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

_Dara_

Noveight wrote: »

#SueMePaddy really is throwing up some cancerous nonsense.

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

I came across that yoke myself on Twitter. No self-awareness.

emeraldwinter

Silentcorner wrote: »

Taxi!!

Under Irish law you cant be raped with out penetration. Pretty sure it's the same in the UK so there would be no case even if it was rape. We should really get the laws changed do you not agree ? In the republic I mean.

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

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.

There have been multiple mod warnings in this thread aimed at people who are calling the complainant a liar.

I have given back up to my claims, you just refuse to follow it. That's not my problem I'm afraid.

Anyway, if you think nobody in this thread has once called her a liar then you're deluded.

And before you say 'I never said I think nobody has called her a liar...' then you're literally arguing with me without making any point whatsoever other than whataboutery in defence of the lads.

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

You are the one making a statement burden of proof is on you, not for anyone else to disprove if you are talking through your hat...

Are you sure you have a law degree?

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

There have been multiple mod warnings in this thread aimed at people who are calling the complainant a liar.

I have given back up to my claims, you just refuse to follow it. That's not my problem I'm afraid.

Anyway, if you think nobody in this thread has once called her a liar then you're deluded.

And before you say 'I never said I think nobody has called her a liar...' then you're literally arguing with me without making any point whatsoever other than whataboutery in defence of the lads.

i don't need to defend the "Lads" the courts already did that.

Faugheen

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!

Oh you've been raped have you?

'never heard of a rapist asking a woman if she wants to join' - you know many rapists?

Answer my question, are you just going to ignore the fact that Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that the complainant was positively consenting?

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

Oh you've been raped have you?

'never heard of a rapist asking a woman if she wants to join' - you know many rapists?

Answer my question, are you just going to ignore the fact that Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that the complainant was positively consenting?

Well considering the unbacked up anecdotal belief of how many rapes go on as opposed to the figure of 7% convicted. I assume none of us know many rapists. What has a persons rape history got to do with the thread would that be victim blaming ?

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

There have been multiple mod warnings in this thread aimed at people who are calling the complainant a liar.

I have given back up to my claims, you just refuse to follow it. That's not my problem I'm afraid.

Anyway, if you think nobody in this thread has once called her a liar then you're deluded.

And before you say 'I never said I think nobody has called her a liar...' then you're literally arguing with me without making any point whatsoever other than whataboutery in defence of the lads.

i don't need to defend the "Lads" the courts already did that.

So you're refusing to access the proof that people are calling her a liar?

Is that a yes or a no?

If you want even one person, bebeman has said she cried rape more than once in the last few pages. Read his posts instead getting me to give you proof (which I'll remind you again, I've given you access to)

Instead of being a child with me, follow my advice or you can just leave the thread and let the adults do all the talking.

bebeman

Buyers remorse, case closed!

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Oh you've been raped have you?

'never heard of a rapist asking a woman if she wants to join' - you know many rapists?

Answer my question, are you just going to ignore the fact that Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that the complainant was positively consenting?

Well considering the unbacked up anecdotal belief of how many rapes go on as opposed to the figure of 7% convicted. I assume none of us know many rapists. What has a persons rape history got to do with the thread would that be victim blaming ?

I'm asking two simple questions because he seems to know a lot about being raped and what rapists do.

Faugheen

bebeman wrote: »

Buyers remorse, case closed!

You can leave the conversation now. You're out of your depth.

Strazdas

upandcumming wrote: »

There were four separate defendants ffs.

There were but such intensive cross-examination for days can make it look like the complainant is the one on trial. It's no wonder so many cases never even get to court.

Noveight

Pac1Man wrote: »

High possibility. That's blatant deformation.

At least they're making it easy for the prosecutors pursuing the deformation suits. Just search for SueMePaddy.

That's the kind of intelligence driving this crusade.

I've been scrolling through them for the past 20 minutes. Every third or fourth Tweet is similar to that one, firing the word "rapist" around at the rate of 90.

I'd love to see a heap of them taken to the cleaners.

emeraldwinter

Strazdas wrote: »

There were but such intensive cross-examination for days can make it look like the complainant is the one on trial. It's no wonder so many cases never even get to court.

And if they just handed out Guilty would you like that for your son ? there were 4 people in the room with the alleged victim. How should the case be handled can you give us a overview of what should happen ? And if it's actually legal.

hatrickpatrick

emeraldwinter wrote: »

i find it odd that they think posting this kind of stuff is acceptable. Do courts not have a place now ?

I'm pretty sure most of these people regard any sex with any sort of rough / dominance / submission type aspects to it, particularly involving a woman in a submissive position, as inherently wrong regardless of consent. They seem to honestly believe that anything other than vanilla sex is probably non consensual. The fact that the term "spit roast" is being cited all over the place as evidence for the fact that these lads are misogynistic assholes, despite the fact that "spit roast" is an extremely common term for the sex act in question, tells us that much - they find the act itself distasteful and this prejudice is informing every assumption they make which follows on from that. I'm pretty sure that in the eyes of these people, there are no circumstances under which a man could take part in a sex act like this as one of the dominant parties, and not be regarded negatively by those folks.

It's similar enough to the Graham Dwyer trial - regardless of the verdict, plenty of people made up their minds that he was a vile person specifically because of the fetishes he had. Even if he hadn't been found guilty of murder, because he was a sexual sadist plenty of people had already decided that he was a scumbag.

The reality is that vanilla sex in the missionary position is simply not something that young people see themselves as being limited by. The fact that the lads were asking if there might have been a possibility of a threesome (which could easily have meant "any chance that the woman would be up for that", and not, as everyone seems to be assuming, "any chance we can just do it regardless") has immediately placed them on the wrong side of "good taste" in a lot of peoples' eyes.

Personally I have a huge, huge problem with this for all sorts of reasons. It's difficult enough for people to come to terms with their non-vanilla sexual kinks, without the added pressure of feeling like society will automatically view them as a monster just because of what they're into, regardless of whether it's consensual or not. There's nothing wrong with group sex, there's nothing wrong with spit roasting, there's nothing wrong with any of this provided that it's consensual. But many voices in the Irish media - for instance, those who are blaming porn on this and questioning sexual morality in general - are, whether openly or not, putting forward the idea that some types of sex are inherently negative or wrong, regardless of consent or enjoyment by all parties.

Personally, I see this as a massive problem. In fact, as a man who happens to be a sexual sub, I actually feel that I have more cultural freedom to be myself and be ok with myself than a sub woman of the same age would, because as a sub guy it's just about me and what I'm into. But for sub women, you get self-styled feminists hinting or openly stating that their kinks are inherently wrong because they reinforce the patriarchy yadda yadda yadda, in other words "what you like in the bedroom is totally irrelevant, because you're part of something bigger and you must behave with the advancement of gender equality in mind in all areas of your life, whether you personally want to or not". It's no different to feminists accusing stay at home mothers of letting down the sisterhood because they're "submitting" to traditional gender roles - the fact that the woman in question might actually enjoy the choices she's made to adhere to that lifestyle is secondary to the idea of collectivism.

Basically, had this case involved vanilla sex in the missionary position, I'd bet my life savings that it wouldn't have garnered nearly as much comment or controversy. The case is attracting such huge attention because in a lot of peoples' eyes, the sex acts in question - consensual or non consensual - were themselves inherently wrong, which makes the lads who enjoyed them inherently bad people - consent be damned.

Outlaw Pete

The Wordress wrote: »

I'm sorry but if I knew someone was in a bedroom having sex, I would immediately close the door unless I knew that one of them was in distress of some sort. I think it would be pure creepy if someone looked for that long at me having sex.

Well, it's worth noting that the alleged victim said the other girls were acting "slutty" (her word, not mine) downstairs and so it could be that they were all up for a little action and that that's (partly at least) why Dara went upstairs mooching. Would certainly explain why she didn't immediately close the door when she saw the three having sex and it would also explain why Paddy asked her did she want to join in. The girl's reaction to Dara however (turning her head away etc) maybe made her feel that she wasn't up for her joining in (even if the lads were) and so she left.

Here's a pic from the party for anyone that didn't see it. Was published in a few papers during the week (alleged victim not in it obviously)

All defendants also claim that they didn't know Dara Florence prior to the night the girl was allegedly raped.

I also find this hard to believe and I think there was collusion here too.

If they knew each other it would have come out by now for sure.

Strazdas

emeraldwinter wrote: »

And if they just handed out Guilty would you like that for your son ? there were 4 people in the room with the alleged victim. How should the case be handled can you give us a overview of what should happen ? And if it's actually legal.

I said further up that there are no easy answers to any of this. It's can be virtually impossible to convict someone in a 'he says, she says' scenario as there are no witnesses. I haven't suggested at all that Jackson and the others should be found guilty.

RabbleRouser2k

jr86 wrote: »

The Northern Irish team were out last night...

Disgraceful ratting them out like that. Could have got fines off the IFA for unprofessionalism

What has the Irish farmer's association got to do with anything?

irishrebe wrote: »

What's really hilarious to me is how so many men on here view these things as a 'punishment'. Attending consent classes means they are all automatically considered rapists, for example. I had to attend mandatory 'racism awareness' classes when I worked in London. Did I throw my toys out of the pram and tell them to stop accusing me of being racist and stop disrespecting me? Or did I welcome the opportunity to put myself in the shoes of people of other races and consider issues I might not have thought about before as a white person? I know I'm not a racist, so it didn't bother me having to go to that course. But a consent class for a man is assuming that all men are rapists?

Did women have to also attend those same classes? The racism one? And were other races made attend?
If both men and women had to attend, that would be fine-but too many seem to think it's men only. Consent is down to both men and women-as in clearly stating what you're cool with.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, it's worth noting that the alleged victim said the other girls were acting "slutty" (her word, not mine) downstairs and so it could be that they were all up for a little action and that that's (partly at least) why Dara went upstairs mooching. Would certainly explain why she didn't immediately close the door when she saw the three having sex and it would also explain why Paddy asked her did she want to join in. The girl's reaction to Dara however (turning her head away etc) maybe made her feel that she wasn't up for her joining in (even if the lads were) and so she left.

Here's a pic from the party for anyone that didn't see it. Was published in a few papers during the week (alleged victim not in it obviously)

If they knew each other it would have come out by now for sure.

Possibly-but then again, one could argue they were barely acquaintances-all involved have locked their twitter accounts.

What does show a level of narcissism of those involved was Florence 'delight' at the picture taken.

https://twitter.com/MariaGallagher_/status/979036629074620416

I can only speak for myself, but even far younger than they are now, I was more responsible. And I am not the only one. I don't think they quite understood the seriousness of the crime-more like they enjoyed the limelight.
Definitely a few hangers on there.

I would question the sobriety of so many involved too. Many have speculated the deleted texts related to substances that were less than legal. (Even the photo posted of McIllroy hints at something--'pay attention to his nose-hint hint'.)

_Whimsical_

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!

She actual specifically said she did not hear sensual moaning but a loud aggressive male moan.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PaddY Jackson having sex with the woman at the time though Paddy Jackson denies having sex with her at all.

And yes indeed to your second point, that's really the crux of it, because rapists are known to have such a clear sense of what's appropriate and stick so closely to an honour bound code of behaviour. They'd never deviate from what you have seen on the TV... :rolleyes:

There is clutching at straws, and then there is your post!

professore

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

She actual specifically said she did not hear sensual moaning but a loud aggressive male moan

She never said that in any of the accounts I've read, and I was looking for it, as it's key to the case. She wasn't even sure if the moaning was sexual in nature. You made that up. If you want people who think about things to take you seriously on here, stick to the facts.

_Whimsical_

professore wrote: »

She never said that in any of the accounts I've read, and I was looking for it, as it's key to the case. She wasn't even sure if the moaning was sexual in nature. You made that up. If you want people who think about things to take you seriously on here, stick to the facts.

I most certainly did not make it up. You haven't looked hard enough obviously.

https://imgur.com/a/Ijr0u that's from an article in Fridays independent.

It was read out on either prime time or the Pat Kenny show when someone read from the transcript of the court. In her statement to police she said she heard aggressive moaning and was 100 percent sure she saw Paddy Jackson having sex. In court she called them sexual noises.
She said she heard moaning, was asked if this was sensual moaning and replied no. She then offered that it was an aggressive male moaning and later in court said it sounded like sex.

Why would go forth and open the door if she thought the sound was just her friend having sex? Her behaviour is much more easily reconciled with her first version of events to police

Perhaps you should take your own advice on making things up just to fill in the blanks.

spurious

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-from-public-gallery-at-woman-were-shocking-36761337.html

Disturbing stuff. If nothing else, they could do with making some changes there, for all parties involved.

[Deleted User]

ShowMeTheCash wrote:

So they are protesting the verdict.

It wasn't a protest. When does a march have to be in protest. People march in the St patricks day parade & its not in protest.

If they wanted to protest I suppose it could be about the vile text messages that these pillars of the community posted about the girl or their attitude & general disrespect towards women.

I did read that it was in support of the woman.

tritium

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'.

So how should it handle rape alkegations?

What’s your solution and how does it remain fair to the accused?

Cyrus

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Has anyone noted the similarities in this case to that of Brian Murphy? The Club Anabel case I mean?

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the disturbing similarities, and the seeming 'lack of justice'.
The horrible thing is the guys involved were able to carry on their lives as normal-Murphy's family, unfortunately...were sadly forgotten to the ides of time.

Even the film-'What Richard Did' seemed to try and humanise them, but really what it did was show them to be complete wastes of oxygen.

Except people were found guilty of various crimes in that case and if you believe that they carried on their lives as normal you haven't a clue .

The only similarities is the middle class nature of the accused (and the victims as well) which really seems to titillate the frothing hoard and get their ire up.

There is no one more deserving of hate and judgement than a middle class man it seems especially a young one

the_syco

spurious wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-from-public-gallery-at-woman-were-shocking-36761337.html

Disturbing stuff. If nothing else, they could do with making some changes there, for all parties involved.

From the article;

An issue in the trial generally was that despite the anonymity of the young girl at the centre of this case, it was possible for anyone to walk in off the street, view the victim on screen, hear her name being spoken openly and leave – disseminating this information widely to others.

This is quite bizarre; for the general public to see the rape victim.

whisky_galore

It is a protest and it isn't a protest. A march to a Dept of justice because of a case outside of its jurisdiction. Repeal movement getting stuck in for no good reason.

The sheer woolly mindedness of it all boggles.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It wasn't a protest. When does a march have to be in protest. People march in the St patricks day parade & its not in protest.

If they wanted to protest I suppose it could be about the vile text messages that these pillars of the community posted about the girl or their attitude & general disrespect towards women.

I did read that it was in support of the woman.

Frankly sick of this ****e from folks that didn’t like the verdict

Woman’s underwear shown in court: oh that’s disgraceful from the deference. Trying to blacken her character. That doesn’t represent who she is...

Men’s text messages shown in court: scum, clearly they’re misogynists based on this single moment of their lives that’s been presented. Hang them, the bastards.

****ing hypocrisy

tritium

the_syco wrote: »

From the article;

This is quite bizarre; for the general public to see the rape victim.

Tbh looking at the (somewhat better) approach in terms of the south I find it ludicrous that in the UK either the accused or accuser can be identified either formally or by public walk in

tritium

spurious wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-from-public-gallery-at-woman-were-shocking-36761337.html

Disturbing stuff. If nothing else, they could do with making some changes there, for all parties involved.

Somewhat imbalanced article but it does highlight some areas that the north’s legal system could do with changing nonetheless