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

Strazdas · 31-03-2018 12:17AM

Prospectors wrote: »

No it doesn't. It seems it needs to be pointed out even more frequently, innocence does not require to be proven. Not guilty = presumed innocent. Same as the day they first walked into that courtroom.

I'm not so sure about this. You're saying that "innocent" is the exact same thing as being "not guilty". A jury might have strong suspicions you did in fact commit the crime but haven't got enough evidence to convict you with. Could such a person be said to have been declared "innocent" of all charges?

Pac1Man · 31-03-2018 12:17AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Yeah, despite the fact I grew up on a ****ty estate in Clondalkin, studied at Trinity and have lived and worked all around the world, I seem to only meet women who are JUST LIKE ME. What are the chances?

What are the chances you will associate with women who share your 'values'? Fairly high. Surely Trinity would have taught you that?

Faugheen · 31-03-2018 12:17AM

doylefe wrote: »

OK, you got me. They were found not guilty but we all know on the sly they they did actually rape her. Am I doing this right?

Point out where I said they raped her please.

You can't, what I said was that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.

Not guilty means the case of the prosecution couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing more, nothing less.

To suggest otherwise is a lie or at the very least misinformed.

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 12:18AM

holyhead wrote: »

How the hell can you prove consent without the encounter being recorded?
How can a witness definitively prove an sexual act between two people was consenual?
If both parties confirm sex took place, but one participant defines it as rape, how does the other prove the otherwise?
In the case of the soccer players in Wales, how is it determined that one sexual act was consensual but the next man was guilty of rape when the woman was in the same state of inebriation during both acts?

You can't. Hence the extremely low conviction rate of people accused of rape.

Zonda999 · 31-03-2018 12:18AM

Strazdas wrote: »

One interesting thing is where this right wing vs left wing thing fits into the whole rape trial narrative.

If we take Niall Boylan for example, who has been prominent on this subject on radio and TV this week, he is a self confessed right winger with some pretty provocative opinions. I do wonder if the Twitter storm we've seen this week is a version of the Irish left versus the Irish right.

Theres definitely an element of this, the likes of Brid Smith and Ruth Coppinger who've been active on Twitter about the trial and rallying the troops for the marches would very much love to turn it into a left versus right argument, which is preposterous as far as I can see. Then again, surely the left love the idea of perpetual victimhood so attempting to turn this completely apolitical event into a political one plays right into their hands.

Luckily no one on the right is engaging them on it, theres nothing to accomplish and the likes of Boylan would be wise to not attempt to, there is nothing to gain by giving oxygen to such a thing

Fann Linn · 31-03-2018 12:18AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it.

Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome.
Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?

Depp · 31-03-2018 12:18AM

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this. You're saying that "innocent" is the exact same thing as being "not guilty". A jury might have strong suspicions you did in fact commit the crime but haven't got enough evidence to convict you with. Could such a person be said to have been declared "innocent" of all charges?

You're innocent untill proven guilty, if guilt cannot be proven, you remain innocent as you were before.

Rodin · 31-03-2018 12:18AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it.

Well I don't belive her story and my opinion is equally valid.

Flipper22 · 31-03-2018 12:18AM

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.

You are wrong.

Everyone is legally innocent of every crime unless and until proven guilty. A not guilty verdict is a failure to prove guilt. Therefore a continuation of that pre existing state of innocence. Therefore they are innocent. Innocence does not need to proven, it is the default status.

This is basic criminal law theory

retired00 · 31-03-2018 12:19AM

Faugheen wrote: »

What if I can provide evidence I didn't assault him though, thus casting reasonable doubt that I did it?

The logic was that not guilty meant no crime took place, not that no crime takes place when it suits me. Keep up chap.

soyboy

irishman86 · 31-03-2018 12:19AM

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this. You're saying that "innocent" is the exact same thing as being "not guilty". A jury might have strong suspicions you did in fact commit the crime but haven't got enough evidence to convict you with. Could such a person be said to have been declared "innocent" of all charges?

In Ireland yes as they have always been innocent

Rodin · 31-03-2018 12:19AM

Fann Linn wrote: »

Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome.
Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?

There's one woman who #doesn'tbelieveher

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 12:19AM

Pac1Man wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yeah, despite the fact I grew up on a ****ty estate in Clondalkin, studied at Trinity and have lived and worked all around the world, I seem to only meet women who are JUST LIKE ME. What are the chances?

What are the chances you will associate with women who share your 'values'? Fairly high. Surely Trinity would have taught you that?

Eh, since I spent most of the last decade being put in shared accommodation with local women (outside Ireland) and sharing flats with random people (in Ireland), fairly low. But thanks for the patronising drivel. You're not helping to prove my point or anything.

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 12:20AM

Rodin wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it.

Well I don't belive her story and my opinion is equally valid.

Who said it wasn't?

holyhead · 31-03-2018 12:21AM

Fann Linn wrote: »

Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome.
Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?

Is it credible that the woman would put herself through the ordeal of a rape trial to pursue an outcome she didn't believe in?

Faugheen · 31-03-2018 12:21AM

Rodin wrote: »

Doesn't matter what I think.
The legal system is there to decide whether an offence was committed or not - if we could decide for ourselves we wouldn't need a legal system.

Now, as the standard of proof is lower for a civil case that may be an avenue for me as the alleged stabbing victim to explore.

The legal system is there to decide if an offence was committed or not, but in the case of a not guilty verdict it means the prosecutions case couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There is nothing in the verdict that says or suggests a crime didn't happen, which is my point.

Strazdas · 31-03-2018 12:21AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

""

I listened to his show yesterday + watched him on tv3 last night- I recall what he said regarding rape allegations to quote "" women should be listened to "" & "" women should be supported "" he disagreed with the idea some people suggest that women should be automatically believed ,, what exactly is "" provocative "" about any of what he said ?

He also clashed angrily and repeatedly with the woman who was speaking in favour of the protest marches.

My point wasn't really about him though. I was questioning whether the Twitter storm this week was the Irish right wing versus the Irish left wing.

retired00 · 31-03-2018 12:22AM

doylefe wrote: »

I hope many people who have posted nonsense in this thread are some day accused of something vile they are innocent of. And in the process they have their reputation ruined, careers ruined and are viewed as still guilty even after being cleaned of the accusation.

you hope

soyboy detected

holyhead · 31-03-2018 12:22AM

Faugheen wrote: »

The legal system is there to decide if an offence was committed or not, but in the case of a not guilty verdict it means the prosecutions case couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There is nothing in the verdict that says or suggests a crime didn't happen, which is my point.

The question then needs to be asked what value has the verdict then?

NAGDEFI · 31-03-2018 12:23AM

This is a really sad story for all concerned. I was about to say no one knows what happened bar the concerned parties. However with the amount of alcohol etc the concerned parties may not know either. You hope the young woman and young men recover to lead lives as normal as possible.

If i was giving advice to a teenager, male or female, going out i think it would be never drink to the extent you are not aware of what's happening around you. Stay with good friends you can trust. Unfortunately young people make mistakes and that's always been the way.

All the various marching groups are only prolonging the misery for all concerned. At the end of the day drink awareness training and also sexual behaviour, pornography versus reality need to be taught to young people.

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 12:23AM

Fann Linn wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it.

Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome.
Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?

She reported what she thought she saw. I posted an anecdote in this thread about witnessing a crime and having got it totally wrong. I thought I was looking at an argument between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. I was actually looking at a man who had stalked a woman and was about to assault her. Dara Florence's perception of what she thought she saw is no more reliable than anyone else's perception of what happened that night. Being sober doesn't make you omniscient.

Happy4all · 31-03-2018 12:23AM

Fann Linn wrote: »

Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome.
Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?

Agree, her evidence is probably the most reliable. Although she only witnessed a brief moment of the incident.

She did state that PJ was engaged in sex with the girl. and if we take that as reliable, then PJ lied. His laywer would be well aware of the difference between what PJ admitted and the witness said she saw.

irishman86 · 31-03-2018 12:23AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Eh, since I spent most of the last decade being put in shared accommodation with local women (outside Ireland) and sharing flats with random people (in Ireland), fairly low. But thanks for the patronising drivel. You're not helping to prove my point or anything.

He really isnt helping you prove your point. Dont you hate when that happens
I suppose its hard to when your point is well incorrect, but still what a dick

Strazdas · 31-03-2018 12:24AM

Depp wrote: »

You're innocent untill proven guilty, if guilt cannot be proven, you remain innocent as you were before.

Is that an actual legal term? The judge doesn't say "I declare you innocent and you are free to go".

Faugheen · 31-03-2018 12:24AM

doylefe wrote: »

I hope many people who have posted nonsense in this thread are some day accused of something vile they are innocent of. And in the process they have their reputation ruined, careers ruined and are viewed as still guilty even after being cleaned of the accusation.

I hope people posting that the girl is a liar, a slut and/or no crime took place because of a not guilty verdict someday understand what the verdict actually means instead of making up what it means to suit their agenda.

retired00 · 31-03-2018 12:24AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

You might as well be speaking in Latin.....

hatten Sie es auf deutsch auch uebersetzen koennen

Fann Linn · 31-03-2018 12:24AM

holyhead wrote: »

Is it credible that the woman would put herself through the ordeal of a rape trial to pursue an outcome she didn't believe in?

There have been many cases of false rape allegations.

The Rape of Lucretia · 31-03-2018 12:24AM

Faugheen wrote: »

You can't, what I said was that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.

But it does mean that the accused should be treated by all, and allowed to live their lives, as if the possible crime didnt happen, whether in reality it did or didnt happen. And to have their lives continue unaltered from the point before the trial.

Pac1Man · 31-03-2018 12:25AM

Faugheen wrote: »

What if I can provide evidence I didn't assault him though, thus casting reasonable doubt that I did it?

The logic was that not guilty meant no crime took place, not that no crime takes place when it suits me. Keep up chap.

If you can provide evidence that you didn't assault someone, then you're innocent. However, your analogy is all wrong as there would be evidence that an assault took place. There was no evidence of a rape.

One_Of_Shanks · 31-03-2018 12:25AM

irishman86 wrote: »

Yes
Google how the law works
Innocent walking into court, not guilty verdict hence guilty walking out
Anything else?
How long did it take you to find the meath one :pac:

the whole not guilty v's proven innocent thing is crazy.

Put it this way, I walk into Irishman86's shed and accuse him of hitting me.
No evidence that he hits me and he is declared innocent of the crime.
But on boards next day people say he's not guilty but not necessarily innocent.

Ah cmon.

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

Comments