faith in it then that's your problem, and calling them the fab four and citing other colourful stories is pretty much neither here nor there.

Would the system you dislike so much be better if it locked away your "fab four" without evidence?

Mokuba · 30-03-2018 11:55PM

jr86 wrote: »

Ah but they were charged with rape weren't they?

Another funny one.

The amount of times I've seen that that there were "4 rapists" on social media.

Literally the first thing anyone would have seen if they did ANY research on the case were the charges.

Harrison and McIlroy must have been accused of raping someone else then, because it wasn't this girl.

Happy4all · 30-03-2018 11:55PM

irishman86 wrote: »

Do we live in America :eek:
When exactly did this happen
First i learn today we live in Britain now this

are you really that stupid or faking it? I hope for your own sake the latter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-03-2018 11:55PM

irishman86 wrote: »

Do we live in America :eek:
When exactly did this happen
First i learn today we live in Britain now this

Does the definition change somehow? We use the same language.

irishrebe · 30-03-2018 11:56PM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Just saw this absolute drivel on twitter with 2k likes.

When will this recent culture of perpetual self-victimisation end? It's just gotten utterly ridiculous thanks to the disconnect to reality offered by the internet. When challenged, in the real world, on these 'flash card' statements, very few can actually back it up with reasoned debate.

When will these people actually get off their keyboards and interact with the real world? Reality may not be perfect....but it's a lot better than this warped, twisted vision being constantly peddled.

Get harassed - it's only banter
Wary of strange men - uptight
Wary of familiar men - paranoid
Friendly with guys - a slut
Trusting of guys - stupid
Report - a liar
Don't report - part of the problem
Dress up - asking for it
Dress down - ugly and lazy

When is it not our fault?

This is pretty much exactly how it feels to be a woman. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. It's absolutely hilarious to me how many of these opinions have been voiced ON THIS VERY THREAD, and yet a woman addressing them has some sort of victim complex?

irishman86 · 30-03-2018 11:56PM

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse. .Not guilty does NOT equal innocent.

It means that a reasonable doubt existed in the mind of the 11 jurors given the evidence presented in court ,

I was not in court. .neither were you.

I was not in Paddy Jackson's bedroom on the night in question so I have no idea what transpired there. I can only cobble together some rough idea based solely on media reports.

None of us know and I have not heard anyone imply the girl in question was lying . .

Yes it does. Its been said a thousand times
Entered court innocent, trial was had, found that they werent guilty of rape, left the court innocent
At no time were they guilty
I think you need to have a google on hour the courts work in Britain

bloodless_coup · 30-03-2018 11:56PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Right.

I stab you on a night out. I'm brought to court and found not guilty.

You know I did, the police know I did it, I know I did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove it.

Does this man you weren't stabbed or a stabbing didn't take place?

You have absolutely no idea what the verdict means, so you should step away and go back to your colouring book.

Are you implying the police and several other people know for a fact a rape took place but the prosecution couldn't prove it? Where's the evidence for this?

Faugheen · 30-03-2018 11:57PM

Flipper22 wrote: »

Not entirely true.

They didn't believe her story, or else they would have convicted. You're right that it doesn't mean they actively disbelieved her either. They may have actively disbelieved her, or they may not have been sure who to believe.

Nope, even Judge Patricia Smyth said in her charge to the jury that it is up to them whether they believe the story or not, but they can't decide guilt on belief alone. They have to use the evidence and the evidence only.

Rodin · 30-03-2018 11:57PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Right.

I stab you on a night out. I'm brought to court and found not guilty.

You know I did, the police know I did it, I know I did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove it.

Does this man you weren't stabbed or a stabbing didn't take place?

You have absolutely no idea what the verdict means, so you should step away and go back to your colouring book.

Is the offence being charged one of attempted murder, assault, battery, battery with GBH, battery with ABH...

A stabbing has taken place but if the assailant is psychotic no criminal offence has taken place.

Criminal offence requires both the act and guilty mind. Someone may have been stabbed but whether a criminal offence has taken place is another matter.

Fann Linn · 30-03-2018 11:57PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How many times oes it need to be pointed out that no, it doesn't. It means not proven. Possible innocient, but not definitely.

Semantics.

Walk in under a presumption of innocence.
9 weeks later walk out under a not guilty verdict.

