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

[Deleted User]

Jaysus, that hateful bitch with the "MEN R TRASH" sign is really letting down the team. If I was protesting there, I'd seriously ask her to leave.

Faugheen

LynnGrace wrote: »

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.

I've heard this statement numerous times but genuinely can't find anything about her going back to the bedroom for a third time, as people have said here.

Creol1

Katgurl wrote: »

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

They are going much further than that and are positively alleging that despite the lack of a conviction (by unanimous verdict) a rape did take place.

tretorn

Katgurl wrote: »

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

So in other words they wont accept that a jury sat through nine weeks of evidence and decided within a couple of hours that four men were innocent of all accusations.

This means the jury didnt even spend an hour per allegation against each of the defendents.

Why are we bothering with trials at all if we think we can qualify vericts of innocence by saying actually they were guilty really but we just couldnt prove it.

In all your wooly head nonsense can you put yourself or one of your family in the dock and ask would you like your verdict not to be believed.

FrancieBrady

Katgurl wrote: »

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

You want a situation were a person can still be accused of rape even when a jury decides they didn't???

How is that gonna play out. Because no matter what you say, the #Ibeliveher is all about that 'right'.

If you privately wish to hold that view, nobody is restricting your right to it.

FrancieBrady

Personally, I think Jackson's lawyers did a massive favour to democracy by threatening to sue anyone who wishes to take the right to accuse/allege onto themselves after a jury has made it's decision.

AudreyHepburn

Katgurl wrote: »

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

I don’t think any reasonable person disagrees with either of those - but that’s not what these marches are about.

Mrsmum

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don’t think any reasonable person disagrees with either of those - but that’s not what these marches are about.

But realistically what can you do about marches or even banners saying Men are Trash? Nothing. The legal verdict is what counts. Take consolation from that.

tretorn

I dont want it acknowledged that a lack of conviction means anything other than an accused person is innocent.

If a person feels they have been unjustly imprisoned following a verdict of guilty then they can appeal.

Why should Jackson have to accept a view that he is guilty, he has spent two years and tens of thousands of sterling fighting this womans allegations, his whole family have had their lives put on hold. He has been judged innocent and anyone with a titter of wit can see there was no real evidence against him.

I have never gone on a demonstration but I will if I am forced to accept that a verdict of innocence doesnt mean exactly what it says on the tin.

RuMan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Personally, I think Jackson's lawyers did a massive favour to democracy by threatening to sue anyone who wishes to take the right to accuse/allege onto themselves after a jury has made it's decision.

Agree. I hope he faces down O'Riordan and the IRFU if they are cowardly enough to back down to the demands of the loony left twitter mob.

There was a trial and these men were found not guilty, that should be the end of it. By all means try and support real rape victims more and increase punishment for real rapists but not by bringing in innocent men.

Jackson should be picked for Ireland if only to send a message that we have due process in this country and most people respect the rule of law.

neonsofa

tretorn wrote: »

I have never gone on a demonstration but I will if I am forced to accept that a verdict of innocence doesnt mean exactly what it says on the tin.

Except it was a verdict of not guilty. That is not a verdict of innocence.

RuMan

neonsofa wrote: »

Except it was a verdict of not guilty. That is not a verdict of innocence.

What are you talking about you cant be found innocent.
Everyone is presumed innocent. They are then found guilty or not. Those found not guilty remain innocent. So yes he is and was always innocent in the eyes of the law.

hynesie08

neonsofa wrote: »

Except it was a verdict of not guilty. That is not a verdict of innocence.

Was there an option to find them innocent??

One eyed Jack

tretorn wrote: »

I dont want it acknowledged that a lack of conviction means anything other than an accused person is innocent.

If a person feels they have been unjustly imprisoned following a verdict of guilty then they can appeal.

Why should Jackson have to accept a view that he is guilty, he has spent two years and tens of thousands of sterling fighting this womans allegations, his whole family have had their lives put on hold. He has been judged innocent and anyone with a titter of wit can see there was no real evidence against him.

I have never gone on a demonstration but I will if I am forced to accept that a verdict of innocence doesnt mean exactly what it says on the tin.

This is exactly what will happen if there are measures introduced to make it easier for the prosecution to secure a conviction, there would be a marked increase in the number of convictions overturned on appeal due to unsafe verdicts in the original trial.

The introduction of a verdict of 'not proven' totally nullifies the standard that must be met in a Court of Law to determine a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It implies that the accused is not innocent of the change of rape, but there is insufficient evidence to prove that they are guilty of having committed rape.

It's a judgement that while it offers what lobby groups are campaigning for - an acknowledgement that the accused did commit rape against the alleged victim, it leaves both parties in a permanent state of limbo rather than either party or the public seeing that justice is seen to be done. It would actually increase the lack of confidence in our justice system rather than alleviate any lack of confidence that justice will be done. There's a reason it's informally termed 'the bastard verdict' in Scotland, the only jurisdiction in which it exists.

[Deleted User]

neonsofa wrote:

Except it was a verdict of not guilty. That is not a verdict of innocence.

*facepalm

bloodless_coup

RuMan wrote: »

What are you talking about you cant be found innocent.
Everyone is presumed innocent. They are then found guilty or not. Those found not guilty remain innocent. So yes he is and was always innocent in the eyes of the law.

This has been explained over and over and over and people still don't get it.

It takes a special kind of stupid for people to imply that "there wasn't enough evidence to convict them but the rape still happed"

One eyed Jack

RuMan wrote: »

What are you talking about you cant be found innocent.
Everyone is presumed innocent. They are then found guilty or not. Those found not guilty remain innocent. So yes he is and was always innocent in the eyes of the law.

In fairness to neonsofa, it was tretorn who used the term 'verdict of innocence', which neonsofa was right to point out, doesn't exist.

RuMan

doylefe wrote: »

This has been explained over and over and over and people still don't get it.

It takes a special kind of stupid for people to imply that "there wasn't enough evidence to convict them but the rape still happed"

Its a game to these people. This the lifes of 2 innocent men they are destroying. As sports professionals they have a limited career , it cant be brought back

[Deleted User]

Faugheen wrote: »

I've heard this statement numerous times but genuinely can't find anything about her going back to the bedroom for a third time, as people have said here.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2119349/woman-tells-court-she-ran-crying-and-bleeding-from-ulster-rugby-stars-home-after-alleged-rape-as-trial-of-paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-continues/

Moments later, having to order herself a taxi as she lived “at the other side of town,” she realised she had left her phone in the bedroom.

“I ran back into the house, to the bedroom, grabbed my phone and ran straight back out… I didn’t even look around the room.”

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In fairness to neonsofa, it was tretorn who used the term 'verdict of innocence', which neonsofa was right to point out, doesn't exist.

Exactly.

I said myself not guilty would be the verdict from the beginning. Nobody but those involved can know what happened. The men got a fair trial and were found not guilty based on the evidence presented- and rightfully so.

But the poster was saying he is going to take it as "what it says on the tin" and referring to the verdict as one of innocence- there is no such thing, if you're going by "what it says on the tin" then it is a verdict of not guilty- that can be the verdict for many different reasons ranging from reasonable doubt to genuine innocence, but it's not the same as a verdict of innocence as that person kept referring to, as there is no such thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Quentin

RuMan wrote: »

Agree. I hope he faces down O'Riordan and the IRFU if they are cowardly enough to back down to the demands of the loony left twitter mob.

There was a trial and these men were found not guilty, that should be the end of it. By all means try and support real rape victims more and increase punishment for real rapists but not by bringing in innocent men.

Jackson should be picked for Ireland if only to send a message that we have due process in this country and most people respect the rule of law.

This post makes so much sense,. Like if you can't support and respect the ruling/rule of law, Then what kind of society would we have?
20yrs ago courts would find you guilty or not guilty!? Either way that was what you and your family dealt with....
Now your dealing with social media keyboard warriors who have their own agenda, their own 'court martial', their own reasons to continue the pain and suffering of individuals who have gone through the court system,.. These people need to stop this evil, nasty, hate driven deep seated agenda that gives them the right to post/print whatever they feel like, knowing they're continuing the hurt and pain for people who have already gone through the court process and been found guilty or not guilty in a civilised manner....
One of the main reasons I don't bother much with social media, I see this happening day in day out, all be it on a smaller scale! But it's constant now-a-days..

One eyed Jack

RuMan wrote: »

Its a game to these people. This the lifes of 2 innocent men they are destroying. As sports professionals they have a limited career , it cant be brought back

To be perfectly honest RuMan, if they were sports professionals I would expect that they would behave like sports professionals, and not the utter scumbags that they are. I can say that without fear of being sued for defamation, because the evidence that they are utter scumbags is already in the public domain. Their behaviour and their attitudes towards other people are not what I would expect of sports professionals, and they are entirely responsible for the consequences of their own actions, attitudes and behaviours.

