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

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?

Maybe don’t allow corrupt prosecutions?

To be clear, it’s one that we know of. Stuff like this tends not to occur in isolation it’s embedded in an organizations culture. The cps is currently reviewing a huge number of cases on the basis of what came out of the Liam Allan fiasco

jm08 wrote: »

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

Evidence was that Jackson was unaware of the distress which happened after she left

Jackson had a single post on the WhatsApp, he references spit roast briefly in response to someone else and doesn’t reference the girl

Anything else or would you like to educate yourself on the evidence before joining the mob?

Fann Linn

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.

Wrong

Lux23

tritium wrote: »

Evidence was that Jackson was unaware of the distress which happened after she left

Jackson had a single post on the WhatsApp, he references spit roast briefly in response to someone else and doesn’t reference the girl

Anything else or would you like to educate yourself on the evidence before joining the mob?

So if he never had sex with her, where did the vaginal tears and bleeding come from? Was that not documented in court?

Lux23 wrote: »

So if he never had sex with her, where did the vaginal tears and bleeding come from? Was that not documented in court?

Where did I say he didn’t have sex with her?. All parties admitted there was sexual activity

wexie wrote: »

....: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

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:

That does not say that the CPS altered the tape. If anyone slowed it down, it was the police investigating the case. Its not as if the UK police haven't altered material in the past to secure a prosecution.

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

Well, they were not. Incidentally, a lot of the complaints from people who were found not guilty in rape cases are about how long the whole process took.

ArthurDayne

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.

There is quite a lot which is questionable about this comment. How do you define this 'certain standard of human decency' ? How do you define how low someone must fall below this standard before it is fair game that their name and reputation be sullied?

On the outcome of the trial, the finding entails that the complainant engaged in an act of drunken group sex, the men involved boasted about it on Whatsapp and referred to her in all manner of tasteless and disrespectful ways. This is not admirable, but it is also not illegal. A lot of men, and I mean an awful lot of men, talk like this on Whatsapp groups all the time. This does not make it somehow more admirable, or more acceptable, but it is demonstrative that there seems to be mass denial as regards the concept of 'decency' which people seem to base more off how we behave in our politically correct public persona than how we behave in private.

You see, for all the talk of human decency there is also human imperfection. We are not infallible angels who stay within the lines of what is considered 'honour' and 'chivalry' at all times. If I were to say something like, 'this girl deserves to have her name dragged through the mud for not being 'ladylike' and going home drunk with a group of men and having group sex with them' -- would you accept that? Would you accept that, had she wrote to her friends on Whatsapp the next day bragging about the act and referring to the men and their penises using crude synonyms and metaphors, that she deserves to be considered a sexual deviant because of those messages?

You say your sympathies are limited for the defendants involved in this case, who have been accused of being rapists and have also been made the face of misogyny, male entitlement and sexually abusive behaviour despite the fact that they are, following the scrutiny of evidence in a court of law, innocent of any crime. They engaged in group sex and bragged about it. There are Whatsapp groups, with males and females, where sexual encounters are joked about in a tasteless manner and the partner(s) involved referred to with all manner of vividly crude imagery and figurative speech.

Perhaps if you are so clear on what constitutes 'decency', then it might be worth defining for us exactly what you think 'decency' is -- and how far below it we have to fall to deserve being branded potential rapists and having our reputations destroyed.

psinno wrote: »

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

I made that comment because when looking up the cases what you got from the right wing press had a slant on it and certainly didn't get to what the real problems are:

1. How long it took to get to trial (lack of resources from Tory Government)
2. The format of how the trials take place (banning of reporting, animinity). Its up to the British right wing Government to make does changes to improve the system.

jm08 wrote: »

That does not say that the CPS altered the tape. If anyone slowed it down, it was the police investigating the case. Its not as if the UK police haven't altered material in the past to secure a prosecution.

Oh okay....cause that would be perfectly okay then wouldn't it?
In either case, the CPS were told before the trial started that the CCTV footage had been tampered with and still went ahead.

"I hold the CPS more responsible because we had the CCTV footage analysed by an expert, and the CPS still proceeded with the trial.

"There is something that has gone radically wrong with their processes.”

jm08 wrote: »

Well, they were not. Incidentally, a lot of the complaints from people who were found not guilty in rape cases are about how long the whole process took.

Yes, in this case over a year...is there a point you're trying to make?

“For me, half a second turned into a year of hell. I feel I have undergone a form of mental torture sanctioned by the state.

jm08 wrote: »

I made that comment because when looking up the cases what you got from the right wing press had a slant on it and certainly didn't get to what the real problems are:

1. How long it took to get to trial (lack of resources from Tory Government)
2. The format of how the trials take place (banning of reporting, animinity). Its up to the British right wing Government to make does changes to improve the system.

3. Falsification or burying of evidence (seems a biggie to me....)

jm08 wrote: »

I made that comment because when looking up the cases what you got from the right wing press had a slant on it and certainly didn't get to what the real problems are:

1. How long it took to get to trial (lack of resources from Tory Government)
2. The format of how the trials take place (banning of reporting, animinity). Its up to the British right wing Government to make does changes to improve the system.

Anytime i hear the phrase "right/left wing" i switch off. It is the elected government

jm08 wrote: »

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

As has been stated many times the innocent men assumed she was upset because Jacko rejected her.
" all this talk" are u referring to the ONE whatsapp message from Jacko?

tritium wrote: »

Maybe don’t allow corrupt prosecutions?

To be clear, it’s one that we know of. Stuff like this tends not to occur in isolation it’s embedded in an organizations culture. The cps is currently reviewing a huge number of cases on the basis of what came out of the Liam Allan fiasco

Not the CPS at fault, its the Met Police.

''A man wrongly accused of rape says he will sue the Metropolitan Police over its failure to disclose vital evidence that led to the collapse of the trial.''

tritium wrote: »

Evidence was that Jackson was unaware of the distress which happened after she left

And his lack of awareness is well below human decency standards.

Jackson had a single post on the WhatsApp, he references spit roast briefly in response to someone else and doesn’t reference the girl

Being a member of such a WhatsApp group means he is complicit with what has been discussed. People are judged by the company they keep.

Lux23 wrote: »

So if he never had sex with her, where did the vaginal tears and bleeding come from? Was that not documented in court?

It was unclear. It may have been menstrual blood. The tear may have come from his finger.
Again all was presented to the jury who gave a unanimous not guilty verdict.

jm08 wrote: »

People are judged by the company they keep.

Maybe by you (and admittedly, many other people).

Not by the law though

By the way, if that's the standard you're looking for in future convictions we're going to need a lot more prisons.

How far would you go? Same Whatsapp group? Connected on Facebook? Linkedin? Following on Twitter?

RuMan wrote: »

As has been stated many times the innocent men assumed she was upset because Jacko rejected her.
" all this talk" are u referring to the ONE whatsapp message from Jacko?

But Jackson didn't reject her. He and Olding spent some time in a bedroom together and one witness thought they were having sex.

As for the WhatsApp message - he was joining in and contributing to a conversation that debased women.

jm08 wrote: »

As for the WhatsApp message - he was joining in and contributing to a conversation that debased women.

So he deserves to be in prison.

Right that's it.

Guess we better ring Oz and see if we can get the ships going again

Carlos Orange

jm08 wrote: »

As for the WhatsApp message - he was joining in and contributing to a conversation that debased women.

Is that a crime in the UK?

jm08 wrote: »

But Jackson didn't reject her. He and Olding spent some time in a bedroom together and one witness thought they were having sex.

As for the WhatsApp message - he was joining in and contributing to a conversation that debased women.

A consenual act that u dont approve of. Do the vile messages sent to Dara Florence debase women?

RuMan wrote: »

It was unclear. It may have been menstrual blood. The tear may have come from his finger.
Again all was presented to the jury who gave a unanimous not guilty verdict.

The doctor who examined her said it wasn't menstrual blood and that she had a cut on the side of her vagina. The Defence's doctor who had viewed the notes and video of the doctor examiner her said that it could have been menstrual blood (note from looking at a video, not examining her).

