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

Outlaw Pete

Strazdas wrote: »

Olding accepted in his statement that the young woman believed her testimony to be true...

Ah come on....

"I don’t agree with her perception of events and I maintain that everything that happened that evening was consensual.

As for the 'hurt caused' that could have been referencing how they spoke of her in the text messages.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

This case doesn't prove or disprove anything, because everyone involved is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I want to start by saying I accept the verdict and I agree with it, because there was no way you could say the prosecution proved it beyond reasonable doubt.

However, it proves that this case was very complex and isn't as black and white as people want you think.

Here is one thing that could have happened, what was happening with Jackson was consensual UNTIL the point Olding got in.

It would explain the sentence 'no, not him as well.'

This is potentially where consent was withdrawn, and where the allegations come from.

However, it's nigh on impossible to prove.

The only people that know what happened is those three people (I genuinely think McIlroy is talking through his hole, that's about it).

Now, if they were found guilty, I would have been saying that although I believe her when she says she was raped, the lads would have won every appeal they got.

They only way I will concede that a rape didn't happen is if she comes out and admits it or if she's found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of submitting a false allegation.

On the above though, if you have all the evidence in this trial, there's no way a jury could convict her either.

See where I'm coming from with this?

GreeBo

Creol1 wrote: »

People are splitting hairs in trying to introduce a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty". If you aren't guilty of a crime, then by definition you are innocent of the crime (unless you had some accomplice role). Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a party, enshrines (Article 6) the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. As the men have been found not guilty, then it follows they are innocent.

The confusion seems to stem from the difference between "found" not guilty and "proven" not guilty/innocence.

Ones innocence is not on trial, your guilt is.

[Deleted User]

I think you mean Mr McIlroy? She said that when he walked in afterwards as far as I remember.

I could see that at that point she could have felt used and abused. Like they told him she was up for whatever. Those feelings could have made the whole prior thing feel like rape.

If it turned out that that's what happened, it wasn't rape.

Edit: Nevermind. Mistaken.

wexie

Faugheen wrote: »

I never said the crime did happen.

Faugheen wrote: »

They only way I will concede that a rape didn't happen is if she comes out and admits it or if she's found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of submitting a false allegation.

right....

But thanks for proving my point though.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you mean Mr McIlroy? She said that when he walked in afterwards as far as I remember.

I could see that at that point she could have felt used and abused. Like they told him she was up for whatever. Those feelings could have made the whole prior thing feel like rape.

If it turned out that that's what happened, it wasn't rape.

That's an option as well.

However, like my example, there is no proof of it.

From what we know, it's possible a rape did happen but it's just as possible a rape didn't happen. I have never been telling people a rape did happen as a matter of fact though, whereas a lot of people seem to think it's a fact a rape didn't happen.

What we do know though, is that more than one person regrets what happened, whatever it may have been.

foxyladyxx

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you mean Mr McIlroy? She said that when he walked in afterwards as far as I remember.

I could see that at that point she could have felt used and abused. Like they told him she was up for whatever. Those feelings could have made the whole prior thing feel like rape.

If it turned out that that's what happened, it wasn't rape.

Edit: Nevermind. Mistaken.

That is how I read it too. She came to her senses when McIlroy tried to join in.

Maybe they were all drunk and none can clearly recall what happened?

Faugheen

wexie wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I never said the crime did happen.

Faugheen wrote: »

They only way I will concede that a rape didn't happen is if she comes out and admits it or if she's found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of submitting a false allegation.

right....

But thanks for proving my point though.

And thank you for proving my point in the post where I said one person would pick up on someone I said and bring the conversation down

Point out where I have said in any of my posts that I think, as a matter of fact, that a crime happened?

I haven't. I've given my belief as to what might have happened, but I've never portrayed that as a fact. For me to say a crime definitely happened would be wrong.

To say that a crime never happened as a matter of fact is wrong as well.

Faugheen

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you mean Mr McIlroy? She said that when he walked in afterwards as far as I remember.

I could see that at that point she could have felt used and abused. Like they told him she was up for whatever. Those feelings could have made the whole prior thing feel like rape.

If it turned out that that's what happened, it wasn't rape.

Edit: Nevermind. Mistaken.

That is how I read it too. She came to her senses when McIlroy tried to join in.

Maybe they were all drunk and none can clearly recall what happened?

No I meant when Olding came in is when she 'froze' as she put it and just let it happen.

Was it when Olding came in that she said 'no not him as well' or was it McIlroy? I was sure it was Olding, but open to correction.

I think they were all locked and can't remember the full details either.

GreeBo

Silentcorner wrote: »

Already, Minister Charlie Flanagan has indicated the government will urgently review how this state handles rape trials, with a view to allowing a victim full legal representation, which if implemented could have a very real impact on our disgraceful conviction rates.
.

How exactly? Do you think legal representation for the complainant will do a better job of proving the case than the state?
Even though they won't actually be prosecuting anyone?

wexie

Faugheen wrote: »

Point out where I have said in any of my posts that I think, as a matter of fact, that a crime happened?

Just here ?? Unless you're putting it in a very odd way it LITERALLY says ???

Faugheen wrote: »

They only way I will concede that a rape didn't happen is if she comes out and admits it or if she's found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of submitting a false allegation.

If you want to rephrase that go right ahead but as it stands you seem to spend a lot of time contradicting yourself?

foxyladyxx

Faugheen wrote: »

No I meant when Olding came in is when she 'froze' as she put it and just let it happen.

Was it when Olding came in that she said 'no not him as well' or was it McIlroy? I was sure it was Olding, but open to correction.

I think they were all locked and can't remember the full details either.

It was McIlroy. .yes they had consumed a lot of alcohol.

Faugheen

wexie wrote: »

[QUOTE=Faugheen;106610624
Point out where I have said in any of my posts that I think, as a matter of fact, that a crime happened?

Just here ?? Unless you're putting it in a very odd way it LITERALLY says ???

Faugheen wrote: »

They only way I will concede that a rape didn't happen is if she comes out and admits it or if she's found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of submitting a false allegation.

If you want to rephrase that go right ahead but as it stands you seem to spend a lot of time contradicting yourself?[/quote]

I said I will concede it didn't happen as a matter of fact, not opinion.

I have never, ever said as matter of fact that a crime happened. I have always said a crime MAY have happened.

But yeah you keep twisting my words and ruining what was the most sensible discussion so far. The poster I was addressing seemed to understand what I was saying.

Ash.J.Williams

RuMan wrote: »

Wow

Fact

Faugheen

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

No I meant when Olding came in is when she 'froze' as she put it and just let it happen.

Was it when Olding came in that she said 'no not him as well' or was it McIlroy? I was sure it was Olding, but open to correction.

I think they were all locked and can't remember the full details either.

It was McIlroy. .yes they had consumed a lot of alcohol.

I just looked it up and she seems to have said that to Jackson about Olding.

When McIlroy walked in she said 'how many times does a girl have to say no for it to sink in' or something along those lines.

Roger Hassenforder

Faugheen wrote: »

The lads weren't found guilty of anything, so they are presumed innocent.

She hasn't been found guilty of anything, yet she's a presumed liar?

You're right, it is double standards. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Few are calling her a liar, many are claiming although they were acquitted, they nonetheless raped her. She may genuinely believe she was raped, although a jury found she wasnt.

At least we can agree theres no evidence she falsified the claim, and theres no evidence she was raped, and you'll stop alluding to it...
Progress. Of a sort.

Creol1

Faugheen wrote: »

No I meant when Olding came in is when she 'froze' as she put it and just let it happen.

Her testimony was that she froze when Mr Jackson undid her trousers at the start of the encounter.

foxyladyxx

Faugheen wrote: »

I just looked it up and she seems to have said that to Jackson about Olding.

When McIlroy walked in she said 'how many times does a girl have to say no for it to sink in' or something along those lines.

Yes I see that now. Link below. .But didn't she originally claim that Olding had vaginally raped her?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42890006

blanch152

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

foxyladyxx

blanch152 wrote: »

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

Indeed and well said.

Uncharted

blanch152 wrote: »

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

100%. They are not guilty. Move on.

RuMan

blanch152 wrote: »

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

Indeed, jury have given their verdict. Lets respect it and let the 2 boys concentrate on playing rugby football for Ulster and Ireland as we move towards the world cup.

AudreyHepburn

blanch152 wrote: »

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

Well said and the sooner everyone accepts this the better.

C__MC

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

I think olding was cute in the aftermath of the trial. If you compare himself and Jackson in the series of messages sent, olding comes across a lot worse.

Just a read an article about Karen Benzema and Frank Ribery back in 2014 where they had charges dropped against rape with a juvenile. They Careers didn’t take much of a blip or they weren’t sacked etc by two of the biggest clubs in soccer, common sense should prevail for Jackson and olding. They have been acquited. It’s history

Creol1

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Yes I see that now. Link below. .But didn't she originally claim that Olding had vaginally raped her?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42890006

I think this was initially one of the charges but was dropped by the prosecution before the start of the trial.

Captain Obvious

blanch152 wrote: »

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

Didn't work for OJ and I don't think it will work for these guys. Best hope is that the chaos will result in a change in the law in NI to grant anonymity to accused as well as accuser.

RuMan

C__MC wrote: »

I think olding was cute in the aftermath of the trial. If you compare himself and Jackson in the series of messages sent, olding comes across a lot worse.

Just a read an article about Karen Benzema and Frank Ribery back in 2014 where they had charges dropped against rape with a juvenile. They Careers didn’t take much of a blip or they weren’t sacked etc by two of the biggest clubs in soccer, common sense should prevail for Jackson and olding. They have been acquited. It’s history

who was the daddy of the juvenile they were accussed of raping?

Silentcorner

GreeBo wrote: »

How exactly? Do you think legal representation for the complainant will do a better job of proving the case than the state?
Even though they won't actually be prosecuting anyone?

Well, for a start she will be guided through what is a very impersonal experience, never underestimate how tough a courtroom appearance can be.

In this case, if she had her own barrister, she would have more control over her narrative.

For instance, she gave accounts to both the Rape Crisis Centre and the Police, and there were inaccuracies between them, which were explained but not in huge detail, her defence barrister should be afforded a separate opportunity to go through those inaccuracies, because, they are were attacked by the other barristers.

Also, in the origional account of her version that she gave to police, there were a few things that corroborated her version of events.

1 She described freezing from the start of the incident, she describes what she did with Stuart Olding, she did this before she remembered that a witness had entered the room, Dara Florence, by the time she remembered Dara Florence, the two lads had given their statement denying having any sex at all with the young woman, Dara Florence ended up confirming the description of events that she gave. But it got lost in the whole, was it consensual sex argument.

2 The fact that she went to the police before she remembered Dara Florence obliterates the theory that she lied because she was afraid of her pictures getting onto social media.

3 She left the room on three occasions, the first time when she kissed Jackson, she had the presence of mind to bring her bag upstairs with her, but she left the room without it, which a good barrister could indicate that she left the room as quick as she could, whatever happened.

4 She returned to the party, she felt the mood had changed, she decided to leave, she was seen (in a picture) putting on her shoes, which would indicate that she was leaving, she could not have known that that picture existed, but it did.

5 The taxi driver describes vividly how upset she was, but again not much was made of it, taxi drivers are always dropping drunk/emotional people home, her own barrister could have spent more time ascertaining how upset she was in comparison to other passengers, again, this was fairly glossed over.

Now, that is just based on what we are aware of, there are still, strangely enough, reporting restrictions on this case, so we have no idea what else the jury heard...but that the above are just some ways her own team could help her.

Dick phelan

Find it amazing people think Jackson should apologize, apologize for what? In his mind he has done nothing wrong and ended up being accused of rape cost him a fortune plus now a bunch of idiots including elected officials are still calling him a rapist despite being found not guilty. His career in Ireland is probably over and not a hope we see him in an Ireland shirt again imo. While he deals with a bunch of idiots protesting about a trial in a different jurisdiction in which he was found no guilty, his Ireland team mates are celebrating a Grand Slam. Honestly how the hell can you expect him to offer any kind of "sorry" under such circumstances.

iamwhoiam

blanch152 wrote: »

The longer this thread goes on the more I realise that the opposing sides on this thread are only extracting little bits of the testimony that suit their argument.

The jury were the only ones who were there all the time and weighed up all the evidence, read the body language and reached a conclusion. We don't know what happened, maybe they didn't either, but they are closer to it than we are and we should trust their judgment.

Exactly what we said here today over lunch with different age groups . We also may not like or approve of the behaviour in that house but does not make it wrong . Its not for me to judge as I was not on the jury so I have to accept their judgment and see the men as not guilty of rape .
I feel sad for everyone involved that night . They have all paid a huge price for wrong choices and lack of judgment .