Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Muahahaha · 15-12-2018 11:03PM

salmocab wrote: »

He certainly didn’t make sure they got their stories straight as no two stories from anyone that night was the same, including the girl and the witnesses.

In fairness there was a strong element of cover up that came out in the trial- the day after the night before all four of the accused met in a Belfast cafe and none of them had their phones on them. If one of them forgot their phone you would say fair enough, all four of them doing so sounds strongly like the purpose of the cafe meeting was to get their stories straight and a misguided hope that the police wouldnt find out about it. Irrespective of the verdict their behaviour in the direct aftermath suggests they were trying to act in tandem before police quesioning.

mad muffin · 16-12-2018 12:15AM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You don’t own the realm of public opinion to speak for it.
They all had their day in court; acquitted.
Referring to someone as scum when you weren’t there; that’s a lot closer to scum.

They are an embarrassment to humanity.

salmocab · 16-12-2018 12:37AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

In fairness there was a strong element of cover up that came out in the trial- the day after the night before all four of the accused met in a Belfast cafe and none of them had their phones on them. If one of them forgot their phone you would say fair enough, all four of them doing so sounds strongly like the purpose of the cafe meeting was to get their stories straight and a misguided hope that the police wouldnt find out about it. Irrespective of the verdict their behaviour in the direct aftermath suggests they were trying to act in tandem before police quesioning.

I’m sorry they are well educated men if the best they could come up was the incoherent crap they did then I’d be worried about them. It was a bull **** story from all from day one and had no business in court.

16-12-2018 01:12AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You do realize that they were found not guilty? There was no rape, no sexual assault, no victim.
....

As regards the woman involved - tears and blood do not equal rape and to suggest otherwise is at best naive.

Regarding the bolder bits..... who said there was no rape?

"albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt"

If you reckon the verdict is a representation of events you yourself are a tad naive.
Guilty folk are found not guilty daily in courts.

Jackson's defence was essentially that he didn't shag the girl so the consent issue was deemed a non starter. The other lad at the "spit roast" claimed he didn't know / couldn't see if Jackson was having sex with her or fingering her (total bull sh1t imo) .

The girl claimed she was raped and the witness claimed Jackson was definitely having penetrative sex from the movements but as she didn't actually see penetration by his penis in legal land it didn't happen.

16-12-2018 01:21AM

salmocab wrote: »

I’m sorry they are well educated men if the best they could come up was the incoherent crap they did then I’d be worried about them. It was a bull **** story from all from day one and had no business in court.

Given you reckon they were all lying (bullsh1t story from all suggests so.... )....do you think Jackson had sex with her?

upandcumming · 16-12-2018 03:01AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

In fairness there was a strong element of cover up that came out in the trial- the day after the night before all four of the accused met in a Belfast cafe and none of them had their phones on them. If one of them forgot their phone you would say fair enough, all four of them doing so sounds strongly like the purpose of the cafe meeting was to get their stories straight and a misguided hope that the police wouldnt find out about it. Irrespective of the verdict their behaviour in the direct aftermath suggests they were trying to act in tandem before police quesioning.

Was this the same café beside Paddy's house, where he was well known, and frequented? To concoct a story to cover up a rape over a few frappuccinos with other high-profile rugby players? And the story was still a complete mess?
Is this a serious post?

suicide_circus · 16-12-2018 06:36AM

I do love a little righteous indignation and holier than thou piety

facehugger99 · 16-12-2018 09:04AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You do realize that they were found not guilty? There was no rape, no sexual assault, no victim.

The texts were a bit unsavory yes but they aren’t grounds for ruining a man’s life or jumping to conclusions about how he thinks about women. We cannot and should not try to police peoples private conversations.

As regards the woman involved - tears and blood do not equal rape and to suggest otherwise is at best naive.

And you do realise if someone is found not guilty of murder, the victim isn't magically resurrected?

Seriously has to be one of the dumbest post on Boards for months.

pjohnson · 16-12-2018 09:24AM

facehugger99 wrote: »

And you do realise if someone is found not guilty of murder, the victim isn't magically resurrected?

Seriously has to be one of the dumbest post on Boards for months.

Ah dont be so hard on yourself. You've easily made dumber ones in the last week or so!

The Rape of Lucretia · 16-12-2018 09:33AM

mad muffin wrote: »

They are an embarrassment to humanity.

Still something seriously wrong with the UK justice system though where the possibility of a well intoxicated woman later regretting some rumpy pumpy ends of costing guys who may well have done nothing wrong at all at all, a heck of a lot of money.

salmocab · 16-12-2018 09:45AM

Augeo wrote: »

Given you reckon they were all lying (bullsh1t story from all suggests so.... )....do you think Jackson had sex with her?

Well you will have to show me where I said they were all lying first.