Who cares?

holyhead · 30-03-2018 11:57PM

The text messages speak of an obvious disrespect for women among the men. It can be excused as lads talk but really the messages are vile in language and speak of the men as being immature.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 30-03-2018 11:58PM

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Sorry . .Typo ..Insufficient evidence to convict.

Mod note.

To the best of my knowledge, they were found not guilty.

There was no qualification on that finding.

If there was, please post a link for it or stop the disinformation.

For those on the other side of this discussion.

Likewise, the complainant was neither charger nor found guilty of anything so please refrain from accusations of this sort.

irishman86 · 30-03-2018 11:58PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How many times does it need to be pointed out that no, it doesn't. It means not proven. Possibly innocent, but not definitely.

Wrong
They were never guilty at any stage. Go to the legal forum they might clear it up for you
Or maybe a little bit of cop on might do the trick

anthonyjmaher · 30-03-2018 11:58PM

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse. .Not guilty does NOT equal innocent.

No, but not guilty means that neither you or any of these protest groups get to treat them like the ARE guilty though.

Faugheen · 30-03-2018 11:59PM

doylefe wrote: »

Are you implying the police and several other people know for a fact a rape took place but the prosecution couldn't prove it? Where's the evidence for this?

No, I'm using an extreme case to prove the point that not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

Rodin · 31-03-2018 12:00AM

irishrebe wrote: »

This is pretty much exactly how it feels to be a woman. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. It's absolutely hilarious to me how many of these opinions have been voiced ON THIS VERY THREAD, and yet a woman addressing them has some sort of victim complex?

How do you think men feel about there being a presumption of guilt when someone claims a rape.
By saying 'I believe her' you're saying 4 men, found innocent by a court of law, are liars.
How do you think that makes a man feel or do only women have feelings?

Fann Linn · 31-03-2018 12:00AM

Faugheen wrote: »

Nope, even Judge Patricia Smyth said in her charge to the jury that it is up to them whether they believe the story or not, but they can't decide guilt on belief alone. They have to use the evidence and the evidence only.

And surely that follows that if there WAS evidence of rape, then a guilty charge would apply?

Silentcorner · 31-03-2018 12:01AM

Weepsie wrote: »

Too much credence was given to the witness "didn't look distressed" remark.

Fight/flight may have long kicked in and the alleged victim may have given up any struggle.

Was the witness asked their general opinions on sex, how they'd normally act etc in the way alleged victim was.

One person's view of consent and what's normal may be completely different to another's.

That and this key witness gave a different account than the key accused. The defence created chaos and confusion rather than show lack of doubt.

Also claiming it only went forward because they were famous and then suing a senator. Pots and kettles.

We could invent a rape clock...once the victim or the lads hits the alarm button it goes off ten minutes later and if she hasn't legged it or screamed her head off in the hope that middle class girls hear her...then it can't be considered rape?

One_Of_Shanks · 31-03-2018 12:01AM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod note.

To the best of my knowledge, they were found not guilty.

There was no qualification on that finding.

If there was, please post a link for it or stop the disinformation.

For those on the other side of this discussion.

Likewise, the complainant was neither charger nor found guilty of anything so please refrain from accusations of this sort.

bet you wish you'd stayed in the liverpool thread now

irishman86 · 31-03-2018 12:01AM

Faugheen wrote: »

Merriam-Webster definition: a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Law.com definition: verdict after trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of 12 jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime

USLegal.com definition: Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.

I could go on, and on, but you continue to spread your ill-educated views like a good man.

You quoted three american sites on a case with british lawss
Dont you see the irony
Or wait, do you know Britain is not part of the USA
There was a little war back in the day, it was quiet a big deal

Rodin · 31-03-2018 12:01AM

holyhead wrote: »

The text messages speak of an obvious disrespect for women among the men. It can be excused as lads talk but really the messages are vile in language and speak of the men as being immature.

Immaturity and vile language (which is subjective) are not criminal offences.

FrancieBrady · 31-03-2018 12:02AM

Faugheen wrote: »

Nope, even Judge Patricia Smyth said in her charge to the jury that it is up to them whether they believe the story or not, but they can't decide guilt on belief alone. They have to use the evidence and the evidence only.

Sidebar maybe.

When a judge says all that stuff, about how they should look at the case, does it mean anything?

Has a judge ever rejected a jury's findings? Because he/she thinks they have ignored their directions.

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

Comments