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

Appledreams15

Does anyone have any other thoughts on Jackson's apology, as it is the latest news. I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

FrancieBrady

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I really feel from the apology that Jackson does feel bad about her leaving in a very distressed state. He specifically apologised for it.
A very steep learning curve for everyone.

Had you been listening you would have heard him express his regret about the woman leaving in a distressed sate in the trial itself.

It was probably drowned out by the mob.

Mrsmum

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Does anyone have any other thoughts on Jackson's apology, as it is the latest news. I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

I thought it was comprehensive. As an apology, it satisfied my standards

zedhead

Fann Linn wrote: »

We'd have to hear the evidence.
What is known is that the 4 were found not guilty after a trial.
Furthermore, there are doubts now whether that trial should have even gone ahead according to the PSNI.

wexie wrote: »

As already pointed out that's extremely unlikely to happen.

But, in answer to your question : no or at least not necessarily.

It's entirely possible that she believes to have been raped and they believed they didn't rape her.

It's not like with a murder where you can conclude : there is a body, which didn't die of natural causes therefor a homicide has to have taken place.

The question was directed at the posters who are calling her a liar who has ruined the boys lives with her false accusations or making statements about definitely knowing she was the one to instigate the sexual contact etc

Not disputing the verdict, or even trying to insinuate they are rapists. But just because they are not guilty does not mean she is a liar.

Faugheen

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Does anyone have any other thoughts on Jackson's apology, as it is the latest news. I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

I welcome it, but it should have been made after the verdict ala Olding.

However I can't imagine many will find it sincere. He allowed his solicitor to attack the PSNI and the PPS by implying that the only reason the case was brought was because he was an international rugby player, without even any reference to the complainant.

Now, 10(?) days later he acknowledges her. I could understand how people would find it hard to believe him.

Olding pretty much acknowledged the complainant left his company very distressed straight away, and there has barely been a word about him since.

I love the way people are still saying Jackson didn't have to apologise

wexie

zedhead wrote: »

Not disputing the verdict, or even trying to insinuate they are rapists. But just because they are not guilty does not mean she is a liar.

Not really sure how you got that from my answer?

I already answered your previous question

zedhead wrote: »

Genuine question. Do you think if she went on trial now for a false rape claim against them and was found not guilty, does that mean they raped her?

with

wexie wrote: »

As already pointed out that's extremely unlikely to happen.

But, in answer to your question : no or at least not necessarily.

It's entirely possible that she believes to have been raped and they believed they didn't rape her.

It's not like with a murder where you can conclude : there is a body, which didn't die of natural causes therefor a homicide has to have taken place.

ShowMeTheCash

Appledreams15 wrote: »

But Lorraine, why wouldn't people attack a legal verdict. A verdict that they don't agree with.
Some agreed with the verdict, some disagreed. It stirred up discussion.

I think it is a bit naive to think that nobody woukd disagree with a verdict after a case is over.

It is even more naive to think you are informed being you where not part of the legal proceedings.

It is to suggest 10 people who unanimously came to a decision in a very short period of time that you would of come to a different conclusion.

Are you saying that you do not have all the information, you where not present during the arguments put forward but you think the decisions is wrong and that 10 other people got it wrong...

You can hold that view if you wish.... But it does not make for a strong argument.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had you been listening you would have heard him express his regret about the woman leaving in a distressed sate in the trial itself.

It was probably drowned out by the mob.

I thought his apology was good (better late than never) until you came along and said he was only doing it for show!

I presume you will get annoyed when the 'mob' sees it the same way as you.

Fann Linn

Pragmatic apology.

Appledreams15

jm08 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had you been listening you would have heard him express his regret about the woman leaving in a distressed sate in the trial itself.

It was probably drowned out by the mob.

I thought his apology was good (better late than never) until you came along and said he was only doing it for show!

I presume you will get annoyed when the 'mob' sees it the same way as you.

eh what? That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said it was hearfelt. Are you even reading this thread?

Grayson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m not defending sexism at all - I’m saying you can’t accuse PJ etc al of being sexist from a few WhatsApp messages.

And I’m also noting that they are far from the only people to have messages in their chats that could be taken the wrong way by the wrong person.

I suppose the apologize was a necessary evil for PR but I don’t think it’s far to take it as him admitting he did what she claimed he did or that he is acknowledging being sexist.

Are you saying that he doesn't mean the apology?

zedhead

wexie wrote: »

Not really sure how you got that from my answer?

I already answered your previous question

with

Sorry if you misunderstood my post - that wasn't directed at you. I agree with you and it was what I was trying to point out with my original question.

The question was not direct at people like you who have not made a claims about her. It was directed to Tritium who I was quoting in the original question.

GreeBo

wexie wrote: »

It's entirely possible that she believes to have been raped and they believed they didn't rape her.

Ignoring the fact that in this case there is still disagreement/doubt over whether or not sex even took place...for now lets assume it did.

What do we as a society want the outcome to be in such a scenario?

In the case where both parties honestly disagree, who is "right" or what is the "right/just" outcome?

What about the (admittedly hypothetical) same scenario but with two different woman.
1 woman believes she was raped, the other doesn't.
Is it just that the same actions in the same circumstances can be deemed rape by 1 person but not the other?
That its not the act itself, or the context or even the circumstances, its purely subjective on the part of the woman?

Personally I can't accept that that would be fair or just.

Appledreams15

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I really feel from the apology that Jackson does feel bad about her leaving in a very distressed state. He specifically apologised for it.
A very steep learning curve for everyone.

