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

tretorn · 05-04-2018 01:38PM

wexie wrote: »

I'm just reading this :

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html

Personally I feel that the whole 'undermining the verdict' horse seems to have bolted and gone at this stage.

But I was just curious (I'm sure I've missed it somewhere along the line) who the second person is to take civil proceedings?

Jackson and Olding were named by the BBC before charges had been brought.

I think they are both suing the BBC now and they could get substantial damages.

I cant understand why anyone would have a problem with Jackson threatening legal action for defamation, people are posting online that he is a rapist who got way with it because there wasnt enough evidence to convict him. Wouldnt any innocent person be very angry about that. He has lost two years of his life, couldnt do his job, had to sit through nine weeks of a trial, presumably read what was and is being posted about him on twitter, he has so much debt to pay off in legal costs and as far as he is concerned a woman who arrived back at his house went up to his bedroom to have consensual sex with him.

Does anyone know how long the woman was in the bedroom with Jackson before Dara Florence stuck her head in. How quickly did she leave the bedroom after Dara Florence left.

upandcumming · 05-04-2018 02:03PM

upandcumming wrote: »

They don't care if 500 innocent people go down for every guilty person convicted.

jm08 wrote: »

That is one case in approx. 2,000 rape trials a year in the UK.

Ok.

garbo speaks · 05-04-2018 02:04PM

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Was Minister Richard Bruton already planning to include 'consent classes' in Primary School?

If it were ever true, 'consent classes' would be the single stupidest, most idiotic, pointless rubbish ever conceived of to include into the Irish educational curriculum. It would be degrading to our teachers as educators to have to cover such nonsense, not to mention in being absolutely humiliating to our children. What kind of message would be sent to the children of our country from government in that they need to literally be "taught" how not to rape someone? How would that help the self-esteem of young boys with schools treating them as 'rapists by default'? It really sounds like some sort of deranged Orwellian scenario concocted by the pc wackos to try and brainwash an entire generation of children.

ShowMeTheCash · 05-04-2018 02:08PM

jm08 wrote: »

That is one case in approx. 2,000 rape trials a year in the UK.

It is noticeable that the right wing press (Telegraph, Daily Mail, and some very right wing bloggers) were after Ms Saunders blood.

Liam Allen, Dr Dharmasena, Dr Mohame, Isaac Itiary are some other cases.

But regardless, the Pearson's case was humiliating...
Guy walking, one hand on his shoulder bag another hand holding his newspaper is "charged" with rape, walking past a women on the subway.....

She should of been sacked for this instance alone!

jm08 · 05-04-2018 02:24PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Liam Allen, Dr Dharmasena, Dr Mohame, Isaac Itiary are some other cases.

But regardless, the Pearson's case was humiliating...
Guy walking, one hand on his shoulder bag another hand holding his newspaper is "charged" with rape, walking past a women on the subway.....

She should of been sacked for this instance alone!

Did she herself actually insist on this prosecution? There is a definite whiff of the establishment wanting to take her down (including reducing her operating budget). In one of the Guardian's articles, it states that sexual crime convictions increased from approx. 28,000 to 34,000.

Edit: Just on the Itiary case. What seems to have happened is that he was accused by a 15 year old of rape and presumably because it was a child he was taken into custody immediately. He claimed that she told him she was 19 and proof of that was not uncovered for four months when the police found some proof that she had said this.

You have to feel sorry for Itiary, but hell, he was playing with fire having sex with a child even though he didn't know it. The only way of stopping this happening is more policing services.

A lot of the problems in the UK seems to be the delay in getting to trial probably because of a lack of resources.

Carlos Orange · 05-04-2018 02:36PM

jm08 wrote: »

That is one case in approx. 2,000 rape trials a year in the UK.

It is noticeable that the right wing press (Telegraph, Daily Mail, and some very right wing bloggers) were after Ms Saunders blood.

It does say a lot if only right wing press are bothered about a sexual assault prosecution that supposedly happened in a crowded place but had no witnesses or forensics , cctv footage shows nothing and where the accuser failed to pick out the accused in a lineup.

ArthurDayne · 05-04-2018 03:02PM

joe40 wrote: »

This not in relation to the belfast trial.

I'm no lawyer but surely there are cases where a woman is not fit to give consent, at that time eg passed out due to intoxication, but a man believes he has permission so proceeds to have sex. In his mind it is consensual but it is still a rape.
It is different if consent on the womans part is withdrawn during the act but this is not communicated until afterwards, or genuine misunderstanding occurs.
Also in terms of a girl that is underage there may be willing consent but the man is still in trouble.
I always thought ignorance of the law is not a defence

It would be extremely difficult for a man to claim that he had reasonable grounds for believing that an unconscious woman consented to sex -- whether it was a stranger or indeed his partner. In fact, Irish statutory law actually explicitly sets out sleep/unconsciousness as being a state in which consent cannot be given -- this is found under section 48 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html[/url

The concept of what is 'reasonable grounds' is admittedly not always as clear-cut. Indeed, consent is also a very complicated area of law. An illustrative example is where a woman consents to sex on the understanding that the man will not ejaculate while engaged in intercourse. If, prior to the initiation of intercourse or indeed during the intercourse the man decides or has decided that he will not withdraw his penis before ejaculation, this is taken in law to negate the original consent and it can therefore be found to be rape (though I would point out this is the position from an English law perspective, there may be slightly different interpretations under Irish case law).

The presence of alcohol can also complicate matters. The general position is that an intoxicated person cannot consent if they are so intoxicated that they temporarily lose the ability to choose whether or not to have sex. The threshold for how intoxicated they have to be to reach this point will depend on the facts of each case. Nonetheless, if a person is intoxicated only to a point where they are less inhibited (in simpler terms, drunk enough to do something they might later regret but still capable of making a decision as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not). A lack of memory on the complainant's part due to intoxication can, as it seemed to be in the Belfast trial, damaging to her case but again this based on case-by-case facts.

So yes, there is huge scope for nuance in rape trials, which sadly is often ignored in public discourse in favour of a more 'black & white' understanding. This leads to people, as we have seen from the outcome of this trial, simply latching on to an opinion about what they believe happened. The result is a debate where either the men are rapist animals or the girl is a devious liar -- and unfortunately this has a damaging effect on our society.

05-04-2018 03:22PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It would be extremely difficult for a man to claim that he had reasonable grounds for believing that an unconscious woman consented to sex -- whether it was a stranger or indeed his partner. In fact, Irish statutory law actually explicitly sets out sleep/unconsciousness as being a state in which consent cannot be given -- this is found under section 48 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html[/url

I wonder how that would play out in the case where it was agreed beforehand then one partner changes their mind. As far as I know in assault type cases a conviction can be gotten even if the "victim" agrees in advance what's going to happen. Would advance consent hold no matter what?

GreeBo · 05-04-2018 03:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how that would play out in the case where it was agreed beforehand then one partner changes their mind. As far as I know in assault type cases a conviction can be gotten even if the "victim" agrees in advance what's going to happen. Would advance consent hold no matter what?

The victim can change their mind anytime before or during, but not after the fact.

RuMan · 05-04-2018 03:51PM

garbo speaks wrote: »

If it were ever true, 'consent classes' would be the single stupidest, most idiotic, pointless rubbish ever conceived of to include into the Irish educational curriculum. It would be degrading to our teachers as educators to have to cover such nonsense, not to mention in being absolutely humiliating to our children. What kind of message would be sent to the children of our country from government in that they need to literally be "taught" how not to rape someone? How would that help the self-esteem of young boys with schools treating them as 'rapists by default'? It really sounds like some sort of deranged Orwellian scenario concocted by the pc wackos to try and brainwash an entire generation of children.

If it was embedded in sexual education classes and for both boys and girls wouldnt have a problem. As a whole standalone subject seems pointless

LLMMLL · 05-04-2018 03:52PM

Synode wrote: »

That's shocking. Why the hell would the PPS take a case when the PSNI recommended no charge. Completely ruined the 4 lads lives

It didn't say the police recommended no charge. It says they've been asked (by who?) If it was recommended.

I'm guessing it's PJs solicitors putting this out to middy the waters. Just like the English and French clubs wanting him to play for them but him refusing as he only wants to play for ulster. I'm sure that rumour wasn't started by him with an eye to generating back onto the ulster team.

jm08 · 05-04-2018 03:57PM

psinno wrote: »

It does say a lot if only right wing press are bothered about a sexual assault prosecution that supposedly happened in a crowded place but had no witnesses or forensics , cctv footage shows nothing and where the accuser failed to pick out the accused in a lineup.

Its still one case in approx. 2000. And the prosecution did say that there was evidence other than the cctv footage. The cctv footage seems to have been manipulated. Now, who and why would do that?

wexie · 05-04-2018 04:04PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It didn't say the police recommended no charge. It says they've been asked (by who?) If it was recommended.

Yes it did :

A source said: “Rape is one of the most serious criminal complaints police handle and they took the claims very seriously from the get-go.

“They interviewed the complainant. They interviewed the four men several times. They interviewed witnesses.

“They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge. There was a feeling they didn’t have what’s needed for a rape case to stand up. The case went to trial. The result was unanimous. The men were found not guilty.”

Synode · 05-04-2018 04:06PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It didn't say the police recommended no charge. It says they've been asked (by who?) If it was recommended.

I'm guessing it's PJs solicitors putting this out to middy the waters. Just like the English and French clubs wanting him to play for them but him refusing as he only wants to play for ulster. I'm sure that rumour wasn't started by him with an eye to generating back onto the ulster team.

I'm lost. Below says the PSNI recommended no charge

The PSNI could also be drawn into the query and it is believed a request may be made for police case notes and all early thoughts and recommendations about the matter. A source said: “Rape is one of the most serious criminal complaints police handle and they took the claims very seriously from the get-go.

“They interviewed the complainant. They interviewed the four men several times. They interviewed witnesses.

“They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge. There was a feeling they didn’t have what’s needed for a rape case to stand up. The case went to trial. The result was unanimous. The men were found not guilty.”

wexie · 05-04-2018 04:06PM

jm08 wrote: »

The cctv footage seems to have been manipulated. Now, who and why would do that?

The prosecution, can't comment on why they might do such a thing....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146274/Prosecutors-slowed-down-CCTV-in-case-of-commuter-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-on-actress.html

Crucial CCTV footage in a "bizarre" sex assault prosecution had been slowed down by the authorities to give a misleading impression of events, the defence solicitor in the case has revealed.

tritium · 05-04-2018 04:14PM

jm08 wrote: »

Its still one case in approx. 2000. And the prosecution did say that there was evidence other than the cctv footage. The cctv footage seems to have been manipulated. Now, who and why would do that?

Why and who? Oh that’s actually easy. The prosecution manipulated it, slowing it down to look like there was a longer window in the the alleged crime happened

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146274/Prosecutors-slowed-down-CCTV-in-case-of-commuter-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-on-actress.html

bodice ripper · 05-04-2018 04:15PM

I take the verdict at face value; they were not found to be rapists.
If their lives are screwed up now, I am fine with that too. Because they were demonstrably **** heads, and it got out. Ah well.

Synode · 05-04-2018 04:17PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I take the verdict at face value; they were not found to be rapists.
If their lives are screwed up now, I am fine with that too. Because they were demonstrably **** heads, and it got out. Ah well.

Lovely attitude. I'm sure you're a saint in real life

tritium · 05-04-2018 04:24PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I take the verdict at face value; they were not found to be rapists.
If their lives are screwed up now, I am fine with that too. Because they were demonstrably **** heads, and it got out. Ah well.

It doesn’t bother you in the slightest that “it got out” because of a ****ty system that denies the accused anonymity and lets the prosecution just throw mud for the sake of something might stick ?

I guess your ok with the young lady’s name getting out there too since she also uses such lovely language to describe people?

I sometimes despair for humanity..

facehugger99 · 05-04-2018 04:29PM

Synode wrote: »

Lovely attitude. I'm sure you're a saint in real life

There's a certain standard of human decency and they fell far below it. Given PJ and SO work in jobs that depend to a large extent on corporate sponsorship money, they should have been far more circumspect and chivalrous in their behavior.

My sympathies for them are limited. They are ultimately responsible for their own behavior. Behavior that many find distasteful to put it mildly.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-04-2018 04:34PM

What worries me is that the next time a false claim is brought before the courts (in either jurisdiction) will the jury members feel pressured to convict the accused and believe the claimant even if the evidence isn't there to do so.

bodice ripper · 05-04-2018 04:35PM

tritium wrote: »

It doesn’t bother you in the slightest that “it got out” because of a ****ty system that denies the accused anonymity and lets the prosecution just throw mud for the sake of something might stick ?

I guess your ok with the young lady’s name getting out there too since she also uses such lovely language to describe people?

I sometimes despair for humanity..

No. I think anonymity is a must in these cases. But I shan't weep for those jerks.

bodice ripper · 05-04-2018 04:36PM

Synode wrote: »

Lovely attitude. I'm sure you're a saint in real life

No. But I do know how to have a threesome without having someone leave weeping and bleeding.

Carlos Orange · 05-04-2018 04:37PM

jm08 wrote: »

Its still one case in approx. 2000. And the prosecution did say that there was evidence other than the cctv footage. The cctv footage seems to have been manipulated. Now, who and why would do that?

It was manipulated under instructions of the DPP. The accuser said the assault lasted 2 to 3 seconds and the footage was slowed down to make the gaps between frames seem longer. It was slowed down from 1 frames a second to 1 frame every 2 seconds.

tritium · 05-04-2018 04:39PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

There's a certain standard of human decency and they fell far below it. Given PJ and SO work in jobs that depend to a large extent on corporate sponsorship money, they should have been far more circumspect and chivalrous in their behavior.

My sympathies for them are limited. They are ultimately responsible for their own behavior. Behavior that many find distasteful to put it mildly.

Based on his evidence Jackson’s view would be that he had consensual sexual activity with a young lady who came on to him while he was hammered. The jury appears to believe that’s credible based on 9 weeks of evidence. What exactly did he do that fell “below a certain standard of human decency”?

jm08 · 05-04-2018 04:42PM

psinno wrote: »

It was manipulated under instructions of the DPP. The accuser said the assault lasted 2 to 3 seconds and the footage was slowed down to make the gaps between frames seem longer. It was slowed down from 1 frames a second to 1 frame every 2 seconds.

Have you a link for that?

Its still one case in 2000. What do you propose - just don't bother with rape cases because they are too difficult to prosecute?

HandsomeBob · 05-04-2018 04:45PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I take the verdict at face value; they were not found to be rapists.
If their lives are screwed up now, I am fine with that too. Because they were demonstrably **** heads, and it got out. Ah well.

There's a fair chance a young close male friend or relative of yours is coming out with the same juvenile foolishness on apps like WhatsApp. I won't ask you the question to what I'm getting at in regards to what constitutes a life being ruined.

jm08 · 05-04-2018 04:47PM

tritium wrote: »

Based on his evidence Jackson’s view would be that he had consensual sexual activity with a young lady who came on to him while he was hammered. The jury appears to believe that’s credible based on 9 weeks of evidence. What exactly did he do that fell “below a certain standard of human decency”?

The woman running out of the place in an upset state maybe? All this talk of spitroasting for starters.

wexie · 05-04-2018 04:47PM

jm08 wrote: »

Have you a link for that?

Its still one case in 2000. What do you propose - just don't bother with rape cases because they are too difficult to prosecute?

....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Been linked several times now... (in direct response to your own posts I might add)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146274/Prosecutors-slowed-down-CCTV-in-case-of-commuter-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-on-actress.html

But it can now be disclosed that - to the concern of Mr Pearson's legal team - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident.

The changes made in the CPS's version of the video were critical because the case hinged on whether Mr Pearson could have committed the assault in that amount of time - and the CCTV gave the impression the window was twice as long as it was in reality.

The lawyer said: "Before the trial this storyboard was served to the CPS with a request that they review their decision to go ahead with the prosecution. They went ahead anyway.

"If we had not taken the steps we had, the CCTV would have been presented to the jury at that amended speed.

Can I just point out that 'the amount of time' in the edited CCTV footage was 3 seconds, in the unedited version about 1 second.
So not only the CPS edited the footage (I'm guessing there's a few laws or guidelines broken there) but they were going to go ahead and make the case that the 'assault' took place in all of 3 seconds, while the accused had both of his hands full. Oh and the lady in question (before anyone asks) was wearing :

The actress, who is in her 60s, was wearing a coat and jacket and a thin dress over “training pants” following a yoga class, the jury heard.

Now...if he had turned out to be guilty (not sure how) he'd have had a helluva career waiting for him in Vegas

Carlos Orange · 05-04-2018 04:50PM

jm08 wrote: »

What do you propose - just don't bother with rape cases because they are too difficult to prosecute?

Maybe don't default to thinking people being criticised is a vast right wing conspiracy.

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

Comments