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

Augme

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Doesn't really matter. They came out anyway and now that they have the IRFU have no choice but to let them go.

spookwoman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

end to end encryption doesnt matter if its on your phone it can be still used against you in a court of law.

chopperbyrne

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The protest worked!

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

And most likely find that not a lot can change.

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

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 ?

I wouldn't speak like that to be honest but I have seen people do it and it doesn't bother me personally what people do in private chats.

Appledreams15

chopperbyrne wrote: »

And most likely find that not a lot can change.

He said he is going to look first at rape victims being able to have legal representation.

Did she not have a lawyer? I can't find it

Mrsmum

The Wordress wrote: »

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.

You won't find husbands doing this about their wives and their sexual encounters with her no matter how exciting and why not ? Because they understand it is fundamentally disrespectful & they have a vested interest in respecting and having their wife respected and not made a figure of fun and lewdness. With other women they are quite happy to be disrespectful but then it's passed off as a bit of banter, the same banter they would never say about their wives.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tritium

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.

Except the most prominent international player in the 4 didn’t actually describe the woman as any of those things.

Frankly the WhatsApp was pretty much as one defence barrister describes it, a titilating sideshow. It was used in a similar way by the prosecution as the knickers were used by the defence, to blacken a witness in the eyes of a jury. It offers little or no evidential value and gives no real and credible insight to the accused beyond that they’re human and don’t always use perfect language based on one point in time. People who complain about the knickers evidence being disgraceful by the defence might well reflect that the use of the WhatsApp evidence by the prosecution was equally sleazy and contemptible, worse given the defendants don’t have anonymity post trial to protect them.

Whatever about the valid complaints on what rape accusers go through in court, the behaviors of the cps and prosecution was appalling in this trial tbh. Blinded by the chance to convict a few big names, their approach was to throw mud and hope it stuck. A trial built on the perceived social class of the defendants and the crowns attempts to paint them in a negative light based on a WhatsApp chat that some of them barely featured in.

freshpopcorn

The Wordress wrote: »

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.

These guy were disusing a one night stand and not a long term husband/wife/partner.
I've often heard women/men discuss there sexual acts and sometimes it was crude.
I have never done it but I don't believe in banning people doing things.

Faugheen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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.

Glad you agree with me.

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.

Rory Harrison was at the party. Everyone else was either asleep or left.

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

He apologised for the 'hurt' that he caused her and 'regretted' the events of that night.

I'm not saying he's admitting to raping her, far from it, but he's admitting to being complicit in something that all participants weren't happy with. It's a bit more than 'feeling bad'.

Either way, Jackson went straight on the attack, despite his first priority seemingly going back to work.

[Deleted User]

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've had girls very upset at me, and being pretty damn angry and insulted, for not getting it up while hammered, and he did say he didn't have vaginal sex with her.

It's as plausible as anything else I'm hearing about this case.

Appledreams15

freshpopcorn wrote: »

These guy were disusing a one night stand and not a long term husband/wife/partner.
I've often heard women/men discuss there sexual acts and sometimes it was crude.
I have never done it but I don't believe in banning people doing things.

I am just trying to think of being in a threesome with 2 women and 1 man.
And describing us 2 being with the man as 'it was like being on a merry go round". It's sickening, it's sick as f:*k

tayto lover

Silentcorner wrote: »

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!

The girl who entered the room said she didn't look distressed. So her distress came about after that. Maybe the fact that the girl had seen what was happening caused the distress? She might have come to her senses because the girl had seen her.

Fann Linn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I wouldn't speak like that to be honest but I have seen people do it and it doesn't bother me personally what people do in private chats.

Same here, and would I pay €30 again to see Jackson in an Irish/Ulster shirt against Munster/Wales etc .
Yes.

tritium

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.

It should be pretty clear to most people that there are differing views of what happened that night. That doesn’t mean she’s lying. That doesn’t mean a rape happened. Olding should be commended for his statement, it shows an awareness that he isn’t the only victim of this whole thing. Jackson, based on the (justified imho) defamation action seems to be angrier at what he’s been through. That would seem understandable in some ways

Appledreams15

Some people saying today the the girl didnt have legal representation.

I can't see anything about it online.

Anyone know?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

tayto lover

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Some people saying today the the girl didnt have legal representation.

