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

bloodless_coup

Faugheen wrote: »

Anything else?

Faugheen wrote: »

Keep up chap.

Do you have to sign off every post like a patronising ****?

irishman86

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?

Yes
You say it like it hasnt happened

Sweetemotion

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

""
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 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 ?

Nial Boylon's radio show yesterday, was a real eye opener.

retired00

Pac1Man wrote: »

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

still believes "she" went to Trinity
was debunked yesterday

[Deleted User]

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?

People go through all manner of ordeals for their own reasons and based on their own logic.

Simple fact is We don't know. Either way.

irishrebe

irishman86 wrote: »

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

Yeah let's all just make assumptions based on fresh air. Let's assume I somehow associate with people who are just like me when in fact my job working with women in developing countries meant I was placed in accommodation with women from all sorts of backgrounds and religions and cultural beliefs. Give yourself a pat on the back there for being so very clever and perceptive.

holyhead

Fann Linn wrote: »

There have been many cases of false rape allegations.

You are correct but in this instance both parties accept being in each other's company at an agreed time and place. It wasn't mistaken identity or one party couldn't prove the other was present etc.

irishrebe

retired00 wrote: »

Pac1Man wrote: »

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

still believes "she" went to Trinity
was debunked yesterday

Oh, so I didn't go to Trinity now? Is that because I work as a lowly legal translator? Yeah, legal translators are absolutely known for barely finishing the Junior Cert.

Flipper22

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.

Of course, if you mean belief as in a hunch, that is true. I mean active belief beyond reasonable doubt. They decide based on the evidence, of which her testimony was a key part. If they had believed, without reasonable doubt, that her testimony was accurate, they would have convicted. They didn't.

I don't think we're disagreeing over much here, any of the following is possible:
They thought it likely that it was rape
They had no idea
They thought it unlikely that it was rape
They were convinced it was consensual

Depp

Strazdas wrote: »

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

Not sure on what the judge would have said exactly but being innocent until proven guilty is the basis of modern law

Franz Von Peppercorn

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

The right wing stayed off twitter.

retired00

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.

haha
still pretending to be a woman
top trolling

bloodless_coup

retired00 wrote: »

you hope

soyboy detected

Wtf are you on about?

irishman86

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

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.

But thats logic buddy
Nobody likes that :pac:

Faugheen

holyhead wrote: »

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

Not really, because the defence earned their money to cast reasonable doubt. The lads could have been telling the truth, they could have been lying. I genuinely don't know.

However, there's people saying here that the verdict proves that the complainant was lying or no crime took place and there is nothing in the verdict to suggest this.

Imagine the PPS takes out a false allegation claim against the girl. The 4 lads are prosecution witnesses. The girl is the defendant. You have the same witnesses, the same testimonies from either side and the girl gets to introduce character witnesses. You have essentially the same evidence as this one.

Do you think a jury would be able to find her guilty when you consider all of the evidence? No, they couldn't possibly.

Does this mean the 4 lads were lying and she was actually raped? No, it means the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Venom

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?

While possible, I doubt the jury would come to such a fast and unanimous verdict as was the case in this trial if they felt as you discribed.

Happy4all

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

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.

don't feed the troll

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

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

Okie dokie. I'm getting tired of this splitting hairs about the case.

How do you prove that you are innocent? Since showing that you're not guilty isn't enough.

irishrebe

retired00 wrote: »

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.

haha
still pretending to be a woman
top trolling

Yeah....keep taking the meds.

One_Of_Shanks

irishman86 wrote: »

But thats logic buddy
Nobody likes that :pac:

not round here anyway

Fann Linn

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

She reported what she saw. Being sober puts her in a better position than everyone else who had more than the legal drink driving limit.

masculinist

#ibelievehim

Rodin

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.

That's completely wrong.
If it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt then the standard for a criminal offence hasn't been reached. It really is that basic.

holyhead

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the verdicts I think their names should not have been public knowledge unless/until they were found guilty. Publicly naming them destroys the whole merit of innocent until proven guilty.

Faugheen

Pac1Man wrote: »

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.

The reason for the scenario was the poster said a not guilty verdict meant the crime didn't happen.

Is this true, or false?

There is evidence a rape took place. It's called the complainant.

Pac1Man

holyhead wrote: »

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the verdicts I think their names should not have been public knowledge unless/until they were found guilty. Publicly naming them destroys the whole merit of innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, they can forget about additional sponsorship deals or TV appearances now because of this.

Faugheen

Rodin wrote: »

That's completely wrong.
If it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt then the standard for a criminal offence hasn't been reached. It really is that basic.

It might be wrong in your opinion but it's factually correct I'm afraid to inform you.

irishrebe

Fann Linn wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

She reported what she saw. Being sober puts her in a better position than everyone else who had more than the legal drink driving limit.

Who are you to decide that? I was sober as a judge, in the middle of cooking my dinner on a weeknight when I saw the "argument". I still got the context totally wrong. The extremely drunk accuser had it right. Fortunately, she had CCTV on her side. Otherwise, I may have inadvertently helped to free a man who went on to physically assault a stranger.

Rodin

Faugheen wrote: »

It might be wrong in your opinion but it's factually correct I'm afraid to inform you.

You're wrong and clearly have never studied criminal law in Ireland.

irishman86

irishrebe wrote: »

Yeah let's all just make assumptions based on fresh air. Let's assume I somehow associate with people who are just like me when in fact my job working with women in developing countries meant I was placed in accommodation with women from all sorts of backgrounds and religions and cultural beliefs. Give yourself a pat on the back there for being so very clever and perceptive.

You are making assumptions left right and centre. You dont have a monopoly on assumptions
Thats funny as ive lived in developing countries and among people of different religions and cultural beliefs alas you are the only one of the two of us spouting nonsense
I dont need to give myself a pat on the back, another thing you have gotten wrong
Its funny you say you have lived in other places but consider Ireland to have a problem when developing countries have it a thousand times worse
So yeah i call bull****