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

jm08 wrote: »

False allegations are fairly rare - saw a stat of something like between 2 and 5%.

Changing law in Iceland. New law means the accused must prove they had explicit consent.

http://www.thejournal.ie/iceland-consent-3943673-Apr2018/

Sweden are making similar type changes.

False allegations are not as rare as you think/suggest. And in any case...1 in 20 is hardly rare :eek:

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still waiting for all these people to decide how to prove consent was given. It still comes down to he said/she said. Until there is an accepted method in place to show consent is there and not withdrawn, the system is open to be abused. All these legal changes just encourage more abuse to occur.

I hereby declare and copyright the name "iConsent". This will be an app designed to show consent. Each user will connect to eachother and consent to whatever box they tick with the other user. Each consent will require password use and will be filed away in the app for 7 years and on an encrypted database for 30 years. The App would be free and funded by ads for condoms and STI clinics

It could work :P

facehugger99 wrote: »

Make sure you check under your bed before you go to sleep tonight - could be a feminist hiding under there.

Oh my. That would only lead to a false allegation.

But your honour, she broke into my house, stole my boxer shorts and a litre of milk before running up the road in the nip. It's all on CCTV. The feminist said I should have had semi skimmed milk. :pac:

FishOnABike wrote: »

I don't see how having to prove consent could function in practice. For how long would one have to keep a record of 'proof of consent'. Would a person have to keep a life long record, indexed by name, date, location, whatever.. for each and every instance, for each and every sexual partner to be in a position to prove consent was given. It is not workable. It will still come down to "consent was given", "no it wasn't", "yes it was",....

Anybody who disagreees, please hand over your driving licence now if you are unable to prove you haven't been speeding or drunk driving repeatedly in the last year.

iConsent app

Any takers?

Faugheen wrote: »

Love the way people are blaming the 'mob' already if Jackson and Olding aren't kept by Ulster, instead of the two men who were stupid enough to get themselves into this mess in the first place.

Do you think there would be any questions regarding their return to Ulster rugby if "the mob" didn't exist?

c.p.w.g.w

tretorn wrote: »

There is an inquiry going on within the CPS as to how this claim was ever brought, the media will keep very quiet on this though because everyone is to believe the men werent convicted because there wasnt enough evidence to put them behind bars. The evidence available backs up what the men said and what Dara Florence said so of course the verdict was acquittal.

So of course ordinary members of the public are going to ask why was this case ever taken. The CPS are only supposed to take cases where there isa reasonable prospect of conviction, eleven jurors took less than four hours to go through the cases of each of these men and they were all found not guilty, this equals no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Files and reports and emails relating to this case are being examined to see why the CPS pursued this case against the advice of the PSNI. The PSNI knew what the end result would be and if they didnt they should have. Any legal expert who was allowed to give considered opinion amidst the hysterical feminists shouting said that the evidence didnt stack up so no prospect of conviction, none whatsoever.

I will be looking at every rape case now and thinking is this another fanciful tale, I wouldnt have believed women could make up false allegations and now I do believe it, I have listened to many discussions about this case and most people believe it shouldnt have been taken at all and most certainly the men should not have been named.

The States cost is this case would have been significant not to mention the weeks and weeks of police time put into investigating it, lucky for this woman and her family they have no bills to pay. Jackson has thousands of legal fees to pay and he was acquitted by the court, surely he in fairness should have his legal fees paid too.

Could the boys sue the CPS if they were found to files charges without a reasonable expectation of getting a guilty verdict.

mfceiling

Faugheen wrote: »

Love the way people are blaming the 'mob' already if Jackson and Olding aren't kept by Ulster, instead of the two men who were stupid enough to get themselves into this mess in the first place.

2 men who had consensual sex with a woman?

I'm not a prude and a threesome doesn't appeal to me but sure each to their own.

salmocab

mfceiling wrote: »

a threesome doesn't appeal to me but sure each to their own.

A devils threesome at that

jm08

goz83 wrote: »

False allegations are not as rare as you think/suggest. And in any case...1 in 20 is hardly rare :eek:

According to the head of the prosecution services in the UK, they are rare enough. They also identified the group of people who are most likely to make false allegations - Young, vulnerable people or people with mental health difficulties.

He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported."

tretorn wrote: »

There is an inquiry going on within the CPS as to how this claim was ever brought, the media will keep very quiet on this though because everyone is to believe the men werent convicted because there wasnt enough evidence to put them behind bars. The evidence available backs up what the men said and what Dara Florence said so of course the verdict was acquittal.

So of course ordinary members of the public are going to ask why was this case ever taken. The CPS are only supposed to take cases where there isa reasonable prospect of conviction, eleven jurors took less than four hours to go through the cases of each of these men and they were all found not guilty, this equals no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Files and reports and emails relating to this case are being examined to see why the CPS pursued this case against the advice of the PSNI. The PSNI knew what the end result would be and if they didnt they should have. Any legal expert who was allowed to give considered opinion amidst the hysterical feminists shouting said that the evidence didnt stack up so no prospect of conviction, none whatsoever.

Are you sure you're not mixing this case up with another case? The CPS are the Crown Prosecution Service, the public prosecution service for England and Wales; the PPS are the Public Prosecution service, the public prosecution service in Northern Ireland, and according to the senior investigating officer in this case -

The senior investigating officer in the case, Det Ch Insp Zoe McKee, said she had spoken to the complainant following the verdicts: "Understandably, she is upset and disappointed with the outcome."

She said the case was "thoroughly and robustly investigated. We pursued all lines of investigative inquiry, we brought all of the evidence together, we worked in close collaboration with the Public Prosecution Service from the start".

Source: BBC News

And in my previous post I presented you with a statement from the assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, who stated that -

In a statement, Marianne O'Kane, assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, said: "The evidence received in this case was subjected to a very thorough and careful examination by a team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel, before we concluded that the test for prosecution was met, in line with our code for prosecutors.

"This meant that there was both sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.

"This case was properly brought before the courts and overcame a number of legal challenges. It was ultimately right that the matter was placed before a jury to make their determination."

Source: BBC News

Now I'm not going to claim you're hysterical, but so far you haven't just presented insufficient evidence to support your claims, you've actually presented none.

As for the part of your post I highlighted in bold there, one does not necessarily lead to the other. Evidence was presented by both sides, and examined by both sides, the prosecution and the defence, and it was determined by a jury that the men could not be found guilty of the crimes of which they were accused. Nowhere in any report is it suggested exactly why the jury came to the conclusion they did, because that would be a breach of their judicial responsibility, and the reporting restrictions imposed by the judge on the media, so your claims as to why the jury delivered the verdict that they did simply can't be supported, as you conclusively have no evidence for that claim.

I will be looking at every rape case now and thinking is this another fanciful tale

I said from the very beginning of my first post in this thread that this case shouldn't be seen as setting a precedent for any other cases of alleged rape, and yet here you are suggesting that you will look at every case of an alleged rape and thinking it is another fanciful tale, therefore providing proof of what I said already which is also true - that this case won't have made anyone believe anything contrary to what they believed already. You're stating that you will be prejudiced to believe that in future cases where you haven't even heard the evidence, you will already believe that it is yet another fanciful tale.

You're demonstrating exactly the biggest issue in jury trials concerning cases of all allegations of rape and sexual assault, and that is jury bias, the biases of members of the jury, the idea that they aren't basing their deliberations on the basis of the evidence presented at trial, but rather they are basing their deliberations on what they previously believed about cases involving allegations of rape and sexual assault, before they were ever called to be members of the jury in any particular case.

I wouldnt have believed women could make up false allegations and now I do believe it, I have listened to many discussions about this case and most people believe it shouldnt have been taken at all and most certainly the men should not have been named.

I don't believe you. I have no reason to believe what you're saying is true because all the evidence I've seen so far in just your posts in this thread alone suggests that the complete opposite is actually more credible than your claims to the contrary. I'm not going to present all of your posts in this thread as evidence, as that would make this post much longer than it already is. I'm also not going to do it as I said myself early on in this thread that I'm incredibly forgiving when someone makes an argument that is so utterly stupid it goes beyond reasonable, and that's exactly why I let your earlier posts slide - no point in entertaining ridiculous arguments just for the sake of argument.

The States cost is this case would have been significant not to mention the weeks and weeks of police time put into investigating it, lucky for this woman and her family they have no bills to pay. Jackson has thousands of legal fees to pay and he was acquitted by the court, surely he in fairness should have his legal fees paid too.

The cost of any investigation is borne by the State, and the cost of any prosecution is borne by the State, so I don't understand why you feel the need to make that point as though a witness for the State should have be burdened with whatever costs were incurred by the State pursuing a case after an investigation had been carried out by agents of the State? A witness for the State doesn't incur any expenses so what legal fees should they have to pay exactly?

