opinionated3 wrote: » So they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law, but still lose their jobs/livelihoods because of social media? Mob rule at it's worst IMO
Silentcorner wrote: » Oh for f##ks sake, I know full well why there was four barristers. That fact remains it was unprecedented. I know full well who made the decision to carry out the four trials together. But there are some right nutters who think this case shouldn't have gone to court who'd want to take a look at themselves. By doing that, you are inferring that this young woman either fooled them all, and by all I mean, the Rape Crisis Centre, The PSNI, The Crown Prosecutors office, who collectively managed to get this case all the way to the jury, despite the best efforts of the defense team. Otherwise, start a thread in the conspiracy forum because that is where that nonsense belongs!
tritium wrote: » Oh for ****s sake. Of all the disreputable, dishonest slants we’ve seen put on how this case transpired that on really takes the biscuit Care to acknowledge why there had to be four barristers? Care to acknowledge who made to decision to carry out four trials together? Setting a new low there. Utterly pathetic post
tretorn wrote: » Piss off is a very rude term to use, I feel offended, where are the thought police, I want someone to pay because I feel offended.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The essence of it is saying something you thought was private and having it plastered all over the media. Doesn't even have to be sexual..
NAGDEFI wrote: » Honestly Francie i was never the type to say sexual stuff like 'Jaysus yer wan's a ride'. Now what i might say about someone who crossed me is 'jaysus i'll kill that bastard'. My fuse could be short with drink. I actually gave it up because it brought out a very aggressive side in me. Off it 15 yrs. When you look at it that way we all have our weaknesses in different areas.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The test is not would you say what they said. It is: have you ever said anything privately that you would not say in public.
BBDBB wrote: » The IRFU are to make a statement tomorrow concerning their future. rumours are abound that they are going to hang them out to dry, quite what that means I don’t know. Some here will no doubt rejoice. Which is also a pity as there are no winners in this situation as I’ve said from the very beginning
NAGDEFI wrote: » I feel totally talked out on this particular topic Some sort of closure for all concerned would be great now. It's amazing how we follow news items like this, form our opinions yet none of us in any way actually know Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding or the girl at the centre of the case. We really know nothing of them as people, in simplistic language what's in their hearts. We try and gauge them in press conferences, through what they say etc. Have i said things i regretted, absolutely. Do i think i'd ever say what they said, i don't think so. But make me a pro sports person, in a bubble, 20 years younger, everyone is speaking like this. And i'm sure maybe i would say stuff like that. Environment...
BBDBB wrote: » United Airlines throwing that dr off a flight was probably the last big one Ps that security guard who got sacked is now suing for unfair dismissal as he wasn’t trained to deal with such a situation
NAGDEFI wrote: » Boards must have been busy in May 2002 with SAIPAN. I'd imagine this must be the second most polarised issue on boards. Maybe i'm wrong but i can't think of anything off hand. I mean the particular not guilty of rape thread which is a few weeks old, not like Repeal the 8th which kicked off almost a year ago.
Silentcorner wrote: » Ya, that is exactly what I said. If you wish to flippantly believe that the size of the legal team is meaningless to proceedings then you underestimate the money these guys charge. I didn't say 12 big bad barristers....anywhere!!!It was not for want of trying that the trial made it to the very end, in alleged rape cases, that in itself is quiet rare. Let me guess...it waz the feminazis wot did it!!
Silentcorner wrote: » Indeed.... We saw this week details that the defence successfully argued should not be presented to the jury...there were literally dozens of other legal arguments that the defence made in an attempt to get the judge to direct the jury to acquit. See that is the job of the defence, normally one barrister and maybe one other solicitor/junior counsel....in this case there was a legal team of 12!!!!!! 12, including 4 barristers....who have argued every minute detail in this case in an attempt to collapse the trial...before the case made it to court it was the object of a number of different motions.... If you think this case should never have gone court you must believe that there was some other dark force behind it...requiring you to jump through yet another hoop in the desperate attempt to believe the lads were hard done by... But like you correctly said...there is none so blind as those who cannot see!
Faugheen wrote: » Since you refuse to acknowledge and answer my questions, I won't be answering yours (for the 10th time). I would kindly ask that you don't respond to one of my posts again since we're clearly going nowhere. You look a bit obsessed with my opinion and it's quite worrying. Thanks.
Faugheen wrote: » Answer my questions then, because I've answered yours numerous times and you have never answered any of mine.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Francie. Blood on bed. Yes? No? Don't think about the word 'covered'. I won't ask you again. Did she leave the house upset? Yes or no? I won't ask you again. Did the lads boast about a conquest which ultimately found the woman was treated like ****, yes or no? I've already said they probably didn't know about the blood, but Jackson did when he was lying in it and he's talking about spit roasts, so there's that. Also, if I recall correctly, you have made reference to 'false allegations' which is sensationalising, no? At the very least it's untrue. Answer my questions there now like a good boy, because so far you have refused to and thrown the same ****e at me. Faugheen, you cannot take liberties with the truth...unless you have an agenda. And you plainly do. Can you stand over these statements or not. Remember I know the details of the trial and I don't need you to tell me. Take them one by one: 1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood. 2. She RAN from the house CRYING. 3. That the men joked about the above the next day.
Faugheen wrote: » Francie. Blood on bed. Yes? No? Don't think about the word 'covered'. I won't ask you again. Did she leave the house upset? Yes or no? I won't ask you again. Did the lads boast about a conquest which ultimately found the woman was treated like ****, yes or no? I've already said they probably didn't know about the blood, but Jackson did when he was lying in it and he's talking about spit roasts, so there's that. Also, if I recall correctly, you have made reference to 'false allegations' which is sensationalising, no? At the very least it's untrue. Answer my questions there now like a good boy, because so far you have refused to and thrown the same ****e at me.
tretorn wrote: » Faugheen and a few more like him dont care whose blood it was. They are implying the woman was left a bloody mess after the threesome which means great force was used on her. They are raging the all the blood found doesnt belong to the woman who alleged rape but the fact that its there is enough to paint Jackson as somebody who regularly injures women in his house. I really, really hope Faugheen is never called for jury service involving any man accused of any crime whatsoever and particularly not the crime of rape. Faugheen not only would ignore factual evidence, he or she would make up evidence in order to justify themselves and everyone else on the jury to send an innocent person to jail. Faugheen is a very dangerous individual and its frightening that the PSNI and the PPS could bring such a ridiculous case, you would like to think the PPS would spot a case full of holes and thereby prevent the like of faugheen getting to pass judgment on anyone. There are none so blind as though who wont see.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Was her blood on the bed, yes or no? I have said from the very beginning that she was left bleeding and hysterical. Photographs, the doctor and Jackson himself have confirmed that she was bleeding. Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and Rory Harrison acknowledged during or after the trial that she was upset. Does the above make the statement that she left their company bleeding and hysterical true or false? I imagine you're going to back this up with evidence that I said any of this or are you just going to bumble and bluster. Again, evidence where I said I would have found the men guilty. I have said so many ****ing times that the verdict of Not Guilty was the right one. If you actually read posts instead of reading what you wanted to read you would have seen that. Don't call me a dangerous individual when you have absolutely no basis for it. I have only ever given my opinion based off FACTS of this case and how it could affect Jackson and Olding's careers being restarted in Ireland. Funny enough, they agree with me in the sense that the woman did not leave Jackson's house in a good state, yet you seem intent on disagreeing with it. Oh the irony is strong on this statement. Now, back up your accusations you've made about me or piss off and let the adults talk. You got caught telling a downright lie in the first thread and disappeared for a while rather than admit it. I can go back and get the post if you wish. You agreed with Grayson on this thread: 1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood. It wasn't, that is a lie. There was 'some' blood on the bed. 2. She RAN from the house CRYING. Again, didn't happen. 3. That the men joked about the above the next day. Again, a downright lie. They never mentioned the bed, blood or her running from the house crying.
Faugheen wrote: » Was her blood on the bed, yes or no? I have said from the very beginning that she was left bleeding and hysterical. Photographs, the doctor and Jackson himself have confirmed that she was bleeding. Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and Rory Harrison acknowledged during or after the trial that she was upset. Does the above make the statement that she left their company bleeding and hysterical true or false? I imagine you're going to back this up with evidence that I said any of this or are you just going to bumble and bluster. Again, evidence where I said I would have found the men guilty. I have said so many ****ing times that the verdict of Not Guilty was the right one. If you actually read posts instead of reading what you wanted to read you would have seen that. Don't call me a dangerous individual when you have absolutely no basis for it. I have only ever given my opinion based off FACTS of this case and how it could affect Jackson and Olding's careers being restarted in Ireland. Funny enough, they agree with me in the sense that the woman did not leave Jackson's house in a good state, yet you seem intent on disagreeing with it. Oh the irony is strong on this statement. Now, back up your accusations you've made about me or piss off and let the adults talk.
Silentcorner wrote: » Good article hear about it...https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/07/less-than-2-of-rape-trials-in-northern-ireland-end-in-conviction-why-the-system-needs-reformed/ This should be a seminal moment in how we conduct trials...this was a trial like no others.
