Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 8:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You think couples shouldn't initiate sex in ways they are comfortable with? :eek:

If you do that and someone reports you, you get done for sexual assault.

If couples are happy with doing that, again that’s their business. It doesn’t mean everyone can just go around touching sleeping people and expect it to be accepted by every man or woman.

jeffleppard · 12-06-2019 9:00pm

Faugheen wrote: »

Sigh, this misinformation is brought up time and time again and it is simply not true.

Not guilty doesn’t mean the jury thought anything other than the case couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Realistically, if the jury had believed the complainant, at minimum Jackson would have been convicted of sexual assault, Olding of oral rape and McIlroy of exposure since there was no dispute from those three that digital penetration, oral sex and nudity, respectively, occurred.

In particular, in McIlroy's case (since he had no option of a defence of reasonable belief in what he was doing was OK for his charge), I'm fairly sure it's actually impossible for him to have been found not guilty and for the jury to think the complainant was telling the truth.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:01pm

Faugheen wrote: »

If you do that and someone reports you, you get done for sexual assault.

If couples are happy with doing that, again that’s their business. It doesn’t mean everyone can just go around touching sleeping people and expect it to be accepted by every man or woman.

Thankfully rigid people like you don't abound in the world. Dear lord...the situation was explained to you and still the wagging finger.

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:02pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thankfully rigid people like you don't abound in the world. Dear lord...the situation was explained to you and still the wagging finger.

'Rigid'?

So I'm 'rigid' for being against sexual assault?

You're a dangerous individual.

Roger Hassenforder · 12-06-2019 9:04pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Sigh, this misinformation is brought up time and time again and it is simply not true.

Not guilty doesn’t mean the jury thought anything other than the case couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Realistically, if the jury had believed the complainant, at minimum Jackson would have been convicted of sexual assault, Olding of oral rape and McIlroy of exposure since there was no dispute from those three that digital penetration, oral sex and nudity, respectively, occurred.

In particular, in McIlroy's case (since he had no option of a defence of reasonable belief in what he was doing was OK for his charge), I'm fairly sure it's actually impossible for him to have been found not guilty and for the jury to think the complainant was telling the truth.

As the trial was progressing, i thought he'd be done, but the other two acquitted on possibly they'd reasonable belief they had consent.

But with the very quick jury decision, i think no one believed a word of what she said.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:05pm

Faugheen wrote: »

'Rigid'?

So I'm 'rigid' for being against sexual assault?

You're a dangerous individual.

You are rigid because you insist on seeing or inferring that something normal people in relationships do as 'assault'.

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:06pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

Realistically, if the jury had believed the complainant, at minimum Jackson would have been convicted of sexual assault, Olding of oral rape and McIlroy of exposure since there was no dispute from those three that digital penetration, oral sex and nudity, respectively, occurred.

In particular, in McIlroy's case (since he had no option of a defence of reasonable belief in what he was doing was OK for his charge), I'm fairly sure it's actually impossible for him to have been found not guilty and for the jury to think the complainant was telling the truth.

No, even if the jury believed her, they still could have found not guilty because they have to base it on the evidence, not their beliefs or prejudices.

The evidence wasn't there to convict them. That's what it is at the end of the day. The only people who know what really happened are the complainant, Jackson and Olding, while McIlroy doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:09pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are rigid because you insist on seeing or inferring that something normal people in relationships do as 'assault'

Like I said, dangerous individual.

Ignorant too, considering you're not reading my posts.

Roger Hassenforder · 12-06-2019 9:11pm

Faugheen wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thankfully rigid people like you don't abound in the world. Dear lord...the situation was explained to you and still the wagging finger.

'Rigid'?

So I'm 'rigid' for being against sexual assault?

You're a dangerous individual.

I'd say its a matter for Francie's auld doll to determine whether she was assaulted.
Sounds like a fondle to start a cold engine more than anything. He's hardly slipping it in when shes in the land of nod...

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:12pm

Faugheen wrote: »

Like I said, dangerous individual.

Ignorant too, considering you're not reading my posts.

:D:D Yeh...dangerous individual in a 30 year relationship. You moral high grounders are freaking hilarious.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:14pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I'd say its a matter for Francie's auld doll to determine whether she was assaulted.
Sounds like a fondle to start a cold engine more than anything. He's hardly slipping it in when shes in the land of nod...

I can see Faugheen at the breakfast table with the appointment book out and consent forms.

:D

And mind your lip, Mrs Francie is neither auld nor cowld!

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:19pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can see Faugheen at the breakfast table with the appointment book out and consent forms. :D

And mind your lip, Mrs Francie is neither auld nor cowld!

You really don't get it.