As you've previously pointed out yourself, the defence have the right to employ the best legal minds they can afford, a right which is entirely exercised at their discretion as to how much expenses they incur, so of course they are entirely responsible for any expenses incurred on their behalf in their defence. Why you imagine a defendant should have their legal fees paid by the State when they have the means to do so themselves is quite frankly beyond me as it seems entirely unreasonable. It's not as though defendants are excluded from applying to the Courts for representation via the mechanism of free legal aid? A defendant also has the right to represent themselves in a criminal trial (I wouldn't recommend it), whereas a witness for the State does not.

foxyladyxx

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

A son of the soil, a muck savage, a toothless hick, a bogtrotter, a silage muncher, a bacon and cabbage merchant.

A culchie

jm08 wrote: »

According to the head of the prosecution services in the UK, they are rare enough. They also identified the group of people who are most likely to make false allegations - Young, vulnerable people or people with mental health difficulties.

There are also false allegations which go unreported to the authorities, but let's leave that to the side for the moment.

Are you saying that a 5% figure among thousands of complaints per year constitutes the use of the word "rare"?

upandcumming

Faugheen wrote:

Love the way people are blaming the 'mob' already if Jackson and Olding aren't kept by Ulster, instead of the two men who were stupid enough to get themselves into this mess in the first place.

Sorry, what mess?

goz83 wrote: »

There are also false allegations which go unreported to the authorities, but let's leave that to the side for the moment.

Are you saying that a 5% figure among thousands of complaints per year constitutes the use of the word "rare"?

5% of 100% suggests that it is rare. I would also suggest that 7% as the number of successful convictions for rape would indicate that successful convictions for rape are rare, and I would suggest that a figure of between 3-7% for estimates of the number of college-going males who commit rape and sexual violence is also an indication that it is rare, and certainly not enough to promote the idea of the existence of 'rape culture', itself yet another myth about rape and sexual assault.

Sources:

Rape myths not behind low conviction rate, says leading family lawyer

The Vast Majority of Perpetrators Will Not Go to Jail or Prison

RAINN submission to White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault

jm08

goz83 wrote: »

There are also false allegations which go unreported to the authorities, but let's leave that to the side for the moment.

Thats an odd comment to make. How do you know they are false if they are not investigated?

Are you saying that a 5% figure among thousands of complaints per year constitutes the use of the word "rare"?

No, I'm just repeating what the head of the Crown Prosecution Services said (and its between 2 & 5%).

Studies on false allegations:

First, the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies by Kelly et al. (2005), Lea et al. (2003), HMCPSI/HMIC (2002), Harris and Grace (1999), Smith (1989), and others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgment. Rumney notes that some officers seem to "have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimization". He adds that "qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as 'proof' of a false allegation".

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

Absolute banana logic, perhaps they would, plenty on here think their value system is fine, it's okay to use demeaning language about women, it's okay for your only source of sex education to be porn where women love gang bangs, being choked, finished on their face and that is normal to do during sex without asking if it's okay, there would be no point in teaching ethics if you couldn't question value systems of another.

Is the world you wish to live in, one where nobody has the right to think badly of another in public or private.

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

5% of 100% suggests that it is rare.

I'm sorry I cant accept that 1 in 20 reports of rape are false suggests its rare.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

5% of 100% suggests that it is rare. I would also suggest that 7% as the number of successful convictions for rape would indicate that successful convictions for rape are rare, and I would suggest that a figure of between 3-7% for estimates of the number of college-going males who commit rape and sexual violence is also an indication that it is rare, and certainly not enough to promote the idea of the existence of 'rape culture', itself yet another myth about rape and sexual assault.

You and I place a different value on the word "rare". If there were only 1000 allegations in the UK per year for example, that would be (going by the figures posted here) up to 50 false allegations per year. Not something I would call rare.

jm08 wrote: »

Thats an odd comment to make. How do you know they are false if they are not investigated?

They are unreported, so there are no figures available. If we only follow the same figures and percentages you posted on reported cases, then we can surmise that at least the same percentage of the unreported ones are false. I personally know of three women who made such claims and later admitted they were either entirely false, or mostly false. An Ex GF, a cousin and a friend of my sister. In only one case, there was no lasting damage, because the story was a complete falsehood.

No, I'm just repeating what the head of the Crown Prosecution Services said (and its between 2 & 5%).

