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

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 wrote: »

If the video could show whether blood was menstrual or not then on it goes.

People are claiming this woman left Jacksons house in bloody clothes, there is a world of difference in whether injuries were inflicted by forced sexual intercourse or whether the blood was menstrual. The difference could be someone spending a lot of their twenties and some of their thirties in a prison cell or someone leaving a court an innocent man.

Now do you understand.

The doctor that examiner her determined it was not menstrual.

It was he who diagnosed the 1cm tear.

It was sickening that this came close to be shown in public court.

If the jury need to see the alleged victims underwear or a dvd of the 1cm tear, it should not be shown in open public court.....what kind of sick minded system can't see the problem with that!!

Now, do you understand??

mfceiling wrote: »

The underwear wasn't there for people to leer over or to humiliate the girl.
It was evidence in a trial.
If there was any other reason to produce it the judge would not have allowed it to be shown.

It was paraded around the court for everyone who attended to see.

It was requested by one of the defence barristers.

It is all part of the humiliation of the victim. It is twisted, there will be a time in the distant future where we will be embarrassed we didn't use a more humane system sooner!

Silentcorner wrote: »

It was paraded around the court for everyone who attended to see.

It was requested by one of the defence barristers.

It is all part of the humiliation of the victim. It is twisted, there will be a time in the distant future where we will be embarrassed we didn't use a more humane system sooner!

You reckon the court set out to humiliate the complainant?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You reckon the court set out to humiliate the complainant?

I reckon the underwear should be shown in private to the jury, if deemed necessary...to limit the humiliation of the victim, it is the most intimate article of clothing...there is no need for it...

tretorn wrote: »

If the video could show whether blood was menstrual or not then on it goes.

People are claiming this woman left Jacksons house in bloody clothes, there is a world of difference in whether injuries were inflicted by forced sexual intercourse or whether the blood was menstrual. The difference could be someone spending a lot of their twenties and some of their thirties in a prison cell or someone leaving a court an innocent man.

Now do you understand.

How could a video show that by the way?

Silentcorner wrote: »

I reckon the underwear should be shown in private to the jury, if deemed necessary...to limit the humiliation of the victim, it is the most intimate article of clothing...there is no need for it...

It wasn't passed around the public, it was shown to the jury.
It was evidence.
Again not sure how it can be avoided and still call the process fair.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It wasn't passed around the public, it was shown to the jury.
It was evidence.
Again not sure how it can be avoided and still call the process fair.

It was paraded around the court...daytrippers to the court got a look, the national media got a look, the families of the defendants got a look, no need for it, only a pervert would suggest that it is important for the public to see them...

The ONLY people who needed to see any it were the jury, they could have been shown it in private.

That is fair.

I would have thought we could all have agreed on that one, then I remembered where I was...

The underwear was used to imply she is a slut anyway, jury are not experts on menstrual blood or any other blood.

Silentcorner wrote: »

It was paraded around the court...daytrippers to the court got a look, the national media got a look, the families of the defendants got a look, no need for it, only a pervert would suggest that it is important for the public to see them...

The ONLY people who needed to see any it were the jury, they could have been shown it in private.

That is fair.

I would have thought we could all have agreed on that one, then I remembered where I was...

Have to ask you to back the 'paraded' bit up.
Trial reports say the underwear along with the rest of her clothing was taken from brown envelopes and shown to the judge, the complainant and the jury. Her evidence that she was 'covered in blood' was being interrogated at the time.

Was it not the prosecution who used the underwear as evidence, ie to show blood on it.

Why on earth would the defence ask for the underwear as evidence.

The expert defence for the witness disagreed about the blood, she said it might have been menstrual hence the need to establish whether the blood came from the cervix. If a video of the cervix needed to be shown to establish that the men didnt cause injuries resulting in blood loss then the womans sensitivities dont enter into it. I cant remember how the disagreement between the two forensic specialists ended up.

The judge in any event decides which evidence is admissable and not you silentcorner, thankfully.

If you are ever chosen for Jury duty in a rape case please let us know so we can show your thread history to the defence barristers, you would prejudge the defendents guilty without hearing any evidence at all.

I didn't realise that happened. It would not be difficult to clear the court apart from jury and legal team for that type of "evidence" The defendants obviously must challenge all evidence but no need to cause unnecessary upset.

meeeeh wrote: »

The underwear was used to imply she is a slut anyway, jury are not experts on menstrual blood or any other blood.

Do you have a source for this? As far as I'm aware it was introduced by the defence - they weren't implying the complainant was a slut surely?

Silentcorner wrote: »

It was paraded around the court...daytrippers to the court got a look, the national media got a look, the families of the defendants got a look, no need for it, only a pervert would suggest that it is important for the public to see them...

The ONLY people who needed to see any it were the jury, they could have been shown it in private.

That is fair.

I would have thought we could all have agreed on that one, then I remembered where I was...

To be fair I think the reasonable and balanced posters recognise and agree that these cases should be in camera.

Silentcorner wrote: »

It was paraded around the court for everyone who attended to see.

It was requested by one of the defence barristers.

It is all part of the humiliation of the victim. It is twisted, there will be a time in the distant future where we will be embarrassed we didn't use a more humane system sooner!

If it was part of the humiliation of the victim then why did the judge allow it to be used as evidence?

Despite the fact that it was reported that the young lady, while blushing profusely answered questions put to her.

https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-independent/20180210/281642485630299

She would not have blushed profusely if they were displayed, in private, at the juries request.

Time to end this humiliation for a start.

Does anyone think that this is the first time a woman's underwear has been pulled out of a bag to be displayed to the judge/jury and anyone else with eyesight in the court....

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Do you have a source for this? As far as I'm aware it was introduced by the defence - they weren't implying the complainant was a slut surely?

To be fair I think the reasonable and balanced posters recognise and agree that these cases should be in camera.

It was Brendan Kelly QC who asked that they be shown to the jury.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

Look, I know that any creative defence team will find a way to have a victims underwear shown to the jury, and by extension in open court....but it doesn't make it right!

Silentcorner wrote: »

Despite the fact that it was reported that the young lady, while blushing profusely answered questions put to her.

https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-independent/20180210/281642485630299

She would not have blushed profusely if they were displayed, in private, at the juries request.

Time to end this humiliation for a start.

Does anyone think that this is the first time a woman's underwear has been pulled out of a bag to be displayed to the judge/jury and anyone else with eyesight in the court....

Jesus wept. What part of EVIDENCE do you not understand? They don't whip out underwear for the craic.

To be fair the men were named and shamed long before they were ever tried and they are still being called rapists.

I think this ordeal is a lot more traumatic than people seeing a piece of underwear.

mfceiling wrote: »

If it was part of the humiliation of the victim then why did the judge allow it to be used as evidence?

This is not the first time a victims or alleged victims underwear have been paraded in court....

Just because they are judges does not mean they are not part of the problem...

givyjoe wrote: »

Jesus wept. What part of EVIDENCE do you not understand? They don't whip out underwear for the craic.

What the f##k are you prattling on about...

Go back and read my posts...and not the bits you want to see...

tretorn wrote: »

To be fair the men were named and shamed long before they were ever tried and they are still being called rapists.

I think this ordeal is a lot more traumatic than people seeing a piece of underwear.

Ya, I can't argue with that, I think we can all agree, the system in the North is barbaric for everyone...

At least down here, the defendants are afforded anonymity....

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is not the first time a victims or alleged victims underwear have been paraded in court....

Just because they are judges does not mean they are not part of the problem...

You cannot pick and choose about evidence, all her clothes were examined and were evidence.

The problem is the public being there and that had nothing to do with the defendants.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot pick and choose about evidence, all her clothes were examined and were evidence.

The problem is the public being there and that had nothing to do with the defendants.

I am not picking or choosing anything...

IF a victim or alleged victims underwear need to be seen, it can be done in private....

Why do people think I am suggesting otherwise...

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

It was Brendan Kelly QC who asked that they be shown to the jury.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

Look, I know that any creative defence team will find a way to have a victims underwear shown to the jury, and by extension in open court....but it doesn't make it right!

All the defendants clothing was displayed.
There was a matter re fake tan and blood:

"From another bag were produced the underwear she had worn that night.

The young woman’s colour rose as they were displayed, as discreetly as possible on top of the brown paper bag, to judge and jury by the court usher wearing blue latex gloves".

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-at-rugby-rape-trial-alleged-victim-questioned-over-fake-tan-stains-36580806.html

They werent displayed to the entire court.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

All the defendants clothing was displayed.
There was a matter re fake tan and blood:

"From another bag were produced the underwear she had worn that night.

The young woman’s colour rose as they were displayed, as discreetly as possible on top of the brown paper bag, to judge and jury by the court usher wearing blue latex gloves".

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-at-rugby-rape-trial-alleged-victim-questioned-over-fake-tan-stains-36580806.html

They werent displayed to the entire court.

Exactly, I can find no reference to it being 'paraded' anywhere. More sensationalism.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

All the defendants clothing was displayed.
There was a matter re fake tan and blood:

"From another bag were produced the underwear she had worn that night.

The young woman’s colour rose as they were displayed, as discreetly as possible on top of the brown paper bag, to judge and jury by the court usher wearing blue latex gloves".

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-at-rugby-rape-trial-alleged-victim-questioned-over-fake-tan-stains-36580806.html

They werent displayed to the entire court.

I was able to read reports at the time, that her underwear was on view...I don't really understand how discretion can be used...I mean, if the jury were not given a close look at the underwear then what did the defence wish to achieve??

I am not objecting to use of evidence...

The woman blushed profusely, as would any woman in the same position...does it not then make sense to change it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly, I can find no reference to it being 'paraded' anywhere. More sensationalism.

Explain to me, what discretion can be applied...or was applied...or what the Defence were hoping to achieve if only a glimpse of the underwear sufficed...

Unless, by showing them, even a glimpse, they achieved what they wanted to achieve...

My point is, the next defence team will use whatever creative method to get the ladys underwear in front of the jury....when will it end!!!

Silentcorner wrote: »

I was able to read reports at the time, that her underwear was on view...I don't really understand how discretion can be used...I mean, if the jury were not given a close look at the underwear then what did the defence wish to achieve??

I am not objecting to use of evidence...

The woman blushed profusely, as would any woman in the same position...does it not then make sense to change it?

I am sure they all blushed as the most intimate details of the night were analysed.

That is the way things are in cases like this.
The public's purient interest in celebs, partly drives the sensationalist reporting that leads to the word 'parading' coming into the equation when in fact it was anything but.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am sure they all blushed as the most intimate details of the night were analysed.

That is the way things are in cases like this.
The public's purient interest in celebs, partly drives the sensationalist reporting that leads to the word 'parading' coming into the equation when in fact it was anything but.

The process of showing to a jury a woman's underwear is nothing new, it is a tool to infuse in the minds of a jury a doubt...it is humiliating for any woman...it is unnecessary and can be done in a much more humane way...

The fact that we don't says a lot about how we think of women who have made allegations of rape/sexual assault.

Even if you don't agree with me, focus on this little issue and challenge yourself to see it from the victims point of view, ask yourself why would a legal system have no problem with this...

Silentcorner wrote: »

The process of showing to a jury a woman's underwear is nothing new, it is a tool to infuse in the minds of a jury a doubt...it is humiliating for any woman...it is unnecessary and can be done in a much more humane way...

The fact that we don't says a lot about how we think of women who have made allegations of rape/sexual assault.

Even if you don't agree with me, focus on this little issue and challenge yourself to see it from the victims point of view, ask yourself why would a legal system have no problem with this...

Look, if the public is going to sensationalise proceedings to referring to displaying evidence as 'parading' it around the court then we are off to a bad start.

Rape cases are about intimate acts, there is no way to avoid embarrassment.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look, if the public is going to sensationalise proceedings to referring to displaying evidence as 'parading' it around the court then we are off to a bad start.

Rape cases are about intimate acts, there is no way to avoid embarrassment.

Francie, challenging yourself is beyond you...nothing I can do about it...

Quick Links