Had you been listening you would have heard him express his regret about the woman leaving in a distressed sate in the trial itself.

It was probably drowned out by the mob.

He actually said in his statement to police 'that there was no sign of distress ' on the complainant. Check it out.

ShowMeTheCash

jm08 wrote: »

She didn't call another woman a slut - what she said was the girls were 'being slutty.' (which could, according to the dictionary mean that they were either being 'untidy or lazy' or being 'promiscuous with many casual sexual partners'.'

You are grasping at straws here.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

I thought his apology was good (better late than never) until you came along and said he was only doing it for show!

I presume you will get annoyed when the 'mob' sees it the same way as you.

He had already expressed his 'regret' during the trial. That was good enough for me.

He is now ticking the boxes for the mob so he can get back to his career and a way to pay for defending his good name. Est. to be in the region of 500,000 sterling.

freshpopcorn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Does anyone have any other thoughts on Jackson's apology, as it is the latest news. I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

I am unsure of where any of these guys will go next. I think the next we'll hear from them if any of them will take legal action against anyone.
Then after a while they'll get they'll probably end up with a job and then they'll be shock if they end up in a relationship.

Yeah_Right

Mrsmum wrote: »

I thought it was comprehensive. As an apology, it satisfied my standards .

So he should be allowed to get back to playing rugby?

upandcumming

zedhead wrote: »

Genuine question. Do you think if she went on trial now for a false rape claim against them and was found not guilty, does that mean they raped her?

Well that is kinda different, seeing as she isn't some hammerhead on Twitter.

Yeah_Right

jm08 wrote: »

In what context do they call each others sluts? Dictionary definition.
slut noun [ C ] (SEXUALLY ACTIVE WOMAN)slang disapproving a woman who has sexual relationships with a lot of men without any emotional involvement

slut noun [ C ] (LAZY WOMAN)

UK very informal disapproving a woman who is usually untidy and lazy

Well none of them are lazy or untidy.

facehugger99

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Does anyone have any other thoughts on Jackson's apology, as it is the latest news. I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

I think he's had a reality check.

He seemed to think after the court case that all was back to normal - the statements about how the case should never have been brought and taking action against people on social media - all very stupid.

He doesn't come out of this well at all tbh - young guy, one of the top players in his position in the country, women throwing themselves at him regularly - a kind reading would be that he may have lost the run of himself.

Perhaps he's learned his lesson - I hope so, but the international career is over for sure. He may be able to get some club rugby somewhere, but there'll be no personal sponsorship deals and no punditry work when he's finished.

He may be better cutting his losses and trying something else.

jm08

GreeBo wrote: »

Who, in your opinion, are "being slutty" other than people you would describe as "sluts"?

Yes.

Can I not use the word "fast" to describe someone who is running fast?

Being 'fast' isn't a behavioural thing. You are either a fast runner or you are not.

I'd go so far as to say that "slut" is the correct noun to use for someone who is acting "slutty".

I don't agree.

ShowMeTheCash

Yeah_Right wrote: »

So he should be allowed to get back to playing rugby?

PR nightmare, maybe go to France or some place where these cases where not so much in the public eye....

Also the only way they continue to play is if it their skill is worth the risk...

AudreyHepburn

Grayson wrote: »

Are you saying that he doesn't mean the apology?

Not at all - I’m sure he means every bit of it. I was more saying that timing says damage control as much as remorse and that it doesn’t mean he deliberately went out to cause distress to anyone that night.

GreeBo

jm08 wrote: »

Yes.

It wasn't a yes or no question. I want to know who the term "slut" is applicable to other than people who are "acting slutty", since this is the basis of your argument.

ShowMeTheCash

jm08 wrote: »

I don't agree.

Well you are wrong go back and look at your dictionary, albeit someone has already posted it.

Why are you making this argument?

jm08

Appledreams15 wrote: »

eh what? That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said it was hearfelt. Are you even reading this thread?

I wasn't referring to you.

My first reaction was that this is really good and heartfelt. Francie spoiled that impression by claiming that he just thought it was for show. My beef is with Francie's attitude, not yours.

facehugger99

jm08 wrote: »

Francie spoiled that impression by claiming that he just thought it was for show. My beef is with Francie's attitude, not yours.

I think the bold Francie would rather brand Paddy Jackson a liar now than admit he was wrong in defending the WhatApp messages - which is kind of ironic and hilarious.

Muahahaha

Olding saying sorry immediately after the verdict = PR masterclass
Jackson saying sorry 10 days later = damage limitation but too little too late

Silentcorner

joe40 wrote: »

I'm glad that he put out an apology, even if it is only a cynical move it is welcome.
He has admitted that a young woman left his house in distress which plenty of posters here have tried to deny
He has admitted that his actions showed a lack of respect and did not reflect the principles his family tried instill, again something many posters here have tried to deny and belittle.
I do hope he can get on with his life now but his apology and the wording of his apology has destroyed plenty of arguments on this forum.
Equally I do not agree with some of the excessive comments by some people that want an "innocent" (determined in court) man's life and livelihood ruined.
I hope everyone can move on and learn from this sorry mess

I would agree with all of the above.

Hopefully, the powers that be in the North need to urgently reform how they handle rape trials (I see another one in England of similar nature is now going through both the legal court and the court of public opinion).

This has spent over 10 weeks in the news cycle, these are all young men in their twenties, this is never going to leave them, not a chance.

Well, one of them was right about one thing....this was't going to end well!