Studies on false allegations:

Fair enough. I also don't believe that even a low percentage of a relatively high number = rare.

salmocab wrote: »

I'm sorry I cant accept that 1 in 20 reports of rape are false suggests its rare.

+1

And how many of that percentage are wrongly imprisoned? Or worse....take their own lives because of the allegation?

salmocab

goz83 wrote: »

+1

And how many of that percentage are wrongly imprisoned? Or worse....take their own lives because of the allegation?

well none are imprisoned because the stat is referring to cases that the police decided were false and didnt proceed with. Its not a real figure only a stat based on limited circumstances.

sound more like we have a false rape culture than a rape culture

didnt someone point out earlir in the thread that we were the highest in europe for false rape claims

goz83 wrote: »

You and I place a different value on the word "rare". If there were only 1000 allegations in the UK per year for example, that would be (going by the figures posted here) up to 50 false allegations per year. Not something I would call rare.

...

Fair enough. I also don't believe that even a low percentage of a relatively high number = rare.

Clearly we do indeed place a different value on the word rare when you're mixing percentages and absolute figures in the same point. Expressed as a percentage, 5% of 100% means something is rare. It's certainly not common, which is the case when we talk about the number of cases which are reported which do not lead to a successful conviction - somewhere between 93 and 97%.

In cases where an allegation of rape is proven to be false, which is a completely different charge to an allegation of rape (the charge is attempting to pervert the course of justice), 50 in 1,000 cases is also rare.

If you want to counter the claim that false allegations are rare, then you have to look at the conviction rates for cases where the person was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice by falsely claiming that they were raped. The principles and standards of innocent until proven guilty, and proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice too.

joe40

There was a stat from a report posted here few hours ago which showed 35 prosecutions for false allegations compared to 5631 prosecutions for rape over a 17 month period. That is about .006%

On a phone so can't quote the article from the post

joe40

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/rape-sentencing-ireland-magnus-meyer-hustveit-2217371-Jul2015/

joe40 wrote: »

There was a stat from a report posted here few hours ago which showed 35 prosecutions for false allegations compared to 5631 prosecutions for rape over a 17 month period. That is about .006%

On a phone so can't quote the article from the post

no its not. it is 0.6%

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the world you wish to live in, one where nobody has the right to think badly of another in public or private.

Do you text your mates... 'any sluts get ****ed'?

jm08

the_pen_turner wrote: »

sound more like we have a false rape culture than a rape culture

didnt someone point out earlir in the thread that we were the highest in europe for false rape claims

Not if only 1 in 10 actually report a crime. That stat indicates the opposite.

Amongst other findings, the report highlights the fact that only one in ten victims of sexual crime in Ireland reports that crime. Of that one in ten, only 7% secures a conviction. So of 100 victims of sexual crime, only 10 report that crime. Barely one victim from that 100 will see their attacker pay for their crimes.

Less than 1% of victims of sexual crime in Ireland get justice. With that in mind, it’s hard not to wonder exactly what message the courts think they send to victims of sexual crime when lenient sentences are handed down.

salmocab wrote: »

well none are imprisoned because the stat is referring to cases that the police decided were false and didnt proceed with. Its not a real figure only a stat based on limited circumstances.

My mistake. I should have said in general and not referred to the false allegation figure.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly we do indeed place a different value on the word rare when you're mixing percentages and absolute figures in the same point. Expressed as a percentage, 5% of 100% means something is rare. It's certainly not common, which is the case when we talk about the number of cases which are reported which do not lead to a successful conviction - somewhere between 93 and 97%.

Clearly I was using absolute figures to provide more clarity to the percentages, which vary by jurisdiction.

Thanks for clarifying that you believe that 5% of something = rare. If 5% of people driving on our roads were involved in a serious RTA every year, I wonder how many people would consider it rare. I am curious what percentage something must be to you before it is no longer rare.

joe40 wrote: »

There was a stat from a report posted here few hours ago which showed 35 prosecutions for false allegations compared to 5631 prosecutions for rape over a 17 month period. That is about .006%

On a phone so can't quote the article from the post

I think less than 1% is rare

joe40

the_pen_turner wrote: »

no its not. it is 6%

No 0.6%

i would consider 1 in 20 to be very common. iv got 19 male cousins so that means that statistically one of is is going ot be false accused of rape

1 in 2000 would be rare

joe40 wrote: »

No 0.6%

sorry your right