I can't see anything about it online.

Anyone know?

The Crown Prosecution Service took her case.

hynesie08

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Some people saying today the the girl didnt have legal representation.

I can't see anything about it online.

Anyone know?

Why would she? She wasn't on trial.

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

Now that is ludicrious.

They’re equally ludicrous, that’s the point. What the hell does a snapshot of someone, manipulated to steer a jury, tell me about anyone as a person?

Appledreams15

hynesie08 wrote: »

Why would she? She wasn't on trial.

What do you mean why would she?

Victims in other crimes have lawyers.

Im actually amazed if she didn't. Flabbergasted

hynesie08

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What do you mean why would she?

Victims in other crimes have lawyers.

Im actually amazed if she didn't. Flabbergasted

She was a witness for the prosecution, how many witnesses have their own solicitor?

Silentcorner

tayto lover wrote: »

The girl who entered the room said she didn't look distressed. So her distress came about after that. Maybe the fact that the girl had seen what was happening caused the distress? She might have come to her senses because the girl had seen her.

Well, now you are just wildly speculating.

The girl turned her head away when the witness stuck her head in, so they could not have seen each others faces, and as the young lady testified, she did not kick or scream or fight back at any point, it was not until the third man entered the room that she finally manage to escape the room, she testified that her "flight" kicked in when the third man arrived, about 20 minutes after Dara Florence popped her head in.

By the time the young lady made it to the Rape Crisis centre, and the police she had forgotten about the witness who stuck her head in the room...so her fear of exposure on social media was not a motivating factor for the young lady in question.

tayto lover

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What do you mean why would she?

Victims in other crimes have lawyers.

Im actually amazed if she didn't. Flabbergasted

It has always been like that.
Why would she need one when the CPS took her case.? They were her solicitors.

Uncharted

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What do you mean why would she?

Victims in other crimes have lawyers.

Im actually amazed if she didn't. Flabbergasted

You've just proved that you didn't follow the case at all. Epic fail. Busted in spectacular fashion.

Mrsmum

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the reality of the situation is that the messages are out there now. We can't unknow them.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

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."

Why hasn't Jackson apologised then?

That's part of my point, Ulster and the IRFU could say "this woman left your house bleeding and in hysterics, why haven't you apologised?" And he would have no legitimate answer for it.

What Jackson has been doing is going after other people. He's let his solicitor attack the PSNI, the PPS and use his standing as an international rugby player to suggest that was the reason for bringing the case. He has also let his solicitor say he's looking forward to getting back to work, which means representing his province and country as if it was a thinly veiled threat to Ulster and the IRFU.

Olding, in contrast, regretted the night, apologised for the hurt caused to the complainant, and said he hoped to be able to play rugby again.

Olding gets it, Jackson refuses to get it, and it sums up the attitude of privileged that were thrown at him.

The Talking Bread

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What do you mean why would she?

Victims in other crimes have lawyers.

Im actually amazed if she didn't. Flabbergasted

She would have had a private solicitor or even hired counsel to take her through the trial and help her understand the legal issues at hand etc.
But none of these would/could represent her prsonally in court.

A criminal case is taken by the State. The prosecution barrister is working on behalf of the State, obviously indirectly on her behalf.

Appledreams15

hynesie08 wrote: »

She was a witness for the prosecution, how many witnesses have their own solicitor?

Bloody hell it gets better in this joke of a system.

This is the first thing that the minister said he is going to review: legal representation for the complainant (ie it is ****e and drastically needs to be improved)

At the moment: a complainant in the Irish legal system does not have any entitlement to their own legal counsel.

tayto lover

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, now you are just wildly speculating.

The girl turned her head away when the witness stuck her head in, so they could not have seen each others faces, and as the young lady testified, she did not kick or scream or fight back at any point, it was not until the third man entered the room that she finally manage to escape the room, she testified that her "flight" kicked in when the third man arrived, about 20 minutes after Dara Florence popped her head in.

By the time the young lady made it to the Rape Crisis centre, and the police she had forgotten about the witness who stuck her head in the room...so her fear of exposure on social media was not a motivating factor for the young lady in question.

What's your point?
I'm trying to figure out why she didn't leave when the girl looked in or call for help. Why turn her head away?