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…310311312313315

Comments

  • Options
    #9422
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    The judge said the men were of good character.

    I think not changing your sheets is evidence you arent really of good character, its a bit slovenly.

    This trial though wasnt about dereliction of housekeeping duties, thankfully.

    Pj needs to find a good woman to settle down with and to keep house for him.

    She can throw the bedsheets in with his rugby gear, hopefully he will be back doing what PJ does best shortly.


  • Options
    #9423
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,778 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Happy4all wrote: »
    a threesome with a dog?

    you're some sick bastard

    I think that happened in Limerick.


  • Options
    #9424
    Happy4all
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭Happy4all


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    I think that happened in Limerick.

    Thomond Park?


  • Options
    #9425
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    I didn't think it was possible, but it seems both sides are even more entrenched than they were this morning....

    Irish Rugby, and Ulster Rugby are in a very very difficult situation...

    The more it comes out, the more the guys don't look very good-from a moralistic point of view, not from a jury chosen point of view. The behaviour afterwards, and the aspect of the sheets is very concerning.

    One could argue the alleged victim felt that more alleged victims might have spoken up-and did not.

    This isn't 'boys being boys' or 'men being red blooded men'.
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Fair enough, but then Judge Patricia Smyth said that the 4 accused were of 'good character' in her charge to the jury. I just think with all the talk of top shaggers and spitroasting and the timing of the video being sent (the next day) would have been somewhat evidential.

    Like I said, I'm not trying to be outraged or anything like that. The video really doesn't make a difference to the verdict in my opinion but it's now a big talking point I think.

    'Good character' is a term used for 'no previous convictions'. It doesn't suppose who is or isn't a good person, just that they don't have a record.

    The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

    Jackson's twitter has lost 100 followers-so seems his support has taken a hit.


  • Options
    #9426
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,778 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Happy4all wrote: »
    Thomond Park?

    Why not? If you play rugby and male you're guilty around these parts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9427
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,049 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Ireland must be sold out of tinfoil hats at this stage.

    I actually thought whatever they were holding back would be a lot worse so this is close to a win for the 2 Ulster lads. I can see how the judge didn't want to release it from how the lunatic twitter mob is reacting, but from an IRFU review perspective all it shows is that Olding received a dirty gif, doesn't have the best aim, and Paddy doesn't clean his sheets very often.


  • Options
    #9428
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,598 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    I like most people do not know what happened for sure that night - would expect a judge and jury would know more than the Irish public - why 2 weeks later is this still headline news in Ireland , when the world could be on the cusp of nuclear war?
    Is the Irish public more interested in 4 rugby players possible guilt over the end of the world ?
    Besides ther are many more sinister cases in our own juridstriction , where convicted violent rapists have been released early from custody.


  • Options
    #9429
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    RabbleRouser2k wrote: »
    The more it comes out, the more the guys don't look very good-from a moralistic point of view, not from a jury chosen point of view. The behaviour afterwards, and the aspect of the sheets is very concerning.

    One could argue the alleged victim felt that more alleged victims might have spoken up-and did not.

    This isn't 'boys being boys' or 'men being red blooded men'.



    'Good character' is a term used for 'no previous convictions'. It doesn't suppose who is or isn't a good person, just that they don't have a record.

    The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

    Jackson's twitter has lost 100 followers-so seems his support has taken a hit.


    The aspect of the sheets isnt concerning at all, it wasnt the complainants blood so its of no consequence at all.

    It just means that the sheets arent washed very often. PJ went off out for breakfast the day after the threesome, himself, wouldnt you think he would have thrown the sheets in the washing machine before he went out.

    Imagine sleeping in a bed where your friend had oral sex and you had blood on your fingers and then getting up the next morning and leaving the sheets were they were.

    Thats much worse than any of the whatsapp messages the men sent.


  • Options
    #9430
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,049 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    RabbleRouser2k wrote: »
    The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

    Why are the IRFU going to get a headache about a legal consensual paid threesome video that was sent by someone who doesn't work for them? I doubt the sports councils terms cover what videos you watch or people send to you.


  • Options
    #9431
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    tretorn wrote: »
    She can throw the bedsheets in with his rugby gear, hopefully he will be back doing what PJ does best shortly.

    I think PJ would do well to learn another profession just in case. His supporters are doing very good job of reminding everyone he was accused of rape in threads like this and all over the media (The legend who has bloody sex all the time). The more they cheer less the country forgets. So keep on back slapping and doing good job boys. A bit more support like that and he'll have to leave Europe to do what he does best.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9432
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

    It begins...


  • Options
    #9433
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

    It begins...

    I would wager a bet they will all say that. Due dilligence and keeping the twitterati mob at bay.

    Bank would do a lot of business with rugby supporters too, which will be a consideration.


  • Options
    #9434
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    thebaz wrote: »
    I like most people do not know what happened for sure that night - would expect a judge and jury would know more than the Irish public - why 2 weeks later is this still headline news in Ireland , when the world could be on the cusp of nuclear war?
    Is the Irish public more interested in 4 rugby players possible guilt over the end of the world ?
    Besides ther are many more sinister cases in our own juridstriction , where convicted violent rapists have been released early from custody.

    Ah thebaz-you've not read up on your Irish history...

    When all the world news media were covering the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, over here in Ireland the major news story was an upper class toff woman who didn't upholster a chair but paid another fella to do it.
    Then claimed she did it, and went on the Late Late Show.

    Case went to court, the guy proved he did it (all furniture makers/ upholsterers/ restorerers put a mark on their chairs-a signature, if you will-as did he, and showed where it was).
    America's villain-Guy who killed 168 people, and injured almost 700 more.
    Ireland's Villain-some wagon who didn't upholster a chair.


  • Options
    #9435
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RabbleRouser2k wrote: »
    The more it comes out, the more the guys don't look very good-from a moralistic point of view, not from a jury chosen point of view. The behaviour afterwards, and the aspect of the sheets is very concerning.

    One could argue the alleged victim felt that more alleged victims might have spoken up-and did not.

    This isn't 'boys being boys' or 'men being red blooded men'.



    'Good character' is a term used for 'no previous convictions'. It doesn't suppose who is or isn't a good person, just that they don't have a record.

    The video is gonna give the Irfu more of a headache, and ditto Ulster Rugby. Sharing a video, shot without consent, and, one could potentially argue amounts to 'slut shaming'-again, either or-throws the guys into another bad light. And could amount to a breach of the sports councils terms, among other items that have been unearthed.

    Jackson's twitter has lost 100 followers-so seems his support has taken a hit.


    Where is the 'video, shot without consent' coming from?


  • Options
    #9436
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

    It begins...

    You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

    Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.


  • Options
    #9437
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

    Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

    Yeah, it's Ulster Rugby vs IRFU-Ulsters not been doing much, so it's not going to be too much of a loss.

    The Irish team will still be sponsored-and the lads are not part of the Irish team-harsh as that is, it's the truth.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I would wager a bet they will all say that. Due dilligence and keeping the twitterati mob at bay.

    Bank would do a lot of business with rugby supporters too, which will be a consideration.

    Yeah-but it's the banks who have people by the cojones, not the other way around. Many employers transferred their business over to BoI and other banks after the Ulster bank debacle where people couldn't get paid because of a computer error.

    It's rate of interest and other elements that keep people coming back to their bank-not who they sponsor.
    The average joe on the street won't care who doesn't get sponsored, they just want their money


  • Options
    #9438
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    I think Paddy will have nothing but time on his hands to wash those sheets. And maybe he could give the frat house a good scrub while he's at it. Best to keep busy, idle hands and all that.


  • Options
    #9439
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Irish edition of The Times running a story that Bank of Ireland is reviewing their sponsorship of Ulster Rugby.

    It begins...

    You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

    Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

    The sponsors are looking at public opinion, which is very much divided.

    I'm hazarding a guess here, that it's more likely that more people would withdraw their custom if they were kept than if they weren't. As I said, just a guess. I've no basis for it.

    Also, we'd be going into a World Cup where everyone knows what happened with Jackson (if he's in the squad) and his behaviour and we're nowhere guaranteed to win the thing. Any sponsor worth their salt wouldn't gamble on something that is far from a sure thing.

    What is a sure thing is how Jackson has divided opinion. If I was a sponsor, I would want nothing to do with it regardless of whether I felt the reaction towards him is warranted or not. Me saying 'he was found not guilty' isn't going to mean people will go 'you know what? You're right'. They'll still be angry, and could target your business as a result.

    You seem to have your head in the sand when it comes to something like this. Your want for them to return to the rugby pitch is blinding a matter that is now becoming a concern for sponsors and you're suggesting they won't do anything because some rugby supporters might not use their custom.

    There's a hell of a lot more for sponsors to think about than just the rugby supporters. This trial has gone far beyond rugby supporters which is something sponsors will think about.

    I'm not saying BoI will pull out if Jackson and Olding are reinstated, but the fact they're saying that they're watching proceedings is not a good sign, whatever way you want to spin it.


  • Options
    #9440
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RabbleRouser2k wrote: »
    Yeah, it's Ulster Rugby vs IRFU-Ulsters not been doing much, so it's not going to be too much of a loss.

    The Irish team will still be sponsored-and the lads are not part of the Irish team-harsh as that is, it's the truth.
    You will find it is all interconnected, Ulster Rugby is a constiuent part of the IRFU.
    It will be a consideration.
    Yeah-but it's the banks who have people by the cojones, not the other way around. Many employers transferred their business over to BoI and other banks after the Ulster bank debacle where people couldn't get paid because of a computer error.

    It's rate of interest and other elements that keep people coming back to their bank-not who they sponsor.
    The average joe on the street won't care who doesn't get sponsored, they just want their money

    So why do they bother 'sponsoring' :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #9441
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    RabbleRouser2k wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You also have to remember that Ireland are going to a World Cup as the second best team in the world and a prospect to win the thing.

    Can you imagine the PR value of that to a sponsor? They are not going to willingly **** in that nest after all the years of investment.

    Yeah, it's Ulster Rugby vs IRFU-Ulsters not been doing much, so it's not going to be too much of a loss.

    The Irish team will still be sponsored-and the lads are not part of the Irish team-harsh as that is, it's the truth.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I would wager a bet they will all say that. Due dilligence and keeping the twitterati mob at bay.

    Bank would do a lot of business with rugby supporters too, which will be a consideration.

    Yeah-but it's the banks who have people by the cojones, not the other way around. Many employers transferred their business over to BoI and other banks after the Ulster bank debacle where people couldn't get paid because of a computer error.

    It's rate of interest and other elements that keep people coming back to their bank-not who they sponsor.
    The average joe on the street won't care who doesn't get sponsored, they just want their money

    BoI and Kingspan signed a deal worth 4 and a half million pounds for 3 years (I think) and that deal is up next year.

    It could potentially be worth a lot of money to Ulster if BoI were to say 'drop them' and Ulster said no.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9442
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Faugheen wrote: »
    There's a hell of a lot more for sponsors to think about than just the rugby supporters. This trial has gone far beyond rugby supporters which is something sponsors will think about.

    And because of all the other sex scandals, short of genocide, being accused of sex crime brings just about the worst publicity. I can see the titles, "In the year of #metoo Irish rugby and it's sponsors stand for complete disrespect of women".

    I actually find it fascinating how the whole thing will unfold. It's very interesting from the perspective of corporate PR and if they are not kept it will be interesting to see how far the scandal echoes.


  • Options
    #9443
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    BoI and Kingspan signed a deal worth 4 and a half million pounds for 3 years (I think) and that deal is up next year.

    It could potentially be worth a lot of money to Ulster if BoI were to say 'drop them' and Ulster said no.

    The point is the bank are not there for no return and they are interlinked throughout Irish rugby.

    There will be other considerations along the bottom line here.


  • Options
    #9444
    Titzon Toast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Titzon Toast


    Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
    Some juicy stuff in them.


  • Options
    #9445
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You will find it is all interconnected, Ulster Rugby is a constiuent part of the IRFU.
    It will be a consideration.



    So why do they bother 'sponsoring' :rolleyes:

    Sorry, seems my coffee is wearing off.

    Yeah, all interconnected-but Ulster Rugby clubs haven't been having the similar rate of success as those in the Republic. So for them, it's gonna be a major loss-they'll look at two guys and cut their losses-sports is a cruel business, to say the least.

    Why do they bother sponsoring? Easy, spend money to make money-businesses go down the tubes every year because they don't spent somewhere in the region of 25 to 33 percent of thie profits annually to promote themselves.

    Sponsorship is business-it's them making money, not the irfu.


  • Options
    #9446
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Titzon Toast wrote: »
    Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
    Some juicy stuff in them.

    No put a PM would be appreciated


  • Options
    #9447
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Titzon Toast wrote: »
    Anybody else here receive the WhatsApp messages that are currently doing the rounds?
    Some juicy stuff in them.

    PM me with em.


  • Options
    #9448
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    SeanW wrote: »
    First of all, before a guilty verdict there is no "victim" there is only an ALLEGED victim. ALLEGED. As to all that stuff about being "cross examined by a defense team" that's called having a fair trial. The right to face ones accuser and to robustly challenge their claims is a requirement for due process.

    So the defence should not be allowed to question the evidence?

    Evans and his friend gave their account of the night. Among other things, they said - truthfully - that she said stuff to them like "f me harder". The prosecution stated that this was not true because she would not have said that. But it was the prosecutions' statements that were not true, and it was necessary to delve into the so-called "victim"s personal history to refute the FALSE statements by the prosecution in the original trial. I.E. their claim that she made certain statements was found to be much more credible given that history.

    Perhaps you should read the testimony of the woman involved. She said she couldn't remember anything, so how could she have made false statements?

    Is the BBC up to your standard, or do you only believe what the Daily Mail reports?
    Had Ched Evans defense team not been able to introduce that evidence, an innocent man would still be in jail. Why do you want that?

    Chen Evans admitted having sex with a teenager who was out of her tree so couldn't have given consent. That is rape under the law now.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17689346


  • Options
    #9449
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Why was Harrison's video to Olding not allowed?

    Considering they tried to say there was no penetrative sex involved in this 'spitroast', that video (even though it's not of the three people involved) is just as relevant as to what happened?

    The airbrushed blood on Jackson's sheets won't go down well either (even if it wasn't hers).

    Can see why the defence were eager to have all this kept quiet.

    I can't see why the video wasn't allowed when the texts were. It was sent the following day, after Harrison had accompanied the girl home while she was in a reportedly distressed state. Also after he had sent a text in which he said 'this is not going to end well'. The video illustrates the frame of mind of the guys, just as the texts do. If one had been allowed, so should the other have been, or, vice versa, nothing should have been allowed.


  • Options
    #9450
    Musefan
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭Musefan


    RabbleRouser2k wrote: »
    PM me with em.

    I’d appreciate a pm too!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9451
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    jm08 wrote: »
    Perhaps you should read the testimony of the woman involved. She said she couldn't remember anything, so how could she have made false statements?

    Is the BBC up to your standard, or do you only believe what the Daily Mail reports?



    Chen Evans admitted having sex with a teenager who was out of her tree so couldn't have given consent. That is rape under the law now.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17689346

    She also googled 'was I raped'. (That article is from the first trial, not the 2016 retrial-so it's already out of date and ignoring evidence submitted on the retrial).

    He admitted to having sex with her-never denied it. She never called it rape-even after the case, she never said rape.
    And, as she admitted, she could not remember what had happened that night. The argument in that case was 'could she prove she had not given consent, and could she also prove the guys knew she was intoxicated and thus could not give consent'. As they had also been drinking, they were also intoxicated.
    The retrial, and new evidence, showed that they believed they had been given consent (even via non verbal cues).

    The law didn't change-it's always been rape if no consent is given. But what created a problem for the complainant in Evans case was simply 'she couldn't remember'. She wasn't drugged, she wasn't spiked-she'd just drank a lot.
    They believed she was sober enough to give consent-she never called it rape, thus acquittal.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement