Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

02-04-2018 07:38PM

The Wordress wrote:

I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round.

So it should be illegal to not respect someone?

Deleted User wrote:

I want to know why two men who are actively raping a woman would invite another woman to join in. Seems pretty counter-intuitive.

No rape occurred

Deleted User wrote:

It's like a bad porno plot when you think about it.. Rapists letting witnesses walk away freely after inviting them to join in.

Again, no rape occurred

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:38PM

Here we go wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm blaming him for his actions.

He performed sex acts on a woman who was left bleeding (which he knew) and in hysterics.

He boasted about spitroasting said woman (who was left bleeding and in hysterics) on whatsapp.

He used his standing as an international rugby player to suggest this was a malicious case that was brought against him.

He hasn't apologised to the woman despite the fact Olding has.

That's all on him. Stop telling me to not blame him for his actions. He behaved in a way that made a woman feel like she was raped (note I said 'feel like' and am not saying he raped her. Big difference). That is inexcusable.

He is an international rugby player (he may have said that once or twice) and he behaved despicably. That is enough for him to lose his job if the IRFU and Ulster sees fit.

The IRFU won't be pandering to any politician. If the sponsors don't want those two wearing their logos, then there's plenty the IRFU have on Jackson and Olding if they so need.

Also, show me the evidence that she filed a false allegation please. Innocent until proven guilty works both ways.

Just in the bleeding I’ve seen it mentioned a few times can you or anyone else clarify I heard somewhere it may have been period blood and if sowoukd be bleeding if sat at home or in the party just that time is this false ?

It was established that she wasn't menstruating at the time, and she had a laceration in her vagina.

Jackson said in court (or in his police interview, I can't remember) that he noticed the blood on his fingers and thought it was her period, I think that's what you're thinking of.

the_pen_turner · 02-04-2018 07:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So it should be illegal to not respect someone?

No rape occurred

Again, no rape occurred

u think thats ads point

Katgurl · 02-04-2018 07:40PM

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Paddy Jackson has done NOTHING wrong. He was found not guilty unanimously by a jury which took just over 2 hours to reach that conclusion. The salient evidence, provided by the only sober person at the party, spoke of a non-menacing two guys/one girl threesome; Paddy Jackson sent one Whatsapp which referred to “spit-roasting” which is a colloquial and conventional term for such a threesome.

The guy’s down €500,000 and his career hangs in Ireland hangs in the balance; Paddy Jackson is the victim here.

Yet he testified he didn't have intercourse with her at all. The stories don't tally. So why is at least one of them lying?

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The Wordress wrote:

I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round.

So it should be illegal to not respect someone?

Deleted User wrote:

I want to know why two men who are actively raping a woman would invite another woman to join in. Seems pretty counter-intuitive.

No rape occurred

Deleted User wrote:

It's like a bad porno plot when you think about it.. Rapists letting witnesses walk away freely after inviting them to join in.

Again, no rape occurred

If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed.

OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered.

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

GreeBo · 02-04-2018 07:42PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

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

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?

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.

Again I ask you, what exactly do you think your suggestions are going to do to improve conviction rates?

Fann Linn · 02-04-2018 07:42PM

Faugheen wrote: »

If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed.

OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered.

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

True question:

Did the PSNI prove a rape occured?

Andrew Beef · 02-04-2018 07:42PM

Katgurl wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Paddy Jackson has done NOTHING wrong. He was found not guilty unanimously by a jury which took just over 2 hours to reach that conclusion. The salient evidence, provided by the only sober person at the party, spoke of a non-menacing two guys/one girl threesome; Paddy Jackson sent one Whatsapp which referred to “spit-roasting” which is a colloquial and conventional term for such a threesome.

The guy’s down €500,000 and his career hangs in Ireland hangs in the balance; Paddy Jackson is the victim here.

Yet he testified he didn't have intercourse with her at all. The stories don't tally. So why is at least one of them lying?

It is far easier to deduce whether a menacing situation is arising than it is to ascertain whether it’s a penis or a finger that is being used to penetrate a girl.

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Because Jackson publically is slamming the authorities and insinuating that they only brought the case to court because he's an international rugby player.

What part of that are you failing to grasp?

How could he say this publically and then turn around and say 'I'm sorry for hurting you, but the authorities are wee pricks'?

How? Tell me that.

That's right, you can't, because the idea of common sense goes right over your head.

Olding apologised publically and didn't attack anyone. All Jackson is doing is pointing the finger of him being an absolute animal at other people.

Would would apologising privately do for him? **** all, he's supposed to be in damage limitation mode and you're saying it's better for him to repair the damage by apologising privately?

Go away, you are so out of your depth it's unreal.

Olding said the complainant was wrong, in his apology but that he wanted to say he regretted what happened that night.

Why is it not possible that Jackson could say that ''while the police were wrong I want...etc etc etc.

You need to calm down a wee bit and think about this tbh.

Olding did say that.

He also said he didn't mean for any hurt to be caused, he didn't mean to upset anyone, and he regrets his actions that night.

That doesn't mean Olding is admitting rape, he's acknowledging that he upset her, whether he meant to or not.

I told you you were out of your depth and yet you're still trying, bless.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 02-04-2018 07:44PM

Faugheen wrote: »

If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed.

OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered.

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

Serious question. If the 4 defendants were found not guilty and you say she was raped then who raped her? Are you saying that there is an unknown third party i.e the rapist?

wexie · 02-04-2018 07:45PM

Faugheen wrote: »

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

Verdict also certainly doesn't mean that the crime DID happen....

You seem to have difficulties grasping that bit?

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:45PM

Fann Linn wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed.

OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered.

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

True question:

Did the PSNI prove a rape occured?

Nope, it doesn't mean the rape didn't occur, I refer you to my examples above again. Just they couldn't prove it.

Were Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson not murdered based on your logic?

A yes or no will do. Thanks.

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:46PM

wexie wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

Verdict also certainly doesn't mean that the crime DID happen....

You seem to have difficulties grasping that bit?

I never said the crime did happen.

The OP is saying the crime didn't happen.

Who's struggling to grasp the topic now?

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:46PM

wexie wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

Verdict also certainly doesn't mean that the crime DID happen....

You seem to have difficulties grasping that bit?

I never said the crime did happen.

The OP is saying the crime didn't happen.

Who's struggling to grasp the topic now?

GreeBo · 02-04-2018 07:47PM

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.

Arguably more women reporting rape would lower the conviction rates, not increase them.

Classy closing point btw.

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 07:47PM

Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed.

OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered.

The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.

Serious question. If the 4 defendants were found not guilty and you say she was raped then who raped her? Are you saying that there is an unknown third party i.e the rapist?

I don't know. For all I know the rape didn't happen.

However, it would be wrong for me to say it didn't happen. You understanding this yet?

tritium · 02-04-2018 07:48PM

Katgurl wrote: »

Yet he testified he didn't have intercourse with her at all. The stories don't tally. So why is at least one of them lying?

Intercourse isn’t the only form of sex. Oral sex was I believe conceded to have happened

Fann Linn · 02-04-2018 07:49PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Nope, it doesn't mean the rape didn't occur, I refer you to my examples above again. Just they couldn't prove it.

Were Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson not murdered based on your logic?

A yes or no will do. Thanks.

We have the bodies yes, in this discussion however, you have also agreed that the PSNI did not prove a rape did occur. 'No bodies'
Thanks,

GreeBo · 02-04-2018 07:50PM

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.
.

She left the scene with her underwear in her pocket, so while I can see the relevance of the jeans, the underwear has me confused.

Unless the defence council were trying to use it to prove a point?

Katgurl · 02-04-2018 07:51PM

tritium wrote: »

Intercourse isn’t the only form of sex. Oral sex was I believe conceded to have happened

That is what Paddy said.

But Dara Florence witnessed (what looked like concensual) intercourse between them.

Silentcorner · 02-04-2018 07:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Again I ask you, what exactly do you think your suggestions are going to do to improve conviction rates?

Ah will you go away....I've listed about a half dozen suggestions....on a number of occasions.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 02-04-2018 07:53PM

Faugheen wrote: »

I don't know. For all I know the rape didn't happen.

However, it would be wrong for me to say it didn't happen. You understanding this yet?

I'm not trying to rise you by the way, just curious.

So you believe a rape might or might not have happened. Fair enough, that's definitely a fair statement I guess.

Maybe people can just move on hopefully.

tritium · 02-04-2018 07:53PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

You don't understand. Wishful thinking won't change the way lots of people now view him. I am being a better friend to him than you are because you are keeping him stuck in anger. Women are always told not to be so emotional and make bad decisions therein. Well now Paddy is where he is and anger is no good to him. Apologise for his part in the whole disgraceful debacle and ask, not demand to be allowed to return to the game he loves. The world owes you nothing and we can all be out on our ears very quickly. Same with him.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't want a sleazy and insincere apology at all. What would make you think that. A small man finds it difficult or impossible to examine himself and all of his behaviour critically whereas a big man knows there is no shame in apologising for the unintentional hurt you have caused another and in this case also the public.

Your posts are a parody of themselves at this stage. Little more than an exercise in misandry. Screw this boards claims to be intolerant of sexism but not when it’s posters registering to engage on misandry. Shame on you and boards, I’m out

02-04-2018 07:59PM

Faugheen, if I'm getting this right, you're saying you don't know if there was rape or not, and if there was, you don't if it was intentional or not.

You're saying that it's impossible to know from what I understand.

So, do you approach other cases this way where every verdict should be questioned? And if the men had been found guilty, would you have the exact same opinion as you do now?

Just curious.

Mrsmum · 02-04-2018 08:00PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Arguably more women reporting rape would lower the conviction rates, not increase them.

Classy closing point btw.

The ratio of reported rates to found guilty might be lower but most likely more rapists would be behind bars.
Saying Classy closing point is a bit silly now, don't you think.

tayto lover · 02-04-2018 08:01PM

RuMan wrote: »

U dont seem to understand. Look at it from his position. He had consensual sex with a woman who falsely accussed him of rape.
He may have to leave his home town club and may never play internationally. He's missed out on a grand slam and big financial rewards.

Again be believes it was entirely consensual and the woman willingly had sex and changed her mind and made a false accusations.

I accept you think he is lying but if he isnt why in the name of god would he apologise?
He probably feels she owes him an apology.

I would agree with you on all the above BUT he and the others should have apologised for what was said in the text messages. I for one found them disgusting so I can imagine how the young woman felt about them.

Faugheen · 02-04-2018 08:04PM

Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I don't know. For all I know the rape didn't happen.

However, it would be wrong for me to say it didn't happen. You understanding this yet?

I'm not trying to rise you by the way, just curious.

So you believe a rape might or might not have happened. Fair enough, that's definitely a fair statement I guess.

Maybe people can just move on hopefully.

What I think is she believes she was raped, but the two lads understood it to be consensual because she didn't give an indication that she wasn't happy with what was going on.

It's a sorry affair for all involved I think, and it definitely opened up the discussion on consent.

A lot of people talk about the #IBelieveHer movement yet here's there's a real 'it didn't happen, there was no rape, she lied, she should apologise'.

There is nothing in this case that proves either extreme, and the middle ground appears to be non-existent because one side just wants to antagonise the other and the middle ground is squeezed out.

Hell, people will read the first couple of paragraphs and then throw some bull**** nonsense which gets the discussion back down to amateur levels.

While Olding believes his perception of the night was true, he still acknowledges that the complainant (and I've always called her the complainant, not the victim) left his company hurt and upset because of his actions (intentional or not), has apologised for that and has disappeared from the public eye to let the dust settle.

Jackson, on the other hand, has just attacked the system for going after an international rugby player, and has been a PR disaster by issuing threats of lawsuits to people on social media (whether you think he should or shouldn't, he has still done incredible damage to himself). He just didn't know when to quit like Olding did or he's being advised very badly. His reputation was going to take a hit from this but what he's doing is after making it considerably worse.

Captain Obvious · 02-04-2018 08:07PM

Fann Linn wrote: »

Equally there's a large body of people who believe he did nothing wrong.
Haven't looked at this threads poll lately, but what does that say?

Doesn't really matter however as the only verdict that counts is the one that came from the courts.

In real life that is not the case. The court of public opinion is also incredibly powerful. As to the poll, it only asks if people agree with the verdict, not if they think Jackson did anything wrong.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Paddy Jackson has done NOTHING wrong.

It appears he may have lied about intercourse occurring. Or perhaps he just remembered it differently to the others.

Fann Linn wrote: »

True question:

Did the PSNI prove a rape occured?

That is a matter of opinion. Many people believe so.

Strazdas · 02-04-2018 08:08PM

Faugheen wrote: »

What I think is she believes she was raped, but the two lads understood it to be consensual because she didn't give an indication that she wasn't happy with what was going on.

It's a sorry affair for all involved I think, and it definitely opened up the discussion on consent.

A lot of people talk about the #IBelieveHer movement yet here's there's a real 'it didn't happen, there was no rape, she lied, she should apologise'.

There is nothing in this case that proves either extreme, and the middle ground appears to be non-existent because one side just wants to antagonise the other and the middle ground is squeezed out.

Hell, people will read the first couple of paragraphs and then throw some bull**** nonsense which gets the discussion back down to amateur levels.

While Olding believes his perception of the night was true, he still acknowledges that the complainant (and I've always called her the complainant, not the victim) left his company hurt and upset because of his actions (intentional or not), has apologised for that and has disappeared from the public eye to let the dust settle.

Jackson, on the other hand, has just attacked the system for going after an international rugby player, and has been a PR disaster by issuing threats of lawsuits to people on social media (whether you think he should or shouldn't, he has still done incredible damage to himself). He just didn't know when to quit like Olding did or he's being advised very badly. His reputation was going to take a hit from this but what he's doing is after making it considerably worse.

Olding accepted in his statement that the young woman believed her testimony to be true and even apologised to her for everything that happened that night (to his credit).

Jackson's solicitor seems far more abrasive and confrontational and doesn't seem to be advising his client very well.

The Talking Bread · 02-04-2018 08:11PM

Faugheen wrote: »

What I think is she believes she was raped, but the two lads understood it to be consensual because she didn't give an indication that she wasn't happy with what was going on.

It's a sorry affair for all involved I think, and it definitely opened up the discussion on consent.

A lot of people talk about the #IBelieveHer movement yet here's there's a real 'it didn't happen, there was no rape, she lied, she should apologise'.

T

Apart from a few people stirring or being ignorant there is only a tiny tiny tiny amount who are saying anything closely definitive to that.

The #IbelieveHer movement is well well well well more extreme and vile.

Anyone with a stable approach to this, the majority of the country, have accepted the jury's decision as appropriate given the lack of evidence to surpass reasonable doubt level.

Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

Comments