The doctor who did the physical examination disputed this and to avoid the distress of the complainant by showing the video to the jury, it was decided to just forget about that evidence as it wouldn't make any difference in proving whether consent was given or not.

wexie wrote: »

So he deserves to be in prison.

Right that's it.

Guess we better ring Oz and see if we can get the ships going again

Who said anything about sending him to prison? He got a 'not guilty of rape' verdict.

jm08 wrote: »

Not the CPS at fault, its the Met Police.

''A man wrongly accused of rape says he will sue the Metropolitan Police over its failure to disclose vital evidence that led to the collapse of the trial.''

And his lack of awareness is well below human decency standards.

Being a member of such a WhatsApp group means he is complicit with what has been discussed. People are judged by the company they keep.

No offence but it’s actually pretty clear from both this and your other responses that you actually just believe what you want and really don’t care about any evidence that may challenge that.

So, I was going to write one more of the many responses you’ve received that make your position untenable, but frankly, what’s the point?

Heres Johnny

Why do women demand that all men respect and put them on a pedestal?
Then the same women call men pigs and scum and other such names?

I've worked in offices with women and I've spent a lot of time in their company and the amount of anti male sentiment said in front of men about men is much more vicious and frequent than the other way around.

Our shortcomings are routinely mocked, ive heard us called stupid, not understanding, insensitive pricks etc.....

To be honest, women can say what they want about men I don't actually care. And I mean that. The only time it annoyed me was when I reciprocated with anything negative about women there was genuine bad feeling towards me despite it being a single comment one way in response to numerous the other way. The hypocrisy annoyed me more than anything they could possibly say. Men are not perfect, were not in tune with female psyche for the most part but that's life. If you want to give it you have to take it too.

So women get over it, men talk that way and women talk that way too.

You didn't win the battle of genders in court that this case created somehow and its being perpetuated now over the words they said and trying to ensure they suffer for them. Talking about other people is not a crime. You didn't get the outcome you wanted so move on and shut up.

Every race thinks they are oppressed by the white race. And white women think they are oppressed by men. Travellers think they are oppressed by settled white people. It's getting boring.

I'm surely going to be blasted for this and called misogynistic and other names but I don't really care.

wexie wrote: »

Oh okay....cause that would be perfectly okay then wouldn't it?
In either case, the CPS were told before the trial started that the CCTV footage had been tampered with and still went ahead.

Who told them before the trial. Would the prosecution even talk to the defence. From my understanding of the process in this country anyway, the gardai compile a book of evidence which is presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions who evaluates whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.

Yes, in this case over a year...is there a point you're trying to make?

That the police and CPS are under funded and under staffed.

tritium wrote: »

3. Falsification or burying of evidence (seems a biggie to me....)

You need to prove it was intentional and just not human error, lack of resources etc. before claiming that.

jm08 wrote: »

Who told them before the trial. Would the prosecution even talk to the defense.

The defence, as mentioned in the article for which you have asked for the link for several times now. If you want to argue that the defense are lying and the article is nonsense....well....maybe read it first.

jm08 wrote: »

That the police and CPS are under funded and under staffed.

Well then a good place to start would be to not spend time on falsifying evidence wouldn't you think?

tritium wrote: »

No offence but it’s actually pretty clear from both this and your other responses that you actually just believe what you want and really don’t care about any evidence that may challenge that.

So, I was going to write one more of the many responses you’ve received that make your position untenable, but frankly, what’s the point?

No offence, but I think maybe you should look in the mirror on that one.

wexie wrote: »

Well then a good place to start would be to not spend time on falsifying evidence wouldn't you think?

Who should start on not falsifying evidence - the Met Police?

Were they falsifying evidence though? I know from watching foul play incidents in rugby, when you slow them down they can look much worse than what they are. Maybe someone fell into that trap.

jm08 wrote: »

You need to prove it was intentional and just not human error, lack of resources etc. before claiming that.

Lots of human error in the last few years isn’t there?

Funny that, you’d think they’d do something about it

Oh yeah, underfunded and understaffed right?

Not enough people to hand over all the evidence.....