Faugheen · 16-12-2018 10:11AM

The only one who was absolutely lying was Blaine McIlroy. He said she had oral sex with him but even the complainant and Jackson both said that didn't happen.

I never laughed so much when Jackson's barrister cross-examined him and asked him if it was true that McIlroy's friends thought that he chatted sh*te, and McIlroy said 'yes'.

For Jackson and Olding, I think Olding's statement summed it up. He essentially said that someone clearly wasn't happy with what went on but he didn't knowingly believe she wasn't consenting.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest she wasn't consenting, but there's equally a lot of evidence to suggest Jackson and Olding weren't aware of this at the time. I don't think you can convict them based on this.

It's a sorry affair for all involved but Jackson didn't come out of it looking well at all. Public opinion was massively against him as it was, but then having his solicitor send thinly-veiled, self-entitled threats to the IRFU and UR was never going to go down well, as well as handing out lawsuits all over the shop.

It did however raise concerns about their treatment of women. This clearly wasn't the first time they had used a woman like this and clearly they found one who wasn't overly happy about it. Blaine McIlroy's whatsapp messages suggests this.

Before anyone mentions Murray and Zebo, the woman involved clearly was very happy about that.

16-12-2018 11:37AM

salmocab wrote: »

I’m sorry they are well educated men if the best they could come up was the incoherent crap they did then I’d be worried about them. It was a bull **** story from all from day one and had no business in court.

salmocab wrote: »

Well you will have to show me where I said they were all lying first.

" bull **** story from all from day one"
Bull**** from all suggests they were all bull****ting....

salmocab · 16-12-2018 11:52AM

Augeo wrote: »

" bull **** story from all from day one"
Bull**** from all suggests they were all bull****ting....

It was bull in so far as no two accounts were the same, I think they all told it as they remember but it’s at best hazy and at worst none actually know. I haven’t a clue whether they had sex and frankly I don’t care. They all put themselves in a stupid position including the girl and there were certainly no winners except maybe a few handwringers who are happy that 2 men’s lives were ruined (the other 2 are never mentioned as they arent famous) as they are happy that the court was wrong but now claim it’s the attitude of the men as shown in a WhatsApp group that they really have a problem with.
Them lads were a bunch of dicks but the punishment they’ve received is disproportionate to them being dicks.

16-12-2018 02:02PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Think you might want to rethink that statement.......

(Non consensual digital penetration is rape, so not murky at all)

Iirc the lady claimed that he had full penetrative sex with her. Full as in with his mickey. That's what I was referring to as murky. He wasn't up in court for raping her with his finger.

I think you need to read what I said.

Hoboo · 16-12-2018 02:11PM

Faugheen wrote: »

The only one who was absolutely lying was Blaine McIlroy. He said she had oral sex with him but even the complainant and Jackson both said that didn't happen.

I never laughed so much when Jackson's barrister cross-examined him and asked him if it was true that McIlroy's friends thought that he chatted sh*te, and McIlroy said 'yes'.

For Jackson and Olding, I think Olding's statement summed it up. He essentially said that someone clearly wasn't happy with what went on but he didn't knowingly believe she wasn't consenting.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest she wasn't consenting, but there's equally a lot of evidence to suggest Jackson and Olding weren't aware of this at the time. I don't think you can convict them based on this.

It's a sorry affair for all involved but Jackson didn't come out of it looking well at all. Public opinion was massively against him as it was, but then having his solicitor send thinly-veiled, self-entitled threats to the IRFU and UR was never going to go down well, as well as handing out lawsuits all over the shop.

It did however raise concerns about their treatment of women. This clearly wasn't the first time they had used a woman like this and clearly they found one who wasn't overly happy about it. Blaine McIlroy's whatsapp messages suggests this.

Before anyone mentions Murray and Zebo, the woman involved clearly was very happy about that.

It clearly wasn't the first time she'd "used" guys like this either. Men and women 'use' each other all the time. Up and down to a stranger's bedroom all night, not the actions of an innocent angel........ there's also far more evidence to confirm she was consenting than not. I think people need to accept the courts decision. They were guilty of using degrading language on WhatsApp, as many women also do about men, and that's it.

16-12-2018 02:16PM

And people need to accept the court decision regarding the costs too

Hoboo · 16-12-2018 02:26PM

Augeo wrote: »

And people need to accept the court decision regarding the costs too

Courts are supposed to uphold the concept of equity. I think it's a bit much to have a case taken against you, to be found innocent, and have to pay your costs. That's not equitable.

Ardent · 16-12-2018 02:40PM

Judge comes across as biased given her logic and disingenuous comments leading to the decision to not award legal costs. I'd be surprised if they didn't appeal.

Galwayguy35 · 16-12-2018 03:03PM

TBH I think they might be as well off to cut their losses and leave it now, they could end up spending as much money on an appeal and still have the same outcome.

The witch hunt against these men on social media during the trial was shocking, the idea of innocent until proven guilty went out the window on this one.

Faugheen · 16-12-2018 04:27PM

Hoboo wrote: »

It clearly wasn't the first time she'd "used" guys like this either. Men and women 'use' each other all the time. Up and down to a stranger's bedroom all night, not the actions of an innocent angel........ there's also far more evidence to confirm she was consenting than not. I think people need to accept the courts decision. They were guilty of using degrading language on WhatsApp, as many women also do about men, and that's it.

People say she’d used lads like that before when there’s no evidence to suggest it. People couldn’t wait for her previous ‘false accusations’ to come out when the legal argument was published and accused the judge of delaying it to protect her.

The legal argument came out and there was no mention of previous false accusations, instead it all reflected badly on Jackson and Olding. If there was previous accusations then the red tops would have been all over it as another way to dramatise the story.

‘People need to accept the courts decision.’

Which is what I have done since day 1, so I don’t know why you’re aiming that at me.

On the flip side, people are also up in arms saying she should be named for filing a false accusation, arrested, shamed etc. when no court has found her guilty of anything. People should accept that verdict too.

Hoboo · 16-12-2018 05:40PM

Faugheen wrote: »

People say she’d used lads like that before when there’s no evidence to suggest it. People couldn’t wait for her previous ‘false accusations’ to come out when the legal argument was published and accused the judge of delaying it to protect her.

The legal argument came out and there was no mention of previous false accusations, instead it all reflected badly on Jackson and Olding. If there was previous accusations then the red tops would have been all over it as another way to dramatise the story.

‘People need to accept the courts decision.’

Which is what I have done since day 1, so I don’t know why you’re aiming that at me.

On the flip side, people are also up in arms saying she should be named for filing a false accusation, arrested, shamed etc. when no court has found her guilty of anything. People should accept that verdict too.

Sorry not aiming that at you.

My point was the phrase 'use', two people, or however many, having casual sex are all using each other for personal gratification. You're making it sound like men are the only ones doing the using. She was using them every bit as much, and her actions throughout the night don't reflect the actions of an inexperienced angel. There's no evidence of course of her past actions, but her actions that night would strongly suggest it wasn't her first time.

I'm also lost as to what evidence there was to say she didn't consent......

Sweet.Science · 16-12-2018 06:55PM

Most rape cases come down to one persons worrd against the other . Jurys would cry out for an eye witness to confirm one persons version of events

This case had one . It was a girl which is even a better witness in a possible rape trial . She was in the room and said she seen a consensual 3some .

How it made it to trial with an eye witness I’ll never know . This whole sh1tshow for all concerned should have been avoided

Scott Tenorman · 16-12-2018 07:03PM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Most rape cases come down to one persons worrd against the other . Jurys would cry out for an eye witness to confirm one persons version of events

This case had one . It was a girl which is even a better witness in a possible rape trial . She was in the room and said she seen a consensual 3some .

How it made it to trial with an eye witness I’ll never know . This whole sh1tshow for all concerned should have been avoided

This is the witness that says she seen Jackson having sex that he denies?

16-12-2018 07:28PM

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

This is the witness that says she seen Jackson having sex that he denies?

Indeed....& the other lad in the "spitroast" claimed he didn't know / couldn't see if Jackson was using his penis or his finger.

AudreyHepburn · 16-12-2018 07:34PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

And you do realise if someone is found not guilty of murder, the victim isn't magically resurrected?

Seriously has to be one of the dumbest post on Boards for months.

What are you talking about?

They were found not guilty and with good reason - there is simply no evidence to suggest rape occurred.

At worst this was misunderstanding regarding consent and you can’t call a man a rapist if he genuinely didn’t realize you didn’t want it.

AudreyHepburn · 16-12-2018 07:37PM

Augeo wrote: »

Regarding the bolder bits..... who said there was no rape?

"albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt"

If you reckon the verdict is a representation of events you yourself are a tad naive.
Guilty folk are found not guilty daily in courts

And why shouldn’t I take the verdict as representative of what occurred?

There’s no evidence that the girl was raped or otherwise assaulted.

Mrsmum · 16-12-2018 07:42PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And why shouldn’t I take the verdict as representative of what occurred?

There’s no evidence that the girl was raped or otherwise assaulted.

Is it not more correct to say there was a reasonable doubt about what happened.

AudreyHepburn · 16-12-2018 07:45PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Is it not more correct to say there was a reasonable doubt about what happened.

No - the verdict, whether you and others like it or not, was not guilty.

And if you actually followed the case you would know there was no evidence of rape and a lot of evidence that this was a misunderstanding.

BattleCorp · 16-12-2018 10:33PM

There's not much justice if you have to spend half a million pounds to prove your innocence.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments