Faugheen wrote: » 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.
Faugheen wrote: » 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.
Faugheen wrote: » 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 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.
Fann Linn wrote: » 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.
Flipper22 wrote: » 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
Venom wrote: » 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.
irishrebe wrote: » OK, let me rephrase it. That is how I feel, how my sister feels and how just about every woman I know feels. That OK for you?
irishman86 wrote: » 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****
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.
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?
drillyeye wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » OK, let me rephrase it. That is how I feel, how my sister feels and how just about every woman I know feels. That OK for you? You don't know how your sister feels, you only know what she tells you. I'd imagine if your sister were to tell you that she DOESNT feel like a victim, you might be the type to "instruct" her. Or perhaps she simply copied your toxic beliefs. Bad role models and all that. People who go around with gigantic chips on their shoulder tend to be agreed with quickly, just to get them off the subject, or away from them, or what have you. I mean, even here you are facetiously trying to escape the point with your "all women are victims" mantra intact. Believe what you like, but it doesn't take more than a seconds thought to realise youre your own worst enemy. You, not anyone else, and especially not half of the planet earth. Blame all the men in the world, go around thinking how much of a victim you are........then hold your breath while waiting for the world flips upside to accommodate you. Its such a weird psychology to hold! Even now, just me challenging the crazy idea of "all women", you probably feel like youre being victimised. An almost perfect defence mechanism. Perfect, except for the unhappiness it causes you, and the bad example it sets for others. A communicable disease of sorts. With that attitude, you don't need to listen to anything that could change your perspective, or absorb new information. Its a less complicated position as it sheds personal responsibility, but no adult can be truly happy if every breath they take is as a victim. Easy way is usually the worst way. That's what I referred to earlier. If you strip yourself of agency, you become both helpless and hopeless, positioning yourself into a position with no responsibility other than to point a finger a blame "others". Well, good luck with that!
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult. The What's App texts were hardly the stuff of Noel Coward. Keep digging, I'm really enjoying the confirmation.
Strazdas wrote: » I wasn't talking about this specific case. I was saying that in general a jury might have strong suspicions about a defendant and it's a moot point whether he / she is "innocent" if he / she is found not guilty.
Silentcorner wrote: » You might as well be speaking in Latin.....
irishrebe wrote: » If there was evidence a rape had taken place, the defendants would most likely have been convicted. I'm not taking sides here but just stating a fact. There was insufficient evidence to convict the accused. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
irishrebe wrote: » 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.
Deleted User wrote: » 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.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » Mod noteApologies to all, folks, but I'm closing this up for the night. You can lambast me in the morning but there's a hell of a lot of thread to go through and there may be some post in breach of charter in this. Hopefully it can be reopened in the morning. Thanks in advance Buford T. Justice
Rugby player Paddy Jackson is planning to sue more people who he believes have defamed him on social media and at protest marches.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » Right folks, it's open again. Firstlyhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html Posts claiming the 4 acquitted men are guilty will be harshly dealt with as will posts claiming the woman in question lied. While you are posting anonymously, you, in real life, remain responsible for what you post. We try to deal all the questionable posts but we cannot get them all in time so be aware where accountability resides in this. For everyones sake, think about what you intend to post before you submit your post. It will make life easier for everyone here. Please delete or report any questionable posts that were made or will be made, we as members don't need the grief that could follow on from that. Thanks for your patience, Buford T. Justice
Fann Linn wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » 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. Courts deal in facts: What was seen, smelt, heard, felt,tasted. Dara Florence told the court what she saw. She was cross examined, she was sober, she was a far more credible witness than any of the rest in that house and yet there is no #Ibelieveher for her. I just find it slightly amusing that 1000s will march and protest for the plaintiff and yet disregard the evidence of another.
Rodin wrote: It IS a possibility she lied about the non-consensual aspect of the act. That isn't a claim that she did in fact do so.
Fann Linn wrote: » Courts deal in facts: What was seen, smelt, heard, felt,tasted. Dara Florence told the court what she saw. She was cross examined, she was sober, she was a far more credible witness than any of the rest in that house and yet there is no #Ibelieveher for her. I just find it slightly amusing that 1000s will march and protest for the plaintiff and yet disregard the evidence of another.
In the wake of the not guilty verdicts in the Ulster rugby rape trial, legal representatives for the player say they are "monitoring everything" including "social media commentary, WhatsApp, Google searches". This also includes protest marches held around the country.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Here's the thing. If you believe Dara Florence, you by definition believe that Paddy Jackson lied when he said he did not have vaginal sex with the complainant. That's a real double bind to be in.
Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: » Hopefully he sues a certain person from Cork!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
