irishman86 wrote: » Wow, how many times has this been pointed out Not guilty = innocent
Happy4all wrote: » O J Simpson not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown = innocent
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.
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.
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.
doylefe wrote: » Nope. Wrong.
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.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » And your point is?
jr86 wrote: » Ah but they were charged with rape weren't they?
irishman86 wrote: » Do we live in America :eek: When exactly did this happen First i learn today we live in Britain now this
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?
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?
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 . .
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.
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.
foxyladyxx wrote: » Sorry . .Typo ..Insufficient evidence to convict.
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.
foxyladyxx wrote: » Are you being deliberately obtuse. .Not guilty does NOT equal innocent.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 doubtLaw.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 crimeUSLegal.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.
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.
