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

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was deemed to be evidence.
You seem to think you can decide these issues, but you cannot. That would be interfering in the prosecution/defence of a case.
If it is relevant a man's underwear would be also deemed 'evidence'.

I understand the invasion of privacy issue and steps can be taken to avoid unnecessary embarrassing, but objecting to the introduction of evidence because it is somehow inherently private doesn't seem to me to be good practice.

I don't think I can decide anything. You asked a question as to the difference between a photo a the real thing and I gave you a really genuine answer which you seem to be aggressive about. (I have no idea how men feel about their underwear but judging how my husband and sons leave theirs all over the floor, at a guess I'd say they're not half as sensitive about it.)

otto_26

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'll try and explain it. In your home your wife and daughters if you have them probably keep their underwear in a drawer and regard it as private. Same for your mother and sisters in the home you grew up in. Generally woman do not leave underwear all around the house even with people they love and trust. If a robber comes into a house you will often hear women say one of the most upsetting things was to have their underwear rifled through and many women would then throw it all out. So to most women their underwear is as private as it gets and to have strangers eg the jury touching it is really upsetting. Hope that might help you seeing the difference between a lifeless photo and your real underwear that hasn't even been washed.

You should go out in Dublin on a Friday or Saturday night. All the women I see are walking around in their underwear. Maybe it was a private thing for older generation but certainly not for younger generation.

Muahahaha

kylith wrote: »

What was the significance of her underwear in the first place?

It had blood stains on it, it was therefore one of the exhibits to prove she was left bleeding and had to be produced. AFAIK her white jeans were also an exhibit. Im not sure if a photo of it would have sufficed but from the prosecutions point of view they would have wanted her bloodied clothes shown for the impact it would have had on the jury, a photo would not have achieved that as strongly. Also exhibiting photos could lead to the defence saying the photo was doctored or other such arguments to rule the evidence as null and void. Its better just to proceed with the actual hard exhibits and remove any doubt.

Anyway Dara Florance was offered a bag of cash by the newspapers to tell her story. TBH after Blaine McIllroy labelled her and her two friends as "Belfast sluts" Im surprised she didnt take the opportunity to at least fire a few shots across his bows and even up the score a bit. She seems to have made her Instagram private since the verdict too, no doubt she was getting lots of uninvited messages.

smallgarden

Can anyone explain Harrisons not guilty verdict. I can understand doubt with Jackson and Olding but for me Harrison should have been found guilty.

He deleted texts
Mysteriously phone was wiped
Advised defendant not to bring phone to police
Described complainant as being in hysterics in texts which was later changed to a little upset in court
Claimed they didnt discuss rape accusation in cafe as he forgot about it
He didnt rememer anything in texts to she definitely followed paddy in court

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was deemed to be evidence.
You seem to think you can decide these issues, but you cannot. That would be interfering in the prosecution/defence of a case.
If it is relevant a man's underwear would be also deemed 'evidence'.

I understand the invasion of privacy issue and steps can be taken to avoid unnecessary embarrassing, but objecting to the introduction of evidence because it is somehow inherently private doesn't seem to me to be good practice.

Underwear was probably tested for DNA & other evidence. The photo was taken before tests I would imagine.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seeing as people are fine with "the kitchen sink being thrown at her", can I ask if people here honestly would advise their daughters in a he said she said situation to go to the guards and set a rape case in motion presuming you knew your daughter well enough to know she was certain she had been raped but she had been drunk and took foolish risks that night & evidence that he raped her was pretty much non-existent as in lots of these cases ?

I don't have a daughter, but I'll assume that I could substitute my son in place of daughter? By way of answering your question then, it would depend upon a number of circumstances. For example, he's 13 now, and if came to me and told me he had been raped, I would encourage him to make a complaint to the Gardaí. If he were 19, I would allow him to make that determination for himself, and I would support him however he needed support.

Also bearing in mind that when she loses the case because of course there is reasonable doubt. people will tell her it never happened & vilify her for trying to take a good man down. I'm just wondering how many people genuinely think it's worth taking a case in those circumstances??

You're able to determine the outcome of any potential case before a trial has taken place? Don't worry, that's called prejudice, we all have our prejudices and biases and it's one of the problems in these sorts of trials - members of the jury more often base their deliberations and their determinations on their own prejudices and biases, rather than any evidence presented at trial. In circumstances where you've already pre-determined the outcome of any trial as going against the alleged victim, what was the point in asking your first question when you have already made up your mind as to how it would go?

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't think I can decide anything. You asked a question as to the difference between a photo a the real thing and I gave you a really genuine answer which you seem to be aggressive about. (I have no idea how men feel about their underwear but judging how my husband and sons leave theirs all over the floor, at a guess I'd say they're not half as sensitive about it.)

If someone put a 'photo' of your underwear into the public domain, would you feel your privacy was compromised? I think most women would,(there has been similar controversy around this) so I am still unsure what the significant difference is. Unfortunately, privacy will be a victim of a court case and I see no way around the issue.

And I am not being aggressive intentionally.

Mrsmum

otto_26 wrote: »

You should go out in Dublin on a Friday or Saturday night. All the women I see are walking around in their underwear. Maybe it was a private thing for older generation but certainly not for younger generation.

LOL

almostover

Mrsmum wrote: »

The answer imo is that if the claimant, usually women were treated with in a more respectful way, more women would report their rapes as it is the court case itself that is so offputting so naturally more cases, more guilty verdicts but then again maybe men don't want more women to test their cases.

In what regard could the claimant in this case have been treated more respectfully whilst ensuring the defendants were afforded a fair trial? The only 2 I can think of is that there shouldn't be public galleries for trials of this nature and the defendants should have remained anonymous unless they were found guilty of the alleged crime. Care to add any others?

Creol1

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know all that but your daughter comes to you first in the circumstances I stated and askes for your advice. I presume you wouldn't say to her what you have said to me. What would you advise her to do ?

I'm in my mid-20s and don't have children, but I would advise my hypothetical daughter who was the victim of rape to go to the Garda as soon as she felt emotionally able to do so, bearing in mind that any future decision to prosecute would be made by the DPP with full regard to the likelihood of conviction.

padd b1975

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mairia Cahill made allegations, there was a defendant fully prepared to go into a court to defend himself and never got the chance.

Unless you are one of the extremists who wish to have a society where making an allegation is enough, then Mairia's case has to stay in 'alleged' territory.

Good man Prionsias.

Always ready when needed even on a bank holiday.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If someone put a 'photo' of your underwear into the public domain, would you feel your privacy was compromised? I think most women would,(there has been similar controversy around this) so I am still unsure what the significant difference is. Unfortunately, privacy will be a victim of a court case and I see no way around the issue.

And I am not being aggressive intentionally.

All I can tell you is that I personally would not feel as violated by a photo.

kylith

Muahahaha wrote: »

It had blood stains on it, it was therefore one of the exhibits to prove she was left bleeding and had to be produced. AFAIK her white jeans were also an exhibit. Im not sure if a photo of it would have sufficed but from the prosecutions point of view they would have wanted her bloodied clothes shown for the impact it would have had on the jury, a photo would not have achieved that as strongly. Also exhibiting photos could lead to the defence saying the photo was doctored or other such arguments to rule the evidence as null and void. Its better just to proceed with the actual hard exhibits and remove any doubt.

Thanks for that info.

wexie

almostover wrote: »

In what regard could the claimant in this case have been treated more respectfully whilst ensuring the defendants were afforded a fair trial?

It would appear a lot of people aren't overly concerned with this as long as the claimant is protected.

Look, rape trials are never going to be a pleasant affair for anyone involved on either side. Like you said the best (I think) we can do is to keep as much as possible out of the publics eye until such time there is a guilty verdict. And with public I mean actual public as well as the media.

Mind it seems that a lot of the suggestions I have seen so far as to how this particular case could have been done better have already been implemented in the Republic?

wexie

Mrsmum wrote: »

All I can tell you is that I personally would not feel as violated by a photo.

And that's perfectly reasonable.

But, as the underwear was used for the prosecution (I believe) the girl in question may well have been asked if she would prefer it to be a photo, or the real thing as the real thing may end up having more effect BECAUSE it is more emotional?

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

All I can tell you is that I personally would not feel as violated by a photo.

Fair enough.

But equally another may feel their privacy just as violated and have done.

I am not sure how that can be avoided in the critical environment of a trial.

Goose Reckoning

I see Paddy Jackson's lawyer (Joe McVeigh) is receiving death threats now because of the verdict. Classy.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

The answer imo is that if the claimant, usually women were treated with in a more respectful way, more women would report their rapes as it is the court case itself that is so offputting so naturally more cases, more guilty verdicts but then again maybe men don't want more women to test their cases.

I really don't care one way or the other for the gender of the victim, makes no difference to me personally, but what I can tell you is that in just the same way as you suggest that there would be more guilty verdicts if the victim was treated more respectfully, I could equally suggest that while more support might encourage more victims to come forward, it doesn't follow that the conviction rate for rape would go up. In fact it would be more likely that the conviction rate would go down, because while more victims might be encouraged to act as witnesses for the prosecution, you would still have to deal with the issue of prejudices and bias amongst members of the jury, and as was pointed out in either this thread or another thread already - more women on the jury in trials where the alleged victim is a woman, will often judge a woman more harshly than they do the accused.

You're assuming that women would support women, and I have no idea where you get that impression, because there's no evidence to support it, let alone your assumption that men don't want more women to test their cases. Statistically speaking, the accused stands a better chance of being acquitted if the jury were made up entirely of women!

Happy Monday

JJayoo wrote: »

They will never play for Ireland or play rugby in Ireland again.

Not true - they will both have legal representation at this IRFU inquiry - the onus will be on the IRFU to explain how young men engaging in consensual sex brings the game of rugby into disrepute.

tretorn

If the mens underwear was to be used as evidence then it would have been "paraded too".

Everyone saying this woman should have been handled with kid gloves would feel very differently if it was their son being accused of rape by someone who followed him home from a nightclub and then followed him upstairs into a bedroom. This woman was forty five minutes in that bedroom and after leaving it she went back to it for her phone.

It was entirely correct that she should have been questioned because her claims had so many inconsistencies.

What are people marching actually looking for, is it for secret diplock trials, not a runner in my view, justice needs to be seen to be done, all the more so after we see this weak prosecution case.

Is it for burden of proof to be lower if a woman accuses a man of rape, not a runner in my view either as we are all equal before the law.

So exactly what are the marches about, is it about this case in particular, if it is its totally pointless because this case has nothing to do with Irish Law.

tritium

kylith wrote: »

It’s not an accusation of promiscuity, it’s the accusation that the dirty slut can’t have been raped because she’s such a whore who loves the cock, and what did she think would happen if she went out dressed like a streetwalker and had a few beers?

I don't think any other crimes are prosecuted the same way, like if someone is mugged the fact that they’re wearing an expensive shirt doesn’t come into it. ‘Are you sure you were robbed sir? Haven’t you landed people money in the past? Maybe you decided to loan him some money and now you regret it. Are you sure he threatened you? There’s not a mark on you. ‘

Just on your second point, you’re wrong that other crimes aren’t defended this way. A friend of mine was hurt many years ago when they intervened in a vicious assault. Defence down the line absolutely used their intervention as some sort of litigant, poor client etc

upandcumming

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court?

If it is evidence then yes - which I'm sure it was in this case and not related to the complainant's promiscuity.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think a victim should be allowed her own legal representation?

I think very few disagree with this, but we already have that here.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think that a defendants "previous good character" should be to the considered in non violent rape cases where we know more often than not the rapist could very well be a kind/"middle class" type/charity working individual...and yet the victim character gets assassinated?

Of course the defendant's character should be considered.

Silentcorner wrote: »

I agree, a bit of common sense is what is required....but that seems to be beyond some...mostly those who are happy with our dismal conviction rates.

Hasn't this been debunked numerous times? Or are you comparing some women's groups 'reported' rape figures in comparison to what the DPP successfully gets a conviction?

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really don't care one way or the other for the gender of the victim, makes no difference to me personally, but what I can tell you is that in just the same way as you suggest that there would be more guilty verdicts if the victim was treated more respectfully, I could equally suggest that while more support might encourage more victims to come forward, it doesn't follow that the conviction rate for rape would go up. In fact it would be more likely that the conviction rate would go down, because while more victims might be encouraged to act as witnesses for the prosecution, you would still have to deal with the issue of prejudices and bias amongst members of the jury, and as was pointed out in either this thread or another thread already - more women on the jury in trials where the alleged victim is a woman, will often judge a woman more harshly than they do the accused.

You're assuming that women would support women, and I have no idea where you get that impression, because there's no evidence to support it, let alone your assumption that men don't want more women to test their cases. Statistically speaking, the accused stands a better chance of being acquitted if the jury were made up entirely of women!

I don't assume that at all at all at all. You keep making up what I believe because of notions in your own head.

Katgurl

tretorn wrote: »

f the mens underwear was to be used as evidence then it would have been "paraded too".

Everyone saying this woman should have been handled with kid gloves would feel very differently if it was their son being accused of rape by someone who followed him home from a nightclub and then followed him upstairs into a bedroom. This woman was forty five minutes in that bedroom and after leaving it she went back to it for her phone.

It was entirely correct that she should have been questioned because her claims had so many inconsistencies.

What are people marching actually looking for, is it for secret diplock trials, not a runner in my view, justice needs to be seen to be done, all the more so after we see this weak prosecution case.

Is it for burden of proof to be lower if a woman accuses a man of rape, not a runner in my view either as we are all equal before the law.

So exactly what are the marches about, is it about this case in particular, if it is its totally pointless because this case has nothing to do with Irish Law.

I also agree it is correct she be questioned thoroughly given the inconsistencies. However her inconsistencies can be explained imo - she gave more detail to the medical staff than she did to the police. That makes sense to me.

However I cannot find any reasonable explanation for the defendents' inconsistencies except that they are not telling the truth.

Paddy Jackson said he never had intercourse with her at all. Dara Florence said she walked in when he was having intercourse with her. Paddy Jackson said he was receiving oral from her when Stuart olding walked in. Olding said she was straddling him. Blane mcIlraith said he came into the room and she summoned him over to the bed with her and Jackson and performed oral sex on him. Olding and Jackson said they never saw him in the room at all. Despite their claims none of them had intercourse with her the text messages describe spit roasting her.

Regarding the marches; people are looking to have government funding reinstated for the rape crisis centre. Their argument is that due to the burden of proof standard being so high, people who are victims don't get convictions but they still need support.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't assume that at all at all at all. You keep making up what I believe because of notions in your own head.

Well what did you mean then when you had already made the point in your post that if the claimant, usually women were treated in a more respectful way, more women would report their rapes, more guilty verdicts would follow, but then again maybe men don't want more women to test their cases?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I don't see any other way to interpret what you intended in saying that, than interpreting it as an assumption that women would support women and the conviction rate for rape would increase accordingly, that it must be men who are preventing more convictions for rape and keeping the conviction rate for rape as low as it is.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that more people simply don't give two fcuks about gender wars than those who do, and most men will be prejudiced to regard any alleged rapist as an utter scumbag, and tend to prejudge them guilty accordingly. If you want the conviction rate for rape to increase, then more men than women on jury panels would be the way to go.

LynnGrace

tretorn wrote: »

This woman was forty five minutes in that bedroom and after leaving it she went back to it for her phone.

I don't think that statement is correct. The attached article is worth reading, in my opinion, in relation to sequence of events, as presented in court during the trial.

LynnGrace wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

upandcumming

Katgurl wrote: »

Regarding the marches; people are looking to have government funding reinstated for the rape crisis centre. Their argument is that due to the burden of proof standard being so high, people who are victims don't get convictions but they still need support.

Just more funding is all they want?

Katgurl

upandcumming wrote: »

Just more funding is all they want?

They want more support for rape victims and an acknowledgement that a lack of conviction does not mean a rape didn't take place.

Fann Linn

Paddy Jackson's lawyer receiving death threats.

tretorn

Katgurl wrote: »

I also agree it is correct she be questioned thoroughly given the inconsistencies. However her inconsistencies can be explained imo - she gave more detail to the medical staff than she did to the police. That makes sense to me.

However I cannot find any reasonable explanation for the defendents' inconsistencies except that they are not telling the truth.

Paddy Jackson said he never had intercourse with her at all. Dara Florence said she walked in when he was having intercourse with her. Paddy Jackson said he was receiving oral from her when Stuart olding walked in. Olding said she was straddling him. Blane mcIlraith said he came into the room and she summoned him over to the bed with her and Jackson and performed oral sex on him. Olding and Jackson said they never saw him in the room at all. Despite their claims none of them had intercourse with her the text messages describe spit roasting her.

Regarding the marches; people are looking to have government funding reinstated for the rape crisis centre. Their argument is that due to the burden of proof standard being so high, people who are victims don't get convictions but they still need support.

Thats not the message I am getting from the marches, sorry witch hunt. They placards are all about I believeher, in other words disrespecting a jury verdict.

Why would it make more sense to you that she gave more detail to the medical staff than she gave to the police, this isnt actually what happened at all, read the evidence.

She told the staff in the Sexual Assault clinic that three men had raped her, she never mentioned oral sex at all. She told the police that Jackson and Olding had raped her and forced her to have oral sex with them. She told Police Mcilroy had arrived in stark naked with his penis in his hand demanding oral sex, in another version he was clothed and pulled down his clothes.

The inconsistencies in the mens evidence in my opinion was to do with loyalty to each other, they didnt want to say anything to incriminate the pals, this was utterly stupid but you have to remember how young they were, Olding was only twenty two. Harrison and Mc Ilroy went to the Police Station without their solicitors which in itself was a foolhardy thing to do. Neither though actually believed anything non consensual had happened so they were too blase about the danger they were walking into.