I'm talking about the general picture and you keep dismissing it by saying your wife is ok with it.

Again, what you and your wife like is your business, but if a man goes down on a woman while she sleeps and she wakes up to see this, reports it, and the man admits it, he gets done for sexual assault. That's a fact. If she wakes up and likes it, so be it.

Just because you and your wife like it doesn't mean everyone likes it.

What part of that are you actually having difficulty with?

pinkyeye · 12-06-2019 9:19pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can see Faugheen at the breakfast table with the appointment book out and consent forms. :D

And mind your lip, Mrs Francie is neither auld nor cowld!

If you're in a 30 year relationship she's certainly auld Francie whatever way you look at it. :rolleyes:

SirGerryAdams · 12-06-2019 9:22pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Were there not references to 'Belfast sl*ts'. And *sl*ts getting f*cked'?

Is that how lads message each other on a regular basis? I didn't think that was the norm at all.

Seemingly Diageo don't think so either?

Pretty much I think. It's fairly common among friends.

It's no different to lads saying they're looking for their hole tonight.

I'd often say to my friend in the car if we pass a hottie that she has some hole on her or that she'd get it etc. etc.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:24pm

Faugheen wrote: »

You really don't get it.

I'm talking about the general picture and you keep dismissing it by saying your wife is ok with it.

Again, what you and your wife like is your business, but if a man goes down on a woman while she sleeps and she wakes up to see this, reports it, and the man admits it, he gets done for sexual assault. That's a fact. If she wakes up and likes it, so be it.

Just because you and your wife like it doesn't mean everyone likes it.

What part of that are you actually having difficulty with?

NOBODY said anything about performing sex acts on people who are asleep.

What I was referring to was initiating sex.

Put the wagging finger away, you were trying to portray me in a certain light, as a 'dangerous person' to try and deflect from not having anything to back up a statement you made.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:25pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

If you're in a 30 year relationship she's certainly auld Francie whatever way you look at it. :rolleyes:

50 isn't old when you are 56 yourself, let me assure you of that.

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:26pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

NOBODY said anything about performing sex acts on people who are asleep.

What I was referring to was initiating sex.

Put the wagging finger away, you were trying to portray me in a certain light, as a 'dangerous person' to try and deflect from not having anything to back up a statement you made.

Whatever. You're refusing to read posts and you just keep arguing a toss about it.

You made a statement before mine about the comments made in bars are the norm. Where's your evidence for that?

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:30pm

Faugheen wrote: »

Whatever. You're refusing to read posts and you just keep arguing a toss about it.

You made a statement before mine about the comments made in bars are the norm. Where's your evidence for that?

I didn't say it was the 'norm', I said many many people talk about and to each other that way because I actually have heard it many times.

You said it was a non-standard way of talking.

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:31pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say it was the 'norm', I said many many people talk about and to each other that way because I actually have heard it many times.

You said it was a non-standard way of talking.

And I'm asking you for your evidence of many many people talking like that.

See how stupid your post demanding evidence sounds now?

jeffleppard · 12-06-2019 9:31pm

Faugheen wrote: »

No, even if the jury believed her, they still could have found not guilty because they have to base it on the evidence, not their beliefs or prejudices.

The evidence wasn't there to convict them. That's what it is at the end of the day. The only people who know what really happened are the complainant, Jackson and Olding, while McIlroy doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

The complainant's various claims are evidence though (e.g. messages/discussion with friends, statement to doctor, statements to police, evidence in chief in court, responses to cross examination etc.) The jury could have considered that evidence credible in its own right.

Therefore, if they considered her a credible witness, and there's no doubt digital penetration and oral sex occurred, then they'd also have to accept the following:

1. Jackson and Olding's version of events is not compatible with the complainant's, so they must be lying about what happened
2. She didn't consent to those acts
3. In her version of events Jackson/Olding could not reasonably have believed those acts were consensual

I find it very difficult to believe there's a scenario where the jury accepts the complainant as a credible witness, believe PJ/SO to be lying, yet don't find Jackson/Olding guilty of those two acts that they admitted to doing.

In McIlroy's case the evidence against him is her word. That's it. There is no other evidence against McIlroy, and he admitted he was naked. They believe her and he gets convicted, simple as that.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 9:35pm

Faugheen wrote: »

And I'm asking you for your evidence of many many people talking like that.

I said as something I experienced. Take it or leave it.

You claimed that the lads texts were a non-standard way of talking about sex...is that because you have data or because you just haven't heard it talked about in that way?

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 9:46pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

The complainant's various claims are evidence though (e.g. messages/discussion with friends, statement to doctor, statements to police, evidence in chief in court, responses to cross examination etc.) The jury could have considered that evidence credible in its own right.

