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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

Muahahaha

VinLieger wrote: »

It really is not, 1 claire byrne poll is nowhere near enough date or evidence to make such a statement, anyone working in polling could tell you that.

If it was why would we bother with elections we could just do a ring around once every couple of years to find out who should be in government next.

Any poll is a snapshot in time which gives us the current mood, that is the whole point of them. From yesterdays poll it is factual to say that 2 out of every 3 people in Ireland do not want Jackson and Olding playing for Ireland again. It was a poll of 1,000 people conducted by Amarach Research and it was representative of the population as a whole. It has a margin of error of +/-3%.

You may not like that the majority of people do not want them playing for Ireland. But thats what the mood is nationally and todays Pat Kenny poll backs that up even further.

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

sorry I didn't mention the complainant if you read my comment closely you would know that.
I used generalisations of how this case is being extrapulated into the bigger picture in terms of changing the law for victims of crime make and female so they are represented better in court and feel comfortable coming forward I linked to ivana bacik's article earlier in the thread. And yea the case would bring up emotions for victims that can't be helped.

So what is with the 'ibelieveher' nonsense then, to lead the way to this change?

Why undermine the verdict and sacrifice innocent men on this glorious altar if there is a 'bigger picture'?

Why not the pressure on those who can affect change and not on Ulster and Irish rugby?
How does ruining lives get change?

*the answer may require a long look in the mirror.

What is all civil disobedience about if it isn't asking for some kind of change? More support for victims etc.,

Ulster/ irfu released a statement immediately after hearing the result that there would be a review there was no time to put pressure on them to conduct a review they came to that decision themselves without an advert in a newspaper.

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous the lad issued an apology the other day but you are all determined to ignore the content of that apology, it's simply too inconvenient.

He did not apologise for 'raping' her.

I didn't say he did.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

sorry I didn't mention the complainant if you read my comment closely you would know that.
I used generalisations of how this case is being extrapulated into the bigger picture in terms of changing the law for victims of crime make and female so they are represented better in court and feel comfortable coming forward I linked to ivana bacik's article earlier in the thread. And yea the case would bring up emotions for victims that can't be helped.

Sorry but it's not.

Here is a simple test, if the verdict was guilty, would there be protests? Would people be trying to make the courts fairer or better? Would Ruth Coppinger be arranging marches?

The obvious answer is no. This is a protest entirely aimed at the verdict. That attempts are being made to dress it in different clothes is fine, but it's very clear to neutral observers what the motivation was and is.

Whataboutery.

facehugger99

BarryD2 wrote: »

That's not pretty clear at all I'd suggest. Fact is, that people who tend to phone in polls etc. tend to be invested one way or another and not representative at all of the populace at large. Interesting to hear that there is a counter movement underfoot to support the reinstatement of these players.

Hmmmm.

Seems to me that you'd try to find a way to discount any poll findings if it didn't tally with your own views.

Sometimes you just need to accept that your own views aren't shared by most people.

Personally I don't care if he plays for Ulster, they're not my Provence, but to represent your country requires a high standard of behavior.

I'm glad that the numerous poll findings tally with my own experiences and indeed my own views, that Jackson be stripped of the honour of representing our country.
Because quite frankly, he doesn't deserve it.

Muahahaha

BarryD2 wrote: »

That's not pretty clear at all I'd suggest. Fact is, that people who tend to phone in polls etc. tend to be invested one way or another and not representative at all of the populace at large. Interesting to hear that there is a counter movement underfoot to support the reinstatement of these players.

It is done by Amarach Research, a professional polling company who are ISO9001 accredited for market research. It was a representative poll weighted for demographics as are all their Claire Byrne polls. The result was 2 to 1 against Jackson and Olding playing for Ireland again.

The Pat Kenny poll was not representative- anyone could text in. As you say people calling are are invested one way or the other. The result here of that investment of people was also 2 to 1 against Jackson and Olding playing, it backs up the first poll.

So what I said is pretty clear- a majority of people in Ireland do not want Jackson and Olding playing for Ireland again. If anyone can show me otherwise I am all ears but as of now this is a fact. An uncomfortable fact for some but people have been asked their opinion and given it and 2 to 1 dont want them representing Ireland again. And who could blame them after their behaviour really.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

What is all civil disobedience about if it isn't asking for some kind of change? More support for victims etc.,

Ulster/ irfu released a statement immediately after hearing the result that there would be a review there was no time to put pressure on them to conduct a review they came to that decision themselves without an advert in a newspaper.

As asked by another poster: Would there be protests if the verdict had been 'guilty'.

The answer is no.

The politicians bandwagoning on this issue and whipping an ill-informed mob into a frenzy should be eternally ashamed of themselves. It was they who should have been lobbying for change long before now.

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

Hmmmm.

Seems to me that you'd try to find a way to discount any poll findings if it didn't tally with your own views.

Sometimes you just need to accept that your own views aren't shared by most people.

Personally I don't care if he plays for Ulster, they're not my Provence, but to represent your country requires a high standard of behavior.

I'm glad that the numerous poll findings tally with my own experiences and indeed my own views, that Jackson be stripped of the honour of representing our country.
Because quite frankly, he doesn't deserve it.

Much like some hysterical folk trying to discount a jury's verdict then eh? :rolleyes:

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

What is all civil disobedience about if it isn't asking for some kind of change? More support for victims etc.,

Ulster/ irfu released a statement immediately after hearing the result that there would be a review there was no time to put pressure on them to conduct a review they came to that decision themselves without an advert in a newspaper.

As asked by another poster: Would there be protests if the verdict had been 'guilty'.

The answer is no.

The politicians bandwagoning on this issue and whipping an ill-informed mob into a frenzy should be eternally ashamed of themselves. It was they who should have been lobbying for change long before now.

Whataboutery ...not able to engage effectively in discussion with what happened so flight of fancy argument template used instead.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

Whataboutery ...not able to engage effectively in discussion with what happened so flight of fancy argument template used instead.

Very simple rebuttal here.

Explain 'ibelieveher' in the context of wanting change.

There is no explanation. It was primarily about the verdict.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

What is all civil disobedience about if it isn't asking for some kind of change? More support for victims etc.,

Ulster/ irfu released a statement immediately after hearing the result that there would be a review there was no time to put pressure on them to conduct a review they came to that decision themselves without an advert in a newspaper.

As asked by another poster: Would there be protests if the verdict had been 'guilty'.

The answer is no.

The politicians bandwagoning on this issue and whipping an ill-informed mob into a frenzy should be eternally ashamed of themselves. It was they who should have been lobbying for change long before now.

That is an astounding bit of arrogance displayed there and show no appetite for debate outside of two opposing views.
I personally think they should play again if selected, but to describe people with an alternative opinion as a "frenzied mob" is just ridiculous. I suppose insults are easier than arguments!!
There are plenty of respected commentators in the media unhappy with the actions of these men.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As asked by another poster: Would there be protests if the verdict had been 'guilty'.

The answer is no.

The politicians bandwagoning on this issue and whipping an ill-informed mob into a frenzy should be eternally ashamed of themselves. It was they who should have been lobbying for change long before now.

Imo you are right that there wouldn't be. And that is because I guess being found guilty of rape would have covered all their offences whereas being found not guilty only gets them off on the rape charge and like it or not their general behaviour left a lot to be desired in the eyes of many, many people who are holding them to a higher standard than yourself. It remains to be seen what standards their employers hold them to.

facehugger99

"Hysterical Folk"

"ill informed mob"

"Femanazis"

"Shower of Idiots"

That's only the last few pages.

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to try and discredit those who've reached a different conclusion to them regarding Jackson and his suitably to represent his country.

Perhaps instead of labeling people in such a negative way, more reflection is called for.

Dehumanizing language was a feature of the texts that came to light in this case, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that those who see nothing wrong with them use the same language in their posts.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very simple rebuttal here.

Explain 'ibelieveher' in the context of wanting change.

There is no explanation. It was primarily about the verdict.

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

Outlaw Pete

The judge has still not ruled on whether or not reporting restrictions should be lifted. More arguments to be made tomorrow.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/judge-to-rule-on-ongoing-reporting-restrictions-36791116.html

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As asked by another poster: Would there be protests if the verdict had been 'guilty'.

The answer is no.

The politicians bandwagoning on this issue and whipping an ill-informed mob into a frenzy should be eternally ashamed of themselves. It was they who should have been lobbying for change long before now.

Not too sure there wouldn't have been protests about how the court system works, such as open court in NI, adversorial system. People were very shocked at how it plays out as you don't see what happens in the system in the south. Most people also realise that sex education needs to be brought up to date in particular around the area of consent.

Rape Crisis Centre and other advocacy groups has been at the forefront of advocating these, not the politicians.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

That simply wouldn't happen here and has nothing to do with the mob insisting on sacrificing these guys. What will that do for 'change'.

It was not their fault that the process involves that, it is not their fault that they needed to defend themselves.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

The way rape trials in the North and UK are conducted needs to be overhauled I presume you mean?

The time the alleged victim spent on the stand was as a result of the prosecution electing to charge all 4 defendants at once. Most legal commentators are of the opinion that Jackson and Olding should have been charged and the other two at a later date and depending the outcome of the first trial. Any advocates or litigators I've spoken to are of the opinion that the case against Olding was so shaky and contradictory that it would never have been brought in an Irish court.

The underwear being displayed is unfortunate but it is evidence. If someone was stabbed and their T-shirt was displayed we wouldn't take issue with it but evidence is evidence and clothing is clothing.