They should have given consideration to that before they behaved the way they did, and I know it was mentioned earlier that consideration must be given to the fact that they are young, but implying that their age or their immaturity should be a mitigating factor in defence of their attitudes and behaviours, does a disservice to the vast majority of young men the same age as them who would never even think to behave the way they did, or treat any woman the way they did, and I can tell you now for a fact that if my son were ever to display the attitudes and behaviours that they did, a trial before a jury of his peers would be the least of his worries.

Fann Linn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be perfectly honest RuMan, if they were sports professionals I would expect that they would behave like sports professionals, and not the utter scumbags that they are. I can say that without fear of being sued for defamation, because the evidence that they are utter scumbags is already in the public domain. Their behaviour and their attitudes towards other people are not what I would expect of sports professionals, and they are entirely responsible for the consequences of their own actions, attitudes and behaviours.

They should have given consideration to that before they behaved the way they did, and I know it was mentioned earlier that consideration must be given to the fact that they are young, but implying that their age or their immaturity should be a mitigating factor in defence of their attitudes and behaviours, does a disservice to the vast majority of young men the same age as them who would never even think to behave the way they did, or treat any woman the way they did, and I can tell you now for a fact that if my son were ever to display the attitudes and behaviours that they did, a trial before a jury of his peers would be the least of his worries.

No one knows what people have on their whatsapp accounts which are private. And personally as far as im concerned I dont want to know.

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be perfectly honest RuMan, if they were sports professionals I would expect that they would behave like sports professionals, and not the utter scumbags that they are. I can say that without fear of being sued for defamation, because the evidence that they are utter scumbags is already in the public domain. Their behaviour and their attitudes towards other people are not what I would expect of sports professionals, and they are entirely responsible for the consequences of their own actions, attitudes and behaviours.

They should have given consideration to that before they behaved the way they did, and I know it was mentioned earlier that consideration must be given to the fact that they are young, but implying that their age or their immaturity should be a mitigating factor in defence of their attitudes and behaviours, does a disservice to the vast majority of young men the same age as them who would never even think to behave the way they did, or treat any woman the way they did, and I can tell you now for a fact that if my son were ever to display the attitudes and behaviours that they did, a trial before a jury of his peers would be the least of his worries.

If your son did that, would he deserve to have his life and career blighted?

Maxpfizer

Katgurl wrote: »

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

I'm not sure how the "MEN R TRASH" sign is going to help with that?

In a society that presumes innocence until guilt is proven how can we possibly acknowledge that because there is no conviction there is not necessarily innocence?

Why are you such a racist, sexist individual that hates disabled people, Katgurl?*

If people are waving signs such as "MEN R TRASH" it seems like a pretty strong indicator that if this kind of person were given power then that power would be wielded in a potentially biased, unfair and unjust fashion.

We presume innocence for a reason. Take that away and watch our society change dramatically. Suddenly it's possible to destroy a person without evidence. Who would we trust to wield that power?

What happens if we erode due process and somewhere down the line we have a bunch of extremists (from the left or right, who cares, pick one) making a grab for that power?

Are you a sinner? Your neighbor says you are.

Haven't we, as a species, been over this time and time again? It doesn't work.

*please note that a lack or evidence does not meant that Katgurl is not the things I have accused them of being. A denial is apparently worthless too.

AudreyHepburn

hynesie08 wrote: »

Was there an option to find them innocent??

Yes - it’s called a Not Guilty verdict.

[Deleted User]

Social media really is the worst poison modern society has ever been dealt. This stuff will just get worse and worse, as Sam described above.

Mrsmum

Fann Linn wrote: »

No one knows what people have on their whatsapp accounts which are private. And personally as far as im concerned I dont want to know.

But once you do know you can't put the genie back in the bottle. We can't pretend we have no knowledge of what we now know. We can only decide that their disrespect to women doesn't matter.

tretorn

The furore over the word slut is just utter nonsense.

The woman who made the complaint called the other women slutty, its a word used by both men and women to describe womens behaviour and clothing, as in a woman will ask another woman about a dress and the other woman will say, put it away, its slutty.

Women will often post slut comments on other womens pictures, it will be said in jest so no one takes offence.

I doubt if the young women Mc Ilroy called sluts would take offence either, they would see it as banter and know McIlroy meant no offence, he said in his texts that he had really good fun on the night in question and in the photos taken of himself with the three gorgeous young women it did look like he was having the time of his life.

Its other hysterical feminists and lesbians who are making a mountain out of a molehill and calling these young men women haters, there is no evidence that they are.