Irish firefighter found guilty of rape in Boston!

I genuinely don’t think anyone is against the verdict. I certainly am not. There is no reasonable doubt. He is guilty.

You never know. She supported him throughout the trial and may still have a genuine belief that he's innocent. As of now, she's alone with two kids to rear and no income.

Or, she may be scared, she may have believed him because you would want to....wouldn't you? And then even when the doubt crept in she supported him because if she didn't and he was found innocent then what? She'd look like a bitch....so she supported him throughout and now that he's been found guilty it's very hard for her to turn her back and to explain to her children she no longer believes him because 12 strangers said she shouldn't

I'm just trying to put myself in her shoes for a minute

Every wife wants to believe her husband is not that man, because what if she doesn't believe that? Does that mean she's allowed herself to be married to someone like that

Case closed!

Further to my point above, the only person who could have ultimately clarified matters was the roommate (his name has been published in plenty of articles on the case) who had consensual sex with the victim.

From what the victim said, the roommate was panned out in the bed when she returned from the bathroom after they had sex, so she got into the spare (Crosbie's) bed. I understand the roommate must've had more than a skinful and traveled to Boston too. Therefore, it is easy to say he slept through the whole commotion. Surely though, if he felt Crosbie had done nothing or there had been a misunderstanding, he could have taken to the stand to shed some sort of light on Crosbie's demeanor the next morning or provide an account of anything Crosbie had said to him which might slightly help a man facing 20 years in a U.S jail.

I believe the roommate was also a married man, so undoubtedly him testifying would have disrupted his family life further, owing to the revelations that came out of him sleeping with this woman. However, if a friend, colleague or even stranger who you believe to be innocent is going to be sent down for potentially 20 years in a foreign country and you can help prevent that, then any decent person would do all they can to help.

I'm not saying at all that the roommate's absence from the trial is a smoking gun or anything like it, but it is a point to be considered along with the mix of inconsistencies and other questions surrounding the trial.

Ah come on - he tried to do a runner by booking a flight before the event he went over for - and then he managed to get on an even earlier flight.

He thought he was on his way home but he got taken off the plane.

The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and his stories had all the hallmarks of being rehearsed to the bones.

As for the first jury - we don't know if it was 9/3 or 6/6, but my guess is it was closer to 9/3.

I believe he is guilty but I definitely think there is reasonable doubt. Without any actual evidence, I will always have some doubt.

There was one for the first trial that was shut down- I believe it made about 10k or so - is there another one? I couldn’t see it making much given the result of the second trial and the evidence the verdict is based on

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/online-fundraiser-for-dublin-firefighter-accused-of-rape-removed-1784882.html

Edit- I see a second one for the second trial raised at least 34k

https://www.facebook.com/irishmirror/posts/a-fundraiser-has-been-set-up-by-family-friends-and-colleagues-of-dublin-firefigh/1237366665086016/

Why? He’s already in prison so he won’t be affected but his wife and kids will be if they’ve no money

if the gofundme fails his wife will have to cover the legal fees

Id like to believe reasonable doubt means you believe the accused is 75/80% guilty at least.

Some interesting reading here:

https://www.jameslawgroup.net/1814/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

If you click through to the actual jury charge:

Revised January 26, 2015

PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
[This instruction must be given verbatim]

The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge(s) made against him (her).

What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined. Proof
beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible
doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after
you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your
minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs -- based solely on the
evidence that has been put before you in this case.

I have told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until he
or she is proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt
remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must
be acquitted.

It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability,
even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than
not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of
the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that
convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as
jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.

This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That last bit, emphasis mine, might sway juries more from 'beyond any reasonable doubt' towards 'within a reasonable degree of certainty' which is a different thing entirely. I can see it being challenged in the future.

Interestingly, in Texas:

After 2000, Texas required its trial courts to NOT define beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury at all. So, Texas juries are merely instructed that the State must prove its charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Texas now views any attempt to further define the concept as potentially confusing to jurors. Texas deems defining it not only as unnecessary, but also as potentially harmful to justice.

Reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required in a criminal trial, meaning the prosecution must present evidence so convincing that there is no other logical or probable explanation for the crime except that the accused committed it.

So rapists who wear condoms and don't leave DNA, you would have to acquit?

Historical rape and sexual abuse, you would have to acquit?

Sexual assault which took place outside the clothing, acquittal?

Thank God the Justice System here at least has moved on from that.