Grayson wrote: »

they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Yeah it's unpleasant. However, the defendants had all kinds of insinuations thrown at them by the prosecution. They were also called liars. They continue to be dragged through the mud for using derogatory language like 'sluts'.

Do you know who else sent messages calling the girls at the party sluts? The alleged victim.

The protests would never have happened without the verdict in my opinion. I'm all for change and improvement in how we deliberate sex crime but when the starting point is outrage over a decision by people without all the information and without nearly as much information as the jury, then the end point is likely to be equally wide of the mark.

Cienciano

givyjoe wrote: »

Much like some hysterical folk trying to discount a jury's verdict then eh? :rolleyes:

This is the problem. Some people think the courts decision is all that matters. Society doesn't work like that.
Was he guilty of rape in court? No.
Is he guilty of being a complete scumbag in society? Yes.

tretorn

Grayson wrote: »

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

Her evidence could have put two young men in prison for rape, she had to be questioned in depth and it was the PPS fault that four men were charged, one was charged with indecent exposure because in one account she said he came into the room with his penis in his hand, in another he was dressed. He said he was dressed and unfortuneatly for him there was no Dara Florence there to say what she saw.

Do you seriously think justice is served while a woman goes to Police with inconsistent versions of events. She was handed the mens statements presumably so her accounts wouldnt diverge too much. How can you defend yourself against allegations when your accuser is given advance notice of your version of events.

If it took eight months for the jury to be clear on the number of inconsistent tales that were told then so be it. If men are to be sent to prison then the jury has to be convinced of their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

The underwear was material evidence, was it used by the proscecution to show blood, if so this was important but what was more important was the fact whether it was menstrual blood or not and this couldnt be clarified. If the mens underpants had semen on them and were material evidence then they would be produced in court too.

Being convicte of rape is absolutely life destroying so no charges should be brought until an evidential case is made, this case didnt reach that standard so clearly the proscecution service have a case to answer. Direct your anger about the length of time the woman had to give evidence against the PPS and not at the men who were cleared of any wrongdoing.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That simply wouldn't happen here and has nothing to do with the mob insisting on sacrificing these guys. What will that do for 'change'.

It was not their fault that the process involves that, it is not their fault that they needed to defend themselves.

That does happen here except we don't get a blow-by-blow account.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

That does happen here except we don't get a blow-by-blow account.

A witness/victim spending that long in the stand?

When and where?

tretorn

How many cases are there though when four men are tried together.

monkeybutter

Can everyone who is giving out about the private messages between friends please post their entire text and whatsapp histories for our perusal, lest they said anything tasteless in their entire lives..

He/She who casts the first stone an all that..

As if you haven't, you pack of chancers :pac:

tretorn

Grayson wrote: »

the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous.

She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display.

Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her.

Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.

The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.

This woman was not a rape victim, before and during the trial she was a complainant and not a rape victim. You are defaming men charged and acquitted of raping her by continuing to call her a rape victim.

You need to be more careful with your language.

FrancieBrady

tretorn wrote: »

This woman was not a rape victim, before and during the trial she was a complainant and not a rape victim. You are defaming men charged and acquitted of raping her by continuing to call her a rape victim.

You need to be more careful with your language.

Exactly and they are equal before the law.

[Deleted User]

jm08 wrote: »

That does happen here except we don't get a blow-by-blow account.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A witness/victim spending that long in the stand?

When and where?

The length of the alleged victims testimony was a product of two things.

Charging 4 victims at once
Having made several inconsistent statements at the outset

Having suffered a trauma it's entirely possible to mix things up, leave things out and have a fragmented memory. Everyone understands and accepts that. The defendants similarly had inconsistencies.

However. Putting people in jail for 15 years requires those inconsistencies are examined and tested. There is no alternative to this. Being unclear or hazy about key evidence isn't acceptable when depriving people of freedom for a substantial period of their life.

Again, without getting into guilt or innocence, due process is in everyone's best interest.

The problem here is that people are calling this unfair and saying it will put people off reporting this kind of crime. It certainly might put people off but the unfairness is related to how this prosecution was put forward by those seeking justice, not by those representing the defendants.

It's very misguided.

tretorn

jm08 wrote: »

That does happen here except we don't get a blow-by-blow account.

em, I think we heard enough about blowjobs in this case to last us a lifetime.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A witness/victim spending that long in the stand?

Not just the time. The interrogation (and with no counsel).

When and where?

We don't know down here because reporting of cases is restricted.

facehugger99

monkeybutter wrote: »

Can everyone who is giving out about the private messages between friends please post their entire text and whatsapp histories for our perusal, lest they said anything tasteless in their entire lives..

He/She who casts the first stone an all that..

As if you haven't, you pack of chancers :pac:

I've never posted anything as vile and dehumanizing as the language used in that WhatsApp group.

If you're trying to suggest it's normal, you're wrong.

If you think it's acceptable, then you really should recalibrate your morals because it's not.