Therefore, if they considered her a credible witness, and there's no doubt digital penetration and oral sex occurred, then they'd also have to accept the following:

1. Jackson and Olding's version of events is not compatible with the complainant's, so they must be lying about what happened
2. She didn't consent to those acts
3. In her version of events Jackson/Olding could not reasonably have believed those acts were consensual

I find it very difficult to believe there's a scenario where the jury accepts the complainant as a credible witness, believe PJ/SO to be lying, yet don't find Jackson/Olding guilty of those two acts that they admitted to doing.

In McIlroy's case the evidence against him is her word. That's it. There is no other evidence against McIlroy, and he admitted he was naked. They believe her and he gets convicted, simple as that.

It simply isn't a case of her evidence against theirs though. That's the thing.

You had Dara Florence, who said it looked like everyone was consenting (which helps PJ/SO) but she also said Jackson have having intercourse with her (which Jackson denied). That evidence alone casts reasonable doubt as it makes out that both the complainant and Jackson aren't telling the truth.

You've the medical examinations, which both the prosecution and defence had experts interpreting it in different ways.

You've got the exchange with a Rory Harrison, and his subsequent exchanges with Blaine McIlroy about what she said. She said from the off that it wasn't consensual, which is evidence in itself.

However, and this is something Olding touched on in his statement, they're giving their accounts of what happened that night.

It's possible she didn't consent but was afraid to say it because of the situation she found herself in (its not a rare thing for people to just 'let it happen').

As you've correctly highlighted as well, though, because of this PJ/SO probably weren't any the wiser. Olding referred to this in his statement by acknowledging her account of the night's events but sticking by his.

With McIlroy his evidence alone is reasonable doubt. I always felt that if anyone wasn't ever going to get done it would be him. It's one word against another. That's it. You can't convict based on that.

As I've said, only they really know what happened, but juries could absolutely believe or prejudge what happened, but by law can't possible find them guilty.

Again, that's only something they know. We can't make assumptions on where their heads were at. We can analyse it like we are, but to assume is another matter altogether.

jeffleppard · 12-06-2019 10:12pm

Faugheen wrote: »

It simply isn't a case of her evidence against theirs though. That's the thing.

I realise that - obviously there might be reasons other than just her evidence to believe her, but that's not really what I'm getting at; I'm pointing out that whatever the reasons are that the jury believe her, if they do, then they effectively have no choice but to convict PJ/SO of sexual assault and oral rape.

With McIlroy his evidence alone is reasonable doubt. I always felt that if anyone wasn't ever going to get done it would be him. It's one word against another. That's it. You can't convict based on that.

That's not true - someone simply giving a story doesn't make that evidence credible. But as above, what I'm saying is if the jury believes her, they can't also believe McIlroy and it follows that they have to convict as a result. The fact that this didn't happen means that she simply was not believed by the jury.

On a related note, if what you say is the case, why would the PPS have even bothered charging McIlroy since they'd have known in advance they had zero chance of him ever being found guilty?

It's possible she didn't consent but was afraid to say it because of the situation she found herself in (its not a rare thing for people to just 'let it happen').

As you've correctly highlighted as well, though, because of this PJ/SO probably weren't any the wiser.

On her version of events, she said she had already told Jackson no the first time in the bedroom when he tried to undo her trousers, and said "Please no, not him too" when Olding came into the room. Both of those are pretty clearly not consenting and remove any reasonable belief in consent from both Jackson and Olding.

Mrsmum · 12-06-2019 10:20pm

Perhaps the jury simply didn't know who to believe, so many stories, so many versions, everyone drunk, contradicting each other left, right and centre.

Therefore they had to find ' Not Guilty'.

Is that not a possibility ?

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 10:31pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

I realise that - obviously there might be reasons other than just her evidence to believe her, but that's not really what I'm getting at; I'm pointing out that whatever the reasons are that the jury believe her, if they do, then they effectively have no choice but to convict PJ/SO of sexual assault and oral rape.

No they don't. They could believe she's telling the truth, but they could believe Jackson and Olding are as well.

In the judges charge to the jury, they had to assess whether the prosecution proved Jackson knew she wasn't consenting. In my opinion, the prosecution didn't do that. That's where they could believe her interpretation of the night but still find not guilty.

All the main reporters from that trial said all three were strong witnesses.

jeffleppard wrote: »

That's not true - someone simply giving a story doesn't make that evidence credible. But as above, what I'm saying is if the jury believes her, they can't also believe McIlroy and it follows that they have to convict as a result. The fact that this didn't happen means that she simply was not believed by the jury.

Again, you're saying if the jury believes one story they have to convict. Again this is implying prejudice when there was no other evidence other than what they said. They can't convict solely on what she said. The prosecution have to have proven it beyond reasonable doubt. It's possible the jury simply couldn't form a clear direction. His case was the hardest one to prove by a country mile.

jeffleppard wrote: »

On her version of events, she said she had already told Jackson no the first time in the bedroom when he tried to undo her trousers, and said "Please no, not him too" when Olding came into the room. Both of those are pretty clearly not consenting and remove any reasonable belief in consent from both Jackson and Olding.

And both Jackson and Olding denied that, and had conflicting accounts of what they both were doing, which while likely truthful is also casting reasonable doubt.

mfceiling · 12-06-2019 10:42pm

At the end of the day a jury of 12 people listened to the evidence over the course of the trial and came to the conclusion that neither PJ or SO raped the girl. It took them 1 hour to make that decision so they must have all been relatively confident that they were making the correct decision.
Obviously the twitter mob didn't agree so set off with their #ibelieveher nonsense and tried to undermine the very principles of a democratic trial of which all of us are entitled to.
I recently read the Jon Ronson book "so you've been publicly shamed" and went to see him 2 weeks ago in Vicar St. He touched slightly upon the subject of the twitter mob and how they will turn on someone and tear them to shreds. This is what happened here.
Danny Baker made a silly tweet recently, got pulled up on it, copped that it could have been racist/offensive. He immediately deleted the tweet and apologised for any offence caused. Was the apology accepted and he was left feeling like an eejit? No. The twitter mob got into full swing and he lost his job....Even after apologising and realising he'd ballsed up it still wasn't enough. They got their pound of flesh and now he's yesterday's news as they move on to their next "moral crusade".
As Jon Ronson said "I hope none of these people ever make a mistake in their lives".

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 11:14pm

mfceiling wrote: »

At the end of the day a jury of 12 people listened to the evidence over the course of the trial and came to the conclusion that neither PJ or SO raped the girl. It took them 1 hour to make that decision so they must have all been relatively confident that they were making the correct decision.
Obviously the twitter mob didn't agree so set off with their #ibelieveher nonsense and tried to undermine the very principles of a democratic trial of which all of us are entitled to.
I recently read the Jon Ronson book "so you've been publicly shamed" and went to see him 2 weeks ago in Vicar St. He touched slightly upon the subject of the twitter mob and how they will turn on someone and tear them to shreds. This is what happened here.
Danny Baker made a silly tweet recently, got pulled up on it, copped that it could have been racist/offensive. He immediately deleted the tweet and apologised for any offence caused. Was the apology accepted and he was left feeling like an eejit? No. The twitter mob got into full swing and he lost his job....Even after apologising and realising he'd ballsed up it still wasn't enough. They got their pound of flesh and now he's yesterday's news as they move on to their next "moral crusade".
As Jon Ronson said "I hope none of these people ever make a mistake in their lives".

It didn't take the jury 1 hour.

And Danny Baker was the person who tweeted the picture of the monkey when Prince Arthur was born, yeah? If so he deserved to lose his job for being so stupid and clueless.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. · 12-06-2019 11:18pm

mfceiling wrote: »

At the end of the day a jury of 12 people listened to the evidence over the course of the trial and came to the conclusion that neither PJ or SO raped the girl.

That is a stretch. The evidence was insufficient. The case should have never gone to trial. That's about all you can say.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 11:42pm

Faugheen wrote: »

It didn't take the jury 1 hour.

And Danny Baker was the person who tweeted the picture of the monkey when Prince Arthur was born, yeah? If so he deserved to lose his job for being so stupid and clueless.

What is your attitude to people in your own circle who make mistakes?

Mrsmum · 13-06-2019 12:07am

People arguing that PJ did nothing wrong are really doing him no favours. That he is connected with the attitude that that's what lads do is part of the reason the sponsors have major difficulty touching him. They know that while he has some such supporters, many, many other people were genuinely shocked and horrified at what they heard so he is a hugely divisive figure. PJ needs to shake off that reputation because why would the sponsors soil their brand with someone who is the poster boy for what everyone but his supporters regard as sh***y behaviour. The best and only narrative for him in the reality of his situation now is that he deeply regrets his disrespectful behaviour back then and that he is now a different and better person. That he understands that the toxic attitude he displayed towards his sexual partner and other women was wrong and it is not an attitude he has any respect for any longer. He needs his supporters to get on board with that message because that is the only route of dignity for his future. Anyone saying it was all grand when Paddy himself can't say that are effectively holding him to his old, now unwanted reputation and actually not serving his real best interests at all. Fighting a ongoing war for him that he has already lost will make sponsors run in the opposite direction from him.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments