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

tretorn

Grayson wrote: »

what? Are you stoned? You're making literally no sense.

I've said before in this thread that I believe that the girl was raped. I have no idea why I need to leave my name and address. Do you have to prove your a real person now before you can have an opinion? Do you think I'm a russian bot and this is all a conspiracy to jail a rugby player and get trump elected?

Did you post your belief before the verdict too.

You might just about get away with saying someone is a rapist before and during a trial.

You are definitely defaming an innocent man now by still maintaining he is a rapist.

2smiggy

Grayson wrote: »

what? Are you stoned? You're making literally no sense.

I've said before in this thread that I believe that the girl was raped. I have no idea why I need to leave my name and address. Do you have to prove your a real person now before you can have an opinion? Do you think I'm a russian bot and this is all a conspiracy to jail a rugby player and get trump elected?

no i'm fine, are you though ? .You are stating as fact that the girl was raped, but the jury found all 4 men not guilty. That senator was quick enough to change his tune when solicitors challenged him. You are very brave behind internet anonymity.

Guy:Incognito

Has anyone gotten around to drawing up the list of paddy Jackson's WhatsApp messages that were so vile and made them form the opinion of what he is and should never play rugby here again because of?

FrancieBrady

2smiggy wrote: »

no i'm fine, are you though ? .You are stating as fact that the girl was raped, but the jury found all 4 men not guilty. That senator was quick enough to change his tune when solicitors challenged him. You are very brave behind internet anonymity.

I think it is a good indicator of the mob mentality to be honest.

Nothing will change their minds.

DavidLyons_

2smiggy wrote: »

no i'm fine, are you though ? .You are stating as fact that the girl was raped, but the jury found all 4 men not guilty. That senator was quick enough to change his tune when solicitors challenged him. You are very brave behind internet anonymity.

The poster in question continually defames the acquitted men in this thread.

Hopefully we're not as anonymous as some seem to think on here.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

I've said before in this thread that I believe that the girl was raped.

Just to be clear, you are absolutely entitled to this belief. It is a belief shared by many.

It's also important to note however that the jury does not agree with you or at the very least they have more doubt than you. If they believed beyond a reasonable doubt like you do, then they would have convicted. It's also worth noting that the jury had access to more information than you and unlike you saw all the testimony live.

Finally the one sober, independent person in the room also doesn't agree with you.

It's fine to believe that the alleged victim was raped, I believe she might have been but there isn't nearly enough proof for me to be in anyway certain. The jury and an immediate witness also aren't certain.

If you are comfortable in your certainty enough to accuse people of rape in those circumstances then fair enough.

FrancieBrady

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Has anyone gotten around to drawing up the list of paddy Jackson's WhatsApp messages that were so vile and made them form the opinion of what he is and should never play rugby here again because of?

No, they probably won't go near that one or if they do it will quickly change to 'his statement after the aquittal' or his attempts in court to defend himself.

DavidLyons_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Has anyone gotten around to drawing up the list of paddy Jackson's WhatsApp messages that were so vile and made them form the opinion of what he is and should never play rugby here again because of?

Short list.

One, innocuous enough, message if memory serves. Something simply along the lines of "there was a lot of spit-roasting going on", I think.

Shocking isn't it? Clearly a sinister agenda at play here.

monkeybutter

facehugger99 wrote: »

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.

I never said post anything

Throw out all your whatsapps and texts there so we can judge if you are telling the truth

This is what has happened here

What does your username mean exactly?

I doubt you understand this

tretorn

meeeeh wrote: »

That's it , be very afraid. They are spending all their days reading Boards and Twitter to sue people. Charged at 300 Euro per hour.

They dont have to do much trawling, this is a well known website and they jst have to read one thread.

They have plenty of juniors working for buttons and they could be delegated the job of looking for libellous material.

The twitter mob have taken post of the libellous material down but they still expect O Riordan to leave his head on the chopping block.

Someone was awarded 75,000 euros after he sued for something said on facebook and it was a lot less damaging than publicly calling an innocent person a rapist.

facehugger99

Basil3 wrote: »

He apologised for engaging with a Whatsapp group which was degrading and offensive.

Which I found vile - yes.

I'm glad we agree.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Which I found vile - yes.

I'm glad we agree.

Other than being rude, what was 'vile' about it?

And can you answer this from a while ago:

Where does your 'moral' objections to a 3some come from then? Jackson, Olding and this woman didn't invent the concept.
Are you 'morally' against them generally?

Guy:Incognito

facehugger99 wrote: »

Which I found vile - yes.

I'm glad we agree.

Which messages of paddy Jackson's exactly?

upandcumming

Cienciano wrote: »

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.

Being a complete scumbag? I have yet to see evidence of that. Can you point it out to me?

facehugger99

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which messages of paddy Jackson's exactly?

We'll just leave it here shall we?

Jackson said: “I am also truly sorry for engaging in a Whatsapp group chat which was degrading and offensive and I apologise unreservedly for this.

The criticism of my behaviour is fully justified and I know I have betrayed the values of my family and those of the wider public"

upandcumming

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.

She was on the stand for eight days because there was four separate defence counsels examining her. So you could say she was on for two days. She was also invited to take breaks whenever she wanted, something which she rarely availed of, but did.

All of this time is so easily accounted for, you need to come up with better arguments than what you're currently cooking.

You mention as well that the way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled. What would you like to see?

Grayson

ok, so posts I've made have been deleted/disappeared. I've checked the mod post in the OP and I haven't broken any rules. I also haven't received any messages. If there's guidelines we need to follow, can someone update the mod post?

upandcumming

facehugger99 wrote: »

We'll just leave it here shall we?

You were asked what he said, not an extract of his apology. Where are his messages?!

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

You just said you believe she might have been raped. Are you accusing people?

I've said previously in this thread that I believe she was raped. I also said i wasn't there which is why I say "believe" and not "know".

Neither you are I are accusing anyone. A woman did that and you and I have just expressed different levels of belief in her accusations.

I'm unclear as to what point you are trying to make. The complainant made an accusation. I don't know if it's true or not, hence I said 'might'.

The word 'might' in this context is used as the past tense of 'may' meaning 'potential'.

There is no certainty in the words that I used. I would also say that Paddy Jackson might be completely innocent. I've left the door wide open to both possibilities because the evidence isn't conclusive either way.

You have said however that you do believe her. That is an absolute statement. You didn't say 'you might believe her if you had more information' nor did you say that you believe she 'might' think she was raped. You said that you believe her and her accusation leaves no room for doubt. Her accusation is the basis for the charges that were brought. If you believe her, then you believe in the charges. If you believe her in the absolute way that you do, then you believe Paddy Jackson sexually assaulted her.

So we are very different in terms of where we both are right now and we have made very different assessments of what 'might' have happened that night.

If you are going to try and be vague then fair enough. If you think they are guilty of rape then either shít or get off the pot to be honest.

meeeeh

tretorn wrote: »

Someone was awarded 75,000 euros after he sued for something said on facebook and it was a lot less damaging than publicly calling an innocent person a rapist.

That is very sound reasoning there. Someone nobody knows suung neighbours for defamation is exactly the same as Paddy Jackson suing the whole internet for defamation. The threat was made to keep him out of news or social media. It didn't work so he had to issue an apology a week later. It still didn't work. And you think it is in his interest to sue, lawsuit will be public, there will be plenty publicity around well off rugby player suing peniless Joe Soap(s) for defamation. If he wants to make really really sure that he will never play for Ireland that is just the way to do it.

Skylinehead

Grayson wrote: »

ok, so posts I've made have been deleted/disappeared. I've checked the mod post in the OP and I haven't broken any rules. I also haven't received any messages. If there's guidelines we need to follow, can someone update the mod post?

Update to follow, we're working through it now.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

You have said however that you do believe her. That is an absolute statement. You didn't say 'you might believe her if you had more information' nor did you say that you believe she 'might' think she was raped. You said that you believe her and her accusation leaves no room for doubt. Her accusation is the basis for the charges that were brought. If you believe her, then you believe in the charges. If you believe her in the absolute way that you do, then you believe Paddy Jackson sexually assaulted her.

You need to look up the word belief vs know. That's why I used that word.

Grayson

Skylinehead wrote: »

Update to follow, we're working through it now.

Sweet. Thanks. I thought I was going blind.

Guy:Incognito

facehugger99 wrote: »

We'll just leave it here shall we?

Nope. I'd rather you show us exactly which of paddy Jackson's messages you're taking issue with.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

You need to look up the word belief vs know. That's why I used that word.

You didn't use 'might' or 'believe' here.

Grayson wrote:

Weren't two of those after she was raped?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106685644&postcount=8986

2smiggy

Grayson wrote: »

You need to look up the word belief vs know. That's why I used that word.

You stated she was raped, just look back through your last few posts, if they are not deleted.

I don't know what happened, but the jury found them not guilty, so rightly he should not have to put up with being labeled a rapist.

I'm gone from my pc now , and it's a pain in the hole using my mobile for posting so I'll leave it at that.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

You need to look up the word belief vs know. That's why I used that word.

Sorry, the alleged victim never said 'she believed' she was raped. There is absolute certainty to her accusation.

If you believe her, then you believe all that follows.

It seems like you are trying to incorrectly use semantics to distance yourself from directly accusing the defendants here.

So like I said, either have some conviction or stop wasting peoples time.

Mrsmum

upandcumming wrote: »

Being a complete scumbag? I have yet to see evidence of that. Can you point it out to me?

I think his own apology more or less agree with public opinion.

facehugger99

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Nope. I'd rather you show us exactly which of paddy Jackson's messages you're taking issue with.

When did I ever say anything about specific PJ messages?

Silentcorner

upandcumming wrote: »

She was on the stand for eight days because there was four separate defence counsels examining her. So you could say she was on for two days. She was also invited to take breaks whenever she wanted, something which she rarely availed of, but did.

All of this time is so easily accounted for, you need to come up with better arguments than what you're currently cooking.

You mention as well that the way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled. What would you like to see?

She was on the stand for 8 days, cross examined for 7, so you could say, she was on the stand for 8 days.

She had to face the 12 person legal team, all working together, who's job it is to raise enough doubt in her statements to avoid conviction, she did this with no legal representation at all...it should be noted, not once during her testimony did that 12 person legal team penetrate her belief in her own narrative...

This is unprecedented in modern Irish history, I cannot recall one person who had to face such a brutal cross examining, she is 21 years of age.

There is an argument that a complainant should have access and be represented by her own counsel, which at least levels the playing field in an adversarial system, however, if the complainant is wealthier than the defendants then she could well be at a bigger advantage.

We could shift to a more inquisitorial system of trying rape cases, it is much more humane, there are different versions that different countries use, I wouldn't know enough to know which one works better.

It is difficult for an ordinary person like me or any of us to know what improvements could be implemented, but I sincerely hope we never see what we saw in Belfast ever again.