Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 8:39am

Faugheen wrote: »

No Francie, the poster presented this ‘opinion’ as a fact, which is incorrect. When I pointed this out, people like you kept arguing a toss with me about it.

And such a legal mind as yours should know that NOBODY has 'facts' around what the jury decided and that it can/should be assumed that anything said about what the jury decided is automatically an 'opinion'.

Of course you know this and your interjections are made for a more sinister, reason.

11-06-2019 8:41am

a pity the jury didnt have an option of "as good as guilty" really

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 8:45am

Deleted User wrote: »

a pity the jury didnt have an option of "as good as guilty" really

That jury lives partly here and on the twit machine.

Jackman25 · 11-06-2019 8:48am

42 day trial, less than an hours deliberation per defendant and unanimous verdicts on all counts.
I'm really not buying the "just couldn't get over the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt" narrative that the #ibelieveher lot would seek to push.

11-06-2019 8:51am

its a pretty simple position of not believing the verdict

fine, but niggling about it every time the thread is bumped is a bit much

Faugheen · 11-06-2019 9:37am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And such a legal mind as yours should know that NOBODY has 'facts' around what the jury decided and that it can/should be assumed that anything said about what the jury decided is automatically an 'opinion'.

Of course you know this and your interjections are made for a more sinister, reason.

No, I'm trying to stop people making sinister statements such as 'the jury believed everything was consensual' and presenting that as fact.

Why are you flat out refusing to read my posts?

suicide_circus · 11-06-2019 9:43am

this is a victory for womyn

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 9:48am

Faugheen wrote: »

No, I'm trying to stop people making sinister statements such as 'the jury believed everything was consensual' and presenting that as fact.

Why are you flat out refusing to read my posts?

That is just your counter 'opinion'. You don't know what they believed or didn't believe either.

IF the jury believed that it was NON consensual they would have found them GUILTY.
As they found them NOT guilty it is safe to assume that for whatever reason - lack of evidence - lack of belief in the various testimonies, etc that they could not conclude it was non consensual.

It is entirely safe to offer the 'opinion' that 'the jury SEEMED to accept the goings on that night were consensual' which is what the poster said and not what you are inventing they said i.e. - 'the jury believed everything was consensual'.

Why are you flat out misquoting?

Boggles · 11-06-2019 9:56am

Cash Converters and a Drinks Company taking the moral high, fook me.

I wonder how many desperate people taking out a 700% interest loan would chose some other company because Jackson plays for London Irish.

:rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 9:59am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is just your counter 'opinion'. You don't know what they believed or didn't believe either.

IF the jury believed that it was NON consensual they would have found them GUILTY.
As they found them NOT guilty it is safe to assume that for whatever reason - lack of evidence - lack of belief in the various testimonies, etc that they could not conclude it was non consensual.

It is entirely safe to offer the 'opinion' that 'the jury SEEMED to accept the goings on that night were consensual' which is what the poster said and not what you are inventing they said i.e. - 'the jury believed everything was consensual'.

Why are you flat out misquoting?

It is equally safe to offer the opinion that "the jury were not convinced it was consensual but the prosecution did not produce sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict". both opinions are based on the same amount of evidence.

Grayson · 11-06-2019 10:09am

Jackman25 wrote: »

42 day trial, less than an hours deliberation per defendant and unanimous verdicts on all counts.
I'm really not buying the "just couldn't get over the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt" narrative that the #ibelieveher lot would seek to push.

That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.

11-06-2019 10:11am

Grayson wrote: »

That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.

what does not being convicted mean, legally?

jesus christ

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 10:12am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is equally safe to offer the opinion that "the jury were not convinced it was consensual but the prosecution did not produce sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict". both opinions are based on the same amount of evidence.

Exactly. Both are 'opinions' and hold equal weigh. Faugheen jumping in everytime to disallow 'opinions' other than his/her own seems to me to be agenda driven.

suicide_circus · 11-06-2019 10:14am

Grayson wrote: »

That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.

so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

Boggles · 11-06-2019 10:19am

Grayson wrote: »

Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent.

It absolutely does, you go in to court innocent, if you are found not guilty you leave legally innocent.

What else could it mean, legally, seriously?

11-06-2019 10:20am

suicide_circus wrote: »

so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

thats down to opinion, to be fair

but to try to weasel-word around that they were legally cleared is another thing entirely.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 10:22am

suicide_circus wrote: »

so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

Ordinarily not.
That is the sinister aspect of this case and cases like it. Certain people and businesses will reserve the right to infer/insinuate guilt. Seems to me it is the age of virtue signalling at fault for this.
We see it in relation to a lot of cases...all that is required is an accusation to be made. At one point in the #metoo frenzy you were not allowed to even question an allegation.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-06-2019 10:22am

Grayson wrote: »

That's not a narrative. That's the law. The jury convict if they feel they have enough evidence. If they don't feel they have enough evidence they don't. Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent. That's just the way a jury trial works.

Erm.....that's exactly what it means.

suicide_circus · 11-06-2019 10:27am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ordinarily not.
That is the sinister aspect of this case and cases like it. Certain people and businesses will reserve the right to infer/insinuate guilt. Seems to me it is the age of virtue signalling at fault for this.
We see it in relation to a lot of cases...all that is required is an accusation to be made. At one point in the #metoo frenzy you were not allowed to even question an allegation.

thats some terrifying dystopian sh1t right there.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 10:29am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Erm.....that's exactly what it means.

From a juror’s perspective it can often be the case that they really think the accused is guilty but the prosecution failed to prove their case sufficiently as to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.

So they are forced to acquit, because that’s what the law tells them to do, despite their own opinions.

LirW · 11-06-2019 10:30am

suicide_circus wrote: »

so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

The sponsors are contractually entitled to pull out of a deal when their brand image is threatened.
The sponsors feel that this is the case, most likely not over the verdict but over Jackson's attitude in the emerged chat logs and after the trial. Rugby clubs doing lots of work to come across as family friendly and inclusive, for men, women and children. Jackson's actions go very much against those values.

Is it biased to hold something over the player's head that he said in a private chat? Yes, but this is the way our world works.
If chats would publicly emerge with you saying something misogynistic, racist or hugely sexist I'm pretty sure your employer would have to say something about it too.

I can't blame for companies, no matter what they stand for, not wanting to be associated with this.

suicide_circus · 11-06-2019 10:34am

^^^ i wasn't questioning the sponsorship tbh, companies will go with whatever will avoid getting them bad press with the shrill twitter mob.

i was questioning the assertion that someone found "not guilty" is in fact guilty.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 10:37am

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^ i wasn't questioning the sponsorship tbh, companies will go with whatever will avoid getting them bad press with the shrill twitter mob.

i was questioning the assertion that someone found "not guilty" is in fact guilty.

I think it’s more the case that as I mentioned above jurors may think “possibly guilty but this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Like imagine if someone robbed a bank but there was no CCTV, DNA evidence or witnesses. There’s only one guy in town who could have pulled it off and it WAS him. The cops can’t get a conviction because they don’t have sufficient evidence but the guy still did it. He’ll be found not guilty in court, which is the correct outcome in the absence of the required evidence, but he is still guilty of doing it.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-06-2019 10:42am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

From a juror’s perspective it can often be the case that they really think the accused is guilty but the prosecution failed to prove their case sufficiently as to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.

So they are forced to acquit, because that’s what the law tells them to do, despite their own opinions.

Thats not what was said though

Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent.

If you go to court and a verdict of not guilty is recorded then you are legally innocent.

Now i suppose there have been cases where people have been found not guilty (diminished responsibility i believe is the term used)even when it's clear the person did commit a crime and the poster could have been talkingabout that scenario but that's not what was recorded on this trial.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 10:44am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I think it’s more the case that as I mentioned above jurors may think “possibly guilty but this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Like imagine if someone robbed a bank but there was no CCTV, DNA evidence or witnesses. There’s only one guy in town who could have pulled it off and it WAS him. The cops can’t get a conviction because they don’t have sufficient evidence but the guy still did it. He’ll be found not guilty in court, which is the correct outcome in the absence of the required evidence, but he is still guilty of doing it.

You have already jumped to a conclusion here. Fecking hell, can you not see the absurdity of this? The guy is guilty in your mind BEFORE he goes to trial even.

LirW · 11-06-2019 10:45am

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^ i wasn't questioning the sponsorship tbh, companies will go with whatever will avoid getting them bad press with the shrill twitter mob.

i was questioning the assertion that someone found "not guilty" is in fact guilty.

Yeah fair enough, I don't understand why people aren't past this.
The way I see it is that "innocent" until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the juridical system and unfortunately this is to accept even in really nasty cases. I doubt people would like to live in a system like Turkey for example has it where you get imprisoned and have to bring fundamental proof of your innocence.

The jury found there isn't enough evidence to convict them, here we go, you're free of all charges, see you. This is fair enough, even though it probably leaves the girl and her surroundings behind feeling there was no justice done. If I'd be her parent I probably would be incredibly upset to be honest.
But that's the way it works unfortunately.

Having said that I don't feel particularly sorry for the aftermath for Jackson. He's a person in the public spotlight, he should have known better.

I currently feel annoyed about something similar: my son plays Rugby in Sean O'Brien's home club. He's a big figure there doing a lot with the kids, he's an absolute gentleman with them and everyone else. Then he goes off, gets sh1tfaced, and pees a guy over his leg in a pub. He's a role model to so many kids. Rolemodels shouldn't be doing crap like that.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 10:49am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have already jumped to a conclusion here. Fecking hell, can you not see the absurdity of this? The guy is guilty in your mind BEFORE he goes to trial even.

It’s a hypothetical, calm down.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 10:50am

LirW wrote: »

Yeah fair enough, I don't understand why people aren't past this.
The way I see it is that "innocent" until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the juridical system and unfortunately this is to accept even in really nasty cases. I doubt people would like to live in a system like Turkey for example has it where you get imprisoned and have to bring fundamental proof of your innocence.

The jury found there isn't enough evidence to convict them, here we go, you're free of all charges, see you. This is fair enough, even though it probably leaves the girl and her surroundings behind feeling there was no justice done. If I'd be her parent I probably would be incredibly upset to be honest.
But that's the way it works unfortunately.

Having said that I don't feel particularly sorry for the aftermath for Jackson. He's a person in the public spotlight, he should have known better.

I currently feel annoyed about something similar: my son plays Rugby in Sean O'Brien's home club. He's a big figure there doing a lot with the kids, he's an absolute gentleman with them and everyone else. Then he goes off, gets sh1tfaced, and pees a guy over his leg in a pub. He's a role model to so many kids. Rolemodels shouldn't be doing crap like that.

"innocent until proven guilty" is a trial presumption, nothing more. Yes they are innocent in the eyes of the law. That has no bearing on whether members of the public think they are absolute ****s and want nothing to do with them in any capacity, commercial or personal.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 10:53am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s a hypothetical, calm down.

And even in a hypotetical you show the absurdity of it.
You assumed guilt.

the.red.baron · 11-06-2019 10:55am

I suggest all you boys go out and bate into some stout after cashing in your mothers wedding ring first

I wonder will we ever see Paddy Powers pull a stunt like this ****e

11-06-2019 10:56am

No sex no rape, Paddy claimed there was no penetrative sex.
Given an eye witness claiming she saw consensual sex but didn't see actual penetration the jury had plenty doubt as to what actually went on.
You get that when folk are lying and I think folk were (someone had to be given the conflicting accounts of what happened).
If Paddy claimed there was sex and it was consensual in his opinion the outcome would have been different.

suicide_circus · 11-06-2019 10:57am

LirW wrote: »

Yeah fair enough, I don't understand why people aren't past this.
The way I see it is that "innocent" until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the juridical system and unfortunately this is to accept even in really nasty cases. I doubt people would like to live in a system like Turkey for example has it where you get imprisoned and have to bring fundamental proof of your innocence.

The jury found there isn't enough evidence to convict them, here we go, you're free of all charges, see you. This is fair enough, even though it probably leaves the girl and her surroundings behind feeling there was no justice done. If I'd be her parent I probably would be incredibly upset to be honest.
But that's the way it works unfortunately.

Having said that I don't feel particularly sorry for the aftermath for Jackson. He's a person in the public spotlight, he should have known better.

I currently feel annoyed about something similar: my son plays Rugby in Sean O'Brien's home club. He's a big figure there doing a lot with the kids, he's an absolute gentleman with them and everyone else. Then he goes off, gets sh1tfaced, and pees a guy over his leg in a pub. He's a role model to so many kids. Rolemodels shouldn't be doing crap like that.

he's also human. going for major surgery and missing the world cup and he gets sh1t faced and does something ridiculous. you could probably turn this into a good lesson for your son.

the.red.baron · 11-06-2019 10:57am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2firijxQOo

Machina · 11-06-2019 11:00am

suicide_circus wrote: »

he's also human. going for major surgery and missing the world cup and he gets sh1t faced and does something ridiculous. you could probably turn this into a good lesson for your son.

I don't see why successful sportspeople have to be role models for our children. Actors, musicians, tech wizards, whatever, they don't always have that hung around their necks. Why is sport so special?

LirW · 11-06-2019 11:00am

suicide_circus wrote: »

he's also human. going for major surgery and missing the world cup and he gets sh1t faced and does something ridiculous. you could probably turn this into a good lesson for your son.

Of course he is and it's probably one of the less significant "offences". I'm pretty sure the kid will find that hilarious. But still, it's not necessary.

is_that_so · 11-06-2019 11:00am

suicide_circus wrote: »

so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

For some people that is the case, in other words they believe that there is no smoke without fire. It also tends to hang over people for an extremely long time in the context of this type of case.

is_that_so · 11-06-2019 11:02am

Machina wrote: »

I don't see why successful sportspeople have to be role models for our children. Actors, musicians, tech wizards, whatever, they don't always have that hung around their necks. Why is sport so special?

Because they represent a lot more than themselves, particularly the values that said sport promotes. Others can just be boxed off into personal issues.

Machina · 11-06-2019 11:05am

is_that_so wrote: »

For some people that is the case, in other words they believe that there is no smoke without fire. It also tends to hang over people for an extremely long time in the context of this type of case.

About 20 years ago a guy in my area was convicted of rape and was sent to prison. His mother wouldn't let it rest and brought it to every tabloid in the country, the Joe Duffy type broadcasters, the works. The guards became involved, the case was looked at again and the complainant eventually broke down and said she lied about crucial evidence to secure a conviction because she wanted someone to pay for what she went through. The lad was released and tried to get on with his life but in my small little hometown everyone thinks he's a rapist. His life has been ruined. It's so unfair.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 11:06am

is_that_so wrote: »

For some people that is the case, in other words they believe that there is no smoke without fire. It also tends to hang over people for an extremely long time in the context of this type of case.

even if you believe he didnt rape her his behaviour in general towards women is absolutely appalling. that is reason enough to dislike him and want nothing to do with him.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 11:06am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And even in a hypotetical you show the absurdity of it.
You assumed guilt.

You’re unable to follow a simple thought experiment. I give up.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 11:08am

Machina wrote: »

I don't see why successful sportspeople have to be role models for our children. Actors, musicians, tech wizards, whatever, they don't always have that hung around their necks. Why is sport so special?

Exactly, if you are stupid enough to hold people (who are innately fallible creatures) up as 'role models' then you have no right to complain when they fail in whatever role you invented for them.

A young fella joining a juvenile team doesn't get examined on his moral compass after all, he is examined on whether he can catch/kick/hold onto a fecking leather ball etc

salmocab · 11-06-2019 11:09am

Everyone is forgetting as soon as the case was over it became about the what’s apps not the case, he was terrible for his input into the what’s app group, despite his input being the tamest. The other lads weren’t as well known so nobody cared about them but the 2 famous lads were hounded out.
The twitter mob only cared about the famous lads never about the girl or the other lads.

Machina · 11-06-2019 11:10am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

even if you believe he didnt rape her his behaviour in general towards women is absolutely appalling. that is reason enough to dislike him and want nothing to do with him.

That might be true of this case but there are other cases where no such chat logs etc. come to light, and the acquitted is still viewed as a wrongdoer by the "no smoke without fire" brigade. Idiots, the lot of 'em.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 11:11am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You’re unable to follow a simple thought experiment. I give up.

I did. And it was very simple. You firstly assumed/ascribed guilt and then asked the question 'what is unreasonable about still thinking them guilty after a jury could not find any evidence that they were guilty'. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 11:11am

Machina wrote: »

That might be true of this case but there are other cases where no such chat logs etc. come to light, and the acquitted is still viewed as a wrongdoer by the "no smoke without fire" brigade. Idiots, the lot of 'em.

we are discussing one case in particular, nothing more. the thread title is quite clear.

Guy:Incognito · 11-06-2019 11:12am

LirW wrote: »

.

Is it biased to hold something over the player's head that he said in a private chat? Yes, but this is the way our

What other people said is being held over paddy Jackson's head.

There was **** all released of anything he said.

On the brand image side, to give cash converters a worse image , someone would have to be murdered on the shop floor by an employee while the manager encouraged them.
They are not in a position to be claiming any morality.

I doubt any of the people whinging on Twitter would ever be customers of theirs anyway.

Machina · 11-06-2019 11:13am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we are discussing one case in particular, nothing more. the thread title is quite clear.

Any my post is the first digression then? Give me a break

Machina · 11-06-2019 11:19am

is_that_so wrote: »

Because they represent a lot more than themselves, particularly the values that said sport promotes. Others can just be boxed off into personal issues.

Just listen to yourself. The 'values of the sport'. Why does a successfull spokesperson have to embody those so-called values? Maradona was one of the greatest soccer players to ever walk onto a pitch. He wasn't the embodiment of soccer then and he certainly isn't now. He was selfish in a way that team player aren't supposed to be, he didn't have that particular 'value'. Kids looked up to him because he was a brilliant soccer player, not because he was a virtuous human being. It's your job to raise your kids.

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-06-2019 11:21am

And while many on this thread in AH decry the way a certain rugby player's career is hampered by a rape case the same people are quite happy to see the career of a certain entertainer ruined over nothing other than allegations.

Maybe it's because rugby players are supposed to be cool lads lads, and the the certain entertainer is camp and annoying.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 11:21am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did. And it was very simple. You firstly assumed/ascribed guilt and then asked the question 'what is unreasonable about still thinking them guilty after a jury could not find any evidence that they were guilty'. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No. I didn’t. If you read more carefully, the thought experiment was that we KNOW for a fact that X is guilty (not that we assume it).

Although we know it, we don’t have the evidence we need to prove it in court.

So X will be found not guilty even though he/she is guilty.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments