Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…163164166168169…316

Comments

  • #4952
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Faugheen wrote: »
    We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

    Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

    The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

    Neither were the defendants


  • #4953
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    irishrebe wrote: »
    Who says we're operating under Irish law? I never said I was. But if you think there is no way to be charged with being 'drunk' in Irish law, you're very much mistaken.

    As so you deliberately gave me the laws pertaining to the state of Indiana USA.....
    For someone you studied law you seem to struggle with it a lot, under irish law what is the definition of "drunk" as it pertains to consent, you want to waffle but cannot actually answer questions... it's fine just say you don't know!
    irishrebe wrote: »
    Oh dear, you're embarrassing yourself. There were literally pages of multiple men ON THIS VERY THREAD telling women not to go to men's houses or get drunk around men. Guess you missed those, did you?

    Just the bit because men will want to rape them...
    irishrebe wrote: »
    Who says the straight man consented to sex? He says he didn't. His word against theirs.

    Do you know what hyperbole means?

    So you want to compare sexually compatible adults to sexual non compatible adults in case to establish if consent was given.

    Also you are jumping from one thing to another, a second ago it was drunken consent now it is just a question of consent.
    A straight man is not going to consent to sex sober so the issue of being drunk is a moot point.
    However a gay man sober or drunk potentially can give consent.


  • #4954
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,507 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    chicorytip wrote: »
    So the "We believe her" brigade clearly regard the members of the jury who - after weeks of listening to what was, at times, complex and contradictory evidence - delivered a swift and unanimous not guilty verdict, as complete and utter fools!!

    Not necessarily - I think their argument is more with how the legal system handles rape allegations. They're not saying that the jury itself screwed up with the verdict, more that they don't like the adversarial nature of such trials.

    Even if that is what they are claiming though, I'm not sure what the solution to their argument would be or if there is any solution. It's very hard to secure a conviction when there are no witnesses to an incident and it's all 'he says, she says'.


  • #4955
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    upandcumming wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

    Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

    Not guilty =/= innocent

    Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

    Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

    Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

    Not guilty =/= the woman consented

    Not guilty =/= the woman lied

    Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

    The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.
    I haven't seen as many people call her a liar as abuse the fuck out of the defendants.

    =/= in your example should really read 'might or might not'. This isn't as black or white as you're making it out to be. I could easily add in:
    Not guilty =/= the woman was truthful

    You could, and that would be fair enough.

    However, people on boards (a lot more than not) are using the verdict to say she is lying, when that in itself is a lie.

    Neither of us know if she was lying or not. I personally don't believe she was, however I don't necessarily think the lads are lying either. This brings up the issue of consent.

    There's one narrative on boards that's sticking out more and it's the wrong one which says the verdict means the crime didn't happen or that she's the liar. It's absolutely wrong and the complainant is entitled to the same presumed innocence as the lads are because she hasn't been found to have said or done anything wrong.


  • #4956
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    emeraldwinter wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

    Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

    The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

    Neither were the defendants

    Point out where I said they were, please.


  • Advertisement
  • #4957
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Not necessarily - I think their argument is more with how the legal system handles rape allegations. They're not saying that the jury itself screwed up with the verdict, more that they don't like the adversarial nature of such trials.

    Even if that is what they are claiming though, I'm not sure what the solution to their argument would be or if there is any solution. It's very hard to secure a conviction when there are no witnesses to an incident and it's all 'he says, she says'.

    What Irish laws would they like changed ?


  • #4958
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Point out where I said they were, please.

    I never said you did, Was point out a fact, and if that was believed there would not be a nearly 400 page thread.


  • #4959
    lightspeed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

    Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

    Not guilty =/= innocent

    Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

    Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

    Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

    Not guilty =/= the woman consented

    Not guilty =/= the woman lied

    Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

    The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.

    When challenged, a high percentage say the lads are 'innocent until proven guilty'.

    However, for some reason, the fact the complainant hasn't been found guilty of anything doesn't matter in the eyes of the people who use the 'innocent until proven guilty' phrase above. They've made up their minds and found the woman guilty of making up that she was raped.

    The entire trial was a circus and she was failed by the justice system in Northern Ireland.

    Why?

    She's entitled to anonymity, yet the laws allow any joe soap to walk in off the street for a look at the trial, where her name was repeatedly said in court.

    What anonymity is that?

    And where was the anonymity for the accused?

    Granted they are somewhat known sport celebrities at least in their locality, if any other bloke had of been accused of the same crime, their name would have been made public but the accuser's name woudnt?

    That's something people should protest against. The fact is the attitude is that if your a male and their is an accusation of rape, we need to protect the victim as she has been through enough and no way a rape victim is going to lie about something like that. We don't need to worry about protecting your identity as your an awful rapist. So you guilty until proven innocent.

    For all those women protesting, if the evidence was the exact same would any of them be protesting if it was their son, father or brother that had been accused and put to trial?

    If the answer is no then they are all disgusting hypocrites who should be ashamed of themselves.


  • #4960
    bebeman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭bebeman


    Faugheen wrote: »
    We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

    Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

    The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

    The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
    Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!


  • #4961
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,507 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    emeraldwinter wrote: »
    What Irish laws would they like changed ?

    I'm assuming one aspect they are unhappy with is the part where the complainant can be on the stand for days and cross examined by four different barristers - each of whom is trying to discredit her and make it look like she is spoofing all the way.


  • Advertisement
  • #4962
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    emeraldwinter wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Point out where I said they were, please.

    I never said you did, Was point out a fact, and if that was believed there would not be a nearly 400 page thread.

    That's nice and all but your whataboutery has nothing to do with the point I was making, and that is people saying she's a liar.

    The post you quoted, I was responding to someone who said she cried rape after regret. Ergo, her being called a liar.

    In fact, I already said in an earlier post that the lads presumed innocent. So really your reply to me was just a waste of your time all while making a point I've already addressed.

    I'll ask you a question, though.

    Is the complainant presumed innocent?


  • #4963
    Noveight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,813 ✭✭✭Noveight


    #SueMePaddy really is throwing up some cancerous nonsense.

    https://twitter.com/flyingteacosy/status/979704730657218563


  • #4964
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Strazdas wrote: »
    I'm assuming one aspect they are unhappy with is the part where the complainant can be on the stand for days and cross examined by four different barristers - each of whom is trying to discredit her and make it look like she is spoofing all the way.

    But this case happened in the UK have you a link so similar happening in this jurisdiction ? Not saying it has not happened.


  • #4965
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bebeman wrote: »
    The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
    Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!

    You are assuming it was a premeditated rape...which absolutely nobody believes it was...I do think that none of the lads thought they were doing any wrong at the time...

    I'll be willing to bet that you are not familiar with tonic immobilisation either...when a victim freezes and does just enough to survive what they perceive to be a very dangerous situation....


  • #4966
    irishrebe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    irishrebe wrote: »
    Who says we're operating under Irish law? I never said I was. But if you think there is no way to be charged with being 'drunk' in Irish law, you're very much mistaken.

    As so you deliberately gave me the laws pertaining to the state of Indiana USA.....
    For someone you studied law you seem to struggle with it a lot, under irish law what is the definition of "drunk" as it pertains to consent, you want to waffle but cannot actually answer questions... it's fine just say you don't know!
    irishrebe wrote: »
    Oh dear, you're embarrassing yourself. There were literally pages of multiple men ON THIS VERY THREAD telling women not to go to men's houses or get drunk around men. Guess you missed those, did you?

    Just the bit because men will want to rape them...
    irishrebe wrote: »
    Who says the straight man consented to sex? He says he didn't. His word against theirs.

    Do you know what hyperbole means?

    So you want to compare sexually compatible adults to sexual non compatible adults in case to establish if consent was given.

    Also you are jumping from one thing to another, a second ago it was drunken consent now it is just a question of consent.
    A straight man is not going to consent to sex sober so the issue of being drunk is a moot point.
    However a gay man sober or drunk potentially can give consent.
    I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it? 
    Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.
    What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.


  • #4967
    irishrebe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    bebeman wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

    Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

    The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

    The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
    Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!
    Know many of them then, do you?


  • #4968
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    irishrebe wrote: »
    I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it? 
    Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.
    What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

    Nope, Just the UK law would be fine.


  • #4969
    irishrebe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    emeraldwinter wrote: »
    irishrebe wrote: »
    I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it? 
    Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.
    What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

    Nope, Just the UK law would be fine.
    Find it then. What did your last slave die of? If you want to prove me wrong, the onus is on you to do so.


  • #4970
    bebeman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭bebeman


    Buyers remorse.
    Feminists want equality, well now they have got it.
    There is not a man alive who does not have a sexual encounter that they don't regret,
    Suck it up, tell yourself you wont be so foolish again, take the teasing from your friends, and get on with your life.
    Don't lodge a false rape claim to try reclaim your dignity.


  • #4971
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    lightspeed wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

    Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

    Not guilty =/= innocent

    Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

    Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

    Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

    Not guilty =/= the woman consented

    Not guilty =/= the woman lied

    Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

    The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.

    When challenged, a high percentage say the lads are 'innocent until proven guilty'.

    However, for some reason, the fact the complainant hasn't been found guilty of anything doesn't matter in the eyes of the people who use the 'innocent until proven guilty' phrase above. They've made up their minds and found the woman guilty of making up that she was raped.

    The entire trial was a circus and she was failed by the justice system in Northern Ireland.

    Why?

    She's entitled to anonymity, yet the laws allow any joe soap to walk in off the street for a look at the trial, where her name was repeatedly said in court.

    What anonymity is that?

    And where was the anonymity for the accused?

    Granted they are somewhat known sport celebrities at least in their locality, if any other bloke had of been accused of the same crime, their name would have been made public but the accuser's name woudnt?

    That's something people should protest against. The fact is the attitude is that if your a male and their is an accusation of rape, we need to protect the victim as she has been through enough and no way a rape victim is going to lie about something like that. We don't need to worry about protecting your identity as your an awful rapist. So you guilty until proven innocent.

    For all those women protesting, if the evidence was the exact same would any of them be protesting if it was their son, father or brother that had been accused and put to trial?

    If the answer is no then they are all disgusting hypocrites who should be ashamed of themselves.

    The anonymity of the defendants I've already addressed numerous times in this thread. I believe there is a discussion to be had there.

    However, the complainant is entitled to it under law, yet it's completely counter-acted by any ordinary person being allowed to enter the court room and here her name being said numerous times. She's entitled to it under law, how can that be when something like this can happen?

    In the Republic, members of the public aren't allowed to go to a rape trial, and both the complainant and the defendant have anonymity (unless the complainant waives his/her right to it.

    Either way, you've resorted to whataboutery to avoid a genuine question because it doesn't suit your defence of the boys.


  • Advertisement
  • #4972
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bebeman wrote: »
    Buyers remorse.
    Feminists want equality, well now they have got it.
    There is not a man alive who does not have a sexual encounter that they don't regret,
    Suck it up, tell yourself you wont be so foolish again, take the teasing from your friends, and get on with your life.
    Don't lodge a false rape claim to try reclaim your dignity.

    Who are you talking to...or are you just howling at the moon?


  • #4973
    upandcumming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,718 ✭✭✭upandcumming


    Strazdas wrote: »
    I'm assuming one aspect they are unhappy with is the part where the complainant can be on the stand for days and cross examined by four different barristers - each of whom is trying to discredit her and make it look like she is spoofing all the way.

    There were four separate defendants ffs.


  • #4974
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    emeraldwinter wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    That's nice and all but your whataboutery has nothing to do with the point I was making, and that is people saying she's a liar.

    The post you quoted, I was responding to someone who said she cried rape after regret. Ergo, her being called a liar.

    In fact, I already said in an earlier post that the lads presumed innocent. So really your reply to me was just a waste of your time all while making a point I've already addressed.

    I'll ask you a question, though.

    Is the complainant presumed innocent?

    Yes like the defendants who has called her a liar on this thread

    Look back through it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Go back through my posts where I tell people that they're wrong when they call her a liar. You'll soon see for yourself that it's a nasty narrative in this thread.


  • #4975
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,404 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


    I have a dream


  • #4976
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Well then...they should report a crime...

    They cant under Irish law they were not penetrated. Think it's the same in the UK.


  • #4977
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Look back through it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Go back through my posts where I tell people that they're wrong when they call her a liar. You'll soon see for yourself that it's a nasty narrative in this thread.

    I have seen the insinuation that people are calling the victim a liar. Can you link to specifics ? Not believing the story of events does not equate to calling the victim a liar.


  • #4978
    bebeman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭bebeman


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Well then...they should report a crime...

    They where so drunk they dont remember a thing, a bit like a woman being so drunk she dont remember being a willing participant.


  • #4979
    emeraldwinter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 262 ✭✭emeraldwinter


    Faugheen wrote: »
    One person I have quoted on the last 3/4 pages in this thread has said the complainant had cried rape.

    I've told you how you can find them. You can go back through my posts by clicking on my profile.

    Sure will I also present the opposite about not believing the guys were found not guilty ? But Seriously I cant be bothered. Generally the person who make the accusation back them up not the other way around.


  • #4980
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bebeman wrote: »
    They where so drunk they dont remember a thing, a bit like a woman being so drunk she dont remember being a willing participant.

    Taxi!!


  • Advertisement
  • #4981
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    irishrebe wrote: »
    I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it?

    Yeah I got that you gave me the first link on google, that was pretty apparent.
    You made a statement about others not knowing what rape is specifically around the idea of being "drunk".....
    But are unable to a clear legal definition yourself.....
    irishrebe wrote: »
    Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.

    I think you need to lay off the wine, you are becoming more and more difficult to understand.....
    Getting drunk and going back to a strangers house is probably not a good idea for a number of reasons but you want to conflate it to getting raped.
    Having sex with a stranger and latter regretting is probably the number one reason why this turns out to be a bad idea and the most common.... Getting raped is another as is getting murdered!
    irishrebe wrote: »
    What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

    I think you might be drunk, the scenario would be exactly the same only that the sexual orientation in your example is different, so no it is not EXACTLY the same.

    If a lesbian woman claimed a man raped her it would be significant to the case and would work in her favor in her establishing non-consensual sex took place.
    But I think you are forgetting the argument you are making, the argument put forward is that if it was a man we would have more sympathy of a male victim? Is that what you think?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement