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

Silentcorner wrote: »

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.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Almost everybody on this thread uses the same prelude...'I accept the verdict....but....'

Silentcorner wrote: »

But you're just a person on an internet forum trying to make a point, we have no reason to believe you either.

When it comes to rape, the truth DOES NOT come out in 9 out of 10 cases...far from it!

That is one of the reasons behind these protests, real victims are not being heard!

Silentcorner wrote: »

GreeBo, it doesn't matter what I say...you'll attack it! Good luck to you!

Mrsmum wrote: »

Thought this might interest you all:


The Annual Report of the Courts Service makes disturbing reading in relation to rape cases. During 2013, the Central Criminal Court dealt with a total of 567 rape cases.
Seventy-three of the accused pleaded guilty, thereby saving the court valuable time, for which they would have received reduced sentences. Of the others charged before the court, 205 defendants were sent to trial. Those trials ended with 35 convictions, and 155 acquittals. In 15 instances, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict.

One way of interpreting those figures would be that the jury convicted fractionally over 17% of those tried for rape and acquitted 76.6%. Those figures did not take into account 289 other cases. In 106 instances, the State entered a nolle prosequi, and the rape charge was listed as having been taken into consideration in the other 183 cases.

Those “taken into consideration” would have been instances in which the accused was already convicted. This does not necessary suggested that the court decided that it was not worth pursuing a rape charge simply because the accused was being penalised for another crime already. It could well have been that the accused was charged with multiple rapes and was already convicted of one.

There is a great need for more detail in relation to the cases “taken into consideration”, and the Rape Crisis Network Ireland would like to see a breakdown of the reasons for not proceeding with cases.

There should also be details of the sentences imposed on those convicted of rape, as well as a breakdown differentiating between historic and recent cases.

Whether the case was recent or historical does not mitigate the severity of the crime, but it is important so that future reports could determine actual trends. For too long, the State has failed to face up properly to the awful crime of rape.

It has long been recognised that women are reluctant to press rape charges. Although they are protected in relation to publicity, they still have to be prepared to testify in court, and be prepared to endure the embarrassment of being cross-examined by a defence team that will invariably seek to discredit the victim.

Statistics can be massaged in different ways, but no matter how the figures are presented in relation to rape cases, the rate of conviction appears pathetic.

The rate of convictions in 2013 for all of those charged with rape was just 19%, but the rate for those who actually contested the charges was less than 7%.

This is a frighteningly low conviction rate, which raises serious questions about the court process as a deterrent in protecting women.

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved