Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

16-12-2018 11:13PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

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

Indeed.....I think last weeks judge summed things up very well.

16-12-2018 11:15PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

He went to town on his defence obviously. I'm sure he could have spent less but then he might have been found guilty.

Mrsmum · 16-12-2018 11:24PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

Money well spent to get a not guilty verdict.

Faugheen · 16-12-2018 11:30PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

You really are missing the point.

Not guilty doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. What it does mean is that there was reasonable doubt that it did.

Those are two completely different things, and your logic is bollocks.

Scott Tenorman · 16-12-2018 11:36PM

Faugheen wrote: »

You really are missing the point.

Not guilty doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. What it does mean is that there was reasonable doubt that it did.

Those are two completely different things, and your logic is bollocks.

Exactly. Just because there is no conviction doesn’t mean that no crime has taken place.

Example: OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but it doesn’t mean his wife wasn’t murdered.

Mrsmum · 17-12-2018 12:08AM

My understand of 'not guilty' is that it has two possibilities:

1) that you are as innocent of the crime as a newborn
2}that the jury can't say for definite you did the crime ie they have reasonable doubt and so have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Some accused persons with a 'not guilty' verdict are 1) and some are 2)

joe40 · 17-12-2018 05:49PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

I fully accept the juries verdict, but it is wrong to say there was no "evidence" of wrongdoing. The police and DPP (or nothern equivalent) don't take a case to trial unless there is evidence.
In this case the evidence was insufficient to convince a jury, but there was evidence. They don't have court cases for fun

jeffleppard · 17-12-2018 07:28PM

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.

That's untrue, McIlroy logged into the wifi at Soul Food and sent a WhatsApp message (see below from the messages transcript)

1:45pm JACOME member AA: “Boys, did you pass spit roast brasses” and “why are we all such legends?”

2:06pm McIlroy’s phone logs WiFi at Soul Food Café on Ormeau Road, where Jackson, Olding, McIIroy and Harrison meet for lunch.

2:31pm McIlroy to AA “why are we all such legends” and “I know it’s ridiculous.”

2:40pm: McIlroy calls fonaCAB.

Grayson · 17-12-2018 07:31PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

A misunderstanding? She thought they'd raped her but it was an accident?

Sorry, I can't see how it could be a misunderstanding.

Grayson · 17-12-2018 07:34PM

jeffleppard wrote: »

That's untrue, McIlroy logged into the wifi at Soul Food and sent a WhatsApp message (see below from the messages transcript)

1:45pm JACOME member AA: “Boys, did you pass spit roast brasses” and “why are we all such legends?”

2:06pm McIlroy’s phone logs WiFi at Soul Food Café on Ormeau Road, where Jackson, Olding, McIIroy and Harrison meet for lunch.

2:31pm McIlroy to AA “why are we all such legends” and “I know it’s ridiculous.”

2:40pm: McIlroy calls fonaCAB.

One of the messages that wasn't deleted?

Deleting whats app messages just stinks of a cover up. It's not something anyone does.

I remember my first phone in 2000. It could hold a max of 30 messages and i used to delete them to make space. I don't think anyone has deleted anything from a message since then. We have loads of space on our phones. So why delete some messages but not others?

AudreyHepburn · 17-12-2018 07:36PM

Grayson wrote: »

A misunderstanding? She thought they'd raped her but it was an accident?

Sorry, I can't see how it could be a misunderstanding.

They thought she was consenting, she thought they knew she wasn’t but didn’t make it clear.

Grayson · 17-12-2018 07:37PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They thought she was consenting, she thought they knew she wasn’t but didn’t make it clear.

So what you're saying is that they had sex with her when she wasn't consenting.

That's rape.

jeffleppard · 17-12-2018 07:39PM

Grayson wrote: »

One of the messages that wasn't deleted?

Deleting whats app messages just stinks of a cover up. It's not something anyone does.

I remember my first phone in 2000. It could hold a max of 30 messages and i used to delete them to make space. I don't think anyone has deleted anything from a message since then. We have loads of space on our phones. So why delete some messages but not others?

The transcript doesn't state that it was one of the deleted messages; regardless, it's fairly irrelevant to my original point, which was purely to point out that the claim all four of them left their phones behind to go to the cafe the next day is clearly factually incorrect

AudreyHepburn · 17-12-2018 07:40PM

Grayson wrote: »

So what you're saying is that they had sex with her when she wasn't consenting. I’m

That's rape.

Not if they didn’t know she didn’t want it.

You can’t condemn them because she didn’t make her feelings known clearly. They aren’t mind readers.

Grayson · 17-12-2018 07:41PM

jeffleppard wrote: »

The transcript doesn't state that it was one of the deleted messages; regardless, it's fairly irrelevant to my original point, which was purely to point out that the claim all four of them left their phones behind to go to the cafe the next day is clearly factually incorrect

True

My point was separate to that and I should have made it clearer.

I just can't see why they would delete a load of messages about the incident unless they were trying to cover up something.

Grayson · 17-12-2018 07:42PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not if they didn’t know she didn’t want it.

You can’t condemn them because she didn’t make her feelings known clearly. They aren’t mind readers.

If you penetrate someone without their consent you are raping them.

Your point is that they didn't know that they were raping her. It's not that she wasn't raped.

AudreyHepburn · 17-12-2018 07:48PM

Grayson wrote: »

If you penetrate someone without their consent you are raping them.

You're point is that they didn't know that they were raping her. It's not that she wasn't raped.

I won’t argue with you on your first point. If you are clear that you don’t give consent, be it verbally or physically, and he still persists then it’s rape no question.

But given that they genuinely didn’t know she didn’t want it you can’t really claim they forced themselves on her.

Like I said - men aren’t mind readers. I believe she thinks she was raped but that the situation wasn’t that clear cut.

Muahahaha · 17-12-2018 08:16PM

jeffleppard wrote: »

That's untrue, McIlroy logged into the wifi at Soul Food and sent a WhatsApp message (see below from the messages transcript)
.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. But it still doesnt explain why the other three all left their phones behind. When most people leave their home keys, phone and wallet are what you always take with you. It also came out on court that there was a concerted effort to delete text messages which again suggests they were trying to get rid of any incriminating evidence. Also Harrison told McIllory : “Sorry I’m out for dinner and can’t speak. Let me know when you’re done.” and “I’d say leave your phone.” This happened before McIllroy went down to the police station for questioning. The only thing any reasonable person could take from that instruction was they didnt want the police to see the text messages.

Mrsmum · 17-12-2018 08:18PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I won’t argue with you on your first point. If you are clear that you don’t give consent, be it verbally or physically, and he still persists then it’s rape no question.

But given that they genuinely didn’t know she didn’t want it you can’t really claim they forced themselves on her.

Like I said - men aren’t mind readers. I believe she thinks she was raped but that the situation wasn’t that clear cut.

So now you have changed from saying there was "no evidence of rape" to saying "the situation wasn’t that clear cut" and that in her mind "she was raped", That's progress.

AudreyHepburn · 17-12-2018 08:20PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

So now you have changed from saying there was "no evidence of rape" to saying "the situation wasn’t that clear cut" and that in her mind "she was raped", That's progress.

I’ve changed nothing - I’ve felt from the beginning that there was no evidence that they knowingly forced themselves on her.

I’ve always believed there was a misunderstanding.

flatty · 17-12-2018 08:37PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’ve changed nothing - I’ve felt from the beginning that there was no evidence that they knowingly forced themselves on her.

I’ve always believed there was a misunderstanding.

That'd be my take on it too. If she were my lass I'd be livid. If he were my son,I'd be equally livid I suspect.
Anyhow, beliefs are absolutely entrenched here, so there's little point in arguing with anyone.

salmocab · 17-12-2018 08:59PM

flatty wrote: »

That'd be my take on it too. If she were my lass I'd be livid. If he were my son,I'd be equally livid I suspect.
Anyhow, beliefs are absolutely entrenched here, so there's little point in arguing with anyone.

This is the best comment that’s been made here.

facehugger99 · 17-12-2018 09:10PM

Never has so much ****e been posted by one person

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There was no rape, no sexual assault, no victim.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

But wait........

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They thought she was consenting, she thought they knew she wasn’t but didn’t make it clear.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not if they didn’t know she didn’t want it.

You can’t condemn them because she didn’t make her feelings known clearly. They aren’t mind readers.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I believe she thinks she was raped but that the situation wasn’t that clear cut.

and best of all..

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’ve changed nothing -

:rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn · 17-12-2018 09:57PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Never has so much ****e been posted by one person

But wait........

and best of all..

:rolleyes:

Am I not allowed to believe them innocent? Am I not allowed to believe there was a misunderstanding?

facehugger99 · 17-12-2018 10:47PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Am I not allowed to believe them innocent? Am I not allowed to believe there was a misunderstanding?

You're allowed to get off the internet and stop embarrassing yourself.

FrancieBrady · 17-12-2018 11:29PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're allowed to get off the internet and stop embarrassing yourself.

The difference between you and the poster you are flaming is that you cannot say they raped her and put your real name to the statement. Because there is no proof that they did. That is what the court found. The men's status as 'innocent' which they had before the case started remains fully intact.

So the laugh is on you here.

Muahahaha · 18-12-2018 01:04AM

I was reading that Paddy Jackons time at new club Perpignan hasnt gone too well, they have suffered 11 straight defeats in the Top 14 and three in Europe and it is almost certain that they wil be relegated. He is being linked to London Irish if they get relegated.

AudreyHepburn · 18-12-2018 06:51AM

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're allowed to get off the internet and stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh get off your pedestal. The only one embarrassing themselves here is you with your pathetic attempts to flame me by acting superior.

There is no evidence of rape and they have been found not guilty and the most likely scenario is that a misunderstanding occurred - it is a simple as that whether you like it or not.

mfceiling · 18-12-2018 06:57AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

I was reading that Paddy Jackons time at new club Perpignan hasnt gone too well, they have suffered 11 straight defeats in the Top 14 and three in Europe and it is almost certain that they wil be relegated. He is being linked to London Irish if they get relegated.

He actually has been one of their better players. He always was a talent and that won't change.

jm08 · 18-12-2018 09:49AM

mfceiling wrote: »

He actually has been one of their better players. He always was a talent and that won't change.

I read that he was booed off the pitch by the home fans last weekend.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments