Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…302303305307308…316

Comments

  • Options
    #9122
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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!!!


  • Options
    #9123
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #9124
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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...


  • Options
    #9125
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #9126
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    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...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9127
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Francie, challenging yourself is beyond you...nothing I can do about it...

    It had to be pointed out to you that it wasn't 'paraded' around the court in an effort to 'humiliate her'.

    But everyone else has to challenge themselves. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #9128
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It had to be pointed out to you that it wasn't 'paraded' around the court in an effort to 'humiliate her'.

    But everyone else has to challenge themselves. :rolleyes:

    Francie....why are we even talking about the woman's underwear...

    I used the term paraded because the article I read at the time suggested it was, there is a different report where it was described differently....the article I read described the colour and type...so they were in view, however discretely, to people other than the judge/jury...

    But either way, my point still stands....

    I really do not understand how that is so hard to see...

    Well, I do, this issue is a strong indicator how a person will perceive a woman who has made an allegation of date rape.


  • Options
    #9129
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Grayson wrote: »


    Seriously, look up belief. We're talking epistemology here. As in "How can you know that something is true", what is truth, what does it mean to know something.

    I've said that I believe the victim. I haven't said that I know. I'm making a very definite distinction there and I'm using very clear language to make it. This is based the limits in my knowledge.

    So please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I'm saying.
    Mod note:Alleged victim!

    Buford T. Justice

    Mod note: Let me make it quite simple for all contributors here. The woman is an ALLEGED victim and the men were found NOT GUILTY. Any more trying to dance around those facts will mean the thread closes. This is for your own protection as well as the sites. Any questions, take them to PM.

    Buford T. Justice


  • Options
    #9130
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree.

    Like I said, I am no expert, I just think we should be locking up more rapists, that's all!

    And the process should be made more comfortable for the alleged victims.

    I don't see what benefit parading womens underwear around a public courtroom has for the defendants other than to further humiliate the victim.

    In this case, her deeply personal examination was recorded, which almost resulted in the video being shown in public court...I mean, I don't know if that could happen here in the Republic, if it can I would be repulsed by it...

    I think we should be locking up all rapists. Of course we have due process and we can’t just lock up someone based solely on an allegation.


  • Options
    #9131
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Francie....why are we even talking about the woman's underwear...

    I used the term paraded because the article I read at the time suggested it was, there is a different report where it was described differently....the article I read described the colour and type...so they were in view, however discretely, to people other than the judge/jury...

    But either way, my point still stands....

    I really do not understand how that is so hard to see...

    Well, I do, this issue is a strong indicator how a person will perceive a woman who has made an allegation of date rape.

    I listened to the excellent reports from this trial, almost every day on Pat Kenny's Newstalk programme.

    I made no decision at all on the the verdict because I just didn't know enough of what was presented in court.
    I didn't perceive the young woman as anything other than a complainant.
    I didn't read sensationalist newspapers about the trial either.

    This debate about underwear/evidence has gone on since you used the word 'paraded' which is in itself a wrongful 'perception' of what went on at trial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9132
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Francie....why are we even talking about the woman's underwear...

    I used the term paraded because the article I read at the time suggested it was, there is a different report where it was described differently....the article I read described the colour and type...so they were in view, however discretely, to people other than the judge/jury...

    But either way, my point still stands....

    I really do not understand how that is so hard to see...

    Well, I do, this issue is a strong indicator how a person will perceive a woman who has made an allegation of date rape.

    nice assumption there at the end at Francie's expense.

    the underwear was used as evidence to allege a rape.
    evidence is usually presented to a jury. they would have also been described in evidence by the lawyers/witnesses, hence maybe the journalists description, One even described them as "lace". Did they get that close a look to feel the fabric? there's no way of knowing unless you were there, but it seems they weren't ran up a proverbial flag pole (fleg?).

    Although in this particular case I don't really see their relevance, or of what use to the defence it would be to "parade" them. the (oral etc) sex was not denied, just that it was consensual. they were shown however as part of the display of the entire complainant's wardrobe that night. SO's DNA was all over them.


  • Options
    #9133
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    goz83 wrote: »
    I think we should be locking up all rapists. Of course we have due process and we can’t just lock up someone based solely on an allegation.

    Where did anyone suggest that??


  • Options
    #9134
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    nice assumption there at the end at Francie's expense.

    the underwear was used as evidence to allege a rape.
    evidence is usually presented to a jury. they would have also been described in evidence by the lawyers/witnesses, hence maybe the journalists description, One even described them as "lace". Did they get that close a look to feel the fabric? there's no way of knowing unless you were there, but it seems they weren't ran up a proverbial flag pole (fleg?).

    Although in this particular case I don't really see their relevance, or of what use to the defence it would be to "parade" them. the (oral etc) sex was not denied, just that it was consensual. they were shown however as part of the display of the entire complainant's wardrobe that night. SO's DNA was all over them.

    Actually that last line was not directed at Francie...

    So you can't tell me either why the defence chose to present her underwear to the jury either...but they were...which as you pointed out provoked deep discomfort for the woman in question...

    Forget about this case for a minute...

    Why would any defence want a jury to see the alleged victims underwear? What evidence could it possess that could clear the defendants?

    Why does it always happen in rape trials, or a least more often than not...

    Why would any person, male or female have any problem reforming this humiliating procedure?

    If you scratch beneath this little isolated issue, you can begin to understand why women are reluctant to even report rape/sexual assault.


  • Options
    #9135
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Actually that last line was not directed at Francie...

    So you can't tell me either why the defence chose to present her underwear to the jury either...but they were...which as you pointed out provoked deep discomfort for the woman in question...

    Forget about this case for a minute...

    Why would any defence want a jury to see the alleged victims underwear? What evidence could it possess that could clear the defendants?

    Why does it always happen in rape trials, or a least more often than not...

    Why would any person, male or female have any problem reforming this humiliating procedure?

    If you scratch beneath this little isolated issue, you can begin to understand why women are reluctant to even report rape/sexual assault.

    It may be ripped, indicating force.
    It may have very little bloodstaining when the complainant claimed to be covered in blood.

    Like anything physical there that night it is evidence and it cannot be inadmissible just because somebody might be embarrassed.


  • Options
    #9136
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Actually that last line was not directed at Francie...

    So you can't tell me either why the defence chose to present her underwear to the jury either...but the were...which as you pointed out provoked deep discomfort for the woman in question...

    Forget about this case for a minute...

    Why would any defence want a jury to see the alleged victims underwear? What evidence could it possess that could clear the defendants?

    Why does it always happen in rape trials, or a least more often than not...

    Why would any person, male or female have any problem reforming this humiliating procedure?

    If you scratch beneath this little isolated issue, you can begin to understand why women are reluctant to even report rape/sexual assault.

    ill work backwards from from your post.

    maybe a woman needs to weigh her discomfort at having her underwear being shown discreetly to a jury against her desire to see her attacker face justice. they were entered as evidence by the prosecution. do you honestly think it would put someone off seeking justice? that her knickers might be shown to a jury ? In Ireland, with no public present?

    that said I've no issue with reforms to the process that obviate as much discomfort as possible for the defendant, but not as the risk of compromising the principles of "innocent until proven guilty".

    i agree with you though, unless they are used as evidence to demonstrate the presence of someone, or evidence of violence, I cant see their relevance. in fact in this case, there was no chain of custody, I dont see why the defence didnt move to "throw them out".


  • Options
    #9137
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It may be ripped, indicating force.
    It may have very little bloodstaining when the complainant claimed to be covered in blood.

    Like anything physical there that night it is evidence and it cannot be inadmissible just because somebody might be embarrassed.

    Jesus Christ.....does anyone actually read posts here...

    I did not say that underwear should be inadmissible anywhere.

    The little change (of how/when and to whom underwear should be presented in court) would make the very difficult process of a cross examination just a bit easier for a woman who is alleging she was raped.

    If we, as a society, cannot even consider extending this little courtesy to a women then it does reveal a fairly backward attitude...


  • Options
    #9138
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It may be ripped, indicating force.
    It may have very little bloodstaining when the complainant claimed to be covered in blood.

    Like anything physical there that night it is evidence and it cannot be inadmissible just because somebody might be embarrassed.

    At the time, I got the impression that it was shown to the jury to suggest to the jury that anyone wearing such underwear was 'looking for it.'


  • Options
    #9139
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    ill work backwards from from your post.

    maybe a woman needs to weigh her discomfort at having her underwear being shown discreetly to a jury against her desire to see her attacker face justice. they were entered as evidence by the prosecution. do you honestly think it would put someone off seeking justice? that her knickers might be shown to a jury ? In Ireland, with no public present?

    that said I've no issue with reforms to the process that obviate as much discomfort as possible for the defendant, but not as the risk of compromising the principles of "innocent until proven guilty".

    i agree with you though, unless they are used as evidence to demonstrate the presence of someone, or evidence of violence, I cant see their relevance. in fact in this case, there was no chain of custody, I dont see why the defence didnt move to "throw them out".


    The woman in this case was deeply uncomfortable with this part of the cross examination...she blushed profusely....a reaction that would be very common in alleged victims...IF that alleged victim was already traumatised by the original incident, this is going to do further harm....

    I suspect, and only suspect mind, that if the underwear fit into the defenses narrative, they will get them in front of the jury, and by extension the court.

    If she was represented by her own counsel, she would have a better chance of dismissing the relevance...I would imagine...I may not be right on that.


  • Options
    #9140
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    The woman in this case was deeply uncomfortable with this part of the cross examination...she blushed profusely....a reaction that would be very common in alleged victims...IF that alleged victim was already traumatised by the original incident, this is going to do further harm....

    I suspect, and only suspect mind, that if the underwear fit into the defenses narrative, they will get them in front of the jury, and by extension the court.

    If she was represented by her own counsel, she would have a better chance of dismissing the relevance...I would imagine...I may not be right on that.

    Id endorse your last point regarding representation.

    Youre clutching to them being paraded though, it seems they werent. The court is the judge, we dont know exactly what the public saw. She also blushed when her clothes were taken out first. A criminal prosecution of such a serious matter cant provide for someones embarrassment though.


  • Options
    #9141
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Where did anyone suggest that??

    “No smoke without fire” was a recent implication of guilt on this very thread. The echo chamber is filled with direct and indirect suggestions that the alleged victims word should be enough to prosecute.....that no alleged victim should be put through court because of the trauma it can cause.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9142
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,299 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    VinLieger wrote: »
    That poll is a farce setup by angry clueless people, its first iteration was demanding that the IRFU and Ulster rugby review the contracts of all 4 of the men involved in the case, which is hilarious considering 2 of them do not have a contract with either the IRFU or Ulster Rugby.

    It was setup demanding the IRFU and Ulster Rugby review the players conduct a full day after AFTER the IRFU and Ulster Rugby had already announced that's exactly what they were going to do.

    The people involved with the poll evidently didn't really care or were aware of the real facts and just wanted to stamp and scream in anger

    We don't know who the poll folks were-since it was all anonymous. It's an interesting question, for sure.

    People were doing similar polls for 'should Roy Keane have been sent home?' during Saipan-and he was far more egregiously treated, as a person and a player.


  • Options
    #9143
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jm08 wrote: »
    At the time, I got the impression that it was shown to the jury to suggest to the jury that anyone wearing such underwear was 'looking for it.'

    That would be the sensationalist narrative that the court was out to 'get' her from the start. As evidenced by remarks like 'to humiliate her'.

    I don't see any evidence of that to be honest. There are always two sets of rights to be balanced in a trial.


  • Options
    #9144
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.....does anyone actually read posts here...

    I did not say that underwear should be inadmissible anywhere.

    The little change (of how/when and to whom underwear should be presented in court) would make the very difficult process of a cross examination just a bit easier for a woman who is alleging she was raped.

    If we, as a society, cannot even consider extending this little courtesy to a women then it does reveal a fairly backward attitude...

    The problem is what it is for the entire trial - the presence of the public - and the marketing of what goes on in trials to the general public by the media. This is what lead to the misunderstanding of 'parading'.

    Other than that I cannot see it as fair and democratic to interfere with evidence or to restrict it's use on the basis that it might be 'embarrassing'.


  • Options
    #9145
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    What do people think about the proposal to lift reporting restrictions? The trial judge is hearing an application today in relation to this.

    I think it would be a bad idea and will just breath further life into the whole thing. No matter what "side" you're on, I'd say all parties involved probably just want all of this to go away at this stage.


  • Options
    #9146
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,355 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Why are we even debating how a trial is run in a different jurisdiction?? We have absolutely no power to impact change. We may as well be debating how trials run in Afghanistan.

    In our country this trial would have been run a lot differently, but again the outraged masses don't understand this.

    One point that seems to be lost on people is that its quite possible to have a case where a man believes a woman has consented, but the woman believes she has been raped. This is not rape, if it can be shown a man had reasonable belief the woman had consented.


  • Options
    #9147
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,299 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The problem is what it is for the entire trial - the presence of the public - and the marketing of what goes on in trials to the general public by the media. This is what lead to the misunderstanding of 'parading'.

    Other than that I cannot see it as fair and democratic to interfere with evidence or to restrict it's use on the basis that it might be 'embarrassing'.

    It was evidence, unfortunately. (I say that because who here would be happy to have their underwear shown in front of people-especially unwashed. Not mocking her or the situation). Similar to how most of us don't want our unmentionables shown to the public.

    Rape is, sadly, a very awful crime to prosecute-both for the defense and the prosecution (Making no comment on guilt or innocence, just stating facts), as it can be very invasive, to say the least.
    One would expect the media to be careful in those circumstances-but instead they can often present one story whilst omitting elements of the other.
    The differences in legal proceedings in the North compared to here, left them with far more reporting opportunities. And I think there was a lack of responsibility to be neutral in reporting.


  • Options
    #9148
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    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’m sure the four defendants were equally uncomfortable, and probably also blushed, when the texts were read out. Should they also have been spared that? The texts if anything appear to have much less evidential value.

    If it does have evidential value it has to be available for use. From an earlier post it appears that a degree of discretion was used, however holding a trial in camera (or at least far less publicly accessible) would seem the better approach.

    More generally, I’ve posted previously that both sides appeared to make this trial more about character than evidence. That’s possibly is reflective of the sheer lack of evidence however the prosecutions class based attempt to blacken the defendants was shameful. At least the complainant is protected from outright slanders thrown her way in the courtroom, parts of the prosecution summing up were utterly outrageous and have inevitably influenced the post trial view.


  • Options
    #9149
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Willie john McBride, president of Ulster Rugby Supporters on Sean O'Rourke this morning to explain why Jackson and Olding should be allowed to resume their careers.


  • Options
    #9150
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    erica74 wrote:
    What do people think about the proposal to lift reporting restrictions? The trial judge is hearing an application today in relation to this.

    I think it's a bad idea. It will only prolong focus on all the individuals involved in this who need to try to get past this and move on with their lives.

    Also, there is another case being prosecuted at the moment with the intimate details of the alleged crime being again, reported on news bulletins. Again, I think this is salacious and entirely unnecessary with respect to the trial being held.

    I think News outlets are being excessively descriptive in their reporting of such cases, which I can only surmise is in order to attract listeners. Frank Greaneys bulletins on Newstalk relating the trial in Belfast were way over the top, proceeded with a warning 1.3 seconds before his report started.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9151
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,029 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Tell me how wrote: »
    I think it's a bad idea. It will only prolong focus on all the individuals involved in this who need to try to get past this and move on with their lives.

    Also, there is another case being prosecuted at the moment with the intimate details of the alleged crime being again, reported on news bulletins. Again, I think this is salacious and entirely unnecessary with respect to the trial being held.

    I think News outlets are being excessively descriptive in their reporting of such cases, which I can only surmise is in order to attract listeners. Frank Greaneys bulletins on Newstalk relating the trial in Belfast were way over the top, proceeded with a warning 1.3 seconds before his report started.

    Have to defend Greaney here (while agreeing that there should have been no reporting at all) I thought his reporting was comprehensive, factual and avoided sensationalising events.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement