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]

facehugger99 wrote: »

Not a hope. The sponsors will decide their fate, most likely already have. No company will pay millions to have their logo worn by people who many would consider, behaved despicable.

The jury's decision matters not.

I never imagined that Facekicker would be the nice one.

the_pen_turner

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think naming defendants should cease immediately up North. It serves no purpose whatsoever and it's just wrong. However I think there was no way their names would not have got out being who there are.

yes but the laws that are clamping down on her identity now would also protect them as well. or at least should

Strazdas

tritium wrote: »

You’ve seen one snap of WhatsApp commentary, with the most famous of the 4 contributing one minor line!

Should their accuser lose her job for wearing Lacey underwear once too?

Ludicrious

I'm surprised you can't see the issue with current international players being discovered to be in a conversation about women like this.

If Seamus Coleman and Darren Randolph had a conversation published describing women they'd met the night before as sluts and bragging of spit roasting and merry go rounds etc, they'd be in a fair bit of hot water, irrespective of anything to do with rape charges.

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

You’ve seen one snap of WhatsApp commentary, with the most famous of the 4 contributing one minor line!

Should their accuser lose her job for wearing Lacey underwear once too?

Ludicrious

Now that is ludicrious.

Mrsmum

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes but the laws that are clamping down on her identity now would also protect them as well. or at least should

I know but like how would their absence from Rugby be explained without everyone being in the know.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm surprised you can't see the issue with current international players being discovered to be in a conversation about women like this.

If Seamus Coleman and Darren Randolph had a conversation published describing women they'd met the night before as sluts and bragging of spit roasting and merry go rounds etc, they'd be in a fair bit of hot water, irrespective of anything to do with rape charges.

Is there something wrong with doing those things for the men or the women involved?

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Thats not really true now is it.
Jackson passed out in his bed and the woman didnt leave the room in hysterics.
Jackson didnt boast about being a top shagger.

If you're looking to ban 2 players from playing for Ireland it should at least be based on their actions not the supposed actions of others.

Jackson knew she was bleeding.

Rory Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

Olding boasted about being top shaggers, while the pair of them boasted about spit roasting.

All of this came out in court. The lads don't have a leg to stand on if both the IRFU and Ulster wanted to cancel their contracts for gross misconduct or bringing the game into disrepute.

These are professional sportsmen who are expected to carry themselves well because they're in the public eye.

Whether the messages were intended to be private or not is irrelevant, they were made public in this trial.

If the sponsors say no, then it's all on Jackson and Olding. If they don't behave like animals then this doesn't happen.

Also, I'll remind you, Jackson hasn't apologised to the complainant like Olding has. That will be one of the first things they'll ask him in that review.

The Wordress

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think naming defendants should cease immediately up North. It serves no purpose whatsoever and it's just wrong. However I think there was no way their names would not have got out being who there are.

I also don't think that the public should be allowed in the public gallery willy nilly to shout and jeer a la Jeremy Kyle.

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

You see there is a big difference between a crude joke and speaking in a vile, crude way about actual people. I suppose you wouldn't mind your daughter being the subject of crude as you like 'boy talk '. And remember it doesn't even have to be true, they will apparently just make up stuff so as to be big men opposite their friends.

Being perfectly honest I've seeing members of both sexes talk crudely about people and it wouldn't really bother me.

spookwoman

tritium wrote: »

You’ve seen one snap of WhatsApp commentary, with the most famous of the 4 contributing one minor line!

Should their accuser lose her job for wearing Lacey underwear once too?

Ludicrious

Plenty of people have lost their jobs over derogatory comments on social media

Mrsmum

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there something wrong with doing those things for the men or the women involved?

I presume you mean group sex. If so not at all provided everyone is happy. She wasn't and not just the next day. She wasn't happy that night as per the independent taxi driver. That's their problem and I actually think SO gets the problem more than PJ does.

hynesie08

spookwoman wrote: »

Plenty of people have lost their jobs over derogatory comments on social media

But this isn't social media. It's private messaging.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there something wrong with doing those things for the men or the women involved?

That conversation is one thing if you are four factory workers and nobody has ever heard of you. It's quite another if you are an international sportsman and representing your country.

One eyed Jack

RuMan wrote: »

How exactly did Jackson behave like an " utter scumbag"?

He had a few drinks and what hecbelieves was consensual sex with a woman. He then sent one whatsapp message in a private group discussion.

He was charged with rape and a jury found him not guilty

Please explain what part of his behaviour makes him an "utter scumbag"?

It's apparent Ru that we operate on different standards of what we consider acceptable and appropriate behaviour, and that's not even allowing for the fact that these men were high profile public figures previously well respected in their chosen profession.

I respect the law and due process. Why do you think you can disregard the verdict of a jury?

So do I, that makes two of us then, at least we can agree on legal standards, which is why if you go back through this thread, you won't be able to find any evidence to support your claim that I have disregarded the verdict of the jury. You know how that works - insufficient evidence and all that jazz. In fact if I may direct your attention to my very first post on this thread, I said from the outset -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't followed this thread closely or the case itself as I have no interest in celebrity trials, the media circus isn't representative of the vast majority of cases and should never be seen to set a precedent. However, having said that, I agree with you that in most cases it really is nigh on impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the crime of rape. There are numerous reasons for that, and not just the rightfully high bar. If you're going to accuse someone of one of the most heinous crimes against another human being, damn right you'd better have all your ducks in a row, and not just a flaky witness with a hazy recollection of the night in question, and an ambitious barrister or DPP looking to make an example of a high profile figure, yet depending on ordinary members of the public to try and deliberate over whether the burden of proof has been met by the prosecution in order to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which they are accused.

If the DPP lodges an appeal, they would be disregarding the verdict of the jury, and yet you act like this is something that doesn't happen day in, day out, up and down the country every day of the week.

the_pen_turner

Mrsmum wrote: »

I presume you mean group sex. If so not at all provided everyone is happy. She wasn't and not just the next day. She wasn't happy that night as per the independent taxi driver. That's their problem and I actually think SO gets the problem more than PJ does.

it doesnt matter what she thought afterwards. it only matters before or during. you cant remove consent after the fact.

Strazdas

hynesie08 wrote: »

But this isn't social media. It's private messaging.

Irrelevant : their general behaviour that evening caused the messages to come into the public domain ie. they found themselves the subject of a criminal investigation.

It's not as if some friend of theirs set them up and sent the WhatsApp messages to the press.

tayto lover

Mrsmum wrote: »

I presume you mean group sex. If so not at all provided everyone is happy. She wasn't and not just the next day. She wasn't happy that night as per the independent taxi driver. That's their problem and I actually think SO gets the problem more than PJ does.

It seems that it was only afterwards she got upset. Maybe she had regrets then or felt that they took unfair advantage of her. She had ample opportunity to get out when the other girl looked into the bedroom but she didn't indicate that anything was wrong or that she was being forced to do anything.

I put the entire ugly incident down to excessive drinking.

Mrsmum

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Being perfectly honest I've seeing members of both sexes talk crudely about people and it wouldn't really bother me.

If crudeness about sexual encounters is a thing, fine, but would you have the banter in such a way when you knew a girl left your company very distressed ?

The Wordress

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Being perfectly honest I've seeing members of both sexes talk crudely about people and it wouldn't really bother me.

I think that says more about you to be honest.

Imagine my husband texting his friends and bragging about our sex life after the deed.

Spit roast, top shagger etc.

Would you not find that completely humiliating. I know I would.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

I presume you mean group sex. If so not at all provided everyone is happy. She wasn't and not just the next day. She wasn't happy that night as per the independent taxi driver. That's their problem and I actually think SO gets the problem more than PJ does.

That was the taxi drivers impression and he didn't know why she was unhappy.
Funny that people doubt and question the impression of one witness and not the other.

The jury took the full sequence of events and witness statements into account

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

That conversation is one thing if you are four factory workers and nobody has ever heard of you. It's quite another if you are an international sportsman and representing your country.

I'm not talking about the case. I'm talking about the acts themselves since you highlighted them. What's wrong with a woman wanting that, and two men giving it? Or did you only mention it because they were bragging about it?

Faugheen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it doesnt matter what she thought afterwards. it only matters before or during. you cant remove consent after the fact.

If a woman is left bleeding and in hysterics then it absolutely does matter, consent or no consent.

Why did Stuart Olding apologise if it didn't matter? Because he gets that while he doesn't agree with her recollection that she was raped, he does see that she wasn't happy with what happened.

the_pen_turner

bleeding doesnt mean that there was a rape or even as assault. it is a ****ty thing to let someone leave your house bleeding though.
hysterics. what does that mean. did anyone else at the party report that she was in hysterics. i didnt hear any one say they did.
yes upset. but at what poing did she get upset. where the defendants there at that time or was it later when she went outside.

just becasue he opolagised for her feeling bad doesnt mean he did anything to casue it

spookwoman

hynesie08 wrote: »

But this isn't social media. It's private messaging.

Can still be used in the court of law if deemed suitable evidence. Mobile phone companies hold data for 2 years. Anyone who thinks what they text, pm dm is completely private is fooling themselves

Silentcorner

tayto lover wrote: »

It seems that it was only afterwards she got upset. Maybe she had regrets then or felt that they took unfair advantage of her. She had ample opportunity to get out when the other girl looked into the bedroom but she didn't indicate that anything was wrong or that she was being forced to do anything.

I put the entire ugly incident down to excessive drinking.

Well that is not entirely true...in fact the lads testified that one minute she was looking for condoms and performing oral sex, albeit briefly, when she then decided to leave...she was getting dressed by the time the third guy came back into the room after heading out looking for condoms...

So, she did not display regret afterwards....she left the room during, her exit ended the incident...

For at least the next thirty minutes, the young lady was "in hysterics" according to RH, and sobbing for the entire taxi journey according to the taxi driver.

Sobbing for 30 minutes is a long long time to be that upset...unless you think she was faking it!

[Deleted User]

Faugheen wrote: »

If a woman is left bleeding and in hysterics then it absolutely does matter, consent or no consent.

Why did Stuart Olding apologise if it didn't matter? Because he gets that while he doesn't agree with her recollection that she was raped, he does see that she wasn't happy with what happened.

If I partook in a consensual spit roasting that the girl ended up either not enjoying, or regretting, I'd apologise.

It doesn't necessarily mean "I'm sorry I raped you."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Appledreams15

The protest worked!

The minister for justice is going to review all aspects of sexual assault trials.

Amalgam

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Remember that in the quest to get more rape convictions, innocent men can be hurt and imprisoned.

Alison Saunders, head of the CPS, put immense pressure on Police Services in the UK to up the number of rape convictions that they could get in courts.

You know what the net result was?

A number of innocent men falsely accused of rape with evidence being withheld that would exonerate them.

The result of this has meant that ALL rape cases in the last 2 years in the UK are now under investigation to see how many further cases of innocent men have been imprisoned.

Do we really want this type of thing happening in Ireland as well?

Amalgam wrote: »

The UK system is creaking under the avalanche of social media evidence. A case that really struck me was that of student Liam Allen.

A relative had to go off and download his Facebook message history and even then, the prosecution presented an 'edited' list of messages to paint a certain view of events.

The trial collapsed after the full history of messages was admitted to court, showing a totally different line of events.

I don't want anyone to have an easy time on the podium, male or female. Stand by your convictions and get through it.

Liam Allan: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42366629

Danny Kay: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405

The 'selective' disclosure of how social media messages are impacting on rape cases means that a few hundred are likely to be up for 'review' in the UK.

Less than 36 hours after your post, Ulysses Gaze, Saunders is no more.

Director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders to stand down

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43614793

There's a backlog of cases that will be reviewed as a result. The, seemingly, bias of guilt was troubling in the couple of cases that collapsed recently.

Police need to review social media output and take into account a complainant, deliberately, deleting material to skew events.

I do not want bias if I ever find myself facing a Judge, I want equality, true equality.